Talk:al-Qaeda

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2023

Change "fatawas" in the first sentence of paragraph 3 to either fatawa or fatāwā. This is already the plural form; a final "s" is redundant and incorrect. Even "fatwas" (used elsewhere in the article) would be better than what's currently there. 2600:1700:3EC7:4150:3CD2:E660:A0DF:A704 (talk) 03:35, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done ~ Eejit43 (talk) 04:08, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Page extensively edited by block-evading sockpuppet TatesTopG

This page was extensively edited, with the lead almost entirely rewritten, by the block-evading sockpuppet TatesTopG: see [1]. In such cases, to apply WP:BANREVERT/WP:EVADE I often restore the revision immediately preceding the sockpuppet's first edit to the page and then reinstate good edits where possible. However, in this case there were frequent large edits, especially by Shadowwarrior8 and GreenCows, which made this impracticable. Could editors of this page instead manually revert the sockpuppet's changes where necessary? Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:28, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

The changes made by the blocked account were mostly overwitten by subsequent edits. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 14:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Great to hear, thanks! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:37, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2023

Change the line "In his 2004 book Ghost Wars, Steve Coll writes that the CIA had contemplated providing direct support to the foreign mujahideen, but that the idea never moved beyond discussions.[468]" to "In his 2004 book Ghost Wars, Steve Coll writes that while the CIA had contemplated providing additional support to the foreign mujahideen beyond contributing funding, such as planning to incorporate radical anti-Soviet Islamic groups into an "international brigade," the idea never moved beyond discussions.[468]"

The reason for this change is that the source used here does not align with the conclusion and implication in the current sentence. Given its location in the section arguing against CIA involvement, use of the word "direct" implies that there was no involvement whatsoever, which is not what Coll argues. Here is the text of the passage that is being cited:

"From Pakistan arrived reports of a new group called the Islamic Salvation Foundation that had been formed in Peshawar to recruit and support Arab volunteers for the Afghan jihad, outside the control of any of the ISI-backed rebel parties. The network was operating offices and guesthouses along the Afghan frontier. Osama bin Laden, a wealthy young Saudi, was spreading large sums of money around Peshawar to help the new center expand. He was tapping into ISI’s guerrilla training camps on behalf of newly arrived Arab jihadists. The early reports of his activity that were passed along to the CIA’s Counterterrorist Center in this period suggested that bin Laden “certainly was not engaged in any fighting. He was not a warrior,” recalled Stanley Bedington, a senior analyst at the center from its beginning. Still, “When a man starts throwing around money like that, he comes to your notice."

When they first learned of efforts by bin Laden and allied Islamic proselytizers to increase the number of Arab volunteers fighting the Soviets, some of the most ardent cold warriors at Langley thought this program should be formally endorsed and expanded. The more committed anti-Soviet fighters, the better, they argued. As more and more Arabs arrived in Pakistan during 1985 and 1986, the CIA “examined ways to increase their participation, perhaps in the form of some sort of ‘international brigade,’ but nothing came of it,” Robert Gates recalled." Bisettes (talk) 04:03, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: I don't read the passage that you've quoted from as establishing that Coll's argument is that the CIA provided some other kind of support. Rather, it seems to confirm what the current sentence in the article states, "that the CIA contemplated providing direct support", but ultimately did not. Is there another passage in the book that discusses other forms of support that the CIA provided? voorts (talk/contributions) 03:16, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2023

Change flag to the original and real one SonicXMasako2 (talk) 00:39, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.

You need to specify which is the "original and real" flag, and provide reliable sources to support that change. Xan747 (talk) 02:26, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

al-Qaeda capitalization

Should Al-Qaeda be capitalized? I believe it normally isn't. FinnSoThin (talk) 06:55, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion, it should only when it is the first letter of a sentence or the first word of a title. (For titles, it would be like how “the” is only capitalised if it is the first word.)

In other words, I personally would capitalise the “Al-Qaeda in the title of this article. AmberWing1352 (talk) 01:50, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Agree. And the criterion is not Arabic rules of grammar, but how English sources spell it. Also, while many source use a hyphen, it seems to be a minority usage and we might consider changing it. TFD (talk) 04:10, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I just did a search inside Google Chrome, because that gave me counts of matches. "Al-Qaeda" reported 33.8 million matches. "Al Qaeda" reported only 29.4 million. However, "case:yes Al-Qaeda" reported only 3.83 million, while "case: yes Al Qaeda" reported 4.18 million. In sum, "Al-Qaeda" is preferred over "Al Qaeda" UNLESS I restricted the search using "case:yes", which flipped the preference.

AND using "case:yes" showed NO differences between "al-Qaeda" and "Al-Qaeda", etc.

My tentative conclusion:

1. Leave the title as is.
2. Change "Al-Qaeda" to "al-Qaeda" everywhere in this article except when it begins a sentence or appears in the title of something cited.

I will make those changes now. Currently, the article is inconsistent. I will make it consistent per this rule.

Someone else can do something different, if they wish ;-)

Thanks to all who have brought this article to its current status. DavidMCEddy (talk) 01:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)