Talk:Boko Haram/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

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 Wikipedia. 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

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)

Name change

I have seen several back and forth's on the name without any talk page discussion. Therefore I thought I would be bold by going for its official name. World bymyself (talk) 18:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD I have reverted the move per WP:COMMONNAME. The overwhelming majority of English language Reliable Sources use the name "Boko Haram". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
That name is inaccurate since it deals with a previous phase of the group when it was independent. Their new name indicates they don't view themselves as independent, plus they no lnger have "proselytism" in their title, indicating their ideology has changed too. A name says a lot about a person/group and thats why i think common sense should override WP:COMMONNAME. The current name is misleading since it misapplies their intention. Liikumbaseer (talk) 19:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
How they view themselves or how they want others to view them is irrelevant, we care only what English language independent reliable sources call them. Wikipedia's role is not to promote the subject's own POV, we report only what others say about them. By the way, there has never been "several back and forth" moves of this aarticle as claimed by World bymyself - the only time this page was moved before was an act of vandalism on 27 April 2015. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not exist for Advocacy of terrorist causes or terrorist propaganda or terrorist social media. See WP:COMMONNAME, and the quote "remember that the choice of title is not dependent on whether a name is "right" in a moral or political sense." We use what the sources use, no matter what terrorists would like us to use. -- Aronzak (talk) 17:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
The name overwhelmingly applied to the group both in news and internationally diplomacy is "Boko Haram"
In news searches for the month of July 2015:
("boko haram") AND nigeria got "About 41,700 results" [1] while
("isis" OR "isil" OR "daesh" OR "islamic state") AND nigeria only got "About 28,400 results"
Even within the results of that last search, actual titles used show that the designation in overwhelming usage for the group is Boko Haram.
I think that it is misleading to say in the opening sentence that the group is "officially called Wilāyat Gharb Ifrīqīyyah" as this seems to self reference to Wikipedia's own interpretation of WP:OFFICIAL and not to a definition of the real world. Official organisations, from the United Nations to a plethora of NGOs, refer to the group as "Boko Haram".
This also highlights problems with the infobox. The article rightly uses Template:Infobox war faction within which it states that the "Name" used should be the "the formal name of the faction". The name used in international politics and by formal and official organisations is "Boko Haram". See http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=51513#.Vcgp4_lViko as just one of many examples.
The article currently gives WP:UNDUE weight towards the groups' self proclaimed Wilāyat Gharb Ifrīqīyyah designation which is rarely used elsewhere.
GregKaye 04:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Not sure I follow this argument. "Official organisations" call it Boko Haram, therefor it's official name is Boko Haram? Actually, it has never called itself Boko Haram, this was used by other Nigerians and it caught on because its official name is such a mouthful.
In any event, the actual UN Security Council designation [2] lists it using it's then "official name" of JAMA'ATU AHLIS SUNNA LIDDA'AWATI WAL-JIHAD, while Boko Haram is listed as an alias.
As most NGO's and media outlets use Boko Haram, that's what we use for the title and throughout the article per WP:COMMONNAME. However the fact that it now calls itself Wilayat Gharb Afriqiya is certainly relevant and useful information to include, although I believe that "Islamic State West Africa Province" will become increasingly common in reliable sources. Gazkthul (talk) 05:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Gazkthul, thank you for your reply.
The UN presents: JAMA'ATU AHLIS SUNNA LIDDA'AWATI WAL-JIHAD A.k.a.: a) Jama'atu Ahlus-Sunnah Lidda'Awati Wal Jihad b) Jama'atu Ahlus-Sunna Lidda'Awati Wal Jihad c) والجهاد للدعوة السنة أهل جماعة d) Boko Haram e) Western Education is a Sin.[3]
The UAE present: Group Boko Haram in Nigeria/Boko Haram in Nigeria [4][5]
Canada presents: Boko Haram Also known as Jama'atu Ahlis Sunna Lidda'awati Wal-Jihad (People of the Tradition of the Prophet for Preaching and Striving / Group Committed to Propagating the Prophet's Teachings and Jihad) [6]
and the United States presents: Boko Haram. [7]
Clearly the current article's claim that the group is "officially called Wilāyat Gharb Ifrīqīyyah" is fallacious and, for reasons mentioned, this name is unwarrented as a title in the infobox.
Re: "I believe that "Islamic State West Africa Province" will become increasingly common in reliable sources" we are not here to provide WP:SPECULATION about the future but to report on the here and now.
In July 2015 (a month in which Boko Haram received a relatively high level of news coverage) and in news searches:
"Islamic State West Africa Province" got "About 83 results" [8] (within articles that typically have "Boko Haram" in the title) while
"Boko Haram" got "About 87,500 results" "
I do not think that it is Wikipedia's place to unduly WP:SOAPBOX a barely referenced preferred name of a people displacing, liberty taking, terrorist group.
GregKaye 09:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC) unduely
I don't agree that "Clearly the current article's claim that the group is "officially called Wilāyat Gharb Ifrīqīyyah" is fallacious" as this or it's English translation has been used by WP:RS including-
Reuters [9] "Responsibility for the attack was later claimed by Boko Haram, which calls itself the Islamic State's "West Africa Province"
AFP [10] Boko Haram claimed responsibility on Twitter for the suicide bombing, signing off as "Islamic State, West Africa province" -- the militants' self-styled moniker
BBC [11] "now calls itself "West African province"
The Independent [12]"Boko Haram renames itself Islamic State's West Africa Province (Iswap) as militants launch new offensive against government forces"
The current article only has 3 references to this name, and otherwise uses the commonname Boko Haram, which seems reasonable to me. Gazkthul (talk) 13:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
You are clearly supplying strong support that no one, even within the exceptional articles that you have researched, describes the name that the group "calls itself" as being an "official name". There is nothing external to that gives any indication that the name can in any way be regarded as an official name. It is rejected by diplomatic establishments. And is barely used in the media. It certainly does not count as any type of "formal name" that should be placed in the infobox. GregKaye 17:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand the argument you are making here, but your recent edits seem fine to me. Gazkthul (talk) 23:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Multiple wikilinks for Christianity

User:Lipsquid I have tried to explain why this edit is wrong, but I'll try again. In the phrase "mainly in the Christian south of the country", the word "Christian" is an adjective, describing the religion "Christianity", so therefore it should link to Christianity, and not Christian (noun). So, Christianity does not need to be linked a second time. zzz (talk) 16:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

On the basis of what Wikipedia standard does it say that links are only to be made by word type (Adj, Noun, etc.) rather than the specific word used? If you don't have a basis for your claim, you should not revert again. Lipsquid (talk) 17:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Jesus Christ. The word "Christian" (Adjective) should not link to Christian (noun) because the words, although they are spelt the same, have two different meanings! It should link to Christianity because that is what it is referring to. Which make any further links to Christianity completely redundant. zzz (talk) 17:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
The adjective is the adjectival form of Christianity, not of Christian (noun). zzz (talk) 17:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Nonsense in regards to what is a valid link Lipsquid (talk) 19:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
And if you don't follow that, consider this: why should the article link to both Christian and Christianity? Do you really think that might help the reader of this article? zzz (talk) 17:14, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Not Nonsense, I agree with your point. Lipsquid (talk) 19:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Chronology

User:Lipsquid Please revert this edit. The section, which I am still expanding/creating (and have been doing for weeks), was carefully organised by geography first, then chronology. Otherwise there is no point in it. Thanks zzz (talk) 21:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

All the other "Year" sections flow by date and none are organized by geography. People are used to reading things chronologically. Maybe we could have subsections by area under 2015, if you think that would make it easier to read. Jumping back and forth on timeline in one section is terrible for readability. You have made a lot of article improvements which I appreciate. This is Wikipedia, anyone can edit your work at any time. You don't own any sections of the article. Lipsquid (talk) 21:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

You have just undone several weeks worth of my work on the article without consensus, after making no contributions whatsoever apart from a wikilink. You don't WP:OWN the article, either. Please restore it to how it was and gain consensus for your edit. zzz (talk) 21:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem with separating it by geography, just put it in sub-headers so it can all be in chronological order. I don't own anything. If you like we can have people vote on whether they prefer jumbled back and forth timeline or chronological, that would be consensus. If you want it by region, by all means do so, but put it in different sections and in chronological order in each section like the rest of the article. It just reads better and I did not intend to mess up your work in progress, only fix what reads poorly. Lipsquid (talk) 22:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

It was in chronological order by geographical region - it just lacked section sub-headings. I'll do that now, then, and add the sub-headings. zzz (talk) 22:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Done. I think that works out well, with the headings. It's still a work in progress, like I said. We'll see how things turn out. zzz (talk) 22:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks good, thank you for the updates. Lipsquid (talk) 22:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Citations

Why are so many citations in the lead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.93.115.44 (talk) 10:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I do not know if a bot will reliably fix the reused refs after removal. zzz (talk) 03:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Split

With most Boko Haram effectively becoming a branch of ISIL earlier this year it became de-facto split into two - al-Qaeda oriented Ansaru and the takfiri "West Africa province of ISIL". It is true that Boko Haram name is still often utilized by the media for the main branch, but they themselves are now referring to themselves as Wilayat Gharb Ifriqiyya (or Islamic State - West Africa Province, ISWAP). Furthermore, they changed their name, symbols (flag, etc) and structure in comparison with their Boko Haram origin. In a very similar case, the article on Ansar Bait al-Maqdis was split into Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant – Sinai Province, to reflect the significant change of the main faction of the organization, though not all Ansar Bait al-Maqdis swore to ISIL . It is very counterproductive to continue referring to original Boko Haram, while it actually became split to Ansaru and the West Africa province of ISIL. Herewith propose to split an article Wilayat Gharb Ifriqiyya to describe the new structure and activity of the now-ISIL branch of former Boko Haram.GreyShark (dibra) 17:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

@Magedq, David O. Johnson, Gazkthul, Gregkaye, StanMan87, Bulbajer, and Fitzcarmalan: @Legacypac, Mbcap, Panam2014, Amakuru, Bolter21, George Ho, and Peter James: - participating in Sinai Province discussions.GreyShark (dibra) 17:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Actually Ansaru split away back in 2012, and these days it is largely defunct as an independent group. I'm not aware of any split in the organisation following Abubakar Shekaus pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
Before creating a new article we have to take WP:COMMONNAME into consideration, Boko Haram is (incorrectly) still being used by the vast number of sources when referring to this group. By contrast, most media outlets and Governments have come around to referring to Ansar Bayt al Maqdis as the Sinai branch of Islamic State, although it took about a year for this to occur when the Russian airliner was brought down. Gazkthul (talk) 00:48, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The split between Ansaru and the main faction of Boko Haram was a result of approachment of Abubakar Shekau to Takfiri ideology of ISIL, so it is very much connected to the later allegiance of the main faction to ISIL in 2015. During the past two years, Ansaru faction became close to al-Qaeda oriented groups of AQIM and MOJWA, while Abubakar Shekau already announced in 2014 that he fully supports ISIL, though his allegiance (baya) came a year later - in March 2015; only in late April Shekau's faction changed its name and symbols to ISIL's. Professional sources already discuss the ISWAP - "Islamic State - West Africa Province" or "Wilayat Gharb Ifriqiyya" in this regard ([13],[14],[15]), though much of the media still uses the term "Boko Haram".GreyShark (dibra) 06:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Ansar Bait al-Maqdis is different since it seems to have split into two groups, unlike Boko Haram, so it makes sense to still use the common name, but make clear what their own designation is (as this article does). Maybe also have Islamic State - West Africa Province redirect here based on the more academic sources using ISWAP designation? Magedq (talk) 18:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Wait - the Boko Haram did split into two: Ansaru and Islamic State - West Africa Province (Wilayat Gharb Ifriqiyya).GreyShark (dibra) 22:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The 'split' happened before adopting the new Islamic State name. zzz (talk) 01:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Boko Haram is their name, and all of the content can go here. Per WP:SOAP, wikipedia does not serve the propaganda interests of terrorist organizations, but reports what mainstream outlets say about them. -- Callinus (talk) 04:17, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Boko Haram. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Boko Haram. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Split in 2016

The Economist reports that the group has split, in August 2016. The part loyal to ISIS is led by al-Barnawi, while former outright leader Abubakar Shekau denies ceding control. Someone with more knowledge of the situation than I have should update this.[16] Onanoff (talk) 17:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Boko Haram. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:55, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Signedzzz Gutting material claiming copyvio

It seems he is concerned about the UN material. Our policy on copyright says:

Works of the United Nations

In short: parliamentary documentation (official records, such as resolutions) and documents not offered for sale are in the public domain; other UN documents are copyrighted.

Works of the United Nations or one of its bodies are generally copyrighted.[25][26] In the interest of facilitating dissemination, the UN explicitly excludes some categories of its works from this general copyright and places them into the public domain: UN parliamentary documentation as well as public information material published under the UN document symbol and not offered for sale.[26] Such documents are in the public domain. UN parliamentary documentation comprises a broad set of official reports prepared by the UN secretariat and the UN official records.[27] UN official records are

"publications relating to proceedings of organs or conferences of the United Nations. They include verbatim or summary records, documents and check-lists of documents, issued in the form of annexes to those records, including periodic supplements, such as the quarterly ones of the Security Council; and the reports of those organs of subordinate or affiliated bodies, compilations of resolutions, certain reports of the Secretary-General, and other selected publications"[28] (found here [17]

The material is coming from Reports from "UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs" [18] and these reports are quoted and republished verbatim by other websites like this[1] [2] and many others evidently with no objection from the UN. Therefore I can't see any basis for a claim of copyvio. Legacypac (talk) 21:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Much of what you wrote above is irrelevant. "Works of the United Nations or one of its bodies are generally copyrighted" isn't particularly encouraging. The source says "This report is produced by OCHA in collaboration with humanitarian partners". That was, and still is, enough for me to doubt its copyright status. I would want a second opinion before I could consider quoting large chunks from it. It is questionable in any case whether doing so would improve the article. zzz (talk) 22:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
The underlined words are the important part, but here [19] ask the UN directly. I disagree with your mass removal of the material. Legacypac (talk) 22:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
If you need to ask the UN directly, I suggest you do that. There is a new report every month: are you suggesting adding 7,000 bytes of verbatim quotes per month? Going back how far? I was thinking of adding these reports to External links, then anyone can read them if they want. Per WP:PRIMARY, it is probably inappropriate to copy out chunks from them here. Although, if anyone wanted to summarise them, that might be an idea. zzz (talk) 22:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://reliefweb.int/report/nigeria/lake-chad-basin-crisis-update-no-13-7-march-2017
  2. ^ http://humanitariannews.org/20170510/nigeria-lake-chad-basin-crisis-update-no-15-09-may-2017

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Boko Haram. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Article Maintenance Template

Three maintenance templates were recently added to the top of the article without explanation. They were:

  • Article needs to be updated;
  • Factual accuracy may be compromised due to out-of-date information; and
  • Article is incomplete.

These were then combined into a "multiple issues" template and the "needs to be updated" was dropped. Neither the "out-of-date information" nor the "incomplete" warnings seem valid to me.

The article has been continuously updated, and includes information current through at least the second quarter of 2016. The article has been carefully written to identify the time at which each event happened, and in most cases when specific sources commented on Boko Haram. If there is an issue with this somewhere in the article, the specific statement (or at a minimum, section) should be flagged so that other editors will know how to fix it. As it stands, I'm at a loss to even know where to look in the article for the problem. If the issue is that there's nothing on 2017 yet, let's say so - and not put a scare template at the top suggesting that the entire article is somehow tainted.

The article is also quite extensive. Doubtless there is more that could be included, but that's true of any Wikipedia article. There is certainly no reason to believe the article is so incomplete as to be fundamentally misleading to the reader. If there's something missing, please explain what it is on the Talk page (or better year, find a couple of sources and add it). EastTN (talk) 14:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the article is fundamentally misleading to the reader. There are actually two groups spoken of in this article. One is Jamā'at Ahl as-Sunnah lid-Da'wah wa'l-Jihād, commonly known as Boko Haram, lead by Abu Bakr Shekau, which is an independent group And the other is Islamic State West Africa Province (Wilayat Garb Ifriqiyah), led by Abu Musab al-Barnawi, which is part of the Islamic State.

They separated in August 2016 after Shekau defied IS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and was replaced as leader by Abu Musab He then went back to leading fighters under his original groups name.

This fact is actually stated in the body of the article (under the 2016 section "Weakening and split", but the lede has not been corrected to reflect this and speaks of them as one group. Two separate articles are needed. This one should remain for the group known as 'Boko Haram'

And the article needs to be entirely cleaned up. The majority of the article is simply news. Large blocks of text with random list of attacks, the majority non-significant. Wikipedia is not news. The whole "campaign of violence" section needs to be edited.

I will just go ahead and make some improvements...Kuching7102 (talk) 00:44, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

They don't know that:

killing people does not constitute the supposed personhood of the Universe (the god/allah) actual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4100:5800:5584:67A3:6753:D00C (talk) 05:02, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Move

Please request at WP:REQUESTED MOVES if you wish to make a such a major name change.The common name appears to be Boko Haram and not ISIS West Africa.For a community discussion.Thanks Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:06, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

"Educaton is a sin" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Educaton is a sin. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 25#Educaton is a sin until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Reyk YO! 08:24, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Must've missed discussion. Where might I continue it? Bokoharamwatch (talk) 19:13, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

NW Nigeria

Apparently just heard that sokoto and environs have pledges to the terrorists. Bokoharamwatch (talk) 17:45, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable published source that documents this? -- Beland (talk) 17:54, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
I thought it wasn't noticed. The source was P Okwoche on Focus on Africa. Perhaps I may need do some research.... Bokoharamwatch (talk) 13:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

"Educaton is sin" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Educaton is sin. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 26#Educaton is sin until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC678 06:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Is this a duplicate of above? Anyway, the topic above is not found there. Bokoharamwatch (talk) 16:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

No, because the redirect above includes a inbetween is & sin. Jim Michael (talk) 17:36, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

ISWAP

Boko Haram and the Islamic State West Africa Province are connected and aren't enemies, however they are not the same organization. Since 2016, thousands of Boko Haram members decided to be loyal to the Islamic State and formed their own organization, the ISWAP. Thousands more militants remained loyal only to Abubakar Shekau, the Boko Haram's leader. I think that they should be separated with two articles, as several recent attacks carried out by the Islamic State are reported as executed by Boko Haram militants. Gianluigi02 (talk) 13:26, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I think you should create and new article for ISWAP.--Garmin21 (talk) 23:52, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Currently, the article is confusing and misleading to the reader as there are two groups mentioned. Based on this comment, I am proposing to split split the article in two:

Boko Haram, led by Abu Bakr Shekau, and the Islamic State West Africa Province (Wilayat Garb Ifriqiyah), which is part of the Islamic State. Both split in August 2016. [20]

See the French Wikipedia article. --Fontaine347 (talk) 22:34, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

The french are always ahead of us. Said this before. Bokoharamwatch (talk) 19:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment: JAS has been reportedly dissolved and incorporated into ISWAP with the ISWAP offensive and the death of Shekau.--Garmin21 (talk) 03:06, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Support Absolutely necessary. One group just attacked & killed the leader of the other! Gabrielthursday (talk) 04:26, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Support Due to the recent conflict, I think it's necessary to create a new page for ISWAP.ThePaganUK (talk) 17:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Now his death has been confirmed by multiple parties. Perhaps may force consensus in favour of motion. Bokoharamwatch (talk) 06:51, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Support The conflict and the recent confirmation of Shekau's death make this split fully necessary. Nekomancerjade (talk) 17:04, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Support Boko Haram split into ISWAP, which has existed for a while, and a rump group loyal to Shekau. Shekau was recently killed by ISWAP militants which essentially forces a split. I support this. Dabaqabad (talk) 19:14, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Support an ISWAP article being created. Jim Michael (talk) 17:36, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Not jihadist

Jihad isn't terror, terror isn't jihad. There is no killing civilians in the definition of jihad. It'd be more approprate if we eject "Jihadist" word. İsmail Kendir (talk) 12:49, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Once again you repeat the same mistake you're making across the board here on Wikipedia: you argue that your opinion should take precedence over sources. You've been told by multiple users already that that is not how Wikipedia works, and you've been warned by multiple users that your behaviour is disruptive. Jeppiz (talk) 13:07, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
This ain't my opinion. Jihad isn't terror, jihad is an Arabic word which literally means striving or struggling, especially with a praiseworthy aim.[1][2][3][4] In an Islamic context, it can refer to almost any effort to make personal and social life conform with Allah's guidance, such as struggle against one's evil inclinations, proselytizing, or efforts toward the moral betterment of the ummah, though it is most frequently associated with war.[1][2][5][6] In Islamic law, the term refers to armed struggle against unbelievers, scholars equate military jihad with defensive warfare.[2][3][7] There is no targeting of civilians anywhere in this definition. Since I gave seven cites at this message; you probably understood neither Boko Haram, nor ISIS, nor any other terrorist does not jihading
Reliable sources describe Boko Haram as "Jihadist". Whether you think that it is a correct terminology or not is not relevant for Wikipedia. Furthermore, I strongly recommend you to stop claiming others "don't understand". In your short time on Wikipedia, you have already received multiple warnings from several users over your edit warring and disruptive behavior. Instead of claiming that all experienced editors are wrong and only you are right, now is the time to change how you interact and edit here. Jeppiz (talk) 13:52, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
This is not my think or a controversial issue: attacking civilians is not jihad due to definition of jihad. It is absolutely not correct to equate this definition with terrorism, terror is different, jihad is much different. To give an example, wasn't there been any organization claiming they were demand freedom, although to they stole innocent peoples' lifes? Can we call these people humane? Can't we say if even the situation of that reliable sources show them as "seekers of the rights" does not change this result. Because what they do does not match what they say. That's all I wanted to and can to say. I end this discussion here since I have run out of my English vocabulary and what I can do. You guys are authorized, and I am a poor user who wants justice. For this reason, I leave this issue to your conscience, I leave here with the pride of knowing that I'm rightious and return to my job. Have a nice day. İsmail Kendir (talk) 14:46, 4 April 2021 (UTC
This user is indefinitely blocked on turkish Wikipedia.Shadow4dark (talk) 16:06, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I've heard this before, but it might not be enough to change it. The maker of the film my brother the islamist met a researcher who differentiated btw the two, if memory serves well. Probably for wiki p islam. Bokoharamwatch (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Not all jihad is terrorism, but there's a common type of Islamic terrorism called jihadism, which BH & ISIL easily fit the definition of. Jim Michael (talk) 17:36, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b John L. Esposito, ed. (2014). "Jihad". The Oxford Dictionary of Islam. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Archived from the original on 3 September 2014. Retrieved 29 August 2014.
  2. ^ a b c Peters, Rudolph; Cook, David (2014). "Jihād". The Oxford Encyclopedia of Islam and Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acref:oiso/9780199739356.001.0001. ISBN 9780199739356. Archived from the original on 23 January 2017. Retrieved 24 January 2017.
  3. ^ a b Tyan, E. (2012). "D̲j̲ihād". In P. Bearman; Th. Bianquis; C.E. Bosworth; E. van Donzel; W.P. Heinrichs (eds.). Encyclopaedia of Islam (2nd ed.). Brill. doi:10.1163/1573-3912_islam_COM_0189.
  4. ^ Jackson, Roy (2014-02-05). What is Islamic Philosophy?. Routledge. p. 173. doi:10.4324/9781315817552. ISBN 978-1-315-81755-2. S2CID 55668951.
  5. ^ Gerhard Böwering, Patricia Crone, ed. (2013). "Jihad". The Princeton Encyclopedia of Islamic Political Thought. Princeton University Press. Literally meaning "struggle,", jihad may be associated with almost any activity by which Muslims attempt to bring personal and social life into a pattern of conformity with the guidance of God.
  6. ^ Roy Jackson (2014). What is Islamic philosophy?. Routledge. p. 173. ISBN 978-1317814047. jihad Literally 'struggle' which has many meanings, though most frequently associated with war.
  7. ^ Cite error: The named reference hallaq334 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Aliases, alternatives

I also remember they were called the nigerian taliban, the same way those mozambiqan people, ie their insurgents& friends over there, were known as taliban or shabab.

There was a '15 aljazeera docc about boko haram that said it was known as yan yusufi or yusufiyah .

How to reference this? Bokoharamwatch (talk) 19:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

If you could link the source in the edit, and if it's common enough, I'd say you can just put an "also referred to as" in the header. Nekomancerjade (talk) 17:09, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Here, see works by Okoye, FC Onuoha & I Aghedo (all separately). Bokoharamwatch (talk) 12:54, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Believe found film. Either

Watch "The Origins of Boko Haram"- Al Jazeera Documentary (http://omojuwa.com › 2015/01 › watch-the-origins-of-bo.) ...or Boko Haram: Behind the Rise of Nigeria's Armed Group - Al ... (http://www.aljazeera.com › program › 2016/12/22 › b...) Bokoharamwatch (talk) 15:42, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boko_Haram/Archive_4&oldid=1148442846"