Talk:Boko Haram/Archive 2

Boko and "bogus"
I had an edit rebuffed because I couldn't find a good enough source, but our boko and list of English words of African origin both say that boko at least may be the origin of the English word "bogus". The rebuffed source said it might actually be based on another word, also suggesting a fraud, "bogo". Anyone have a scholarly source on the matter?

Also, from 1966 has a very useful sounding Google preview "... literacy program in Nigeria. In this instance, there was a prejudice against Roman characters, which were called "boko" (bogus) to distinguish them from the "true" Arabic script of the Koran. This attitude was especially prevalent ... " which I'd like to cite but it is paywalled.

In any case I would hypothesize from the dictionary source I added and statements like this that:

?? At some point, Islamic missionaries must have come in and opened up the first schools in the Hausa region.

?? When Western people came in (colonizers? Christian missionaries?) they would have set up other schools.

?? The attitude must have gotten started that these were bogus schools teaching bogus books written in bogus letters. I suppose if a social group expected a child to come home ready to recite the Koran and instead he is trained in different things, it might seem like a fake??

?? The meaning of the group's name is then something like "Bogus = Sinful". Crucially, the entire work of denigrating Western education as something fake would already be programmed into the language ahead of time. The group need merely take this pre-set targeting mechanism and pull the trigger on it.

?? What strikes me as interesting is that in rhetoric we often see language used to preprogram feelings, but never quite so blatantly. I mean sure, there are racist epithets and in the U.S., people who have nothing are denigrated as "takers" while those who receive fortunes from others' work are called "makers", etc. But has there ever been a case as clear-cut and powerful as this one?

Maybe some thoughts going in a few of these directions can be dredged out of the literature. Wnt (talk) 02:09, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Poco - not Boko
Poco - not Boko — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.232.101.229 (talk) 20:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

their name in Arabic is back to front in the article
It appears as "والجهاد للدعوة السنة أهل جماعة" it should be   "جماعة أهل السنة للدعوةوالجهاد".

I don't have a source but any Arabic speaker will be able to confirm.

If it just a local issue with my browser, I apologize.

205.167.7.193 (talk) 15:00, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It's unlikely.zzz (talk) 21:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 205.167.7.193 is right, the word order was inverted. I've corrected it. --Metron (talk) 21:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Metron, I meant, "it's unlikely to be a browser issue" - I had already changed it to the new version! I've now changed my mind, anyhow, and decided the correct thing is to leave it as written in the ref.zzz (talk) 08:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Background - APC
If you want to delete the mention of the APC etc from the Background section, please feel free to state your reason in this section. zzz (talk) 18:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The BRD said we should come to a resolution rather than to continue to make warring edits and you followed up their recommendation by immediately undoing an edit. That certainly does not seem to be a good faith attempt at dispute resolution. Back to the issue at hand: Talking about a group, African People's Congress (APC), and putting a quote that says they support jihad on the Boko Haram page, makes a reader assume that you are implying that they support Boko Haram, which we both agree they do not. The article specifically states that the writer does not believe and is not implying that APC supports Boko Haram. That important part of the article should be reflected in your summary. You could say, "Though they do not support Boko Haram, various groups, including APC, support religious jihad in northern Nigeria" or however you want to say it. What you should not do is talk about a group on the Boko Haram page include quotes about jihad and violence and then leave it up to the reader to guess if they support Boko Haram or not, when the referenced article SPECIFICALLY states, they DO NOT support Boko Haram. The commentary has nothing to do with Boko Haram and is the statement of APC about themselves and is probably much better suited to the APC page Lipsquid (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The article (and the ref) doesn't say or imply that they support BH.
 * The ref does not say "they DO NOT support Boko Haram" so neither should the article!
 * The article only says what the ref says.
 * The background section is the correct place to give a brief overview of Islamic militancy in Northern Nigeria. zzz (talk) 18:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The article says "While not intending to suggest herein that the APC is Boko Haram, or that the group or its parent organization, the ACF, even supports Boko Haram, those features of the APC which correspond to our perceptions of Boko Haram appear as tantalizing avenues for research." To exclude that the author does not suggest that the APC - ACF supports Boko Haram in your synopsis of the reference is misleading. To continue making the argument that the author also doesn't specifically state they "DO NOT" support Boko Haram is also misleading. The fact that there are many warring factions in Nigeria is relevant to the background and is covered in the article in its current state. There is no need to discuss the statements of only one group and place them, out of context, on the Boko Haram page, they are more fitting for the APC page. Lipsquid (talk) 19:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * After seeing this edit war, I've done a careful read of the ref and the background section as well as other parts of the article here. I agree with Lipsquid's edit - the presentation of a description of APC and the extended quote in the Boko Haram article strongly suggests that this group and individual quoted support Boko Haram, while the source states clearly they do not. On this basis I'm editing the article to reflect this version. Legacypac (talk) 04:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * No, there's nothing to be gained from removing reliable background info from the background section. The main political group representing the interests of Northern Nigeria should definitely be covered. I can't think of any good reason why not, and none has been suggested. zzz (talk) 07:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The only argument I can detect in the above statements is that, having read the description, these two users believe the organisation may be supporters of Boko Haram (although the article makes no such claim). The users are entitled to their opinion, naturally; I fail to see how it follows that the section should be deleted. Obviously (I hope), it goes without saying that, in this or any other Wikipedia article, evidence of such a connection would be clearly and explicitly stated if it was known. zzz (talk) 19:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

We have gone through this several times and there was some consensus that the material was deemed biased. I am reverting your edit and if you change it again without going through dispute resolution, I will ask for an article ban. Enough is enough. Lipsquid (talk) 23:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I actually did not edit the article because the section was already removed when I went to edit it. No more edit warring over this - do not reinsert. Legacypac (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * There is no "consensus that the material was deemed biased" - your opinion does not equal consensus. (I expressed my disagreement with your opinion, above.) zzz (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

An unrelated third party also reviewed the change in question and also deemed it as non-neutral. Opened a request on the Dispute Resolution Board Lipsquid (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Signedzzz is the only one still pushing this. The 3RR case is still open. Legacypac (talk) 01:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I'm picking up this case from the DRN noticeboard. Normally, my primary job here is not to provide my opinion or my position, but to resolve the dispute between the editors so that we can come to a consensual agreement. That being said there has been edit warring and it seems a consensual agreement among editors is unlikely.

Okay. From my perspective the best course of action would be to start fresh. The paragraph of concern is below

"In the APC, one finds a well-financed militant group intimately connected to the heart of Northern Nigerian political power but also connected, albeit through Bugaje, to a fundamentalist ideology opposed to Westernization and Western education in Northern Nigeria. And in the APC one finds a militant group which, one might suspect, possesses in its leaders the military and intelligence expertise to carry out covert paramilitary operations, including bombings.And in the APC one finds also a militant group that, having those things stated, promulgates its intentions to launch into jihad. While not intending to suggest herein that the APC is Boko Haram, or that the group or its parent organization, the ACF, even supports Boko Haram, those features of the APC which correspond to our perceptions of Boko Haram appear as tantalizing avenues for research."

The article is somewhat deceiving, it says one thing while hints another. The article observes and notes the similarities in fundamentalist ideologies that Boko Haram and APC have, and that further research would provide interesting results. The article is open to interpretation, it's trying to hint that the APC may support Boko Haram, while stating that it doesn't want to suggest such a thing, but they very clearly are.

However this is irrelevant. Wikipedia is for facts, and edits must not be made by interpreting articles. The article has not directly stated that APC supports or does not support Boko Haram. We must not interpret articles. If they have not specifically stated either way, then it must not be put in.

I'd advise something along the lines of... "Similarities can be drawn between the fundamentalist ideologies of the APC and Boko Haram, however the APC does not operate as a Jihadist group. It should also be noted that not only is the APC capable of launching Jihad, but such an action would be taken, should leader Sagir Mohammed feel it necessary."

This leaves the interpretation of support up to the reader. It is not wikipedia's job to interpret articles, but simply to give facts. This is the most important point here, and the above statement gives only facts.

Please do not edit the page until the dispute is resolved. If you have any issues or questions, feel free to ask. The traditional length of time to wait to see if someone had objections is a month, however this is because a consensual agreement needs to be reached. In this case, I think it is simply a case of wrong and right. In a week's time, we can see where the discussion is at. Thanks. Doc H e u h (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

This comment by Admin EdJohnston is on point. Legacypac (talk) 20:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this is going to be an issue as user Signedzzz was recently given 3 month ban on all Syria and ISIL related topics and is now facing a similar ban here. I will change the wording to something more neutral and we will see what happens. I entered the request for dispute resolution prior to being aware of ongoing issues so I apologize if I have wasted your time, this may already be solved. Lipsquid (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Redirect needed
There is not yet a redirect at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boko_haram (with a lowercase H) leading to this article, as I just discovered by accident. Maybe someone with an account could take care of this? 50.14.58.71 (talk) 14:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Archive Page needed
Could someone that knows how set up an archive page for this talk page, and something so threads get archived in 30 days? Please and thanks Legacypac (talk) 05:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Done.   White Whirlwind  咨   09:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks - your awesome. Legacypac (talk) 10:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

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 https://justpaste.it/jasdj1


 * 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)

"Wahhabi" in first paragraph of article
I do not believe any mention of "Wahhabi" belongs in the opening paragraph of this article because it is not mentioned in any of the sources I have seen, and the source given seems unreliable. Does anyone else have any opinion? zzz (talk) 17:56, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm removing it: Source is POV, & all other sources disagree with it.zzz (talk) 20:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * @zzz. Please don't label reliable sources as POV. Salafis and Wahhabis are almost the same. See Wahhabi movement and Salafi movement. Al-Qaeda is Wahhabi affiliated, again see Wahhabi movement. Major terrorist organizations in the world have Wahhabist Ideology. You can't deny this. Furthermore, Wahhabis/Salafis call themselves as Sunni but there practices are vastly different from mainstream Sunnis.Thanks.Septate (talk) 06:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, Septate. No sources I have read mention Wahhabi, although they do mention other ideologies. So your attribution of Wahhabi should go in the "Ideology" section, where it can be seen in context with other attributed ideologies, and people can make their own minds up as to which is more valid. Leaving it at the start of the article would imply that the editors have reached a consensus that "Wahhabi" is the main one - this implication would be fraudulent and/or dishonest, since no one has agreed with you! It is written in the infobox, so readers can see that it has been suggested. I called your source POV because, in its opening paragraph, it states "This article will seek to increase Western understanding of Wahhabist Islam", which does not sound Neutral. If it is widely thought to be the main ideology, (which I am certain is not the case, rightly or wrongly) then it should be possible to find other sources. In the "Ideology" section (and elsewhere) there are many sources cited, none of which mention "Wahhabi". zzz (talk) 07:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)(as far as I know.)zzz (talk) 07:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Signedzzz, Please read this, this , this and this and tell me if there is no connection between Wahhabism/Salafism and Boko Haram. Your arguments are baseless. There is a definite connection between Wahhabism and Boko Haram and It needs to be mentioned in the lead.Septate (talk) 10:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Septate. You make your point well. You should put one or two of those refs in the article, since more mainstream sources completely fail to cover this. I thought you had no leg to stand on, but clearly I was wrong. Having seen those, I certainly won't delete without consensus. Thanks for clearing that up. zzz (talk) 11:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Ps. The Ideology section definitely needs sorting out - especially now. zzz (talk) 12:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I now agree about Wahhabi. Other branches are suspect or abandoned. zzz (talk) 23:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

But I moved it to iedeologt section. Lead is for summarising article: article didnt mention Wahhabi. Lead already mentions "Islamist".zzz (talk) 18:33, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Origins
What does "founded as an indigenous group" mean? Indigenous rather than introduced? Does the article mean to imply that it was a racial/racist group? It may be better to go back to first principles, and ask why was it set, and by whom.Royalcourtier (talk) 01:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Puzzled me too. Rothorpe (talk) 01:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

new "Name" section
The old "Etymology" section had got unmanageable, IMO. There's more info in the new version, and it's shorter! zzz (talk) 10:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Men
I've added 'men' to the introductory paragraph. In spite of what the Guardian might have you believe there've been quite a few adult male victims. In fact Africacheck.org states "In addition to the 219 abducted and still held from the raid in Chibok on April 14, it is important to note that many hundreds of other Nigerians – primarily boys and young men but also including young girls and young women – have been abducted over the past five years by the group, some co-opted as members, others whose fates are simply not known." I've no way of judging the truth of that, of course. 105.184.160.62 (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/03/africa/nigeria-boko-haram-kidnapping/index.html abuction of boys and young men just reported, and others before that. Legacypac (talk) 05:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I read somewhere that they are using them for slave labour, moving camp when they can't use vehicles (because of air attack). I've no way of knowing how reliable that info is, tho. However, they have generally been better known for abducting women, so the other abductions should probably not be lumped together in the lead. In particular, the 500 figure from the HRW report refers to women and children. If there is a general report of this nature regarding male abductees, this could be added.zzz (talk) 07:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

They've just abducted 40 boys and young men. There haven't been many mentions in the English language media, true, but that suggests that the fact that they're better known for abducting females than males says more about our prejudices than their activities. They kidnapped 100 boys and young men last August. If anything, a figure of 500 referring to only some of the abductees should be removed in favour of the more general - and documented - '100s'.

105.224.153.147 (talk) 14:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I should have mentioned in my last reply that the lead is just meant to summarise the main points in the article, see WP:MOS. zzz (talk) 14:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I've placed "men" back in so it reads "men, women and children" again using another editors deleted insertion and reference. To only say "women and children" were kidnapped is quite misleading, as Boko Haram seems to be an equal opportunity kidnaping & killing organization. Legacypac (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Criticism
There are many instances of criticism of this group. I would suggest that accurate statements only should be used. The statement by Dr Mu’azu Babangida Aliyu, that "Islam is known to be a religion of peace and does not accept violence and crime in any form" is not correct. Islam is a militant religion. He is correct that "Boko Haram doesn't represent Islam".Royalcourtier (talk) 07:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * "Islam is a militant religion" - according to most of the Muslims in the world, it isn't. But hey who are they to decide what their religion means to them? They're all stupid and uneducated and liars for believing it isn't. . --Somchai Sun (talk) 19:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Islam is a militant religion, according to the Koran and most academics. Islam calls for the spreading of the word by force - by the sword. It is by definition a militantly proselytising religion. If you believe that Moslems are all "stupid and uneducated and liars" that is your view, not mine.Royalcourtier (talk) 01:42, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * All religions have their militant tendencies, so 'a militant religion' doesn't mean much. Rothorpe (talk) 01:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)