Jump to content

Talk:Al-Qaeda in Iraq/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

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)

What "COPY AND PASTE MOVING"?

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

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

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

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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)

[[:Image:Zarqawideathtribute.jpg|right|thumb|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)

Why not if supported by sources? From what I know this seems to be correct.Biophys 12:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
But one must make an additional article List of Al-Qaeda related terrorist organizations in Iraq.Biophys 02:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


"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)

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)

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

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)
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)
We can uses sources from governments other than the USA. They would be less biased. Sherilyn Sidaway 01:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Do Canadian or European exist? Sherilyn Sidaway 01:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)

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)

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)

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)

First Battle of Fallujah

Zarqawi Group ( Al-Qaeda in Iraq) Defeated the American forces in First Battle of Fallujah after Streets fighting Continued Some months ......American forces has take it on face..

But the city was taken in the second battle of Fallujah. --MichaelLinnear 01:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

should writing that in the article

in First and second Battle of Fallujah Zarqawi Group lose 60 man and they publish thier names and from Another hand 2,000 American soldier killed and 23,000 injured

According to American Statistics ... but I think it is more from that

Actually they killed little over 1 million American soldiers. Their bodies were buried in the desert next to the returned E.T. Atari 2600 cartdridges. --HanzoHattori 12:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

al-Dhari the insurgent leader was not al-Dhari the pro-insurgent politician

It was his nephew. --HanzoHattori 08:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Sources need work

I began proofreading this as part of the League of Copyeditors, but after finishing just the lead, I realized that the sources are in need of serious attention. To cite one example, the lead suggested that 70% of the members of AQI are foreigners; close as I can tell, this is based on the following quote from a story in the LA Times:

However, it should be noted that these numbers refer to all foreign militants, and not specifically AQI.

Other sources in the References section are listed as just URLs (see 17), and – more disturbingly – several are listed simply as "Yahoo News". Yahoo News is an aggregator, not an actual source. (The reference should be to the article listed on Yahoo, preferably with a link to a more stable source, since Yahoo News clears its stories with great frequency.)

I'll be happy to proofread this article when it's in more stable shape; I think it's best if someone more closely involved with its creation fixes these problems. (And I don't really fancy going through to check every source to remedy the kind of problem discussed above.) – Scartol · Talk 15:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The correct title (and page name) should be "Al-Qaeda of Mesopotamia"

The translation makes all the difference in the world. Using the preposition "in" ("in Iraq") implies a connection between an external Al-Qaeda (notably the one that planned the attack on the US on 9/11) and alleges its operation inside Iraq. (More on prepositions is here.) Using "in" also creates an ambiguity, especially when spoken: is the speaker referring to Osama bin Laden's group, moved to operate within Iraq, or to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's indigenous Iraqi group? It can be impossible to tell -- which may reflect the intention of certain speakers.

Early translations clearly used "Al-Qaeda of Mesopotamia", and many leading news sources still do (including Bloomberg, New York Times, International Herald Tribune). E.g.:

"A new terrorist group inside Iraq has named itself -- conveniently for Bush's purposes -- al-Qaeda of Mesopotamia. But they had nothing to do with 9/11 since they didn't exist at the time."[1] (Bloomberg)

"The Mujahedeen Shura, an umbrella group that claims Al Qaeda of Mesopotamia as a member, said in a statement posted on the Internet that the successor to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, had slaughtered the two Americans."[2] (NY Times)

"A former associate of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of Al Qaeda of Mesopotamia who was killed last summer, Mr. Abssi was sentenced to death in absentia along with Mr. Zarqawi in the 2002 assassination of an American diplomat" [3] (NY Times)

"Military intelligence officials said that Al Qaeda of Mesopotamia's leaders wanted to expand their attacks to other countries."[4] (International Herald Tribune)

The choice of language here is crucial. DBrnstn 14:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand your issue with the article’s title, but I believe based on current Wikipedia policy the current is title is the correct one. The current Wikipedia convention for naming articles states:

Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.

In this case, Al-Qaeda in Iraq seems to be the most widely used name. Google showed 965,000 results for "Al-Qaeda in Iraq", 130,000 for "Al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia", and 1,290 for "Al-Qaeda of Mesopotamia". Google News showed 1,878 results for "Al-Qaeda in Iraq", 61 for "Al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia", and 6 for "Al-Qaeda of Mesopotamia". It would probably be useful to add a section to the article discussing the different translations of the group’s name. BlueAzure 03:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with BlueAzure on this one. The current title is the most widely-used name, in my opinion. – Scartol · Talk 15:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree, citing the same naming articles convention. "A reasonable minimum of ambiguity" requires that the name be changed from "Al Qaeda in Iraq" (which wrongly implies Osama's Afghan-based group infiltrating Iraq) to "Al Qaeda of Mesopotamia" (which more accurately describes Zarqawi's indigenous Iraqi group). Otherwise it is ambiguous. (This ambiguity may be intentionally used by powerful political figures, both in the US and AQ itself.) There is a tension between "what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize" and "a reasonable minimum of ambiguity." The redirect helps resolve this, while achieving the more accurate description. "Generally" is not an absolute rule that insists naming must be based on Google usage counts.
Agreed that a section discussing the different translations of the group’s name is a good idea. DBrnstn 13:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
The naming convention does not say that there cannot be ambiguity, just “a reasonable minimum of ambiguity”. In this case I think that the level ambiguity is reasonable, considering that the current article title appears to be “what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize” by a wide margin. If you don’t want use Google and Google News counts to determine “what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize”, why don’t you provide another source. BlueAzure (talk) 22:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

"This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale."

What? More like End-Class. --HanzoHattori (talk) 17:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Beheading japanese.jpg

Image:Beheading japanese.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone fix it plz. --HanzoHattori (talk) 15:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

AQI

When did "al-Qaeda in Iraq" become "AQI"? If anyone has information on the first use of "AQI", perhaps we can include that in the article. Personally, it bugs the hell out of me when someone refers to "AQI". 74.68.123.162 (talk) 12:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

AQI is an acronym used by the coalition forces. --84.234.60.154 (talk) 20:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Document Haul in Iraq.

I came across this article [5], that is very telling about the organization, but I don't have a clue how to include it in this article, or what is the best way to parse down this info. Figure I'd throw it out there for someone to give it a shot. --Hourick (talk) 18:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Proposal to merge Al-Qaeda in Iraq and Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad. The latter article states that it "gradually became popularly known as al-Qaeda in Iraq", and both articles assert that their subjects are led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi; i.e. they are the same organization.-Samuel Tan 07:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

hmmmmm, tough call but I'd barely agree to this, pending contradictory arguments.Ghyslyn (talk) 08:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It would make sense (Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat is now in Al-Qaeda Organization in the Islamic Maghreb), but the article is costructed in a different way and would be hard to be merged properly (stuff needs to be rewritten, not just cut-and-pasted). --RamboKadyrov (talk) 15:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

In order to make a comment here, I guess I should cite, but I won't. Its almost common knowledge that the two pages should not be merged into one as the groups are different. Although Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad (JTJ) was led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (AMZ), who later pledged biyat to Usama bin Laden and al-Qa'ida, the group al-Qa'ida in Iraq (AQI) is no longer led by AMZ, nor does it use the same strategy and tactics as AMZ directed. For instance, AMZ wished to target any and all things non-Salafi, especially the Shi'a, which he regarded as heretics. AQI no longer takes such wholesale action to instigate a sectarian civil war. The two groups (JTJ and AQI) should be kept separate, but should however reflect historical commonalities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.26.220 (talk) 21:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

History

What about al-Qaeda under Saddam? I'd like to read more about their origins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darrelljon (talk • contribs) 22:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if that is covered, or addressed, in another article. It's an interesting topic as it's a politically hot topic for which the boilerplate answer, eg. the Democratic party's, is false, i.e. "There was no Al Queada in Iraq before the invasion." It is well known that Zarqawi entered Iraq about a year before the 2003 invasion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.44.230 (talk) 06:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

There was no al-Qaeda in Iraq under Saddam. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 12:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Wrong, al-Zarqawi and supporters were in Iraq under Saddam, and during the buildup to the US invasion Saddam approached Zarqawi asking for his assistance against the united statesGhyslyn (talk) 08:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


Sources for either claim? It's controversial so both claims ought to be included and sourced. 65.30.180.228 (talk) 07:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The sources who agree with Ghyslyn have been discredited in spades, especially now after the torture revelations; some of them (e.g. Colin Powell) have completely recanted. It's not an issue of two competing claims with equal evidence for each; it is pretty clear from ALL the evidence that Saddam and Zarqawi never had any dealings other than that Saddam's henchmen were trying to arrest or kill Zarqawi. And of course, we know well that there was no AQI under Saddam; even though Zarqawi was there, there was no organized group as such. Zarqawi did go to Iraq before the fall of Saddam because he was anticipating the US invasion. csloat (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

This article should be updated since 2007

It will be 2010 soon. --83.13.135.170 (talk) 08:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Guess I updated and cleaned it enough

But it still may need some copy-editing. --83.13.135.170 (talk) 10:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Needs updating

The article does not seem to contain much about events since 2007 and will need updating by an interested editor. I have done copy edits of the exisitng material. --Diannaa TALK 19:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess the main thing missing is the names of the current leadership. --Diannaa TALK 20:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Death of Al-Nasser Lideen Allah Abu Suleiman, ISI "War Minister"?

I'm a little surprised no mention has been made of reports indicating that Abu Suleiman, the Islamic State of Iraq's War Minister as well as a top leader in Al Qaeda in Iraq, has been killed in the town of Hit, as reported here([6]), here([7]), and here([8]).

While this is a new development, and may prove to be false like many similar reports in the past, I think at least this should be mentioned on this particular page, or if this person is given a page of their own, on that article (which seems unlikely given the dearth of information available).

Should we wait for better verification of these reports, or just make the appropriate additions based on what information can be verified at this time? Jetpower45 (talk) 04:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Death of the group

Hey guys yesterday i made an edit on the page saying that al-qaeda in Iraq no longer exists after the section which quotes the groups attempted insurgency but the group never came back after the last man standing Huthaifa al-Batawi was killed. So I just wanted to let you know. Also isn't bin laden part of the groups other personnel since he is the founder and former operator. Let me know-What was this guy eating? —Preceding undated comment added 01:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC).

You need to provide a reliable reference saying that the group has disbanded. (Hohum @) 17:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
That'll be news to the Iraqis that continue to be killed in the hundreds every month, including in horrific suicide attacks that are the hallmark of this group. Also, it is quite clearly sourced on this page that the group and its affiliates have at least 1,000 operatives in the country as of this year. Al Qaeda is still very real, in Iraq and elsewhere, and for the foreseeable future, they are here to stay. Jetpower45 (talk) 07:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Was Huthaifa al-Batawi ever a main leader?

As far as I've heard, this man was instead the emir of Baghdad, and not the top leader of Al Qaeda or the ISI. Al-Nasser Lideen Allah Abu Suleiman was actually announced to be the military leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq after Masri was killed in April 2010. Suleiman was claimed KIA'd by Iraqi forces during this year, but strangely, I never saw any reports of the organization either denying or confirming his death. What gives? Jetpower45 (talk) 16:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

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)

What "COPY AND PASTE MOVING"?

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

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

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

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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)

[[:Image:Zarqawideathtribute.jpg|right|thumb|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)

Why not if supported by sources? From what I know this seems to be correct.Biophys 12:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
But one must make an additional article List of Al-Qaeda related terrorist organizations in Iraq.Biophys 02:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


"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)

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)

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

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)
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)
We can uses sources from governments other than the USA. They would be less biased. Sherilyn Sidaway 01:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Do Canadian or European exist? Sherilyn Sidaway 01:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)

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)

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)

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)

First Battle of Fallujah

Zarqawi Group ( Al-Qaeda in Iraq) Defeated the American forces in First Battle of Fallujah after Streets fighting Continued Some months ......American forces has take it on face..

But the city was taken in the second battle of Fallujah. --MichaelLinnear 01:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

should writing that in the article

in First and second Battle of Fallujah Zarqawi Group lose 60 man and they publish thier names and from Another hand 2,000 American soldier killed and 23,000 injured

According to American Statistics ... but I think it is more from that

Actually they killed little over 1 million American soldiers. Their bodies were buried in the desert next to the returned E.T. Atari 2600 cartdridges. --HanzoHattori 12:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

al-Dhari the insurgent leader was not al-Dhari the pro-insurgent politician

It was his nephew. --HanzoHattori 08:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Sources need work

I began proofreading this as part of the League of Copyeditors, but after finishing just the lead, I realized that the sources are in need of serious attention. To cite one example, the lead suggested that 70% of the members of AQI are foreigners; close as I can tell, this is based on the following quote from a story in the LA Times:

However, it should be noted that these numbers refer to all foreign militants, and not specifically AQI.

Other sources in the References section are listed as just URLs (see 17), and – more disturbingly – several are listed simply as "Yahoo News". Yahoo News is an aggregator, not an actual source. (The reference should be to the article listed on Yahoo, preferably with a link to a more stable source, since Yahoo News clears its stories with great frequency.)

I'll be happy to proofread this article when it's in more stable shape; I think it's best if someone more closely involved with its creation fixes these problems. (And I don't really fancy going through to check every source to remedy the kind of problem discussed above.) – Scartol · Talk 15:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The correct title (and page name) should be "Al-Qaeda of Mesopotamia"

The translation makes all the difference in the world. Using the preposition "in" ("in Iraq") implies a connection between an external Al-Qaeda (notably the one that planned the attack on the US on 9/11) and alleges its operation inside Iraq. (More on prepositions is here.) Using "in" also creates an ambiguity, especially when spoken: is the speaker referring to Osama bin Laden's group, moved to operate within Iraq, or to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's indigenous Iraqi group? It can be impossible to tell -- which may reflect the intention of certain speakers.

Early translations clearly used "Al-Qaeda of Mesopotamia", and many leading news sources still do (including Bloomberg, New York Times, International Herald Tribune). E.g.:

"A new terrorist group inside Iraq has named itself -- conveniently for Bush's purposes -- al-Qaeda of Mesopotamia. But they had nothing to do with 9/11 since they didn't exist at the time."[9] (Bloomberg)

"The Mujahedeen Shura, an umbrella group that claims Al Qaeda of Mesopotamia as a member, said in a statement posted on the Internet that the successor to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, had slaughtered the two Americans."[10] (NY Times)

"A former associate of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of Al Qaeda of Mesopotamia who was killed last summer, Mr. Abssi was sentenced to death in absentia along with Mr. Zarqawi in the 2002 assassination of an American diplomat" [11] (NY Times)

"Military intelligence officials said that Al Qaeda of Mesopotamia's leaders wanted to expand their attacks to other countries."[12] (International Herald Tribune)

The choice of language here is crucial. DBrnstn 14:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand your issue with the article’s title, but I believe based on current Wikipedia policy the current is title is the correct one. The current Wikipedia convention for naming articles states:

Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.

In this case, Al-Qaeda in Iraq seems to be the most widely used name. Google showed 965,000 results for "Al-Qaeda in Iraq", 130,000 for "Al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia", and 1,290 for "Al-Qaeda of Mesopotamia". Google News showed 1,878 results for "Al-Qaeda in Iraq", 61 for "Al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia", and 6 for "Al-Qaeda of Mesopotamia". It would probably be useful to add a section to the article discussing the different translations of the group’s name. BlueAzure 03:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with BlueAzure on this one. The current title is the most widely-used name, in my opinion. – Scartol · Talk 15:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree, citing the same naming articles convention. "A reasonable minimum of ambiguity" requires that the name be changed from "Al Qaeda in Iraq" (which wrongly implies Osama's Afghan-based group infiltrating Iraq) to "Al Qaeda of Mesopotamia" (which more accurately describes Zarqawi's indigenous Iraqi group). Otherwise it is ambiguous. (This ambiguity may be intentionally used by powerful political figures, both in the US and AQ itself.) There is a tension between "what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize" and "a reasonable minimum of ambiguity." The redirect helps resolve this, while achieving the more accurate description. "Generally" is not an absolute rule that insists naming must be based on Google usage counts.
Agreed that a section discussing the different translations of the group’s name is a good idea. DBrnstn 13:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
The naming convention does not say that there cannot be ambiguity, just “a reasonable minimum of ambiguity”. In this case I think that the level ambiguity is reasonable, considering that the current article title appears to be “what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize” by a wide margin. If you don’t want use Google and Google News counts to determine “what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize”, why don’t you provide another source. BlueAzure (talk) 22:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

"This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale."

What? More like End-Class. --HanzoHattori (talk) 17:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Beheading japanese.jpg

Image:Beheading japanese.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone fix it plz. --HanzoHattori (talk) 15:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

AQI

When did "al-Qaeda in Iraq" become "AQI"? If anyone has information on the first use of "AQI", perhaps we can include that in the article. Personally, it bugs the hell out of me when someone refers to "AQI". 74.68.123.162 (talk) 12:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

AQI is an acronym used by the coalition forces. --84.234.60.154 (talk) 20:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Document Haul in Iraq.

I came across this article [13], that is very telling about the organization, but I don't have a clue how to include it in this article, or what is the best way to parse down this info. Figure I'd throw it out there for someone to give it a shot. --Hourick (talk) 18:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Proposal to merge Al-Qaeda in Iraq and Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad. The latter article states that it "gradually became popularly known as al-Qaeda in Iraq", and both articles assert that their subjects are led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi; i.e. they are the same organization.-Samuel Tan 07:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

hmmmmm, tough call but I'd barely agree to this, pending contradictory arguments.Ghyslyn (talk) 08:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It would make sense (Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat is now in Al-Qaeda Organization in the Islamic Maghreb), but the article is costructed in a different way and would be hard to be merged properly (stuff needs to be rewritten, not just cut-and-pasted). --RamboKadyrov (talk) 15:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

In order to make a comment here, I guess I should cite, but I won't. Its almost common knowledge that the two pages should not be merged into one as the groups are different. Although Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad (JTJ) was led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (AMZ), who later pledged biyat to Usama bin Laden and al-Qa'ida, the group al-Qa'ida in Iraq (AQI) is no longer led by AMZ, nor does it use the same strategy and tactics as AMZ directed. For instance, AMZ wished to target any and all things non-Salafi, especially the Shi'a, which he regarded as heretics. AQI no longer takes such wholesale action to instigate a sectarian civil war. The two groups (JTJ and AQI) should be kept separate, but should however reflect historical commonalities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.26.220 (talk) 21:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

History

What about al-Qaeda under Saddam? I'd like to read more about their origins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darrelljon (talk • contribs) 22:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if that is covered, or addressed, in another article. It's an interesting topic as it's a politically hot topic for which the boilerplate answer, eg. the Democratic party's, is false, i.e. "There was no Al Queada in Iraq before the invasion." It is well known that Zarqawi entered Iraq about a year before the 2003 invasion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.44.230 (talk) 06:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

There was no al-Qaeda in Iraq under Saddam. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 12:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Wrong, al-Zarqawi and supporters were in Iraq under Saddam, and during the buildup to the US invasion Saddam approached Zarqawi asking for his assistance against the united statesGhyslyn (talk) 08:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


Sources for either claim? It's controversial so both claims ought to be included and sourced. 65.30.180.228 (talk) 07:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The sources who agree with Ghyslyn have been discredited in spades, especially now after the torture revelations; some of them (e.g. Colin Powell) have completely recanted. It's not an issue of two competing claims with equal evidence for each; it is pretty clear from ALL the evidence that Saddam and Zarqawi never had any dealings other than that Saddam's henchmen were trying to arrest or kill Zarqawi. And of course, we know well that there was no AQI under Saddam; even though Zarqawi was there, there was no organized group as such. Zarqawi did go to Iraq before the fall of Saddam because he was anticipating the US invasion. csloat (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

This article should be updated since 2007

It will be 2010 soon. --83.13.135.170 (talk) 08:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Al-Qaeda_in_Iraq/Archive_1&oldid=1159838550"