Talk:Boko Haram/Archive 3

Links
--Lihaas (talk) 15:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Citadels of learning, Boko Haram’s new slaughter fields
 * UN: Over 1,000 killed in Boko Haram attacks
 * Nigeria seals state border with Cameroon
 * Nigerian gay people being hunted down

More links via http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/citations-the-may-12-2014-trms:
 * http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-22320077
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAncJ3nuczI
 * http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/20/world/africa/seven-members-of-french-family-kidnapped-in-cameroon.html

Article currently doesn't mention kidnapping of french family at all. (not even in timeline)

--Jeremyb (talk) 04:43, 13 May 2014 (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)

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)

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)

boko haram salafist
The group is a salafist jihadist group. Im not sure why there is editors reverting that. It simply doesnt matter that a group of salafists dont believe boko haram follow the "true salafi" teachings what ever that may be. Vietcong nuturlizer (talk) 22:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Timeline of Boko Haram attacks in Nigeria
I suggest that the section Timeline of Boko Haram attacks in Nigeria be changed to Timeline of Boko Haram attacks in West Africa so as to be able to cover attacks and kidnapping in other West African countries such as Cameroon for example this recent attack. Ochiwar (talk) 05:13, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Where is the Timeline section anyway? The current history section is muddled, jumping back and forth between years. We actually need a simple chronological timeline (again). Legacypac (talk) 21:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Section Criticism- International
The last sentence in the above named section states " The American Muslim argues that Boko Haram should not be singled out, as Nigerian Christians are just as violent" with a reference from 2012. Can that argument still be considered valid in view of 2014 events including child kidnapping, child slavery, forced conversion, Jihad etc? And in view of the fact that they have indeed been singled out (you can hardly get more singled out than Boko Haram is right now), I would suggest deletion of that sentence. Ochiwar (talk) 08:04, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The criticism by top Shia Muslim cleric Grand Ayatollah Naser Makarem Shirazi was deleted in this edit by User:Jason from nyc according to the edit summary for being unreliably sourced. This although the removed information was sourced by citing this article from PressTV. If this is not acceptable as a reliable source (I do not quite understand why it should not be) then the TeheranTimes might be used as an alternate source or this article from ABNA. There is no lack of reliable sources for the deleted criticism by the Grand Ayatollah. If a leading Shia Islam cleric criticizes the Boko Haram ideology and declares it un-Islamic, this is very relevant in an article on a group that claims to be Muslim fundamentalist, and should be re-included IMO. Ochiwar (talk) 07:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I question the Iranian state-run press as a reliable source of information as opposed to an official political positions. If it were reproduced in a free foreign press as an opinion of a Shia theologian, it would carry more weight. It would be interesting to have the Shia perspective. BTW, I agree with your previous assessment of the American Muslim reference. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The Iranian state-run press (as you call it) will at least reliably represent the opinion of the Iranian state (and in this case also its clergy) and should be included as their opinion. The statements by the Grand Ayatollah are not in doubt and have not been challenged or disputed. The references provided fulfill WP:RELIABLE. Ochiwar (talk) 15:57, 20 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)

Removed part of lead section
Specifically, the start of the 2nd para: "The group is known for attacking churches, schools, and police stations." I would have thought that they were rather better known for indiscriminate massacres and kidnappings- however, there is no mention of this! "Known for attacking churches" - but not, apparently, known for also destroying entire villages or towns surrounding said churches? I have removed this and the following sentence, "The group also kidnaps western tourists and has assassinated members of the Islamic establishment who have criticized the group" (about as misleading/out-dated as the preceding sentence) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Signedzzz (talk • contribs) 21:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

"Section with invaluable references should'nt be cleanup" (edit summary given) is not a valid reason to include this biased assessment in the lead. The "invaluable references" are outdated and can easily be found, if necessary, by googling "Boko Haram". zzz 21:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I've removed mention of their activity outside of Nigeria from the opening para, since it's not a defining or major characteristic, but I left the references as it should be mentioned somewhere in the article. zzz 15:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I've finished with the first 2 paras; the rest seems accurate but should mostly be incorporated into the main article, which is in such terrible shape that it would be necessary in my opinion to delete the entire thing and start again with the excess material from the lead. zzz 16:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC) (Not the entire thing, actually, just large sections).zzz 16:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Name Section
I am restoring the new version because: 1)The old version was overly long and yet uninformative; 2)it contained assertions not present in sources; 3)it contained strange OR synthesis, such as: "Loosely translated, the name could mean "western education is sinful", which would symbolize its strong opposition to anything Western...", 4)and bizarre assertions such as "Locals who speak the Hausa language are also unsure what it actually means" 5)not to mention completely irrelevant statements like "In 2014, Nigerian President, Goodluck Jonathan dubbed Boko Harām as "al-Qaeda in West Africa" (this was at least correctly referenced, but still completely useless) 6)the new version is a definite improvement, since it suffers from none of these embarrassing drawbacks. Please compare the two versions. If you disagree with me, please explain. Thanks zzz 07:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Signedzzz (talk • contribs)
 * Dear Signedzzz, the info you removed was well sourced and informative. You have only explained the organization's official name and its English meaning. The common name of organization is Boko Haram. The info you removed explained why the organization was named so, by local Hausa people. Its informative! Furthermore, please explain why you added a lot of info about a cow breed and removed references from the lede?Septate (talk) 07:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, Septate. Please do read the new version: it actually explains in some detail why the group is called Boko Haram, (which in my opinion the old version failed to do)... I cannot understand why you would say otherwise. I assure you, it is definitely more informative than the old version.

ps the comment about the cow is actually drawn directly from the reference given. I used it to make a point about the cultural dimension of the name "Boko Haram".

pps. I removed the unused references from the lead, as I explained in the edit summary which I gave at the time: "rm some unused references from opening para". I don't understand the confusion! Cheers zzz 08:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Signedzzz (talk • contribs)

Septate I obviously can't accept your explanation of why you deleted my edit since you make it very clear you haven't even read it. And asking me to explain why I removed references from the lead when, as you are presumably aware, I explained it in my edit summary at the time, is equally unhelpful. Please discuss if you have any problem with my edits (after reading them), before you delete them. Thanks zzz (talk) 08:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Septate your edit to the first para of the lead, "influenced by the Wahhabi movement" is inappropriate, as it is controversial and misleading - other sources do not mention it, and the source you gave is not clearly not NPOV, and appears to be unreliable. In any case, it should go in the "ideology" section, which clearly cannot be fairly summed up in one phrase! Thanks zzz (talk) 09:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Dear zzz, thanks for your explanation. I agree with your explanation when it comes to etymology but not with your explanation regarding removal of Wahhabism. Wahhabism is essential to describe the motivations of Boko Haram. Almost all news sources and other organizations link Boko Haram with Al-Qaeda, which is it self Wahhabi. So its not POV.Septate (talk) 10:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Septate. Thanks for your comment about the cows, that really did need changing, for sure. I was thinking about mentioning "Salafi" ideology to the lead para before, but I wasn't sure. I think it's fairly closely connected with Wahhabi?. We should probably see what other editors think. BTW, I did not know Al-Qaeda was Wahhabi, I had always assumed it was just Sunni.zzz (talk) 10:55, 24 July 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)

"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)

Terror campaign / Insurgency
I don't agree that "insurgency" is more neutral or accurate. From Wiktionary:

Insurgency =


 * "rebellion" = "Armed resistance to an established government or ruler". And, "Defiance of authority or control"
 * "revolt" = "To rebel, particularly against authority"

Terrorism =


 * "The deliberate commission of an act of violence to create an emotional response through the suffering of the victims in the furtherance of a political or social agenda.
 * Violence against civilians to achieve military or political objectives.
 * A form of psychological manipulation through warfare to the purpose of political or religious gains, by means of deliberately creating a climate of fear amongst the inhabitants of a specific geographical region."

"Insurgency" suggest actions mainly or solely directed against "authority" ie government and security forces. However - the majority of casualties have been civilians (not by way of "collateral damage"). One could argue that the civilian casualties are a part of a greater strategy of "rebellion against authority", but this would involve speculation, and would then, in any case, fall under the "terrorism" definition, "Violence against civilians to achieve military or political objectives". Therefore, "Insurgency" is, if anything, less unbiased or accurate than "Terror campaign".

Deliberately creating a climate of fear amongst the inhabitants would be hard to argue against, hence my preference for terror.

Come to think of it, "Campaign of violence" would be a definite improvement, covering actions that fall into both brackets. zzz (talk) 20:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The press is beginning to talk about a new phase that is supposedly more like an insurgency. But then again, they have to talk about something. If it turns out to be the case, a new section would be called for. But, given the information blackout, it's hard to say at present - anything could be happening. The forthcoming presidential election could be a more significant factor than anything happening on the ground right now, IMHO. zzz (talk) 04:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't agree insurgency implies attacks mostly or solely against military targets, for example the Iraq insurgency and Taliban insurgency involved huge numbers of civilians being killed by car bombs and other attacks, with much lower attacks on military targets. The NLF in Vietnam and FLN in Algeria directly targeted and killed huge numbers of civilians in terror campaigns, but this was part of an overall insurgent campaign that aimed to reduce state presence and assert territorial control.
 * Names like campaign of violence or terror campaign divorce Boko Haram's actions from it's political intent, which is to replace the authority of the Nigerian state with their own via military force, and don't account for it's attacks on hard targets like prisons, police stations, military bases etc.
 * To put it a different way, terrorism is a tactic of Insurgency Gazkthul (talk) 04:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

That is true, that terrorism can be a tactic of insurgency; but it can just be terrorism, as with the IRA. It could be argued that Boko Haram have always had the intention of replacing the Nigerian government; but it could also be argued that they began the use of violence, like the IRA, as a bargaining chip, for increased sharia law, etc., or, even, as revenge, or just general anti-(non-Islamic)-authority. Or any combination. It wasn't even clear who "they" were, never mind what their long-term strategy was. Did they believe from the outset that they could overthrow the Nigerian government? Maybe, but there was'nt much (if any) talk of that at the time - unlike the Iraqi insurgents, who were always crystal clear about their objective. Obviously, now they are probably wondering if they can, but that's not relevant of course. Given the lack of any clear statement of intent and plan of action, from the outset, to overthrow the government, it would be rewriting history to call it an insurgency. After the UN Abuja bombing, the spokesman offered to negotiate with the government if it's members were released. Again, totally unlike the Iraqis. You don't offer to negotiate with a government you are sworn to destroy. From what has been published, that I have read, pretty much no-one has called it that. I think it's overstating their political vision to call it an insurgency. Like I say, the next phase may start being referred to, with good reason, as an insurgency, but we should not give them credit for having planned things that way. They didn't call it that, nor did commentators. zzz (talk) 05:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

And, from the prison break to Abuja, about 2 years, it was %100 civilian targets. I doubt that many people would call that early campaign an insurgency. Although, It could be argued... but with a great deal of hindsight, IMO zzz (talk) 06:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The common theory at the time was that they wanted to remove the Christians, which is genocide.zzz (talk) 10:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I like terror, it's not a euphemism. But violence is ok.zzz (talk) 10:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, violence is a better heading than terror. Gazkthul (talk) 23:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Btw, I just used acts of terror in Inauguration, in context of CCTV system. zzz (talk) 06:30, 31 August 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)

Supporting states / entities
Maybe a section on international supporters of Boko Haram would be useful. Or at least something like the following can be added into the financing section:

“In mid March 2014, allegations backed by a tapped phone conversation arose about the use of Turkish Airlines to lift weapons to Boko Haram, in an operation directed by the National Intelligence Organization of Turkey, and known by then Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan's Chief of Staff, Mustafa Varank. ”

--Eleman (talk) 12:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree, this should be mentioned, probably in the financing section. It appears to be a highly credible allegation, based on the fact that Turkish Airlines denied transporting any arms to Nigeria, and then a Nigerian Navy spokesman made a conflicting statement. In any case, the CHP also made the allegation. To quote Naij.com, ""Are top levels in the Nigerian government involved in the supply of deadly weapons to Boko Haram through our ports? Is Nigeria a hob [sic] in the weapons supply path to terror groups and conflict zones in Africa? This matter should be headlines." zzz (talk) 18:30, 6 December 2014 (UTC)"

I added it in "International connections". Please add/correct details from the Turkish language BBC source, if necessary. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. zzz (talk) 08:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

new category
Removed "groups restricting education category", as explained elsewhere; please feel free to discuss here if nec. zzz (talk) 08:03, 12 December 2014 (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)

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)

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)

POV Issues
I've found that an astonishing 2400+ edits totalling over 55% of the total edits here are by one editor. I also found, in the first few minutes of checking over the article, that it completely fails to mention that:
 * 1) UN Security Council has designated Boko Haram a terrorist organization
 * 2) They have been linked to al-Qaeda (basically only denials of the link are there)
 * 3) They pledged allegiance to ISIL recently
 * 4) They declared a caliphate (highly controversial thing to do)

As a result of these early findings and the debates above I am concerned that this article has been edited with an agenda that does not meet WP:NPOV. I'd encourage other editors to check the article carefully and help ensure this accurately reflects the topic. In the mean time 've tagged the article to alert other editors and readers that there are problems here. Legacypac (talk) 08:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Adjusted Names section. Legacypac (talk) 09:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I restored my edits to the names section and added back the allies to the infobox. Several other editors have been contributing wonderfully. Legacypac (talk) 20:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with the POV issues you adress. The history / campaign of violence section especially is really bad, large parts of it do not discuss Boko Harams actions at all but talks about other things. At the same time, many very significant attacks, massacres, bombings, anouncements etc by Boko Haram have been left out. It needs a major rewrite. Since Boko Haram's attacks have such regularity, I would suggest a year by year structure. Koyos (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I noticed that what at first glance looks like a chronologically of events is actually a jumble. Agree with just year by year (or range of years if obvious breaks exist).  There is a timeline article linked at the bottom, but way out of date. Legacypac (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2015 (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)/Archive

}}
 * format=%%i
 * age=13140
 * archivebox=yes
 * box-advert=yes
 * maxarchsize=100000

Links
--Lihaas (talk) 15:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Citadels of learning, Boko Haram’s new slaughter fields
 * UN: Over 1,000 killed in Boko Haram attacks
 * Nigeria seals state border with Cameroon
 * Nigerian gay people being hunted down

More links via http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/citations-the-may-12-2014-trms:
 * http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-22320077
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAncJ3nuczI
 * http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/20/world/africa/seven-members-of-french-family-kidnapped-in-cameroon.html

Article currently doesn't mention kidnapping of french family at all. (not even in timeline)

--Jeremyb (talk) 04:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

boko haram salafist
The group is a salafist jihadist group. Im not sure why there is editors reverting that. It simply doesnt matter that a group of salafists dont believe boko haram follow the "true salafi" teachings what ever that may be. Vietcong nuturlizer (talk) 22:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Timeline of Boko Haram attacks in Nigeria
I suggest that the section Timeline of Boko Haram attacks in Nigeria be changed to Timeline of Boko Haram attacks in West Africa so as to be able to cover attacks and kidnapping in other West African countries such as Cameroon for example this recent attack. Ochiwar (talk) 05:13, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Where is the Timeline section anyway? The current history section is muddled, jumping back and forth between years. We actually need a simple chronological timeline (again). Legacypac (talk) 21:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The timeline is here: Timeline of the Islamist insurgency in Nigeria. Saberking321 (talk) 00:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, the History section appears to be in chronological order. Saberking321 (talk) 00:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Section Criticism- International
The last sentence in the above named section states " The American Muslim argues that Boko Haram should not be singled out, as Nigerian Christians are just as violent" with a reference from 2012. Can that argument still be considered valid in view of 2014 events including child kidnapping, child slavery, forced conversion, Jihad etc? And in view of the fact that they have indeed been singled out (you can hardly get more singled out than Boko Haram is right now), I would suggest deletion of that sentence. Ochiwar (talk) 08:04, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The criticism by top Shia Muslim cleric Grand Ayatollah Naser Makarem Shirazi was deleted in this edit by User:Jason from nyc according to the edit summary for being unreliably sourced. This although the removed information was sourced by citing this article from PressTV. If this is not acceptable as a reliable source (I do not quite understand why it should not be) then the TeheranTimes might be used as an alternate source or this article from ABNA. There is no lack of reliable sources for the deleted criticism by the Grand Ayatollah. If a leading Shia Islam cleric criticizes the Boko Haram ideology and declares it un-Islamic, this is very relevant in an article on a group that claims to be Muslim fundamentalist, and should be re-included IMO. Ochiwar (talk) 07:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I question the Iranian state-run press as a reliable source of information as opposed to an official political positions. If it were reproduced in a free foreign press as an opinion of a Shia theologian, it would carry more weight. It would be interesting to have the Shia perspective. BTW, I agree with your previous assessment of the American Muslim reference. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The Iranian state-run press (as you call it) will at least reliably represent the opinion of the Iranian state (and in this case also its clergy) and should be included as their opinion. The statements by the Grand Ayatollah are not in doubt and have not been challenged or disputed. The references provided fulfill WP:RELIABLE. Ochiwar (talk) 15:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Removed part of lead section
Specifically, the start of the 2nd para: "The group is known for attacking churches, schools, and police stations." I would have thought that they were rather better known for indiscriminate massacres and kidnappings- however, there is no mention of this! "Known for attacking churches" - but not, apparently, known for also destroying entire villages or towns surrounding said churches? I have removed this and the following sentence, "The group also kidnaps western tourists and has assassinated members of the Islamic establishment who have criticized the group" (about as misleading/out-dated as the preceding sentence) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Signedzzz (talk • contribs) 21:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

"Section with invaluable references should'nt be cleanup" (edit summary given) is not a valid reason to include this biased assessment in the lead. The "invaluable references" are outdated and can easily be found, if necessary, by googling "Boko Haram". zzz 21:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I've removed mention of their activity outside of Nigeria from the opening para, since it's not a defining or major characteristic, but I left the references as it should be mentioned somewhere in the article. zzz 15:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I've finished with the first 2 paras; the rest seems accurate but should mostly be incorporated into the main article, which is in such terrible shape that it would be necessary in my opinion to delete the entire thing and start again with the excess material from the lead. zzz 16:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC) (Not the entire thing, actually, just large sections).zzz 16:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Name Section
I am restoring the new version because: 1)The old version was overly long and yet uninformative; 2)it contained assertions not present in sources; 3)it contained strange OR synthesis, such as: "Loosely translated, the name could mean "western education is sinful", which would symbolize its strong opposition to anything Western...", 4)and bizarre assertions such as "Locals who speak the Hausa language are also unsure what it actually means" 5)not to mention completely irrelevant statements like "In 2014, Nigerian President, Goodluck Jonathan dubbed Boko Harām as "al-Qaeda in West Africa" (this was at least correctly referenced, but still completely useless) 6)the new version is a definite improvement, since it suffers from none of these embarrassing drawbacks. Please compare the two versions. If you disagree with me, please explain. Thanks zzz 07:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Signedzzz (talk • contribs)
 * Dear Signedzzz, the info you removed was well sourced and informative. You have only explained the organization's official name and its English meaning. The common name of organization is Boko Haram. The info you removed explained why the organization was named so, by local Hausa people. Its informative! Furthermore, please explain why you added a lot of info about a cow breed and removed references from the lede?Septate (talk) 07:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, Septate. Please do read the new version: it actually explains in some detail why the group is called Boko Haram, (which in my opinion the old version failed to do)... I cannot understand why you would say otherwise. I assure you, it is definitely more informative than the old version.

ps the comment about the cow is actually drawn directly from the reference given. I used it to make a point about the cultural dimension of the name "Boko Haram".

pps. I removed the unused references from the lead, as I explained in the edit summary which I gave at the time: "rm some unused references from opening para". I don't understand the confusion! Cheers zzz 08:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Signedzzz (talk • contribs)

Septate I obviously can't accept your explanation of why you deleted my edit since you make it very clear you haven't even read it. And asking me to explain why I removed references from the lead when, as you are presumably aware, I explained it in my edit summary at the time, is equally unhelpful. Please discuss if you have any problem with my edits (after reading them), before you delete them. Thanks zzz (talk) 08:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Septate your edit to the first para of the lead, "influenced by the Wahhabi movement" is inappropriate, as it is controversial and misleading - other sources do not mention it, and the source you gave is not clearly not NPOV, and appears to be unreliable. In any case, it should go in the "ideology" section, which clearly cannot be fairly summed up in one phrase! Thanks zzz (talk) 09:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Dear zzz, thanks for your explanation. I agree with your explanation when it comes to etymology but not with your explanation regarding removal of Wahhabism. Wahhabism is essential to describe the motivations of Boko Haram. Almost all news sources and other organizations link Boko Haram with Al-Qaeda, which is it self Wahhabi. So its not POV.Septate (talk) 10:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Septate. Thanks for your comment about the cows, that really did need changing, for sure. I was thinking about mentioning "Salafi" ideology to the lead para before, but I wasn't sure. I think it's fairly closely connected with Wahhabi?. We should probably see what other editors think. BTW, I did not know Al-Qaeda was Wahhabi, I had always assumed it was just Sunni.zzz (talk) 10:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)



There is no such thing as "Western education." There is only education and no education. So if Boko Haram ever uses the term "Western education," it must be placed in quotation marks. Algebra is probably more Eastern than Western, at least in its origins. I would personally translate Boko Haram as "education is forbidden." Alternatively, "modern education is forbidden" could draw a politically correct distinction between real education and propaganda "schools," although "modernization and education are forbidden" may be the best explanation for what Boko Haram is fighting against. --Getoar TX (talk) 17:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Terror campaign / Insurgency
I don't agree that "insurgency" is more neutral or accurate. From Wiktionary:

Insurgency =


 * "rebellion" = "Armed resistance to an established government or ruler". And, "Defiance of authority or control"
 * "revolt" = "To rebel, particularly against authority"

Terrorism =


 * "The deliberate commission of an act of violence to create an emotional response through the suffering of the victims in the furtherance of a political or social agenda.
 * Violence against civilians to achieve military or political objectives.
 * A form of psychological manipulation through warfare to the purpose of political or religious gains, by means of deliberately creating a climate of fear amongst the inhabitants of a specific geographical region."

"Insurgency" suggest actions mainly or solely directed against "authority" ie government and security forces. However - the majority of casualties have been civilians (not by way of "collateral damage"). One could argue that the civilian casualties are a part of a greater strategy of "rebellion against authority", but this would involve speculation, and would then, in any case, fall under the "terrorism" definition, "Violence against civilians to achieve military or political objectives". Therefore, "Insurgency" is, if anything, less unbiased or accurate than "Terror campaign".

Deliberately creating a climate of fear amongst the inhabitants would be hard to argue against, hence my preference for terror.

Come to think of it, "Campaign of violence" would be a definite improvement, covering actions that fall into both brackets. zzz (talk) 20:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The press is beginning to talk about a new phase that is supposedly more like an insurgency. But then again, they have to talk about something. If it turns out to be the case, a new section would be called for. But, given the information blackout, it's hard to say at present - anything could be happening. The forthcoming presidential election could be a more significant factor than anything happening on the ground right now, IMHO. zzz (talk) 04:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't agree insurgency implies attacks mostly or solely against military targets, for example the Iraq insurgency and Taliban insurgency involved huge numbers of civilians being killed by car bombs and other attacks, with much lower attacks on military targets. The NLF in Vietnam and FLN in Algeria directly targeted and killed huge numbers of civilians in terror campaigns, but this was part of an overall insurgent campaign that aimed to reduce state presence and assert territorial control.
 * Names like campaign of violence or terror campaign divorce Boko Haram's actions from it's political intent, which is to replace the authority of the Nigerian state with their own via military force, and don't account for it's attacks on hard targets like prisons, police stations, military bases etc.
 * To put it a different way, terrorism is a tactic of Insurgency Gazkthul (talk) 04:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

That is true, that terrorism can be a tactic of insurgency; but it can just be terrorism, as with the IRA. It could be argued that Boko Haram have always had the intention of replacing the Nigerian government; but it could also be argued that they began the use of violence, like the IRA, as a bargaining chip, for increased sharia law, etc., or, even, as revenge, or just general anti-(non-Islamic)-authority. Or any combination. It wasn't even clear who "they" were, never mind what their long-term strategy was. Did they believe from the outset that they could overthrow the Nigerian government? Maybe, but there was'nt much (if any) talk of that at the time - unlike the Iraqi insurgents, who were always crystal clear about their objective. Obviously, now they are probably wondering if they can, but that's not relevant of course. Given the lack of any clear statement of intent and plan of action, from the outset, to overthrow the government, it would be rewriting history to call it an insurgency. After the UN Abuja bombing, the spokesman offered to negotiate with the government if it's members were released. Again, totally unlike the Iraqis. You don't offer to negotiate with a government you are sworn to destroy. From what has been published, that I have read, pretty much no-one has called it that. I think it's overstating their political vision to call it an insurgency. Like I say, the next phase may start being referred to, with good reason, as an insurgency, but we should not give them credit for having planned things that way. They didn't call it that, nor did commentators. zzz (talk) 05:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

And, from the prison break to Abuja, about 2 years, it was %100 civilian targets. I doubt that many people would call that early campaign an insurgency. Although, It could be argued... but with a great deal of hindsight, IMO zzz (talk) 06:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The common theory at the time was that they wanted to remove the Christians, which is genocide.zzz (talk) 10:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I like terror, it's not a euphemism. But violence is ok.zzz (talk) 10:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, violence is a better heading than terror. Gazkthul (talk) 23:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Btw, I just used acts of terror in Inauguration, in context of CCTV system. zzz (talk) 06:30, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Supporting states / entities
Maybe a section on international supporters of Boko Haram would be useful. Or at least something like the following can be added into the financing section:

“In mid March 2014, allegations backed by a tapped phone conversation arose about the use of Turkish Airlines to lift weapons to Boko Haram, in an operation directed by the National Intelligence Organization of Turkey, and known by then Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan's Chief of Staff, Mustafa Varank. ”

--Eleman (talk) 12:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree, this should be mentioned, probably in the financing section. It appears to be a highly credible allegation, based on the fact that Turkish Airlines denied transporting any arms to Nigeria, and then a Nigerian Navy spokesman made a conflicting statement. In any case, the CHP also made the allegation. To quote Naij.com, ""Are top levels in the Nigerian government involved in the supply of deadly weapons to Boko Haram through our ports? Is Nigeria a hob [sic] in the weapons supply path to terror groups and conflict zones in Africa? This matter should be headlines." zzz (talk) 18:30, 6 December 2014 (UTC)"

I added it in "International connections". Please add/correct details from the Turkish language BBC source, if necessary. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. zzz (talk) 08:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Update - This information has been removed by user Legacypac. zzz (talk) 16:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

new category
Removed "groups restricting education category", as explained elsewhere; please feel free to discuss here if nec. zzz (talk) 08:03, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

POV Issues
I've found that an astonishing 2400+ edits totalling over 55% of the total edits here are by one editor. I also found, in the first few minutes of checking over the article, that it completely fails to mention that:
 * 1) UN Security Council has designated Boko Haram a terrorist organization
 * 2) They have been linked to al-Qaeda (basically only denials of the link are there)
 * 3) They pledged allegiance to ISIL recently
 * 4) They declared a caliphate (highly controversial thing to do)

As a result of these early findings and the debates above I am concerned that this article has been edited with an agenda that does not meet WP:NPOV. I'd encourage other editors to check the article carefully and help ensure this accurately reflects the topic. In the mean time 've tagged the article to alert other editors and readers that there are problems here. Legacypac (talk) 08:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Adjusted Names section. Legacypac (talk) 09:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Happy to see that these four points have been added. Saberking321 (talk) 01:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I restored my edits to the names section and added back the allies to the infobox. Several other editors have been contributing wonderfully. Legacypac (talk) 20:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with the POV issues you adress. The history / campaign of violence section especially is really bad, large parts of it do not discuss Boko Harams actions at all but talks about other things. At the same time, many very significant attacks, massacres, bombings, anouncements etc by Boko Haram have been left out. It needs a major rewrite. Since Boko Haram's attacks have such regularity, I would suggest a year by year structure. Koyos (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I noticed that what at first glance looks like a chronologically of events is actually a jumble. Agree with just year by year (or range of years if obvious breaks exist).  There is a timeline article linked at the bottom, but way out of date. Legacypac (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No - it wasn't. See Talk:Boko_Haram. zzz (talk) 17:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Control map in infobox
Maybe it's an idea to place the control map (currently under 2014 > Announcing an Islamic Caliphate) in the infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jurryaany (talk • contribs) 09:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Good suggestion. There is no slot in the infobox for a map, but I moved it up. I wish it was bigger - maybe someone can adjust it. Legacypac (talk) 09:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Article tags
"Multiple issues" tags have been added to this article.
 * What is the reason for the tags?
 * What is the neutrality issue? The justification given is that 4 facts are missing. These 4 points are now in the article. "Missing facts" is not a "point of view".
 * What is factually inaccurate? Where is the factual inaccuracy? All of the facts have got sources, so how can they be inaccurate?
 * How did the article fail Wikipedia's quality standards? The reason given seems to be that it is not in chronological order. In fact, it is. Someone has now even added year-by-year subheadings, which makes it even more clear that it was in chronological order. zzz (talk) 16:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * There are still a lot of issues with the article, it has an anti-Muslim and anti-Nigerian government bias with snarky commentary throughout the article. I will just pick on the first two sections.


 * The "Name" section, I have no idea why it exists. If the article was about Mike Tyson, would we spend 3 paragraphs explaining that Mike is derived from the english Michael, or possibly the French Michel or some scholars have determined that some Mike's are derived from the Russian Mikhail.  Why spend so much valuable space on the definition of boko, why would anyone reading this article care? Why is the last sentence even in the name section?  "There is hostility by many northern Nigerian Muslims towards anything remotely perceived as foreign, a mindset of boko haram that has in the past been applied even towards vocal recitation of the Qur'an and modern farming practices."  What does that have to do with their name?  The whole third paragraph is a run-on rant.


 * In Ideology: "Boko Haram kills people who engage in practices seen as un-Islamic, such as drinking alcohol" Really?  We just so happen to have a whole secion dedicated to "Drug trafficking, smuggling and poaching"  Do they then kill themselves for being un-Islamic?  I would even take a "Boko Haram OFTEN kills or punishes people who engage in practices seen as un-Islamic, such as drinking alcohol." over what is written.  What is written now, is poorly written and makes no sense.  In reality, Boko Haram just kill people for seemingly whatever reason they see fit.


 * Also in Ideology: In a 2009 BBC interview, Yusuf, **described by analysts as being well-educated and having a lavish lifestyle**, reaffirmed his opposition to Western education. What does his lavish lifestyle have to do with Boko Haram?  It is bias to make him out as a hypocrite, which maybe he was and maybe he wasn't, but either way it has no purpose on WP in regards to Boko Haram's ideology.  The article needs a lot of improvement.  I am hopeful that it gets better over time. Lipsquid (talk) 20:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Timeline of Boko Haram attacks in Nigeria and this article's timeline need to be considered together. I think the timeline article is the place to detail individual events, while this article should summarize those events with sentences like "In 2012 Boko Haram undertook X attacks on schools and villages, killing at least xxx people." Which can be wikilinked to the 2012 section of the timeline for support. Part of the overhaul needed and a good reason for the cleanup tag to remain for now. These tags have brought in many new editors. Legacypac (talk) 22:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * User:Lipsquid the facts you mention are exactly as they appear in the sources. If you want to delete the "Name" section, which has been there for more than 6 months, you need to get consensus for that, not just tag the article.
 * User:Legacypac, If you want to bring in new editors, it's strange that you just got the article protected to prevent new editors from editing. Attracting new editors is no explanation for the tag. zzz (talk) 10:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Tags are appropriate and were restored by two other editors because of actual issues - issues you are complaining about yourself now. Bringing (new to the article, not new to the project) editor attention to an article is a key reason for the tagging system - it puts the article on lists of articles that need attention. The article was set to WP:Pending Changes Review which allows anyone to edit it but new (to project) editors changes get reviewed before going live. This was due to persistent vandalism and would not impact Signedzzz or any other autoconfirmed editor at all. Legacypac (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Factual inaccuracies added to infobox
Several new additions have introduced factually inaccuracies. As already mentioned in the article, this source and this one give the "strength" as a few 100 to a few 1000 - not "over 9000" (the source used for the 9000 figure says "up to 9000+" in any case, so it's wrong on both counts); also, as the article states, "As of June 2014, the U.S. government does not believe Boko Haram is currently affiliated with al Qaeda." According to sources, they have no allies. And, since the only mention of Chad and Niger is that they "reportedly partook in skirmishes", in 2013, they hardly qualify as "opponents". zzz (talk) 10:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

You gave two sources that give rough counts as to the strength of the Boko Haram force, how can citing them be a factual inaccuracy? Are you saying the numbers are stale? If so, do you have a new source with a more recent estimate? Lipsquid (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The 2 US govt sources I cited above are used in the lead section ("a few 100 to a few 1000"). The infobox, on the other hand, said "over 9000". This was cited to the Telegraph. However, the Telegraph actually said "up to 9000 +". In other words "anything up to 9000, or perhaps more". This is nothing like the same thing as "over 9000", so I removed that (that was the "factual inaccuracy"). Since these estimates are so hopelessly out of date and vague, it makes sense to leave that parameter of the infobox blank - unless and until a recent, realistic estimate becomes available, which is extremely unlikely to happen anytime soon. zzz (talk) 17:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree the article needs to be consistent. I will look for more up to date numbers and let you know if I find anything. Lipsquid (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I did not find anything with an updated count of Boko Haram forces, so I personally would go with the latest number we have cited figures for and maybe put the date in an "86,000 in 1992" format or whatever you are comfortable with using. If it is referenced by a source, I don't see a reason to change it until we have an updated source. Lipsquid (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

While looking for the number of Boko Haram fighters, I found two current articles about the Chad military fighting BH. http://www.voanews.com/content/chad-sending-troops-to-help-cameroon-fight-boko-haram/2600762.html http://news.yahoo.com/chad-votes-send-troops-cameroon-nigeria-fight-boko-111630189.html Lipsquid (talk) 18:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a major new development. I added a ref for Chad's involvement. Niger still needs a ref, though, imo. zzz (talk) 19:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

It is inaccurate to rely on one congressional source saying that Boko has no link to AQ (further investigation finds the source is being misrepresented-shows clear ties to AQIM) when the U.S. Govt and UN terrorist designations and the Nigerians all explicitly make that link. As for the ISIL link Boko's leader made that link and it was widely reported. Legacypac (talk) 19:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The UN designation was before the congressional document, so that's not much good (leaving aside how "explicit" it was or wasn't). What is the US govt source that disagrees with the congressional source? And which Nigerians exactly, when? Of course, the Nigerian govt is well known to say whatever is convenient, for instance that a cease-fire peace agreement has been agreed, or that the Chibok schoolgirls are about to be freed. It's entirely predictable that they would claim Boko Haram are allied with Al Qaida, to gain international support for example, but this in itself would not count as strong evidence of a link. Also, "ally" to me implies tangible physical/financial assistance of some kind (as per "opponents" not including every country in the world that condemns them). zzz (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Like do you need to see the transfer numbers from the bank wire or is citing a source enough? Pretty biased against the Nigerian government it seems, which was what i said about the article when you asked about the neutrality flags. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/06/boko-haram-al-qaeda-201463115816142554.html
 * "Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan claimed in May that Boko Haram was "an al-Qaeda operation".
 * "For example in 2002, Osama bin Laden dispatched one of his aides to Nigeria to distribute $3m to Salafi groups. Boko Haram's founder, Mohammed Yusuf, is thought to be a recipient of this money. Bin Laden's interest in Nigeria seemingly did not end with Yusuf's 2009 death at the hands of Nigerian security forces. Documents discovered in bin Laden's Abbottabad compound in Pakistan are thought to show an ongoing dialogue between Boko Haram and the top levels of al-Qaeda, potentially even with bin Laden himself."  Lipsquid (talk) 20:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, May 2014. The Congressional Research is for June 2014. If there's nothing since then, then they can't be called allies (no matter how much you trust President Goodluck Jonathan, who was desperate to get maximum US firepower assistance.) zzz (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I cant find the relevant bit in crisisgroup.org. And the Aljazeera source also cites the guardian, which merely says "documents in the cache show that leaders of the Nigerian group had been in contact with top levels of al-Qaida in the past 18 months" (reporting in April 2012). There have always been vague rumours of an alliance (ie. training/finance) which are not hard to believe, around 2009-11 particularly. Since then it seems increasingly unlikely. It's not even obvious what either party stood to gain. zzz (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

is an excellent source, but I still can't see any mention of Al Qaida. zzz (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * What about using both sources and saying in the past "Source A" has linked them with AQ, but more recently "Source B" has questioned the linkage and let the reader decide until more sources weigh in on the topic?  I personally agree with you that any ongoing financial or strategic relationship with AQ seems unlikely, but that is just my PoV. Lipsquid (talk) 00:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The UN Security Council listed Jama'atu Ahlus-Sunna Lidda'Awati Wal Jihad (Boko Haram) on 22 May 2014 as affiliated with al-Qaida (7 months ago). If Boko Haram is not NOW affiliated with AQ they can apply to be delisted from the sanctions list. Until such an application is successful, I'll cite ther official UN decision as the basis to list AQ as an affiliate here since I can't cite the opinion of some Wikipedia editor. Legacypac (talk) 01:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

What the article already says is "as of June 2014 the US govt doesnt think they are affiliated with al qaeda". So I'm not sure why you want the infobox saying the opposite.zzz (talk) 10:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC) But then again, I still dont even know what the multiple issues are. zzz (talk) 10:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

One new source that stakes a contrarian position does not trump all other sources. If anything, we should ignore the minority source and support that majority of sources that still say they have been and may still continue to be affiliated with Al Qaeda. I am not for changing the Infobox until more sources weigh in on the subject. Lipsquid (talk) 16:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia knows better than the US govt (and [other sources). That's a highly suspect way to try and "improve" the article! [[User:Signedzzz|zzz]] (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Twice in this thread you cited the [Crisis Group report] from April 2014 as disproving a link to AQ. Can you explain in more detail why you feel this report supports your position? Also you cited the Congressional Report, can you explain page 7 of that report where there is a page on Boko Haram's links to AQIM? Legacypac (talk) 01:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok. Ill explain that the quote you have just put in the article refers to 2013 - but you have just read it, so you plainly already know that (end unsigned Signedzzz post)

You did not answer my question about the Crisis Group report. Let me direct you to pages 24-26. If you did not read these pages, don't cite the report. If you did read them, you obviously can't comprehend the report. Either way, your assertions about the report's content are very incorrect. Editing Wikipedia requires a basic level of WP:COMPETENCE. It is absolutely absurd to say that we need something more recent then a June 2014 source for a link between terrorist groups that goes back to at least 2002. How often would you require the terrorists to confirm their alliances for Wikipedia? Weekly, monthly? Here is one section from the June 2014 Congressional Report:

"Ties between Boko Haram and another FTO, Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), a regional criminal and terrorist network operating in the Sahel and North Africa, appear to be of particular concern.30 The Obama Administration does not currently consider Boko Haram to be affiliated with Al Qaeda’s central leadership, despite periodic rhetorical pledges of solidarity and support for Al Qaeda and its affiliates from Shekau.31 U.S. military officials have identified Boko Haram as a “threat to Western interests” in the region for several years, referencing indications in 2013 that the group and AQIM were “likely sharing funds, training, and explosive materials suggesting that “there are elements of Boko Haram that aspire to a broader regional level of attacks, to include not just in Africa, but Europe and aspirationally to the United States.”32 The commander of U.S. Special Operations Command reiterated this concern in February 2014, stating “we see Boko Haram beginning to conflate with AQIM in North Africa.” 33 There has been speculation for years that Boko Haram may have acquired weapons from former Libyan stockpiles through AQIM ties.34 The State Department identified two of three individuals linked to Boko Haram—Khalid al Barnawi and Abubakar Adam Kambar—who were named in June 2012 as Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGTs), as having close links to AQIM. (Kambar was reportedly killed in 2012.) Barnawi is purportedly a leader of the splinter faction, Ansaru, which the International Crisis Group has described as “Nigeria’s Al Qaeda franchise."

In addition to Boko Haram’s links to AQIM and its affiliated groups, some members of Boko Haram reportedly may have received training from the Somali terrorist group Al Shabaab in East Africa. Mamman Nur, purported to be one of the ideological leaders of the Ansaru faction, is rumored to have links to the Somali group, as well as to AQIM, the Yemen-based Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), and other Al Qaeda affiliates. By some accounts, Nur may have been behind the 2011 U.N. bombing in Abuja.38

We have tried to reason with you, pointing you to sources, but that's over since you have no remaining credibility on this topic in my view. Stop wasting our time with these nonsense complaints and misrepresentation of sources. Legacypac (talk) 03:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * In the section of the Congressional report you quote above, note the date: 2013. Note also the end of the first paragraph in the report (from June 2014), which states "The Obama Administration does not currently consider Boko Haram to be an affiliate of Al Qaeda." zzz (talk) 04:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I quote the whole section and still failure to read it. Note the Feb 2014 date of the commander statement and June 2014 report date. Quoting the first summary page is fine, as long as you don't cherry pick one sentence to get to a novel conclusion. "The Obama Administration does not currently consider Boko Haram to be affiliated with Al Qaeda’s central leadership" Clearly there is connections with AQIM which is obviously connected to AQ Central. Legacypac (talk) 04:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The report's own summary of its own assessment of BH's affiliation with AQ, in the first paragraph of the report, is not "cherry picking"! "The Obama Administration does not currently consider Boko Haram to be an affiliate of Al Qaeda." Unless you have a source indication that the US govt has since changed its position, this is clearly still a fact you will have to come to terms with (or just pretend it doesn't exist, of course) zzz (talk) 04:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

ZZZ come on you are selectively pulling a single sentence out of the report and then saying that is a synopsis of the report. This is a recurring problem with you edits. Here is a full quote from the article. "Ties between Boko Haram and another FTO, Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), a regional criminal and terrorist network operating in the Sahel and North Africa, appear to be of particular concern.30 The Obama Administration does not currently consider Boko Haram to be affiliated with Al Qaeda’s central leadership, despite periodic rhetorical pledges of solidarity and support for Al Qaeda and its affiliates from Shekau.31 U.S. military officials have identified Boko Haram as a “threat to Western interests” in the region for several years, referencing indications in 2013 that the group and AQIM were “likely sharing funds, training, and explosive materials,” and suggesting that “there are elements of Boko Haram that aspire to a broader regional level of attacks, to include not just in Africa, but Europe and aspirationally to the United States.”32 The commander of U.S. Special Operations Command reiterated this concern in February 2014, stating “we see Boko Haram beginning to conflate with AQIM in North Africa.”33 There has been speculation for years that Boko Haram may have acquired weapons from former Libyan stockpiles through AQIM ties.34 The State Department identified two of three individuals linked to Boko Haram—Khalid al Barnawi and Abubakar Adam Kambar—who were named in June 2012 as Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGTs), as having close links to AQIM." This line of argument is rediculous. The report does not support your statements. Lipsquid (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Lipsquid, the report's own summary of its findings is always going to be more reliable than your summary - see WP:OR. zzz (talk) 18:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Membership number/fighter count
There does not seem to be many estimates of BH strength, but a lot of complaints that the infobox is wrong now. The article long cited in the infobox actually has a tab for BH, and when you click on the tab a circle with a guy in front of a globe says "9,000+ fighters"  I am at a loss to explain how that could be read as "up to 9,000+" as Signedzzz had the infobox before User:Shii fixed it, but Signedzzz promptly changed it back. Then it got changed again somewhere, and then User:Sluzzelin adjusted it again. Now we read at ANi that "The Telegraph, which is cited in the infobox, says "up to 9000+". Which means "up to 9000, or perhaps more". What the heck?? Anyway, watch for estimates.Legacypac (talk) 11:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The full quote from the reference: "largest force 9,000+". zzz (talk) 18:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "According to the (Global Terrorism) index, the number of Taliban fighters is estimated at between 36,000 and 60,000, with Isis at 20,000, al-Qaida 3,700-19,000, and Boko Haram 500-9,000." That is a big range and maybe a misprint - like they missed a 0. The actual 2014 report says "The exact number of Boko Haram members is unknown however higher estimates are around 9,000" pg 53 This India article says only has 9000 in a comparision to ISIL. around 9000 fighters  Clearly a fuzzy number but 500 is way too low since Cameroon recently killed 143 or 200-300 fighters.  Another source says "There are no current and credible public estimates of Boko Haram’s current membership. Shekau leads the group with an iron first, killing rivals and not permitting other commanders to get publicity by appearing in his videos. In terms of organization, it operates as an insurgency/guerilla force, with units having between 300 and 500 fighters each."   Looks like just putting 9000 would be good.Legacypac (talk) 19:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd leave it blank. It's completely unknown. zzz (talk) 20:16, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The lead should really say "estimated in June 2014", not just "estimated". Or better still remove mention altogether. zzz (talk) 20:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * It is obviously not "completely unknown" if multiple reliable sources approximate at 9000. If individual units are 300-500 then saying they have hundreds of fighters is obviously understanding the facts. Legacypac (talk) 20:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The cite your using says "unknown" and "lower estimate 500, higher estimate 9000". The cited figure you deleted said "a few hundred to a few thousand". So it is "unknown", and your edit is wrong. You're taking the higher estimate from sometime last year, and choosing to ignore the lower estimate, and treating the higher estimate as if it was just a plain estimate. zzz (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Aside from the technicalities of correctly cited info, a lot has happened since any of these estimates (and remember, the source youve added says "unknown" anyway), so it's far-fetched to say the least to say anything based on any of them. zzz (talk) 22:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

This is going nowhere good. Total waste of time explaining anything to this editor. Legacypac (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * @Legacypac, it must be difficult to explain (to anyone) how "unknown, possibly 500 - 9000" can be the same thing as "9000". Wikipedia is the wrong place anyway, maybe you should start a blog somewhere? zzz (talk) 00:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive Talk Page Activity
Starting an ANi full of BS allegations is not helpful. Starting a thread disputing the "accuracy is disputed" and "POV" tags then starting additional threads disputing the factual accuracy is puzzling. Filling the talk page with bad arguments and insulting each edit is silLy. I'm not interested in this gaming, misrepresentation of the sources, and continued misrepresentation of other editor's edits. If there is is a real issue with the article, either a) fix it carefully OR b) start an RfC about it. Legacypac (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Legacypac, how many times have you filed allegations against me, for "fixing" your edits, which you call "edit warring"? 6? 8? I've lost count. How many times have I filed allegations against you? One time. Your outrage is somewhat incongruous here. zzz (talk) 22:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * 1) "9000" is not the same thing as "unknown, lowest estimate 500, highest estimate 9000"?
 * 2) You have now added "9000" to the infobox and the lead section.
 * 3) Do you understand what "Factual inaccuracy" means? zzz (talk) 07:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually you recently changed the infobox back to up to 9000+ whatever that means, while I simplified it and made the other two spots in the article match. Legacypac (talk) 09:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

As you know, since you just complained at AN/I about it, I deleted the "strength" from the infobox, leaving it blank - because, as confirmed in your new source, it is unknown. (The "9000" was originally added to the infobox by another editor, months ago, and corrected by me at that time to "up to 9000+"). I left the sourced "100s to 1000s" in the lead, which you have now removed, claiming it is "unsourced", and replaced with "9000", cited to a source that says "unknown, 500 - 9000". You adding the inaccurate "9000" to the infobox and the lead, is presumably to attempt to justify your multiple issues factual inaccuracy warning tags: If you wish to continue this discussion, please do so at WP:ANI as your purposeful disruption of this article requires the attention of administrators. zzz (talk) 10:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * you are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia
 * you lack the WP:COMPETENCE to understand the meaning of "factual inaccuracy".

Alternate article
User Legacypac asked an administrator to close the WP:AN/I discussion, which the admin promptly did, stating that "copy edits certainly need to be made", and recommending that any corrections by me to Legacypac's version be "dealt with" at the edit-warring noticeboard.

For the record, the accurate and (correctly) referenced version of this article is available here. zzz (talk) 14:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not what I said. I said that edit warring could be dealt with at the proper noticeboard. Drmies (talk) 01:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Factual Inaccuracies Tag
I fail to find any inaccuracies here. Please could somebody let me know where they are so we can fix them? There does not seem to be a discussion about it here, only about the other tags. Thanks Saberking321 (talk) 15:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Remove POV tag?
It seems that all of the POV issues have been addressed. Should we remove the tag or are there still POV related edits to be made? Saberking321 (talk) 18:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I have now removed the tag, if there is any problem please put it back on and discuss it here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saberking321 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Remove Cleanup Tag?
The article has recently been put into a more logical order and some irrelevant information has been removed. Is it time to remove the tag? Saberking321 (talk) 17:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Quran 237 Heiffer Laws and Pleasure Marriages
are n ot yet in place. arPleasure Marriage, while they violate the sanctity of monogamy, are acceptable among Islamic tribes. Oft times, very young girls   are utilized  for varieties of sexual gratification, and are paid accordingly - as is their custom. In Muslim vulnerareas, there are laws protecting first time users, pregnant women, and multiple partners. Here, in the States, however, these laws governing polygamy(Quran #1-237) Heiffer Laws re: woman usage are in disrepair. Therefore, AMA doesn't expect to endorse circumcision, subincision, rites des passge, nor any substitution for tradional monagomy, and, furthermore, breech of these tradional marriage, in the States, constitute fraud. Yes.AMA protention of extended lactation protracts female longevity in many cases; but, evidence is clearly not convincing enough to recommend it to the most prolific and/or vulnerable youthful offenders in our rich, multi-tasking economy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siribach (talk • contribs) 19:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

A+ for blowing my mind. 173.74.85.245 (talk) 19:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Boko Haram reverses - new section needed?
I looked up this article to read about the dramatic recent reversals suffered by Boko Haram, but there is nothing in the article about them apart from three and a half lines at the end of the intro. There is says they have lost most of the towns they had seized, including their "capital", Gwoza, to an international military operation involving four countries' armies and various other groups. The paragraph gives no dates and few other details, and there is nothing in the body of the article about it. There is similarly no mention of the Boko Haram atrocities uncovered by the international forces when they drove the group out of some towns. Is all this just too recent? I thought these developments were widely reported 2 to 3 weeks back, or even more? ContraryM1978 (talk) 18:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)