Talk:Al-Qaeda in Iraq

Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism Unassessed

	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 Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Terrorism task force.

Iraq Start‑class

	Iraq portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IraqWikipedia:WikiProject IraqTemplate:WikiProject IraqIraq
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Where has the Al-Qaeda in Iraq page gone?

It was renamed as Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad. — MichaelLinnear 22:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What "COPY AND PASTE MOVING"?

I'm trying to find out, I can't. --HanzoHattori 16:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So? --HanzoHattori 18:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HELLO? --HanzoHattori 18:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please stop being rude? For the 800th time, I already mentioned this on my talk page. And if you have a problem, please address it at me. For pete's sake, I'm on your side, bud, but you gotta work with me. The Evil Spartan 18:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted you to revert your revert, but ignored me. --HanzoHattori 18:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, odd thing, Wikipedia is built on consensus; it's not called Hanzopedia. Look, as of yet, you haven't broken 3RR again, but I assure you I'll report you if you do it once more, making it a fourth revert. And admins don't look kindly at all on people who violate 3RR less than 12 hours after coming back from the last of a series of other 3RR. The Evil Spartan 18:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I waited for you to revert your own revert. --HanzoHattori 18:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what you did again? You were completely wrong with "COPY AND PASTE MOVING", so what now? (guess you'll be avoiding answer again) --HanzoHattori 18:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why deletion of content?

I can see that The Evil Spartan just reverted Hanzo, probably because Hanzo is trying to copy and paste fragments from other related articles (?). I can see that some articles on this topic currently duplicate each other, which is a kind of mess. So, we can do the following: (1) make several articles, no matter that they duplicate each other; (2) we all take a look and discuss which fragments should be deleted from articles to avoid forking. So, let's have the most complete version of each article and then discuss. Biophys 20:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand correctly, Hanzo had the following in mind. (1) Make a general article about Al-Qaeda in Iraq instead of the disambig. page. (2) Include all links to Al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia etc. into this article (instead of the disambig. page). This seems logical to me because an average reader simply wants to learn about Al-Qaeda in Iraq, so this article should be main and clearly written, and that is what Hanzo does.Biophys 20:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most important, it is wrong to simply rename this article as Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad because not all Al-Qaeda in Iraq is "Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad", as clear from disambig. page and other articles.Biophys 20:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There should be one article on each group. Period. There should be a disambig to any other group. If there is more than one group called al-qaeda in Iraq, then at best we should call use the disambig form (e.g., Al Qaeda in Iraq (Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad)) to indicate which group we're talking about. Or, if one is far more common than the other, the disambig page can be put at Al Qaeda in Iraq (disambiguation), and this page can redirect to Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad. As it is, I am having a thoroughly awful time understand Hanzo; he's not done well at communicating himself. The Evil Spartan 20:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about one article on each group if these groups are indeed different. Are they? But even if the groups are different and we have a separate article for each of them, this is not necessarily disambig. page. For example, this article could describe history of different Al-Qaeda groups in Iraq, explain what exactly the difference between them, and provide some general information relevant to ALL Al-Qaeda groups in Iraq. Hanzo, please tell what is exactly your suggestion here?Biophys 22:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote on my page:

And "as the other 16 times", it's not "the same group", it's the reformed successor group - just like MGB and KGB, or Reichswehr and Wehrmacht, or Ludowe Wojsko Polskie and Wojsko Polskie, or OSS and CIA, or Iraqi Regular Army and New Iraqi Army, or Soviet Army and Russian Army (etc etc etc). It' not just another name, and it's not only name too - they dramatically changed alliegance (from an independent group), and in great part their tactics and goals as well. This is written in the article AND in the infobox, where you get the lines for foreranner and successor groups.
How do you even want the common article to be called - Tawhid? They aren't Tawhid no more. Al-Qaeda? They were rivals to al-Qaeda previously. Other name? They're known as AQI first and last, in practically all media and official reports and analyses as well.
If you call destroying and disrupting my work (including on blatantly false reasons like this "COPY AND PASTE" twice, and ignoring my askings of what was that and to revert this) and threatening me "helping", then stop helping now.

I'll take just two examples: Reichswehr turned into Wehrmacht by just changing its alliegance (oath to Adolf Hitler vs letter to Osama bin Laden), it's flag (for Nazi party's), and it's name (obviously). Same people wore the same uniforms, there was no split and no one joined. You have two articles.

As for: not all Al-Qaeda in Iraq is "Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad" - actually now Tawhid does not exist (in Iraq, there are/were copycats in Syria). The possible problem is is different (and was not highlighted on dis. page at all - it mentioned "Osama bin Laden", but Osama has only symbolic command, al-Qaeda is mostly just a franchise now), and it's this: Tanzim (AQI) formed and dominates the Islamic State of Iraq - now you can classify Tanzim's allies as "al-Qaeda in Iraq" or stick just to Tanzim (I decided on the latter, because that's what the US Congress did in last year, and there was no 2007 report yet I think). What I wrote, is you can't clearly link the attacks to Tanzim too, as it's now claiming them as the Islamic State (or at least the Mujahideen Council). Yeah, I know it's kinda complicated. --HanzoHattori 23:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am not that much familiar with terrorist groups. Now I can see that you have explained relationships between this AQI group and other groups (they are indicated bold) in this article. Thus, there is no need in old disambig. page. Copy and paste within WP is allowed, as long as this improves individual articles and make them more clear. So, I do not understand what was really a problem. Everything seems to be logical now, although I am not an expert here.Biophys 01:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zarqawideathtribute.jpg

Ayman al-Zawahiri praises Zarqawi in a June 23, 2006 video aired on al-Jazeera.

The old page said - among Tawhid and Tanzim (yes, there were TWO articles) and alleged links to Saddam/Ansar: "Osama bin Laden's international al-Qaeda network's operations in Iraq." There are no such thing AFAIK. Zarqawi dominated the foreign fighter and extreme extremist markets since the beginning, and at first he was their rival, as he wanted to be THE new bin Laden (and maybe actually succeded in a way).

As for main al-Qaeda's actual "operations in Iraq" now, it's like on the picture: AQ simply saying "now you are our guys out there, doing great work" and helping to finance them. Do you want me to write on some or all of this in the article? --HanzoHattori 07:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not if supported by sources? From what I know this seems to be correct.Biophys 12:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But one must make an additional article List of Al-Qaeda related terrorist organizations in Iraq.Biophys 02:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Why not if supported by sources? From what I know this seems to be correct.Biophys 12:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)"

July 15: Here it is suggested to support with sources - which I did yesterday. Was this wrong for me to do buty right to suggest to someone else? My support soruce was "reverted" either yesterday or today. So I unreverted it once and only once today then I am told that I did multiple reverts today July 15. (MTSC)

Neutrality & Accuracy

This article uses many U.S. government agency articles as sources and does not provide alternative view points and sources. It states claims made by U.S. officials and government agencies as fact, without question, or providing atribution to claims. This page also inserted content into an existing page about al-qaeda connected and linked groups, it was a disambiguation page originally. -Lft6771 01:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it provides "alternative view points and sources". In the very intro it says: "AQI is often regarded as being the United States' most formidable enemy in Iraq,[4] as well as being the group responsible for the largest number of Iraqi civilian deaths. Critics of this say the threat posed by AQI is overblown, or possibly a diversion.[5]" - and the "claims" are attributed (to the U.S. Senate 2006 report on terrorism and various English-language media reports). As for the connected groups, it states as clearly as possible that the AQI is now the core of the Islamic State of Iraq. As I explained above, Osama bin Laden has nothing to do with Iraq directly (and actually to any al-Qaeda claimed activities beyond Pakistan and Afghanistan, where he became just another Taliban warlord). --HanzoHattori 06:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in the English, You Don't Speak Like This Okay. --HanzoHattori 06:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Lft6771. There is a long string of assertions in the header of this article that are supported by nothing except US State Department statements. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not an organ of the US government. MarkB2 00:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What other sources do you propose using? Generally the state department is regarded as a definitive source, and the mainstream media use it as a source. --MichaelLinnear 00:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can uses sources from governments other than the USA. They would be less biased. Sherilyn Sidaway 01:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh hey, do I know you? Yes, that could work but still US government reports are the most prevalent, and for better or worse are used the most. Even though it may say CNN, they're probably rehashing military or state department press releases, they also often use research think tanks and foundations. All have a "western" pov. --MichaelLinnear 01:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the US government claimed Iraq had those WMDs and then later admitted they faked evidence so the US government cannot be trusted in some matters, but that's a no-brainer. There's lots of government conspiracies. A neutral POV would be multiple countries. Sherilyn Sidaway 01:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I think in regards to a terrorist organization, they're probably going to be saying essentially the same thing. Any western source will be inherently more reliable than al-jazeera or jihadist websites. I don't think the sources here are a problem. --MichaelLinnear 01:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do Canadian or European exist? Sherilyn Sidaway 01:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just looking through the sources there is the BBC and the Guardian, Britain, and Gulf News, which is based in Dubai.So we already have some international flavor added to our references. And the New York Times is hardly a government mouthpiece. --MichaelLinnear 01:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for al-Jazeera, there's an external link to the station's program (it's on their website but hosted on youtube). --HanzoHattori 14:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of sources out there beyond the US State Department, and I would be happy to fetch a few. I won't speculate on whether they all sound the same or not; the reader can decide that. In any case, it will give discerning readers of wikipedia, many of whom are not from America, confidence in knowing that wikipedia is not simply taking the good word of George W Bush's State Department. MarkB2 20:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, got some.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/26/alqaeda.book/ http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L20870588.htm http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/05/01/iraq.insurgent.rift/ http://billroggio.com/archives/2007/04/islamic_army_of_iraq.php

I or someone else can source some info in the header from these articles.MarkB2 21:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

July 15: I will follow any guidelines there are. Please let me know. There is an issue with editing and re-editing. There is what must be considered fairly neutral material that is being posted by one side and apparently deleted by the other.

Is there no better way to settle this than by constant dispute? The neutral material comes from a pro-administration source - the Weekly Standard, and is posted in no less than 2 places:

Here: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/18/opinion/main618114.shtml

And here: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/094npvzg.asp

In addition, this article is also a reference on a different Wikipedia page.

I did not "REVERT" anything until today. Yet I am called down by someone else for doing this "multiple times?" The true sequence of events is - July 14: I made a post.

- July 14. Someone reverted what I wrote. More than once. I didn't know they were doing this as I was making additional edits. When I was finished, I noticed that they had changed it completely back.

- July 14. I am then personally threatened by the reverter that "they know who I am."

- July 14. So I posted the source material. And I put a note in the post that there was source material.

- July 15: I find out that even the source material was reverted!

- July 15: Today, I did one revert, and only one.

- July 15: I am again threatened - this time that I did "multiple reverts" today.

It just isn't so. If you look, I did one and only one revert today.

Why does someone need to threaten others in this way? I will follow whatever guidelines there are. But clearly I did not break them.

There is additional source material that could also be posted. (MTSC)