Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:00, 10 January 2015

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Africa: Nigeria This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Nigeria. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Islam This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Terrorism task force. Military history: African This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: | b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> | b2<!--Coverage and accuracy   --> = <yes/no> | b3<!--Structure               --> = <yes/no> | b4<!--Grammar and style       --> = <yes/no> | b5<!--Supporting materials    --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion. Associated task forces: /  African military history task force

POV much?

This article is in serious need of attention from an expert on the subject matter, especially considering what recently happened involving the group. The second paragraph cites only one source (the link of which is broken) despite its claims. Perhaps a current events tag is also in order? Xinophiliac (talk) 22:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Tag added. I don't understand the POV concern - which statement are you concerned about? All news sources I've read seem to be pretty consistent, from CNN to Al Jazeera and This Day. AndrewRT(Talk) 23:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The article does not talk about the incidents that led to clashes in June 2009 in Maiduguri, Borno State, no information was provided about Borno the headquarter of the group, nor about the different names that is given to them in different states. For instance in Borno, they are mainly referred to as Yusufiyya, in Yobe they are called with different name while in other Hausa States they are referred to as Boko haram. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.117.5.198 (talk) 23:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

You're free to add in the information, with citations. 71.237.233.41 (talk) 05:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Accuracy?

The BBC is reporting that Yusuf is still alive: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/8180475.stm 17:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.74.214 (talk)

That report states that he was alive when arrested; has been killed since. Wiki editor 6 (talk) 02:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, Boko Haram is also spreading the ideals that it is blasphemy against Allah and Mohommad the Prophet that the Earth revolves around the Sun. The implication in the article that they are babbling idiots is unproven; we need better qualification of their goals, even if the name Boko Haram names Western Civilization and its teachings as sinful and against Allah, in their own language: no joke, even the worst pagan can be educated, clarify it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.170.105 (talk) 00:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

This line: 'That changed in 2009 when the Nigerian government launched an investigation into the group's activities following reports that its members were arming themselves.' is in no way supported by the referenced article. In fact, it seems to do the opposite.79.244.85.96 (talk) 10:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Apologies, that last comment was mine. Wasn't logged in.Joe.bav (talk) 10:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Merge with 2009 Nigerian sectarian violence

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I suggest that for now let's not merge. Apparently the organization has been around for a bunch of years, and other events related to them may come to light soon. It wouldn't make sense to place them in the 2009 Nigerian violence article. Beetle B. (talk) 23:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I misread. If the goal is to merge bring the 2009 article into the Boko Haram one, then I'm fine with it. (Or rather, I'm fine if it stays as it is as well - no strong feelings about it). Beetle B. (talk) 14:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

seems like no consensus so i remvoe the tag

Resolved(Lihaas (talk) 15:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)).

Boko and Haram

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The first sentence seems to say that Boko Harem itself is a sin or sacreligious, which does not make sense? Hugo999 (talk) 01:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

hope its addressed now?(Lihaas (talk) 16:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)).

Translation of name

I removed the sentence 'The literal translation is "Association of Sunnis for the Propagation of Islam and for Holy War" because it's incorrect. Most importantly, the word 'jihad' does NOT mean 'Holy War', it means to struggle. In the Islamic context it's taken as the struggle against evil or sinful acts. The phrase for 'Holy War' in Arabic is 'al-harb al-muqadassah' which never appears in the Koran or ever used by Muslims or even the extremists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgodoy (talk • contribs) 23:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, it would be "BOOK SIN". Dunno why that hasn't made it's way into the world, boko (alphabet) clearly indicates it. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 15:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Or, upon reconsideration, in American, "Book learnin' sinful". The given translations seem off, the wrong translation register. Is there some info on what the Hausa intend in this usage? Are they subjecting the group to ridicule, making a neutral observation or what? 72.228.177.92 (talk) 19:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The German Misplaced Pages article has had the same trouble with translating. The solution we found there is to translate the official name as

Template:Lang-ar‎, literally: Association of the Sunnis for the Invitation to Islam and for Jihad

— Translation by Micge (talk) 16:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC), from German Misplaced Pages

That has the benefit of resolving the "holly war"-is-the-wrong-word-conflict - translating the word is unnecessary as most people recognise the word "Jihad". Additionally, linking the concepts helps to correlate them to the phonetically similar words in the transliteration. "People of the Tradition" does not strike the average reader as a synonym for Sunni, so why not stay with the original?

For the common name "Boko Haram", there are some variants given, starting with the most common and finishing with the more exotic translations:

Boko Haram (Hausa for „Books set in latin script are a sin“, „Western education is forbidden“, „Modern education is a sin“ all the way to „False pretenses are a shame“)

— Translation by Micge (talk) 16:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC), from German Misplaced Pages

Maybe a similar approach would be helpful here? Especially as the article on the Boko alphabet notes that Boko can stand for secularism, a linking of the concept Boko as in "Books set in latin script are a sin" would be helpful - maybe the translation variants secularism is a sin and/or Western education is forbidden could be added as well, referencing the article on the Boko alphabet. Sadly, some of those sources are in German, including the best source which gives a long discussion of the problem of translating "Boko Haram"; moreover, I can not vouch for accurate translations being done by German news-outlets. -- Micge (talk) 16:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

1. "Nigeria policemen in court trial for Boko Haram killing". BBC News. 2011-07-13.
2. "Extremisten bekennen sich zu Anschlägen in Nigeria". Neue Zürcher Zeitung (in German). 2010-12-28. Retrieved 2010-12-28.Template:De icon
3. Olaolu Oladipo, Tordue Salem (2011-08-21). "Nigeria Can't Fight Terrorism - US". Leadership. Archived from the original on 2012-03-12. Retrieved 2011-08-29. {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help)
4. Dominic Johnson: Archived (Date missing) at taz.de (Error: unknown archive URL) taz, 27. Juli 2009 Template:De icon
5. Dozens killed in Nigeria clashes. BBC online, 26. Juli 2009
6. Archived (Date missing) at tagesschau.de (Error: unknown archive URL)Template:De icon
7. ^ Christoph Wagenseil (2011-07-23). "Boko Haram – neue Semantiken im Spiegel ihrer Mediendeutungen". Religionswissenschaftliche Medien- und Informationsdienst e. V. (in German). Retrieved 2011-08-29.Template:De icon

Unexplained reverts by Anon IP(s)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

An anonymous user at IPs 188.29.5.119, 188.28.214.70 and most recently 188.28.11.120 insists on removing a "Citation Needed" request with no explanation whatsoever. I am unsure as to what is the best way to address this issue if there is no dialogue.--RDavi404 (talk) 14:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Add this IP to the list: 188.28.183.144--RDavi404 (talk) 03:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Give him an approproiae warning and if he continies report the IP range for a blockLihaas (talk) 08:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I should have reported that the page was semi-protected for a little while as a result.--RDavi404 (talk) 12:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

"their interpretation of Sharia"

which is...? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 04:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

It's just like the Continental Europe doesn't interpret capitalism in the same way as the United States or the United Kingdom. Or Catholic christians don't interpret the Bible in the same manner as Orthodox christians do. Malaysia and Indonesia are countries with large muslim populations but their interpretion of Sharia is not the same as in Saudi Arabia. Boko Haram has its own interpretation and this I want to emphasise.

Sin un nomine (talk) 07:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

That wasn't the question. What exactly is their interpretation? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 10:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I apologise for replying so late and not reading your question properly. And unfortunatey, my friend, I am not aware at this moment of what their exact interpretation of Sharia is. But one thing is for certain: their interpretation will have little in common with how the Indonesians interpret Sharia so the emphasis on 'their interpretation'.

What I can do is, I can try to find out more about their ideology and when I'm able to do that, I will certainly insert a link into the article. Your assisstance is welcome! :)

Sin un nomine (talk) 06:33, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Official name

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Per the source cited (among others), the official name is in Arabic not in English. This naming convention also follows those established at articles of other militant groups like al-Qaeda, Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan and Lashkar-e-Taiba.--RDavi404 (talk) 14:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

You don't use Soyuz Sovetskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik (official name of the USSR in Russian) you use its English translation. Similarly you don't say Zhōnghuá Rénmín Gònghéguó (official name of PRC in Chinese) instead of People's Republic of China. Why should then insist on keeping the Arabic name? Boko Haram is just an organisation after all, isn't it?

Futhur the names that you have mentioned are small. We're not translating Boko Haram here, we are translating Jama'atu Ahlis Sunna Lidda'awati Wal-Jihad which is very inconvenient to remember and even difficult to pronounce correctly.

Sin un nomine (talk) 16:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Yepp. 'Nuff said. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 16:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Very well. This is really a trivial detail to get upset over since no one even calls them by their "official" name...but I am going to capitalize the Arabic name.--RDavi404 (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

You all might want to check sources from Nigeria. Nigerian papers use Jama’atu Ahlis Sunnah Lidda’awati Wal Jihad quite frequently. Even tabloids like the Daily Sun do. Cheers, Ankimai (talk) 18:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Had you said The Independant uses that Arabic term, I would have thought about it but The Sun??? That newspaper specialises in providing "The Best for News, Sport, Showbiz, Celebrities" in their own words.

Moreover most serious newspapers and other news outlets don't even use the term People Committed to the Propagation of the Prophet's Teachings and Jihad, let alone Jama'atu Ahlis Sunna Lidda'awati Wal-Jihad. They are perfectly content with using Boko Haram.

A quick search on Bing (International) comes up with:

7,750 results for Jama'atu Ahlis Sunna Lidda'awati Wal-Jihad

27,400 results for People Committed to the Propagation of the Prophet's Teachings and Jihad

3,380,000 results for Boko Haram

Finally this is an English encylopaedia and you don't expect official name of an organisation in Arabic or Russian or Chinese or Quechua... that would create a lot of confusion.

Sin un nomine (talk) 20:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

"...the fact that some of their own tactics and activities are anti-Islamic and anti-Sharia."

This "fact" is, according to the source cited, the opinion of the Governor of Niger State. Attribution of this belief needs to be noted.--RDavi404 (talk) 14:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Sharia is a code of conduct which doesn't condone killing innocent people. And Islam has a religion forbids suicide. Boko Haram not only sends its militants on suicide mission but it also kills innocent people. Therefore, it's both anti-Islamic and anti-Sharia.

Therefore the belief that what Boko Haram are doing is anti-Islamic and anti-Sharia is not confined to that governer. Over 50 Imams had already written to the Government of Nigeria complaining about the Boko Haram's version of Islam. And here is a link to that: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/02/nigeria-boko-haram-islamist-sect

You don't say "scientists believe Earth is a sphere." You simply reiterate the fact. Why Boko Haram should be an exception?

Sin un nomine (talk) 16:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The source only mentions statements from one person so therefore it is his opinion. Surely, you are not implying that there is a single interpretation of Sharia or that the Governor's opinions represent those of all Muslims? Also, I see no mention in your new link that Boko Haram is "anti-Islamic" nor "anti-Sharia." It merely states that imams were appealing to the government for security measures.--RDavi404 (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I've added another source where the current Sultan of Sokoto has called Boko Haram's actions anti-Islamic. It's not only a military officer who thinks that way. Would you mention both names now? Or that only "moderate" Muslims consider Boko Haram anti-Islamic? But then how many Muslims are fundamentalist? 75%? 50%? 25%? 10%? Perhaps not more than there are to be found in any religion.

Sin un nomine (talk) 19:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Naming both sources of the statements would be entirely appropriate but may make the intro too cumbersome. Alternatively, I would propose removing that clause from the lead altogether. As it stands now it is the POV of the spiritual leader of Nigerian Islam and a state governor, and really does not contribute much to the intro. Would it not be more appropriate in the "Ideology" section as a counterpoint?--RDavi404 (talk) 01:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it would be more appropriate there. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 01:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

@Rdavi404: Do you what I'm trying to adress here? Al-Quaeda is an Islamic terrorist organisation, Al Shabad is an Islamic terrorist organisation, Lashkar-e-Toiba is an Islamic terrorist organisation but Lord's Resistence Army is a rebel group in Uganda. No body calls it a Christian terrorist organisation and that's not a POV. I haven't read the Bible but I don't think it would encourage you to mutate, kill and rape people.

What Boko Haram is doing, it's sending people on suicide missions and suicide is strongly prohibited in Islam. Now if the Anglican Church or the Catholics or the Orthodox Church were denounce LRA, would you call it a POV?

If you want, I can paraphrase it like this: notwithstanding the fact that some of thier own tactics and activities like sending suicide bombers and kill innocent people are strongly prohibited in Islam and therefore anti-Islamic. (http://sala.clacso.edu.ar/gsdl252/cgi-bin/library?e=d-000-00---0edicion--00-0-0--0prompt-10---4------0-1l--1-ru-Zz-1---20-preferences---00031-001-0-0eucZz-jp-00&cl=CL1&d=HASH014b1be2d97caf5ab80fba27.3.1.1&gt=1 and http://islam.uga.edu/hamza.html)

Now it's a fact and not POV that Islam prohibits suicide and killing innocent people. What do you say?

Sin un nomine (talk) 07:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Irrelevant. What you believe is or isn't against Islam. And by the way, look who's in Category:Christian terrorism... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 11:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

This is censorship in the Orwellian sense. You don't ban something, it just becomes common understanding that mentioning certain facts won't do. Preface to Animal Farm is not banned but even my text book (ICFAI University Press, Animal Farm) doesn't have it. The same applies to the article about LRA. How many people do you think would bother to go to that category after reading this opening sentence: The Lord's Resistance Army (also Lord's Resistance Movement or Lakwena Part Two) is a militant cannibalistic group with a syncretic Christian and traditional African religious ideology.

Anyway what we are discussing here is if Islam condones what Boko Haram does or not and the mainstream view is: NO, it does not.

Another thing that we are arguing about is if Boko Haram's actions (banning education, suicide missions, killing innocent people) are Islamic or not. Once again the mainstream response is: NO, they are not Islamic. And that's what I've mentioned in the first paragraph.

Moreover, no Islamic scholar (at least, to my knowledge) has come up and said he supports Boko Haram. On the contrary, I can give links to at least half-a-dozen influential Muslim scholars who have condemned Boko Haram is the strictest terms possible.

Sin un nomine (talk) 12:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

All we are discussing at this point is moving it from the lead into the appropriate section. I do not doubt that the vast majority of the world's Muslims are against suicide killings, but the article's topic is a group that considers itself Muslim and condones suicide attacks. (And yes, if the Anglicans denounced the LRA that would be their POV.)--RDavi404 (talk) 14:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Kindly have a look at the article now, especially the new section Ideological clash with Islam and let me know if it's as per the Misplaced Pages policies. Personally speaking, I find it as a kind of defence of Islam which I don't like but still I wrote it because I want the reader to differentiate between Boko Haram's Ideology and Islam. :)

Sin un nomine (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. Thanks!--RDavi404 (talk) 18:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Unknown leader

I just fail to understand why insist on seperately mentioning that we don't know who the current leader of the group is when it's already mentioned in the first sentence of the third paragraph that not much is known about the structure and chain of command of the group. If chain of command doesn't include the group's leader, what else does?

Sin un nomine (talk) 16:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

ADDITION: Are you sure Boko Haram has a leader and it's not controlled by a council? It's only a speculation but not without basis. Even this report says "Since 2009 the leadership has gone underground. It’s now unclear what the exact command structure is."

Sin un nomine (talk) 17:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Transnational terrorist threat

While the congressional press release is relevant to this section, it is not necessary, nor desirable, to copy-and-paste all the findings and recommendations of a US Congressional Committee. It would be much better to paraphrase. See WP:QUOTEFARM for more details.--RDavi404 (talk) 14:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

What's with the bias?

As I browse through a lot of Islamist militant groups here, on Misplaced Pages it becomes evident that there are those who try to interject opinion into these articles rather than allowing the readers decide. I don't even understand the purpose of the "Ideological clash with Islam" section. Someone just said they're unislamic (which nearly every sect of Islam calls another sect unislamic, so should we go on Sunni and claim they have an ideological clash with Shia Islam?

I deleted one bit, regarding their clash with education... Boko Haram is against western education, that's obvious, so draw that line to saying they're against education in general is a big step. Also even the "indiscriminate" killings part, I don't get it's point, it just seems like some apologists decided let's try to distance ourselves from these guys as much as possible. Muwwahid (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Revised the title from ideological clash with Islam, to Criticism. This should curb any bias - I think it would be preferable to not have contributors voice what they think of their interpretation of Islam; and rather cite sources from authorities on the subject as otherwise we're just seeing baseless opinion and not anything from a scholarly source. The indiscriminate killing section irks me too, as again, it's not sourced to a scholar or authority of Islam (which for anyone who has studied Islamic fiqh knows that casualties which are unavoidable do not make you "Unislamic" as they are inevitable in war, also never was there a distinction between civilian and non-civilian terms don't exist in Shariah) Hoping someone can help revise, which criticisms sourced from authorities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muwwahid (talk • contribs) 03:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

That suicide is not halal, that you should not kill women, children and the old during a battle and that you should study are three tenets of Islam which neither the Shi'as nor the Sunnis contest over. Boko Haram doesn't give a damn to Islam. All it is interested in is political power.

Sin un nomine (talk) 05:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The reference for suicide is a BBC link that presents the idealized western view of the Quran and fails to highlight the nuance between suicide fighting for a cause and a personal one from e.g. depression or mental illness or similar. Christianity has proscriptions against suicide but venerates those that sacrifice themselves for a cause. These suicides are for a cause of promoting Islam and so the BBC link used to support the criticism is very poor. What is needed is notable people reported in reliable sources not that suicide per se is un-Islamic but that the suicides of this lot are un-Islamic. Until that time what we have is just synthesis that is not neutral of this group. Fromthehill (talk) 07:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

You are confusing the terms suicide and self-sacrifice. And what Boko Haram are doing is not self-sacrifice they are indiscriminantly killing people and this is a sign of some kind of mental illness. Therefore what they are doing (killing themselves) is anti-Islamic.

If Andres Brevik - a white man, Christian and European - can be called a political extremist (not a Chrisitan terrorist) and schizophrenic (not murderer), I wonder, why it is biased to call a group of madmen terrorists and anti-Islamic when nothing they do is even close being Islamic.

Sin un nomine (talk) 09:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Why is Andres Brevik relevant here ? This is about Boko Haram. They are both self-described as Islamic and we have reliable sources that say they are Islamic. Just find someone notable and reliable that says they are not. Fromthehill (talk) 11:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I mentioned Andres Brevik because there is an analogy here. US forces kill civilians and you call it collateral damage but if the Russians or the Chinese do the same it becomes killing of the innocent civilians. I'm not siding with the Russian or any terrorist group. Manchuria was a puppet regime, Eastern European states were puppets of the USSR but Egypt under Hosni Mubarak wasn't a puppet regime. Neither is Saudi Arabia now. I hope you are getting my point. I'm only trying to say there shouldn't be double standards.

May I know what those reliable sources are and what they say?

They self-describe themselves as "Muslims"! Ha ha ha ! If only I could self-describe myself as a university professor. You would then call me a fool and not a professor. Why shouldn't we do the same to Boko Haram? They call themselves Islamic but their actions (suicide, killing of the innocent and anti-education) clearly show they aren't Islamic.

But who are you as an authority to say they aren't Muslim? Are you a theologian? All Muslims do unislamic things just because they're not on par with your worldview doesn't mean you can strip them of their titles. I believe none of us are writing from Nigeria so we're hearing what they do from second hand sources most of the time. I take wikipedia as a more unbias source of information than most sites as it respects the views of everyone involved, so lets keep it that way. I know that a lot of people say to themselves "well they don't represent Islam so, lets do this to differentiate" but thats not our job, I am a Muslim, a sunni Muslim but do I go on Iran's page and edit it to describe how they're not really Muslim because they don't fit my view of a Muslim or because I don't like them? What's the difference? I think my edits are more fair, "Criticism" allows for opponents of authority like scholars or Nigerian politicians to be cited rather than your average Misplaced Pages that simplifies something like "Boko Haram is against education but Islam is for education, so HA! Checkmate!" I'm sure the intentions are good but the execution is poor, I see this with all radical Islamic groups of Misplaced Pages, I think we should try to curb some of this and keep it objective, these days wikipedia is the primary source for general knowledge gaining for internet users. Let's not sour it with bias. Muwwahid (talk) 21:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

And when I cited sources SEB removed them saying they were "off topic."

Sin un nomine (talk) 12:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

because you are engaging in some heavy WP:SYNTH and WP:OR here. It doesn't matter what you think or anyone else thinks. Do not quote general statements about Islam or what Islam is or isn't. It doesn't belong here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 12:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Coordinating efforts

The quote on the page is that "A US commander stated that Boko Haram is likely linked to AQIM (al-Qaeda in Islamic Maghreb)". I have added al-Shabaab due to some media sources reporting on General Ham's comments. Bloomberg reported "Three African terrorist groups are seeking to “coordinate and synchronize” their operations, the head of the U.S. military’s Africa Command said. Army General Carter Ham said al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, al-Shabaab in Somalia, and Boko Haram in Nigeria are increasingly trying to work together on the African continent." The Mail & Guardian reports: "General Carter Ham, head of the US military's Africa Command, said there were signs that Boko Haram in Nigeria, al-Shabab in Somalia and al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb were sharing money and explosive materials and training fighters together." The Digital Journal reports: US Africa Command's top military official has said there is a threat of Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, Al Shabaab and Boko Haram linking up. According to Army General Carter F. Ham, there is evidence that the three groups are combining efforts." They are all "linked", as the page reports, through their desire to "coordinate and synchronize efforts." I am unsure, but is the confusion coming from the BBC article mainly focusing on AQIM and Boko Haram? That was the originally-added article and it doesn't go into the cooperation and General Ham's comments like the others. Dreambeaver(talk) 22:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

'Seeking to coordinate' is admitting that there is no link yet. General Ham does not reveal the nature of the 'signs' he sees, but 'signs' is much weaker then prove, even weaker then indications. To my knowledge there is no first hand source, other then 'signs' seen and recycled by the security establishement, for such links. The three guys accused of bombing the UN-compound in Abuja have not yet been independently confirmed either that they are connected to Boko Haram, (in spite of frantic searching by journalists and massive web logging) or that they were indeed trained by Al Shabaab. Also, Boko Haram's offical website did NOT claim the UN-bombing. Those two guys who did claim, contradicted each other and could neither be connected to Boko Haram. So there is not evidence that Boko Haram is involved in this.

To my understanding, Boko Haram have huge religious-ideological differences with both Aqim and Al Shabaab. See hereunder.Pieter Felix Smit (talk) 20:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Boko Haram ties with Salafists in Mali and Somalia?

Under Ideology, Boko Haram are described as a Salafist group, attributing this to David Cook. This is implicitly contradicted by the same source, when David Cook claims that Boko Haram follows Usman dan Fodio, which was a 19th century reformer WITHIN Malikite Islam. David Cook also writes that Boko Haram is demonstrating the paradigm of Jemaa Islamia / Jemaah Islamiyah in South-East Asia. But also this is NOT a Salafist group. (At this moment their ideological brethern, under the same name, battle AGAINST Salafists in Pakistan and Afghanistan)

Both Malikite and Jemaaia Islam see themselves as regional branches of Sunni Islam, having spiritual feelings for their regional Islamic hero's who founded those branches. On the other hand, Salafist groups like Aqim and Al Shabaab strongly reject worshiping or attributing of special religious status to any Muslim cleric born after the prophet Mohammed. That's why Salafists destroyed holy Muslim graves and shrines in Somalia and Timbuctu and Afghanistan and everywhere they go.

The difference is not trivial. If Boko Haram see themselves as followers of regional spiritual hero Usman dan Fodio, then they would have great problems with Salafists telling them to stop worshipping Usman. More so because their central anger focuses on their idea that foreigners always try to change their culture and religion.

Therefore, if Boko Haram are NOT Salafi's, (which I think is the case) then it is very unlikely that Aqim and Al Shabaab will manage to effectively team up with them.

If they ARE Salafi's, then that would be very difficult to explain to those Nigerian Muslims they want to recruit, because Nigerian popular Islam is strongly founded on and centered around worshiping Islamic leaders from previous centuries. (Such as Usman dan Fodio). Also, we would have known, because they would most likely also have attacked Muslim shrines, which are all over northern Nigeria.

Trying to trace the original sources on Boko Haram's supposed Salafism, and their ties with Al Shabaab and Aqim, it is all very iffy or explicitly speculative. There is no authoritative academic source that I can find in the public domain. Just unsourced claims by political leaders and unnamed security analysts.

So yes, they are nasty boggers, on a killing spree against all supposed religious and other opponents. But I don't see any evidence that they already have successfully teamed up with Salafists. I don't even think there is much chance it will happen.

So how do we improve the article?Pieter Felix Smit (talk) 19:39, 1 November 2012 (UTC)Pieter Felix Smit (talk) 15:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that, as some of the militant groups struggle more, they would be united more by their common enemies than their common beliefs. If there are no other sources about this then we should keep these links. As long as they are attributed correctly as the beliefs of whichever leader, these are portraying the reliable sources in circulation (which is what Misplaced Pages is for). Any more looks like it might be original research. I don't know the inner workings of either group so I don't know what the links might actually be - sharing resources occasionally, allowing convoys, etc. - so I will at least do some more research on seeing what is a fair representation of the reliable sources. Dreambeaver(talk) 00:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

References

1. Cook, David (26 September 2011). "The Rise of Boko Haram in Nigeria". Combating Terrorism Centre. Retrieved 2012-11-01.

Throw out 'Strategy and recruiting' section?

The strategy and recruiting section is based on a dead link into a Nigerian newspaper of obviously dubious quality. The claims in this section seem to be based on unfounded fears rather then on any information. If there was any reliable source, or even likelyhood of truth, it would have been cited all over the world. Throw out the section? Pieter Felix Smit (talk) 14:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

This is something that should be of interest, and if there are no credible sources, I agree that we should get rid of it. It would be interesting to look in to and I'll see if I can come up with any sources. In addition, all of these sections at the end (Assessment, Strategy and recruiting, Funding, Death of Abu Qaqa) can probably be condensed as subsections of a more open heading. I think it should be something that covers "Operations", but there's a more elegant or appropriate way to put that.Dreambeaver(talk) 00:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Throw out the funding section?

The first two sentences of the funding section are based on a story on All African that is based on unnamed sources in Nigeria's security aparatus. The story claims that the arrested person was trained by Abu Umar Al-Wadud, the 'leader of Al Shabaab in Somalia'. Al Shabaab has no such leader. AQIM (5 countries to the left) has one senior religious leader with such a name, but he certainly is not in any function to train angry boys in bomb making skills. It shows the whole information is a cock up. Unless we get a more believeworthy source, we throw out the two sentences? Pieter Felix Smit (talk) 14:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The AllAfrica reference is from the Cameroon Tribune, which is the country's major newspaper. Some of the African news sources are tough to deal with, but it seems important that we try to understand the meaning behind some of these reputable sources that mean well. Because this was reported in a few sources and was not doubted or retracted, we should keep it in. I wouldn't object to clarifying the sentence and attributing this to who said it and where it was reported, maybe helping to make it clearer. Dreambeaver(talk) 00:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Need to add

Important battle with many deaths. Nigeria claims one and doesn't allow others in just as when the group came to light. It could lead again to future conflagarations(Lihaas (talk) 18:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)).

Anyone know which locations Boko Haram controls?

President Jonathan's recent declaration of emergency stated that "Already, some northern parts of Borno state have been taken over by groups whose allegiance is to different flags and ideologies...In many places, they have destroyed the Nigerian flag and other symbols of state authority and in their place, hoisted strange flags suggesting the exercise of alternative sovereignty." Has anyone seen any information on which specific localities have been taken over? As a Misplaced Pages reader I would love to see this information reflected in the article. GeoEvan (talk) 09:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Non-innocent victims????

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Since its founding in 2001, the jihadist terrorists have been responsible for roughly 4,000 deaths comprising mostly innocent people"

This seems to imply that some of the deaths were not innocent people. But I would think that victims of terrorism are by definition innocent victims? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.185.42.172 (talk) 08:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Basically, yes. Colloquially, "innocent person" is used to signify "civilian casualty" or "uninvolved victim" as opposed to an involved party, so hypothetically, if Boko Haram killed police forces deliberately opposing them, we might say "the jihadist terrorists have been responsible for roughly 4,000 deaths comprising mostly uninvolved passersby," or something like that, but we shouldn't us any colloquialism that might otherwise be read to imply the victims somehow deserved it. Thanatosimii (talk) 04:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I would assume this total may include Boko Haram members killed in accidents and friendly fire. It is a leading cause of death in terrorist/armed organizations, for instance the IRA lost more members in training accidents and bomb making accidents than they did in actual combat. 89.100.23.108 (talk) 06:29, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

It's better to say x civilians and y police/military or else just a single number for all casualties. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Links

• Citadels of learning, Boko Haram’s new slaughter fields
• UN: Over 1,000 killed in Boko Haram attacks
• Nigeria seals state border with Cameroon
• Nigerian gay people being hunted down

--Lihaas (talk) 15:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

More links via http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/citations-the-may-12-2014-trms:

• http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-22320077
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAncJ3nuczI
• http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/20/world/africa/seven-members-of-french-family-kidnapped-in-cameroon.html

Article currently doesn't mention kidnapping of french family at all. (not even in timeline)

--Jeremyb (talk) 04:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Criticism

There are many instances of criticism of this group. I would suggest that accurate statements only should be used. The statement by Dr Mu’azu Babangida Aliyu, that "Islam is known to be a religion of peace and does not accept violence and crime in any form" is not correct. Islam is a militant religion. He is correct that "Boko Haram doesn't represent Islam".Royalcourtier (talk) 07:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

"Islam is a militant religion" - according to most of the Muslims in the world, it isn't. But hey who are they to decide what their religion means to them? They're all stupid and uneducated and liars for believing it isn't. <Sarcasm off>. --Somchai Sun (talk) 19:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Islam is a militant religion, according to the Koran and most academics. Islam calls for the spreading of the word by force - by the sword. It is by definition a militantly proselytising religion. If you believe that Moslems are all "stupid and uneducated and liars" that is your view, not mine.Royalcourtier (talk) 01:42, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

All religions have their militant tendencies, so 'a militant religion' doesn't mean much. Rothorpe (talk) 01:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Origins

What does "founded as an indigenous group" mean? Indigenous rather than introduced? Does the article mean to imply that it was a racial/racist group? It may be better to go back to first principles, and ask why was it set, and by whom.Royalcourtier (talk) 01:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Puzzled me too. Rothorpe (talk) 01:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Boko and "bogus"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I had an edit rebuffed because I couldn't find a good enough source, but our wikt:boko and list of English words of African origin both say that boko at least may be the origin of the English word "bogus". The rebuffed source said it might actually be based on another word, also suggesting a fraud, "bogo". Anyone have a scholarly source on the matter?

Also, from 1966 has a very useful sounding Google preview "... literacy program in Nigeria. In this instance, there was a prejudice against Roman characters, which were called "boko" (bogus) to distinguish them from the "true" Arabic script of the Koran. This attitude was especially prevalent ... " which I'd like to cite but it is paywalled.

In any case I would hypothesize from the dictionary source I added and statements like this that:

?? At some point, Islamic missionaries must have come in and opened up the first schools in the Hausa region.

?? When Western people came in (colonizers? Christian missionaries?) they would have set up other schools.

?? The attitude must have gotten started that these were bogus schools teaching bogus books written in bogus letters. I suppose if a social group expected a child to come home ready to recite the Koran and instead he is trained in different things, it might seem like a fake??

?? The meaning of the group's name is then something like "Bogus = Sinful". Crucially, the entire work of denigrating Western education as something fake would already be programmed into the language ahead of time. The group need merely take this pre-set targeting mechanism and pull the trigger on it.

?? What strikes me as interesting is that in rhetoric we often see language used to preprogram feelings, but never quite so blatantly. I mean sure, there are racist epithets and in the U.S., people who have nothing are denigrated as "takers" while those who receive fortunes from others' work are called "makers", etc. But has there ever been a case as clear-cut and powerful as this one?

Maybe some thoughts going in a few of these directions can be dredged out of the literature. Wnt (talk) 02:09, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

boko haram salafist

The group is a salafist jihadist group. Im not sure why there is editors reverting that. It simply doesnt matter that a group of salafists dont believe boko haram follow the "true salafi" teachings what ever that may be. Vietcong nuturlizer (talk) 22:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Timeline of Boko Haram attacks in Nigeria

I suggest that the section Timeline of Boko Haram attacks in Nigeria be changed to Timeline of Boko Haram attacks in West Africa so as to be able to cover attacks and kidnapping in other West African countries such as Cameroon for example this recent attack. Ochiwar (talk) 05:13, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Where is the Timeline section anyway? The current history section is muddled, jumping back and forth between years. We actually need a simple chronological timeline (again). Legacypac (talk) 21:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Section Criticism- International

The last sentence in the above named section states " The American Muslim argues that Boko Haram should not be singled out, as Nigerian Christians are just as violent" with a reference from 2012. Can that argument still be considered valid in view of 2014 events including child kidnapping, child slavery, forced conversion, Jihad etc? And in view of the fact that they have indeed been singled out (you can hardly get more singled out than Boko Haram is right now), I would suggest deletion of that sentence. Ochiwar (talk) 08:04, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The criticism by top Shia Muslim cleric Grand Ayatollah Naser Makarem Shirazi was deleted in this edit by User:Jason from nyc according to the edit summary for being unreliably sourced. This although the removed information was sourced by citing this article from PressTV. If this is not acceptable as a reliable source (I do not quite understand why it should not be) then the TeheranTimes might be used as an alternate source or this article from ABNA. There is no lack of reliable sources for the deleted criticism by the Grand Ayatollah. If a leading Shia Islam cleric criticizes the Boko Haram ideology and declares it un-Islamic, this is very relevant in an article on a group that claims to be Muslim fundamentalist, and should be re-included IMO. Ochiwar (talk) 07:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I question the Iranian state-run press as a reliable source of information as opposed to an official political positions. If it were reproduced in a free foreign press as an opinion of a Shia theologian, it would carry more weight. It would be interesting to have the Shia perspective. BTW, I agree with your previous assessment of the American Muslim reference. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The Iranian state-run press (as you call it) will at least reliably represent the opinion of the Iranian state (and in this case also its clergy) and should be included as their opinion. The statements by the Grand Ayatollah are not in doubt and have not been challenged or disputed. The references provided fulfill WP:RELIABLE. Ochiwar (talk) 15:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Poco - not Boko

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Poco - not Boko — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.232.101.229 (talk) 20:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Removed part of lead section

Specifically, the start of the 2nd para: "The group is known for attacking churches, schools, and police stations." I would have thought that they were rather better known for indiscriminate massacres and kidnappings- however, there is no mention of this! "Known for attacking churches" - but not, apparently, known for also destroying entire villages or towns surrounding said churches? I have removed this and the following sentence, "The group also kidnaps western tourists and has assassinated members of the Islamic establishment who have criticized the group" (about as misleading/out-dated as the preceding sentence) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Signedzzz (talk • contribs) 21:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

"Section with invaluable references should'nt be cleanup" (edit summary given) is not a valid reason to include this biased assessment in the lead. The "invaluable references" are outdated and can easily be found, if necessary, by googling "Boko Haram". zzz 21:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I've removed mention of their activity outside of Nigeria from the opening para, since it's not a defining or major characteristic, but I left the references as it should be mentioned somewhere in the article. zzz 15:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I've finished with the first 2 paras; the rest seems accurate but should mostly be incorporated into the main article, which is in such terrible shape that it would be necessary in my opinion to delete the entire thing and start again with the excess material from the lead. zzz 16:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC) (Not the entire thing, actually, just large sections).zzz 16:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Name Section

I am restoring the new version because: 1)The old version was overly long and yet uninformative; 2)it contained assertions not present in sources; 3)it contained strange OR synthesis, such as: "Loosely translated, the name could mean "western education is sinful", which would symbolize its strong opposition to anything Western...", 4)and bizarre assertions such as "Locals who speak the Hausa language are also unsure what it actually means" 5)not to mention completely irrelevant statements like "In 2014, Nigerian President, Goodluck Jonathan dubbed Boko Harām as "al-Qaeda in West Africa" (this was at least correctly referenced, but still completely useless) 6)the new version is a definite improvement, since it suffers from none of these embarrassing drawbacks. Please compare the two versions. If you disagree with me, please explain. Thanks zzz 07:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Signedzzz (talk • contribs)

Dear Signedzzz, the info you removed was well sourced and informative. You have only explained the organization's official name and its English meaning. The common name of organization is Boko Haram. The info you removed explained why the organization was named so, by local Hausa people. Its informative! Furthermore, please explain why you added a lot of info about a cow breed and removed references from the lede?Septate (talk) 07:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Septate. Please do read the new version: it actually explains in some detail why the group is called Boko Haram, (which in my opinion the old version failed to do)... I cannot understand why you would say otherwise. I assure you, it is definitely more informative than the old version.

ps the comment about the cow is actually drawn directly from the reference given. I used it to make a point about the cultural dimension of the name "Boko Haram".

pps. I removed the unused references from the lead, as I explained in the edit summary which I gave at the time: "rm some unused references from opening para". I don't understand the confusion! Cheers zzz 08:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Signedzzz (talk • contribs)

Septate I obviously can't accept your explanation of why you deleted my edit since you make it very clear you haven't even read it. And asking me to explain why I removed references from the lead when, as you are presumably aware, I explained it in my edit summary at the time, is equally unhelpful. Please discuss if you have any problem with my edits (after reading them), before you delete them. Thanks zzz (talk) 08:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Septate your edit to the first para of the lead, "influenced by the Wahhabi movement" is inappropriate, as it is controversial and misleading - other sources do not mention it, and the source you gave is not clearly not NPOV, and appears to be unreliable. In any case, it should go in the "ideology" section, which clearly cannot be fairly summed up in one phrase! Thanks zzz (talk) 09:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Dear zzz, thanks for your explanation. I agree with your explanation when it comes to etymology but not with your explanation regarding removal of Wahhabism. Wahhabism is essential to describe the motivations of Boko Haram. Almost all news sources and other organizations link Boko Haram with Al-Qaeda, which is it self Wahhabi. So its not POV.Septate (talk) 10:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Septate. Thanks for your comment about the cows, that really did need changing, for sure. I was thinking about mentioning "Salafi" ideology to the lead para before, but I wasn't sure. I think it's fairly closely connected with Wahhabi?. We should probably see what other editors think. BTW, I did not know Al-Qaeda was Wahhabi, I had always assumed it was just Sunni.zzz (talk) 10:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

new "Name" section

The old "Etymology" section had got unmanageable, IMO. There's more info in the new version, and it's shorter! zzz (talk) 10:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

"Wahhabi" in first paragraph of article

I do not believe any mention of "Wahhabi" belongs in the opening paragraph of this article because it is not mentioned in any of the sources I have seen, and the source given seems unreliable. Does anyone else have any opinion? zzz (talk) 17:56, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm removing it: Source is POV, & all other sources disagree with it.zzz (talk) 20:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

@zzz. Please don't label reliable sources as POV. Salafis and Wahhabis are almost the same. See Wahhabi movement and Salafi movement. Al-Qaeda is Wahhabi affiliated, again see Wahhabi movement. Major terrorist organizations in the world have Wahhabist Ideology. You can't deny this. Furthermore, Wahhabis/Salafis call themselves as Sunni but there practices are vastly different from mainstream Sunnis.Thanks.Septate (talk) 06:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Septate. No sources I have read mention Wahhabi, although they do mention other ideologies. So your attribution of Wahhabi should go in the "Ideology" section, where it can be seen in context with other attributed ideologies, and people can make their own minds up as to which is more valid. Leaving it at the start of the article would imply that the editors have reached a consensus that "Wahhabi" is the main one - this implication would be fraudulent and/or dishonest, since no one has agreed with you! It is written in the infobox, so readers can see that it has been suggested. I called your source POV because, in its opening paragraph, it states "This article will seek to increase Western understanding of Wahhabist Islam", which does not sound Neutral. If it is widely thought to be the main ideology, (which I am certain is not the case, rightly or wrongly) then it should be possible to find other sources. In the "Ideology" section (and elsewhere) there are many sources cited, none of which mention "Wahhabi". zzz (talk) 07:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)(as far as I know.)zzz (talk) 07:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Signedzzz, Please read this , this , this and this and tell me if there is no connection between Wahhabism/Salafism and Boko Haram. Your arguments are baseless. There is a definite connection between Wahhabism and Boko Haram and It needs to be mentioned in the lead.Septate (talk) 10:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Septate. You make your point well. You should put one or two of those refs in the article, since more mainstream sources completely fail to cover this. I thought you had no leg to stand on, but clearly I was wrong. Having seen those, I certainly won't delete without consensus. Thanks for clearing that up . zzz (talk) 11:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Ps. The Ideology section definitely needs sorting out - especially now. zzz (talk) 12:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I now agree about Wahhabi. Other branches are suspect or abandoned. zzz (talk) 23:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

But I moved it to iedeologt section. Lead is for summarising article: article didnt mention Wahhabi. Lead already mentions "Islamist".zzz (talk) 18:33, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Name

Melvin toast The opinion of two minor journalists (both non-specialists) of the "correct" translation of Boko Haram should not be in the article because, no other journalists, or other writers, or anyone else, have paid them or their theory any attention - or used their translation. So neither should Misplaced Pages. See WP:UNDUE.

If anything the "Name" section is too long - its the same length as "Ideology" and nearly as long as "Background". These two sections need expanding, which is what I'm currently trying to do. "Name" should not be added to unless there is something particularly Notable omitted. Thanks. zzz (talk) 09:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I Strongly Reject the Removal of its Official Name. Some more 'Minor' Journalism Report also confirm by Interview of their Member https://justpaste.it/jasdj1

The name is in the "Name" section zzz (talk) 04:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe the Arabic name should go in the infobox. I have no opinion. It was never there before. zzz (talk) 04:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I AgreeAhendra (talk) 09:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I mean, in the Infobox, but not in the actual text of the lead as well.zzz (talk) 10:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Terror campaign / Insurgency

I don't agree that "insurgency" is more neutral or accurate. From Wiktionary:

Insurgency =

• "rebellion" = "Armed resistance to an established government or ruler". And, "Defiance of authority or control"
• "revolt" = "To rebel, particularly against authority"

Terrorism =

• "The deliberate commission of an act of violence to create an emotional response through the suffering of the victims in the furtherance of a political or social agenda.
• Violence against civilians to achieve military or political objectives.
• A form of psychological manipulation through warfare to the purpose of political or religious gains, by means of deliberately creating a climate of fear amongst the inhabitants of a specific geographical region."

"Insurgency" suggest actions mainly or solely directed against "authority" ie government and security forces. However - the majority of casualties have been civilians (not by way of "collateral damage"). One could argue that the civilian casualties are a part of a greater strategy of "rebellion against authority", but this would involve speculation, and would then, in any case, fall under the "terrorism" definition, "Violence against civilians to achieve military or political objectives". Therefore, "Insurgency" is, if anything, less unbiased or accurate than "Terror campaign".

Deliberately creating a climate of fear amongst the inhabitants would be hard to argue against, hence my preference for terror.

Come to think of it, "Campaign of violence" would be a definite improvement, covering actions that fall into both brackets. zzz (talk) 20:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The press is beginning to talk about a new phase that is supposedly more like an insurgency. But then again, they have to talk about something. If it turns out to be the case, a new section would be called for. But, given the information blackout, it's hard to say at present - anything could be happening. The forthcoming presidential election could be a more significant factor than anything happening on the ground right now, IMHO. zzz (talk) 04:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree insurgency implies attacks mostly or solely against military targets, for example the Iraq insurgency and Taliban insurgency involved huge numbers of civilians being killed by car bombs and other attacks, with much lower attacks on military targets. The NLF in Vietnam and FLN in Algeria directly targeted and killed huge numbers of civilians in terror campaigns, but this was part of an overall insurgent campaign that aimed to reduce state presence and assert territorial control.

Names like campaign of violence or terror campaign divorce Boko Haram's actions from it's political intent, which is to replace the authority of the Nigerian state with their own via military force, and don't account for it's attacks on hard targets like prisons, police stations, military bases etc.

To put it a different way, terrorism is a tactic of Insurgency Gazkthul (talk) 04:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

That is true, that terrorism can be a tactic of insurgency; but it can just be terrorism, as with the IRA. It could be argued that Boko Haram have always had the intention of replacing the Nigerian government; but it could also be argued that they began the use of violence, like the IRA, as a bargaining chip, for increased sharia law, etc., or, even, as revenge, or just general anti-(non-Islamic)-authority. Or any combination. It wasn't even clear who "they" were, never mind what their long-term strategy was. Did they believe from the outset that they could overthrow the Nigerian government? Maybe, but there was'nt much (if any) talk of that at the time - unlike the Iraqi insurgents, who were always crystal clear about their objective. Obviously, now they are probably wondering if they can, but that's not relevant of course. Given the lack of any clear statement of intent and plan of action, from the outset, to overthrow the government, it would be rewriting history to call it an insurgency. After the UN Abuja bombing, the spokesman offered to negotiate with the government if it's members were released. Again, totally unlike the Iraqis. You don't offer to negotiate with a government you are sworn to destroy. From what has been published, that I have read, pretty much no-one has called it that. I think it's overstating their political vision to call it an insurgency. Like I say, the next phase may start being referred to, with good reason, as an insurgency, but we should not give them credit for having planned things that way. They didn't call it that, nor did commentators. zzz (talk) 05:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

And, from the prison break to Abuja, about 2 years, it was %100 civilian targets. I doubt that many people would call that early campaign an insurgency. Although, It could be argued... but with a great deal of hindsight, IMO zzz (talk) 06:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The common theory at the time was that they wanted to remove the Christians, which is genocide.zzz (talk) 10:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I like terror, it's not a euphemism. But violence is ok.zzz (talk) 10:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, violence is a better heading than terror. Gazkthul (talk) 23:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Btw, I just used acts of terror in Inauguration, in context of CCTV system. zzz (talk) 06:30, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

their name in Arabic is back to front in the article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It appears as "والجهاد للدعوة السنة أهل جماعة" it should be "جماعة أهل السنة للدعوةوالجهاد".

I don't have a source but any Arabic speaker will be able to confirm.

If it just a local issue with my browser, I apologize.

205.167.7.193 (talk) 15:00, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

It's unlikely.zzz (talk) 21:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

205.167.7.193 is right, the word order was inverted. I've corrected it. --Metron (talk) 21:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Metron, I meant, "it's unlikely to be a browser issue" - I had already changed it to the new version! I've now changed my mind, anyhow, and decided the correct thing is to leave it as written in the ref.zzz (talk) 08:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Supporting states / entities

Maybe a section on international supporters of Boko Haram would be useful. Or at least something like the following can be added into the financing section:

“In mid March 2014, allegations backed by a tapped phone conversation arose about the use of Turkish Airlines to lift weapons to Boko Haram, in an operation directed by the National Intelligence Organization of Turkey, and known by then Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan's Chief of Staff, Mustafa Varank.”

--Eleman (talk) 12:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree, this should be mentioned, probably in the financing section. It appears to be a highly credible allegation, based on the fact that Turkish Airlines denied transporting any arms to Nigeria, and then a Nigerian Navy spokesman made a conflicting statement. In any case, the CHP also made the allegation. To quote Naij.com,

"Are top levels in the Nigerian government involved in the supply of deadly weapons to Boko Haram through our ports? Is Nigeria a hob in the weapons supply path to terror groups and conflict zones in Africa? This matter should be headlines." zzz (talk) 18:30, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I added it in "International connections". Please add/correct details from the Turkish language BBC source, if necessary. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. zzz (talk) 08:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

References

1. "Nijerya'ya Türkiye'den silah iddiası: THY 'Taşımadık' diyor". 19 March 2014. Retrieved 16 April 2014.

new category

Removed "groups restricting education category", as explained elsewhere; please feel free to discuss here if nec. zzz (talk) 08:03, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Redirect needed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There is not yet a redirect at en.wikipedia.org/Boko_haram (with a lowercase H) leading to this article, as I just discovered by accident. Maybe someone with an account could take care of this? 50.14.58.71 (talk) 14:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Background - APC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

If you want to delete the mention of the APC etc from the Background section, please feel free to state your reason in this section. zzz (talk) 18:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The BRD said we should come to a resolution rather than to continue to make warring edits and you followed up their recommendation by immediately undoing an edit. That certainly does not seem to be a good faith attempt at dispute resolution. Back to the issue at hand: Talking about a group, African People's Congress (APC), and putting a quote that says they support jihad on the Boko Haram page, makes a reader assume that you are implying that they support Boko Haram, which we both agree they do not. The article specifically states that the writer does not believe and is not implying that APC supports Boko Haram. That important part of the article should be reflected in your summary. You could say, "Though they do not support Boko Haram, various groups, including APC, support religious jihad in northern Nigeria" or however you want to say it. What you should not do is talk about a group on the Boko Haram page include quotes about jihad and violence and then leave it up to the reader to guess if they support Boko Haram or not, when the referenced article SPECIFICALLY states, they DO NOT support Boko Haram. The commentary has nothing to do with Boko Haram and is the statement of APC about themselves and is probably much better suited to the APC page Lipsquid (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• The article (and the ref) doesn't say or imply that they support BH.
• The ref does not say "they DO NOT support Boko Haram" so neither should the article!
• The article only says what the ref says.
• The background section is the correct place to give a brief overview of Islamic militancy in Northern Nigeria. zzz (talk) 18:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The article says "While not intending to suggest herein that the APC is Boko Haram, or that the group or its parent organization, the ACF, even supports Boko Haram, those features of the APC which correspond to our perceptions of Boko Haram appear as tantalizing avenues for research." To exclude that the author does not suggest that the APC - ACF supports Boko Haram in your synopsis of the reference is misleading. To continue making the argument that the author also doesn't specifically state they "DO NOT" support Boko Haram is also misleading. The fact that there are many warring factions in Nigeria is relevant to the background and is covered in the article in its current state. There is no need to discuss the statements of only one group and place them, out of context, on the Boko Haram page, they are more fitting for the APC page. Lipsquid (talk) 19:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

After seeing this edit war, I've done a careful read of the ref and the background section as well as other parts of the article here. I agree with Lipsquid's edit - the presentation of a description of APC and the extended quote in the Boko Haram article strongly suggests that this group and individual quoted support Boko Haram, while the source states clearly they do not. On this basis I'm editing the article to reflect this version. Legacypac (talk) 04:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

No, there's nothing to be gained from removing reliable background info from the background section. The main political group representing the interests of Northern Nigeria should definitely be covered. I can't think of any good reason why not, and none has been suggested. zzz (talk) 07:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The only argument I can detect in the above statements is that, having read the description, these two users believe the organisation may be supporters of Boko Haram (although the article makes no such claim). The users are entitled to their opinion, naturally; I fail to see how it follows that the section should be deleted. Obviously (I hope), it goes without saying that, in this or any other Misplaced Pages article, evidence of such a connection would be clearly and explicitly stated if it was known. zzz (talk) 19:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

References

1. http://africanarguments.org/2014/05/19/revolt-in-the-north-interpreting-boko-harams-war-on-western-education-by-kirk-ross/

We have gone through this several times and there was some consensus that the material was deemed biased. I am reverting your edit and if you change it again without going through dispute resolution, I will ask for an article ban. Enough is enough. Lipsquid (talk) 23:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I actually did not edit the article because the section was already removed when I went to edit it. No more edit warring over this - do not reinsert. Legacypac (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• There is no "consensus that the material was deemed biased" - your opinion does not equal consensus. (I expressed my disagreement with your opinion, above.) zzz (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

An unrelated third party also reviewed the change in question and also deemed it as non-neutral. Opened a request on the Dispute Resolution Board Lipsquid (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Signedzzz is the only one still pushing this. The 3RR case is still open. Legacypac (talk) 01:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I'm picking up this case from the DRN noticeboard. Normally, my primary job here is not to provide my opinion or my position, but to resolve the dispute between the editors so that we can come to a consensual agreement. That being said there has been edit warring and it seems a consensual agreement among editors is unlikely.

Okay. From my perspective the best course of action would be to start fresh. The paragraph of concern is below

"In the APC, one finds a well-financed militant group intimately connected to the heart of Northern Nigerian political power but also connected, albeit through Bugaje, to a fundamentalist ideology opposed to Westernization and Western education in Northern Nigeria. And in the APC one finds a militant group which, one might suspect, possesses in its leaders the military and intelligence expertise to carry out covert paramilitary operations, including bombings.And in the APC one finds also a militant group that, having those things stated, promulgates its intentions to launch into jihad. While not intending to suggest herein that the APC is Boko Haram, or that the group or its parent organization, the ACF, even supports Boko Haram, those features of the APC which correspond to our perceptions of Boko Haram appear as tantalizing avenues for research."

The article is somewhat deceiving, it says one thing while hints another. The article observes and notes the similarities in fundamentalist ideologies that Boko Haram and APC have, and that further research would provide interesting results. The article is open to interpretation, it's trying to hint that the APC may support Boko Haram, while stating that it doesn't want to suggest such a thing, but they very clearly are.

However this is irrelevant. Misplaced Pages is for facts, and edits must not be made by interpreting articles. The article has not directly stated that APC supports or does not support Boko Haram. We must not interpret articles. If they have not specifically stated either way, then it must not be put in.

I'd advise something along the lines of... "Similarities can be drawn between the fundamentalist ideologies of the APC and Boko Haram, however the APC does not operate as a Jihadist group. It should also be noted that not only is the APC capable of launching Jihad, but such an action would be taken, should leader Sagir Mohammed feel it necessary."

This leaves the interpretation of support up to the reader. It is not wikipedia's job to interpret articles, but simply to give facts. This is the most important point here, and the above statement gives only facts.

Please do not edit the page until the dispute is resolved. If you have any issues or questions, feel free to ask. The traditional length of time to wait to see if someone had objections is a month, however this is because a consensual agreement needs to be reached. In this case, I think it is simply a case of wrong and right. In a week's time, we can see where the discussion is at. Thanks. DocHeuh (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

This comment by Admin EdJohnston is on point. Legacypac (talk) 20:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this is going to be an issue as user Signedzzz was recently given 3 month ban on all Syria and ISIL related topics and is now facing a similar ban here. I will change the wording to something more neutral and we will see what happens. I entered the request for dispute resolution prior to being aware of ongoing issues so I apologize if I have wasted your time, this may already be solved. Lipsquid (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Men

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I've added 'men' to the introductory paragraph. In spite of what the Guardian might have you believe there've been quite a few adult male victims. In fact Africacheck.org states "In addition to the 219 abducted and still held from the raid in Chibok on April 14, it is important to note that many hundreds of other Nigerians – primarily boys and young men but also including young girls and young women – have been abducted over the past five years by the group, some co-opted as members, others whose fates are simply not known." I've no way of judging the truth of that, of course. 105.184.160.62 (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/03/africa/nigeria-boko-haram-kidnapping/index.html abuction of boys and young men just reported, and others before that. Legacypac (talk) 05:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I read somewhere that they are using them for slave labour, moving camp when they can't use vehicles (because of air attack). I've no way of knowing how reliable that info is, tho. However, they have generally been better known for abducting women, so the other abductions should probably not be lumped together in the lead. In particular, the 500 figure from the HRW report refers to women and children. If there is a general report of this nature regarding male abductees, this could be added.zzz (talk) 07:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

They've just abducted 40 boys and young men. There haven't been many mentions in the English language media, true, but that suggests that the fact that they're better known for abducting females than males says more about our prejudices than their activities. They kidnapped 100 boys and young men last August. If anything, a figure of 500 referring to only some of the abductees should be removed in favour of the more general - and documented - '100s'.

105.224.153.147 (talk) 14:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I should have mentioned in my last reply that the lead is just meant to summarise the main points in the article, see WP:MOS. zzz (talk) 14:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I've placed "men" back in so it reads "men, women and children" again using another editors deleted insertion and reference. To only say "women and children" were kidnapped is quite misleading, as Boko Haram seems to be an equal opportunity kidnaping & killing organization. Legacypac (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

References

1. http://africacheck.org/factsheets/factsheet-how-many-schoolgirls-did-boko-haram-abduct-and-how-many-are-still-missing/. Africacheck.org. Retrieved 2015-01-05.
2. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-boko-haram-kidnaps-boys-20150104-story.html
3. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-08-14/nigeria-militants-kidnap-about-100-boys-and-men-in-northeast.html
4. http://www.mediaite.com/online/why-did-kidnapping-girls-but-not-burning-boys-alive-wake-media-up-to-boko-haram/

POV Issues

I've found that an astonishing 2400+ edits totalling over 55% of the total edits here are by one editor. I also found, in the first few minutes of checking over the article, that it completely fails to mention that:

1. UN Security Council has designated Boko Haram a terrorist organization
2. They have been linked to al-Qaeda (basically only denials of the link are there)
3. They pledged allegiance to ISIL recently
4. They declared a caliphate (highly controversial thing to do)

As a result of these early findings and the debates above I am concerned that this article has been edited with an agenda that does not meet WP:NPOV. I'd encourage other editors to check the article carefully and help ensure this accurately reflects the topic. In the mean time 've tagged the article to alert other editors and readers that there are problems here. Legacypac (talk) 08:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Adjusted Names section. Legacypac (talk) 09:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I restored my edits to the names section and added back the allies to the infobox. Several other editors have been contributing wonderfully. Legacypac (talk) 20:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the POV issues you adress. The history / campaign of violence section especially is really bad, large parts of it do not discuss Boko Harams actions at all but talks about other things. At the same time, many very significant attacks, massacres, bombings, anouncements etc by Boko Haram have been left out. It needs a major rewrite. Since Boko Haram's attacks have such regularity, I would suggest a year by year structure. Koyos (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I noticed that what at first glance looks like a chronologically of events is actually a jumble. Agree with just year by year (or range of years if obvious breaks exist). There is a timeline article linked at the bottom, but way out of date. Legacypac (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Archive Page needed

Could someone that knows how set up an archive page for this talk page, and something so threads get archived in 30 days? Please and thanks Legacypac (talk) 05:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Africa articles
• Unknown-importance Africa articles
• C-Class Nigeria articles
• Unknown-importance Nigeria articles
• WikiProject Nigeria articles
• WikiProject Africa articles
• C-Class Islam-related articles
• Unknown-importance Islam-related articles
• WikiProject Islam articles
• C-Class politics articles
• Unknown-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Unassessed Crime-related articles
• Unknown-importance Crime-related articles
• Unassessed Terrorism articles
• Unknown-importance Terrorism articles
• Terrorism task force articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• Start-Class military history articles
• Start-Class African military history articles
• African military history task force articles