Talk:Al-Qaeda/Archive 11

Consensus on Iran-AQ link section User:TheTimesAreAChanging
I am new in talking and reaching consensus.

Anyways..

1)You stated that I am apparently a ''KSA linked account". This is false. If I was I would have done other info to white-wash KSA or its rulers. Infact, I don't deny that KSA did finance AQ affiliates across Yemen, Syria, etc. So did USA at one point in 80s, which is rarely acknowledged. (Directly or indirectly)

2) The fact that KSA & USA used to do this doesn't negate that other countries haven't. Infact, Pakistan have alleged of supporting it. However, what is proof is there is clear evidence of the Iranian regime aiding or abetting Al-Qaeda.

3) Its the 9/11 Commission report, various US Supreme Court judges that substantiated the connections of Iran and Al Qaeda as well as its support in various terror attacks. Are these Saudi or pro-Israel/neo-con think tank lobbies as well?

4) Statements of Iranian Generals themselves admitting their support to Al Qaeda. Are IRGC generals Saudi or pro-Israel/neo-con think tanks?

5) Statements of Bin Laden and Zawahiri themselves confirming their support from Iran. Are they too Saudi or neo-con think tanks?

6) Reporting of New York Times which reported the assassination of AQ no.2 in Iran. This is a *fact*, not fiction. A real event. Is NYT too Saudi or neo-con Think Tank?

7) Statements from Democratic Bill Clinton administration report on Embassy bombings, these are not "think tank interpretations". Its a statement which directly blamed Iran (in addition to Sudan)

8) Obama Administration, considered the most pro-Irab administration, sanctioning Iranian officials for harbouring AQ leaders. Is Obama too a neo-con?

9) The statements of Trump is as the President of U.S.A, not as a politician. Either way, Trump is a paleo-con and isolationist. So no grounds to delete his statement.

10) Pompeo is the only neo-con that was quoted who spat with Iran after assassination of Al Misri, AQ no.2. Again, the statement is as US secretary of state, not politician Pompeo. How can reporting facts be censured under the labels "neo-con", "Saudi" , or whatever?

These are all political positions and it has nothing to do with facts. To link facts to a political position and then ban facts for being allegedly "political" ?

These perceptions are incorrect. First, you linked me with KSA. (Again assumptions based on your own political/individual tastes or biases) Then you said I made a lot of copyright violations. I agree. I am new here. And I didn't quite understand it. A moderator unbanned me after screening.

Even by your own reasons, you only have a problem with Pompeo speech(last section) on Iran-AQ axis since he's the only neo-con quoted. Even then, that needn't be deleted. I shall quote a refutation of Pompeo for exaggerating Iran-AQ ties.(which is probably true)

Even then, you need to understand that Pompeo's mainstream detractors didn't necessarily challenge Iran-AQ ties itself, only his exaggeration of it. The fact of an Iran-AQ strategic cooperation is now an established fact across all (mainstream)sections of geo-strategy/counter-terror experts. They only differ over its depth.

Hope you will reply User:TheTimesAreAChanging Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 11:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see any academic specialists in your edit; your statement here contains a number of errors or unsubstantiated claims, such as the reference to "various US Supreme Court judges." I'm not sure what you mean by "(mainstream)sections of geo-strategy/counter-terror experts" in "The fact of an Iran-AQ strategic cooperation is now an established fact across all (mainstream)sections of geo-strategy/counter-terror experts," but if you are alluding to think tanks such as The Heritage Foundation, then I reiterate that academic specialists are the gold standard on Wikipedia. In any case, devoting 10% of this entire article to nebulous theories about a covert Iran–al Qaeda alliance without even mentioning Iran's efforts to combat al Qaeda in Yemen, Syria, and elsewhere would be a particularly glaring example of WP:UNDUE weight.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 12:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

"various US federal court Judges", that was my typo.

By "mainstream sections of geo-strategy & counter-terror experts" i meant everyone who isn't working for Iranian regime or its allies/proxies. (Never mind that both Iran & AQ did acknowledge these relations)

If you don't like Heritage, see: Lawfare. https://www.lawfareblog.com/making-sense-iran-and-al-qaedas-relationship Lawfare institute is in cooperation with Brookings Institute both Liberal International thinktanks, nothing to do with neo-cons. One of the writers is a postdoctoral fellow at the Center for International Security and Cooperation (CISAC) at Stanford uni. Is he promoting "wild theories" as well?

Next,see what Obama era Committe on Homeland Security published in 2013. "Furthermore, Iran facilitated al-Qaeda members' travel in and out of Afghanistan prior to 9/11." Source:https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-113hhrg85684/html/CHRG-113hhrg85684.htm

It details Iranian ties to Al Qaeda. Also 2 former 9/11 Commission members disagreed with the Commission Report conclusion stating that Iran had direct involvement in 9/11 attacks. Are all these "nebulous theories" as well?

Also you didn't give a convincing reply to all my points which I wrote lengthy.Iran-AQ ties are acknowledged by Wikipedia elsewhere as well in "Iran and state-sponsored terrorism" article.

Anyways, I am undoing your deletion. I shall delete the statements of Pompeo (although in my view there's no reason except the alarming tone and more content) If you want anymore corrections, do reply.

User:TheTimesAreAChanging Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 14:05, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Disputed contents would better be well discussed before being added to such an important page. There is a famous saying: "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources"– WP:EXTRAORDINARY. The user is adopting some weird sources to reach a weird conclusion (Can I call them fringe theories?). The user is trying to make the false impression that there had been some relationships established between Iran and Al-Qaeda, without trying to support the claims by strong sources such as scholarly ones. Same goes to the rest of the this huge amount of content. The user is advised to practice engaging discussion instead of committing edit war. They need to take into account that "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."– WP:ONUS -- M h hossein   talk 13:08, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I fundamentally disagree with 's approach and share 's concerns over this disputed content. The spectrum of opinion found in RS is much broader than that of the Brookings Institution versus The Heritage Foundation, or of Obama-era U.S. officials versus Trump-era U.S. officials. Nevertheless, while it is biased and U.S.-centric, I can certainly understand why the Iran and state-sponsored terrorism article relies on such sources to a large extent, because those are often the primary sources for allegations related to Iranian sponsorship of terrorist groups. The issue is one of framing and local consensus, which tends to privilege adherents of a certain viewpoint almost by design, and similar problems likely exist in comparable articles such as Israel and state-sponsored terrorism or United States and state-sponsored terrorism, to say nothing of, e.g., Mass killings under communist regimes. However, we are not discussing Iran and state-sponsored terrorism, but rather the general high-level article on Al-Qaeda. Devoting 10% of Al-Qaeda to content copied (without proper attribution, as far as I can tell) from Iran and state-sponsored terrorism—with the notable omission of the latter article's brief "Opposing view" subsection—poses a massive WP:UNDUE weight problem. Does the average general-interest or academic text on al-Qaeda (which would be the appropriate analogue for this page) really focus so heavily on "connections" between Sunni Arab al-Qaeda and Shiite Persian Iran? I think that the answer is obviously no, and certainly nothing remotely close to those proportions (i.e., at least one page on Iran for every ten pages written about al-Qaeda) has been documented in any analysis of the voluminous coverage of al-Qaeda in academic or even general-interest sources. By comparison, the section on "Alleged Saudi and Emirati involvement" is a mere two sentences in length!TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

User:TheTimesAreChanging User:Mhhossein Okay I shall fundamentally decrease the section. However the claim that I didn't use "scholarly" source is false. 9/11 Commission Report is "something" unscholarly?

I shall decrease the contents. Obviously, total deletion of the section is not the way. If there's still contentions, do raise it here. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 05:46, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

User:TheTimesAreAChanging OK I agree that relations with other countries and AQ isn't something to be expanded. I ll try to limit it to less than 5 para Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 05:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

User:TheTimesAreAChanging I have decreased the content, this should do. However, some have tried to frame me for trying to "establish an Iranian relationship with Al Qaeda" which "doesn't exist". Obviously it does. It "doesnt exist" in the "worldview" of the allegators, either due to ignorance or biased by individual/political tastes. All the sources are from various federal court judges, the distinguished 9/11 Commission report, Obama-Clinton era state officials, admission of AQ as well as Iranian leaders, as well as real world events(for which there is no 2 interpretations). The propagators who just blindly reject all these proofs and facts are the ones actually embarking in "conspiracy or fringe theories". In addition, the AQ leadership itself is holed up in Iran, is that a "conspiracy theory" as well? Also to see international power relations in solely sectarian or political outlook is clearly childish. In politics, power trumps ideology. There are numerous examples throughout history wherein totally opposite camps( whether be it religion, sect,race or politics) have joined forces for perceived common interests. To ignore all this as "fringe conspiracy theory" is frankly ignorance or result of biased outlook.

Either way, I have shortened the data(which was a legit point). I hope there's no more issue.

If there are contentions,please do not delete, rather raise the issue for discussion. Thanks Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 07:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @ and @, I remain dissatisfied with at least the final two paragraphs of this disputed content, as they are (very) poorly sourced, misrepresent the main thrust of bin Laden's communication with his followers, and include WP:SYNTHy statements from Trump and to a lesser extent Pompeo that fail to actually demonstrate the existence of an Iranian alliance of convenience with elements of al Qaeda. Trump is not generally considered a reliable source for factual statements and his assertion that Iran is a "leading state sponsor of terror" is based primarily on Iranian sponsorship of Shi'ite groups, especially Hezbollah, not al Qaeda in particular. The reliability of the Voice of America and Radio Farda citations in the last paragraph is also suspect, not least of all as they are being used to advance a rather extraordinary claim. As before, there are no academic sources in these paragraphs.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

User:TheTimesAreAChanging It was never my intention "to demonstrate" Iranian support for Al Qaeda here. I am stating some facts and giving a summary. Mhhossein is also an active pro-Iranian wiki editor constantly creating Wikipedia articles in favour of Iran. (starting whole articles titled "alleged Saudi role in 9/11 attacks" as well as other pro-Iranian articles) etc. My writings ofcourse are not like that. And inevitably to use such a partisan like him as "moderator" in the dispute is unacceptable.

1) Trump is "not generally considered reliable" - depends upon the political side you are on. Again these are all assertions, not factual statements and even if we assume he isn't, it doesn't matter here. Since he is quoted here for allegations, not proving. Second, Trump's abrogation of nuclear deal and face-of with Iranian admin was a historical event and it is recorded here. 2) Not really. If you read that letter, it would be revealed that one of the primary objectives was to urge his followers not to clash with Iran, rather cooperate with it and Al Qaeda has never attacked Iran. 3) as for "extraordinary claims", this appears extraordinary to you since you have taken up to defend the Iranian government. This is a news, real-world event. Either way, I shall put more sources into it.

Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 05:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @Shadowwarrior8: Firstly, you need to immediately stop making ad hominem comments against other users. Concentrate on the content, not the users. You can take it as a warning. Now going through your, at best, SYNTHY compilation of POVs:


 * – Iran had established relations with Al-Qaeda allegedly since the 1990s. This YOUR conclusion which is bein awkwardly Wikivoiced here by you. It's not that of the reliable sources (also don't tell me Rafizadeh's stories in Arab News are your RSs). So, don't use it again (unless you have a reliable source for saying it as a fact).


 * – The 9/11 Commission Report concluded that "the relationship between al Qaeda and Iran demonstrated that Sunni-Shia divisions did not necessarily" pose an insurmountable barrier to cooperation in terrorist operations." This does not mean Iran had supported from the Al Qaida, as YOUR section heading falsely suggests.


 * – Al-Qaeda is also alleged to have played a significant role in the 1996 Khobar Towers Bombings conducted by Saudi Hezbollah Like wise has nothing to Iran Al Qaida story. Don't combine this sentence with others to reach your desired conclusion. It leads to WP:SYNTH.


 * – Bin Laden's letters to his followers wherein he urged them to not be hostile against Iran were found What kind of Iran support do you see here?


 * - Between 2001-2010 Al-Qaeda operatives, including Saif Al-Adel, Saad bin Laden, Abdullah Ahmed Abdullah and Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, had taken up residence in Iran. What the hell? Again you're using RAFIZADEH's unique stories as a source for building an encyclopedia. LOL! How about "A number of al-Qaeda militants and family members of Osama Bin Laden fled to Iran after the US-led invasion of neighbouring Afghanistan in 2001. Iranian officials said they crossed the border illegally and that they were arrested and extradited to their home countries." (BBC).

Also, I stand with the TheTimesAreAChanging saying you can't just base this content on the political accusations made by the politicians like Bush and Trump. I think you need to TNT the contents since they are too SYNYHy. Moreover, what you compiled here does not call for a separated section. I suggest making a draft here instead of engaging in wp:edit war. -- M h hossein   talk 12:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@TheTimesAreAChanging If you didn't reach consensus my mistake, I thought you two guys had settled your dispute. But to say I am an alt-account of Shadowwarrior is just the figment of your imagination. Please don't make stupid remarks Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 19:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Adding timber Sycamore
Timber Sycamore should be included Farbne (talk) 21:15, 20 December 2020 (UTC)


 * , these are the parts of the article on Timber Sycamore that talk about al-Qaeda directly:


 * "US-backed rebels often fought alongside al-Qaeda's al-Nusra Front, and some of the US-supplied weapons ended up in the hands of the al-Nusra Front, which had been a major concern of the Obama administration when the program was first proposed."


 * "Reporter Paul Malone wrote that weapons delivered by Timber Sycamore might be acquired by al-Qaeda in Syria, comparing the program to CIA support for the Afghan mujahideen, or American weaponry being seized by ISIL in 2014 in Mosul, Iraq."


 * The al-Qaeda article is already long. SIZERULE recommends articles be split once they're over 50kB; al-Qaeda is almost 250kB. Is Timber Sycamore strongly enough connected to warrant a spot in the main article?—  A L T E R C A R I   ✍ 00:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Definitely not. Totally beyond due weight in this particular article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Rfc about the Alleged Iranian Involvement Section
Should the "Alleged Iranian Involvement" Section be retained in the Article alongside the "Alleged CIA Involvement" and "Alleged Alleged Saudi and Emirati involvement" sections??

03:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadowwarrior8 (talk • contribs) 04:01, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


 * (Summoned by bot) Comment: Merged both duplicated RFCs. Previous discussion is at . MarioGom (talk) 07:19, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The filer has been blocked for sockpuppetry. MarioGom (talk) 07:39, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, although the section title should be changed to "Iranian involvement" or "Relationship with Iran" because there is more than enough evidence of cooperation between Iran and al-Qaeda. In other words, using the adjective "alleged" is not supported by the cited references. For background, the word alleged means "represented as existing or as being as described but not so proved; supposed." (See definitions provided by other dictionaries as well, e.g., the OED and Merriam-Webster.) [See the subsection below, Importance of writing a clear, comprehensible RfC.] Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 15:24, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No, not as it was written. But, consider something like this possible compromise: Perhaps have one or two sentences concisely summarizing what's written about the topic in the Iran and state-sponsored terrorism article. Then, if a reader is interested, he/she/they can simply click on a link to hop over to Alleged al-Qauda ties since that section seems to reflect a consensus view. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 18:39, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No, the cited sources consist almost entirely of statements by U.S. politicians and think tanks, notably The Heritage Foundation, Brookings Institution, Donald Trump, and Mike Pompeo. I don't believe that these allegations have any support among academic specialists and certainly no academic sources have been presented. These highly questionable assertions are likely to have about the same credibility as similar vaguely-sourced allegations parroted against official enemies of the U.S., such as Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations and Russian bounty program, and should not have been copied-and-pasted (initially without proper attribution and with several COPYVIOs that had to be rev-deleted) from Iran and state-sponsored terrorism by a Saudi-linked WP:SPA that only narrowly avoided indef blocks for both large-scale COPYVIOs and sockpuppetry as a massive POVFORK taking up almost 10% of this entire article. As an aside, the "Alleged Saudi and Emirati involvement" section is only two sentences long and not remotely comparable in length, and Markworthen WP:BOLDLY removing attribution from the Iran section in the middle of an open RfC is an, er, interesting choice.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 15:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * BTW, I did a bit of digging into academic sources on this topic and didn't find much, admittedly, but a 2003 review of the literature on al-Qaeda published by Cambridge University Press states:
 * "Contact, however, is not the same as control. The anonymous intelligence officer contends there is little reason to believe that there is any substantial al-Qaeda cooperation with Iran and its proxy, the Lebanese Hezbollah ... a view endorsed by Benjamin and Simon ... Indeed, Gunaratna himself later notes that al-Qaeda's cooperation with non-Sunnis such as the Lebanese Hezbollah is at most tactical ... Similarly, all the authors are dismissive of any serious links between Saddam's regime and al-Qaeda. Source:"
 * Of course, more recent sources may take a different view of the evidence, but the point remains that academic sources are the gold standard and generally have not given much credence to these allegations. Shadowwarrior8 has presented nothing to suggest that the academic consensus has changed. Shadowwarrior8 did have the decency to attribute statements from U.S. politicians and think tanks that are not reliable for statements of fact presented in wikivoice, but that attribution has since been removed by Markworthen on the grounds that those unreliable or situationally reliable sources do not themselves express any doubt. (Markworthen even included some helpful dictionary definitions of "alleged" to elucidate the semantic point!) The optimal solution, however, is simply to not add a lengthy POV fork to this article that serves only to promote a fringe minority view backed almost exclusively by unreliable or at best situationally reliable sources. In my view, inclusion could be justified only by reference to a far higher standard of sourcing than has been presented to date.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Please see Reliable sources?, below. I am interested in your response. Thank you - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 06:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You're right, I should not have removed "alleged" and "allegedly" given this RfC. At the time I assumed that the evidence for Iran's intermittent support for al-Qaeda was obvious, i.e., I did not realize so many people disagreed. That's what I get for assuming! I apologize for not thinking it through more thoroughly. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 17:49, 22 April 2021 (UTC)


 * No, unless sourced by Reputable sources it should be removed or be changed back to alleged involvement. Think tanks with ties to US defence industry or US politician's opinions aren't unbiased or reputable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dustie (talk • contribs) 01:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Please see Reliable sources?, below. I am interested in your response, i.e., why aren't the sources I listed reliable? Thank you - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 06:23, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No - Sources claiming this aren't even close to being reputable or reliable, but seem to mostly consist of US-based conservative personalities and organizations, some of them with an extensive record of making outrageous and out-right false statements. PraiseVivec (talk) 14:10, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Please see Reliable sources?, below. I am interested in your response, i.e., why aren't the sources I listed reliable? Thank you - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 06:24, 23 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, it should be the sources are clear as daylight. Its a shame certain people here want to drive a certain narrative, we should be unbiased and include it. Thanks. Mrhafs22 (talk) 04:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)


 * No, there aren't reliable sources to back the claim. Idealigic (talk) 11:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * What about the sources I listed below, at Reliable sources?. Aren't they reliable? Thank you - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 06:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Maybe. Without seeing the contested text, it's hard to comment. Is it the material deleted in this edit? The deleted material is definitely too long per WP:DUE and includes some questionable sourcing. However, I think there might be some more solid sources and certainly some of the allegations of a link (e.g. by the US and Yemeni government) are themselves noteworthy. A super quick and dirty search throws these up, not necessarily all good enough sources but of sufficent scale to suggesting there is something noteworthy for us to cover:    On some of the nost noteworthy allegations:   BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:59, 21 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes. The allegations themselves are noteworthy. Ifly6 (talk) 03:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No The sources that reported the claims are not reliable. Sea Ane (talk) 03:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes These are well-documented allegations that go back 30 years. The less-reliable sources can easily be replaced with better ones. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 01:30, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No: As I said before, the section is Wikivoicing challenging claims by synthesizing some dubious sources. "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources"– WP:EXTRAORDINARY These synthy materials certainly can not have a stand alone section– which then implies a false impression. -- M h hossein   talk 12:24, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No because, as the suggested version tells, "the 9/11 Commission Report concluded that neither Iran nor Hezbollah were aware of the planning of the 9/11 attacks". That particular finding by the Commission must be noted somewhere on the page, but not as a separate section. I would also shorten the section about the CIA. My very best wishes (talk) 15:13, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources?
→ Please explain why the following are not reliable sources:


 * Gunaratna, Rohan (2002). Inside Al Qaeda: Global Network of Terror. Columbia University Press. pp. 147. ISBN 9780231126922. Retrieved February 2, 2019. The Al Qaeda team included Abu Talha al-Sudani, Saif al-Islam el-Masry, Salem el-Masry, Saif al-Adel and other trainers, including Abu Jaffer el-Masry, the explosives expert who ran the Jihad Wal camp Afghanistan. In addition to developing this capability with Iranian assistance, Al Qaeda also received a large amount of explosives from Iran that were used in the bombing of the East African targets. The training team brought Hezbollah training and propaganda videos with the intention of passing on their knowledge to other Al Qaeda members and Islamist groups.


 * 9/11 Commission Report (22 Jul 2004).


 * Treasury Targets Al Qaida Operatives in Iran, U.S. Dep't Treasury (16 Jan 2009).


 * Samuel Rubenfeld, Treasury Places Sanctions on al Qaeda Operative in Iran, Wall Street Journal (18 Oct 2012).


 * Assessing the Threat to the Homeland From Al-Qaeda Operations in Iran and Syria, House Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence, 22 May 2013. - There is a lot in this hearing transcript, and not just from Republicans or conservative think tanks, by the way. (Plus, not all conservative, neoconservative, or you-call-it-conservative think tanks are unreliable sources, as some of you seem to believe.) Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 17:17, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , you should be careful not to WP:BLUDGEON this RfC. There is no need for you to personally respond to every comment that you find objectionable. The closer will already know that they are to discount the less substantive "votes" cast for either side.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:56, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I wanted individuals who assert that there were "no reliable sources" in the (now deleted) section to provide more explanation. I did not intend to "bludgeon" anyone.
 * I am surprised at how many people, including you, claim that there are no reliable sources but you do not go any further than "claiming", i.e., you don't explain why something like the 9/11 Commission report is not—according to you and others—a reliable source. (If you do believe it is a reliable source, please let me know.) Instead, you concentrate on chastising me. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 07:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The 9/11 Commission found circumstantial evidence of cooperation between Hezbollah and al Qaeda in the years preceding the September 11 attacks, but no direct connection between Iran and the attacks; the al Qaeda operatives whose testimony was cited in the report denied any connection with Hezbollah and stated that the only reason for al Qaeda members to transit Iranian territory was to exploit the Iranian practice of not stamping Saudi passports. The commissioners devoted just two pages to this matter and suggested that it merited further investigation. While I see no particular issue with citing that primary source somewhere in this article, I doubt that its content would be sufficient to establish WP:WEIGHT for the lengthy "Iran" subsection proposed by the now-indeffed Shadowwarrior8. As an aside, the literature review that I quoted from above makes clear that Gunaratna took the most expansive view of Iranian ties to al Qaeda out of several experts quoted in 2003, so there is an element of cherry-picking in the presentation of the sources above, and that even "Gunaratna himself later notes that al-Qaeda's cooperation with non-Sunnis such as the Lebanese Hezbollah is at most tactical."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Retain section until this RfC concludes
An editor deleted the entire Alleged Iranian Involvement section, while this RfC was underway. Perhaps I am missing something, but shouldn't we wait until the RfC is concluded before we delete the section under discussion? Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 18:00, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The point of this RfC is to determine whether disputed content belongs in article space. Constantly edit warring said content into article space prior to the RfC's closure is disruptive behavior.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:20, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll leave it to you all to sort out. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 18:39, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Importance of writing a clear, comprehensible RfC
I was summoned by the feedback request service bot to this RfC. The RfC asked "Should the 'Alleged Iranian Involvement' section be retained ..." (emphasis added). At that time (15:24 UTC, 19 April 2021), the section was still in the article. In my initial reply, I said that yes, I thought the section should be retained. Afterwards, someone deleted the section. I restored it because my understanding was that the RfC asked if we should retain a currently existing section of the article. It was deleted again, and I restored it again. I was then told (informally) I was edit warring and being disruptive.

I eventually understood that the section was actually added recently by what turned out to be a sockpuppet. I then understood why the section was deleted.

The disagreements I just described could have been avoided if the RfC had been written clearly, e.g., "Should the 'Alleged Iranian Involvement' section be included?" and if the RfC was more readily comprehensible, particularly to editors summoned by a bot and new to the discussion, e.g., "Note that the section, a copy of which can be seen in this diff, does not currently exist in the article because it was added without consensus and immediately proved controversial. Therefore, this RfC was initiated to determine if we should include such a section."

Having said all that, please note the following:


 * I understand that the RfC was written by a contentious editor who was soon identified as a sockpuppet. I also realize that information was added referencing previous discussions.


 * I am not blaming anyone for the less-than-perfect RfC. I am also not blaming anyone of negligence, i.e., for not editing the RfC to improve it's clarity and comprehensibility.


 * I believe that editors who interacted with me acted in good faith.


 * I should not have changed the name of the since-deleted section (I removed "alleged" and reworded the section title.)

Thank you - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 14:46, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Add "Iran - Alleged Al-Qaeda involvement" to See also?
I was going to add Iran - Alleged Al-Qaeda Involvement to See also, but given the very recent RfC I thought it best to seek consensus first. My rationale for this addition is that we note in the infobox "Alleged, Denied", therefore it seems appropriate to provide further information about the controversy. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 18:17, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Since it's been 12 days with no comment, I added "Iran - Alleged Al-Qaeda ties" to "See also". Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 04:13, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

"Widely regarded as terrorist"
Currently the article describes AlQaeda as terrorist in wikivoice. Personally, I agree they are a terrorist org but according to MOS:TERRORIST we should probably write this as "widely described as a terrorist organization". So I'll make that change.VR talk 04:06, 9 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I have just changed it. It does not need to be in that sentence as the next paragraph states which states (pun intended) designate it a terrorists organisation. See "Let the facts speak for themselves" -- PBS (talk) 18:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

al-Zawahiri bin Laden's mentor?
Qutb also influenced bin Laden's mentor, Ayman al-Zawahiri.

I have serious doubts if al-Zawahiri can be described as bin Laden's mentor.

This declaration of war made no mention of Zawahiri’s lifelong goal of overthrowing the “near-enemy” Egyptian regime and instead was focused on bin Laden’s “far-enemy” goal of attacking America. Nor did the declaration cite Sayyid Qutb, Zawahiri’s key ideological guide, who had made the case in the 1960s that secular Arab regimes should be overthrown. Instead, the declaration cited the medieval Islamic scholar Ibn Taymiyya, who had advanced the idea that jihad was the most important duty of a Muslim after belief in Allah. Bin Laden had co-opted Zawahiri to be part of his holy war against the United States, not the other way around, which was the dominant narrative in the years after the 9/11 attacks.

p. 92

The urtext for the view that Zawahiri wielded Svengali-like influence over bin Laden was Lawrence Wright’s story in The New Yorker, “The Man Behind Bin Laden,” published a year after the 9/11 attacks. The article asserted that “according to officials in the C.I.A. and the F.B.I., Zawahiri has been responsible for much of the planning of the terrorist operations against the United States.” In fact, there is no evidence that Zawahiri had a role in the planning of any of al-Qaeda’s major anti-American attacks against the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, the USS Cole in Yemen in 2000, and 9/11 itself. Wright went on to win a Pulitzer Prize for his 2006 book, The Looming Tower, a book that has many strengths, but that also inflated Zawahiri’s role in bin Laden’s anti-American jihad. Wright did, however, note in The Looming Tower that when Zawahiri merged his small group into al-Qaeda in June 2001, it “was bin Laden’s organization, not Zawahiri’s.” I had also overestimated Zawahiri’s importance to bin Laden’s thinking in my 2001 book, Holy War, Inc. After examining all of the evidence, I have since concluded that Zawahiri was a marginal figure when it came to influencing bin Laden’s views, and he played only a minor role in the actions of al-Qaeda in the years leading up to the 9/11 attacks. This view is also shared by Michael Scheuer, who led the bin Laden unit at CIA from 1996 to 1999; by Daniel Coleman, the FBI agent who investigated bin Laden for six years before 9/11; and by the Egyptian dissident Montasser al-Zayyat, who spent years in prison in Egypt with Zawahiri. Zayyat explained, “Osama bin Laden had an appreciable impact on Zawahiri, though the conventional wisdom holds the opposite to be the case. Bin Laden advised Zawahiri to stop armed operations in Egypt and to ally with him against their common enemies: the United States and Israel.” This was also the conclusion of Noman Benotman, a former leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, who knew both bin Laden and Zawahiri, who said it was bin Laden who told Zawahiri, “Forget about the ‘near enemy’ [the Egyptian government]. The main enemy is the Americans because they dominate the whole area and they’re supporting these Arab regimes.” Abu Walid al-Misri, an Egyptian living in Afghanistan who knew both bin Laden and Zawahiri well, also says that Zawahiri played only a minor role in al-Qaeda before the 9/11 attacks.

In fact, Azzam was bin Laden's mentor.

The Palestinian cleric Abdullah Azzam, who in the mid-1980s would become bin Laden’s key mentor, took up arms against the Israelis after the Israeli army took his hometown in Palestine during the 1967 war. Azzam, then a twenty-six-year-old high school teacher, moved into neighboring Jordan and joined military training facilities known as “the bases of the sheiks,” and he took part in small-scale raids into Israeli territory. These were the beginning of Azzam’s forays into what would become effectively his full-time career of fomenting holy war and also writing influential books inciting jihad.

Psychologically and spiritually, the Afghan jihad shaped bin Laden more than any school had. His mentor, Shaykh Abdullah Azzam, a charismatic Jordanian of Palestinian descent, provided ideological and theological guidance and became a driving force behind bin Laden’s entry into the jihad environment. Bin Laden looked on Azzam as a spiritual father and mentor, and fell under his spell. Azzam was to bin Laden what Qutb was to Zawahiri. Both Azzam and Qutb belonged to a radical Islamist school of thought, though with similarities and differences, and both were martyred.

--Jo1971 (talk) 18:34, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

"Alleged allies" in infobox
Can we please remove these overly cited speculations that countries like United States, Iran, Pakistan, Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates etc.. are "allies" to Al Qaeda from the infobox and restrict them to the text? These overly speculations made by analysts can be contradictory to each other and are mere speculations that are denied by all accused countries. At this point, we can include every country in the world as "allies" to Al Qaeda based on some analysis. Might as well include China, Russia, North Korea, Japan, India, and the whole European union in the infobox without context as the infobox does not provide the platform to explain the context from the sources cited as the text. Gorebath (talk) 04:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Totally agree. It's not how infoboxes should be used. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:40, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Qaedat al-Jihad into Al-Qaeda
The name Qaedat al-Jihad is the formal name of Al-Qaeda as you can see in the beginning of Qaedat al-Jihad article, so why don't we just merge it into al-Qaeda plus the info in this article is added in the page of al-Qaeda. Kiro Bassem (talk) 14:20, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Support 'Qaedat al-Jihad' and Al-Qaeda are the same thing. I don't understand why this page is separate anyways. PatriotMapperCDP (talk) 7:52 PM 22 August 2021 (EST)

Strong Support Yeah, they are the same thing, see Name. 197.52.52.134 (talk) 13:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Support they are the same thing Crimsonlux (talk) 21:38, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Support From reading the Qaedat al-Jihad article, yeah it's ridiculous that the two articles haven't been merged yet. They should be merged and the "official name" should be mentioned in the main al-Qaeda article. --Kaleb David (talk) 15:07, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Support yep, they are the same thing, I wonder why they weren't merged from along time. 102.46.87.122 (talk) 13:49, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Super Support It's just an alternative name. Other articles have (alternatively known as) or (professionally known as) as an introduction. I see no reason why it can't be merged with the parent article. 2406:5A00:B488:1C00:9E04:9E08:7C0A:1DB8 (talk) 12:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Support No reason for a different article when it's just a different name Areferencetopeterkropotkins1892booktheconquestofbread (talk) 17:58, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Support per nom - DownTownRich (talk) 00:44, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Support per nom. It's been more than 5 months since the proposal was submitted. and no one opposed the proposal. So why isn't it being closed? --খাত্তাব হাসান (talk) 09:11, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2022
2A02:A03F:60A0:CA00:F552:69F8:CC10:5FFC (talk) 16:53, 27 April 2022 (UTC) I want add like info on Kosovo and macedonia also allies bc there more than that for example u should put USA (1992-2001)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:56, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Infobox length
Can we trim the infobox? It is ridiculously long, spanning from the lead down four sections on my desktop browser. ― Tartan357  Talk 05:54, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2022
Remove suggestion that the Ukrainian government supports Al-Qaeda. The source does submit any evidence (or even mention, for that matter) an affiliation between the Ukrainian State and the Al-Qaeda organization. For this reason, any such conclusion can certainly be considered unfounded and biased. 190.230.190.222 (talk) 03:05, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ — Sirdog (talk) 03:38, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

"2009 attempted defection of 5 Virginians" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect 2009 attempted defection of 5 Virginians and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 8 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TraderCharlotte (talk) 03:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2022
Saif al-Adel will be the new leader of Al-Qaeda Frisk4o (talk) 04:27, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:08, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

asking
who is the al qeada leader now after the ayman zwahiri 149.54.12.132 (talk) 11:28, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

size of armies
a lot of these army sizes are outdated 66.172.248.7 (talk) 19:12, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2022
It's a shi not suni 212.34.22.136 (talk) 15:45, 7 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. lol1 VNIO  ( I made a mistake?  talk to me ) 17:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Date of foundation is contested
A comment regarding this edit. The date and the founding members are contested and there is no clear evidence that Abdallah Azzam really attended the alleged foundation meeting (he was not even an al-Qaeda member).

p. 353

p. 354

--Jo1971 (talk) 19:34, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:42, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * InfoboxHez.PNG

Page extensively edited by block-evading sockpuppet TatesTopG
This page was extensively edited, with the lead almost entirely rewritten, by the block-evading sockpuppet : see. 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 and, 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)