Talk:Jundallah/Archive 1

Link
cites Jundallah attacked the Revolution Guard of Iran near the Afghan border by exploding a bus near a patrol.

missing reference
At the end of "Dr Arshad Waheed had close links to him and were extending help by all means, the police spokesman added.[8]" the reference is clearly missing something - it seems to refer to another reference, but it's unclear which one (maybe from another article?). Boud 20:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

stratfor reference, but will presumably go subscription-only in the future
This is an interesting reference, but mostly just says everything is consistent with US support for Jundalllah: http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/read_article.php?id=286820&selected=Analyses and it's internal link "US connections" points to a subscription-only article - my guess is it's subscription-only because it's old, in which case we had better not use this article since it will become non-accessible. Boud 23:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

leader's name - sketch pad of different westernised spellings
i'm just collecting different versions of the leader's name in latin spelling that have been used so far in the article or in sources. If/when someone creates the article, they'll need to be redirected. Please update this list as necessary, or add comments if you think you know which one would be best. See Iranian names and Arabic names for general hints on West Asian names and the differences with typical European naming conventions - Baloch names probably are closer to Iranian and/or Arabic style than European. The Arabic names article is quite detailed in explaining things. Boud 23:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Abd el Malik Regi - ABC version - http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/04/abc_news_exclus.html
 * Abdul Malik Rigi
 * Abdulmalak Rigi
 * Emir Abdul Malik Baluch

Wha?
OK, I'm laughing a little right now. Must..try...to...steady...hands. OK. Question: What's the problem with this paragraph about the ABC report asserting ties between the US government and Jundallah: "The report cited unidentified officials and provided no credible evidence to back the claims. Fars News Agency reports that the United States government is involved in Jundullah terrorists acts.[7] On April 2, 2007, Abdul Malik Rigi, the head of the Iranian branch, appeared on Voice of America, the official broadcasting service of the United States government, which identified Rigi as "the leader of popular Iranian resistance movement". This incident resulted in public condemnation by Iranian-American communities in the U.S.[8][9][10][11]"

Answer: Well, first of all, slapping down an ABC report as providing "no credible evidence" is an evaluative judgment that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, but beyond that: how can there be any question of credible links between Jundallah and the US government when a prominent leader of Jundallah appears on Voice of America radio? Can someone explain that to me? I mean, Jesus, the Iranians are pointing to that and saying "DUH!" MarkB2 01:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Amusing
It is amusing that this article pushes the POV that Jundallah is both Al-Qaeda and US-backed, a view that is only held by the Iranian regime and Wikipedia.--▓▒░الأهواز ★ Al-Ahwaz░▒▓ 12:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed a section
I removed the following text:

"However, that information has been subjected to caution, since its source, Alexis Debat, a consultant for ABC News since six years, and writer at The National Interest, has been revealed as having made two bogus interviews, one of Barrack Obama and another of Alan Greenspan, and of having faked a Ph.D. from the Sorbonne University . Debat was forced to resign both from ABC News and from The National Interest."

The citations given do not say that the factual accuracy of the story mentioned has been questioned because of the reporters other controversies. They simply state the existence of those controversies. Linking the two together is Original Research. It is also a quite blatant character attack on a critic of the United States government, so could be considered POV. On the basis of this I have removed it. Damburger 13:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

the reference for the claim "It is also believed to receive support from the US government." is a blog. The blog references unsourced claims made by Seymour Kersh in an interview with NPR. The claim should be removed if it cannot be referenced with primary or secondary sources. Blogs are not legitimate journalistic sources, hence it is certain they cannot be used in encyclopaediaes. Can primary or secondary sources be provided for proper reference? The claim should be promptly removed if such sources cannot be provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.24.144.155 (talk) 05:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008
Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 17:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you serious.....
I have removed the following text from the page: “A senior Iranian official blamed US for blast as US known well only financer for  Jundullah.” 1.	If you contribute to Wikipedia please learn to speak English first 2.	Press TV is not a reliable source of information 3.	This article is inaccurate enough as it is and the last thing it needs is to have to put up with this bullshit. --User:jfry3 (User talk:jfry3) 6:33 May 30 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 22:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC).

Two kind of Jundallah
Could we make it more spesific for this article entry, because there are the Jundallah angels which are the soldiers of Allah. According to Islamic history, they are angels whom God sent down to strengthen the Army of the believers. What do you think guys? Thanks!

SKULLSPLITTER (talk) 04:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. There are more than one Jundallah. Ellipi (talk) 16:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Source Transparency
The major problem with this article is a lack of transparency regarding the sources of allegations. The Iranian government has views about Jundallah, and that's fine, but they ought to be circumscribed as just that: the Iranian government's opinion. I count Press TV, as a state-run media outlet, as an organ of the Iranian state. It should be noted in this regard that if there's a particularly controversial claim, you cannot make it objective by citing 3 Press TV sources. I also think that nothing disputed or controversial should be stated as objective in the introductory paragraph. I'm going to try to do a little clean-up myself, but the article may need to be reformatted at the top-level. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.49.164 (talk) 14:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Jundallah in Waziristan
I submit to the forum that there are two organizations with the name "Jundallah", one based in Iran and the other based in Waziristan. It's the Waziristan group that was led by Khalid Mohammad and al-Qaeda affilitated. I came to this conclusion after reviewing the sources and noting that nothing in them explicitly connects the al-Qaeda affiliates to Iran. Given that "Jundallah" is a name with political and religious symbolism, it's not unlikely that it's just a coincidence. I will clean up the article accordingly. If someone disagrees, cite sources explicitly connecting the two. Please do not put into the introductory paragraph because, even if true, it's disputed and so cannot be stated objectively, with confidence, and without regard to the source of the allegation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.49.164 (talk) 14:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Source For US Support a Lier and Seymour Hersh
First is their a difference between the two?No.Is Jundallah part of Cheny's Hit Squads ? I say get a source we know is one not an unnamed source two a non-political journalist source would be nice. But overall its a nice article really up to date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by N8Riley (talk • contribs) 11:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

More Information, less accusations.
This article seems to just be a collection of articles about possible US involvement. I'm not looking to argue whether the US is or is not involved, but it seems like this article should have far more information about the group itself. I'm going to mark it disputed and needing cleanup until some of these issue have been resolved.

The reason for the need for cleanup is the complaints, which I feel are warranted, over the wording and sentence structure used in the article. It's clear that a large portion of this article has been written by non-English speaking writers, and just requires some tweaking to make it more readable.

The reason for the disputed tag is due to the concerns over the validity and neutrality of sources, the overwhelming focus of the article on foreign involvement and funding rather than on the group itself, and the cursory mention of there being several groups using this name that are not connected. Meltonkt (talk) 21:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * After reviewing the Wikipedia Guidelines, I marked the article as having issues, rather than call out the specific problems. The tags that I feel are relevent are restructure, debate, and external links. Meltonkt (talk) 21:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 02:15, 12 June 2016 (UTC)