Talk:Al-Qaeda activities in Europe/Archive 1

Archive 1

2009 England attempted bombings

This section needs references. There are a bunch of references to newspapers reporting stuff about this, so why aren't they sourced? Kkeurope (talk) 23:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Bosnia and Herzegovina

This is whole lot of article for just a couple of loose citations and speculations. Vexorg (talk) 23:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Source #1: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/bosnia/july-dec05/holbrooke_11-22.html - This questionable source mentions one guy claiming the Mujahideen are Al-qaeda. removing Vexorg (talk) 05:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Source #2: http://www.saag.org/papers4/paper306.html - doesn't exist - removing Vexorg (talk) 05:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Source #3: http://www.fhs.se/upload/Webbadmin/Organisation/CATS/Kohlmann.doc - not a reputable source and no claim of Al-qaeda attacks in Europe. removing/ Vexorg (talk) 05:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Source #4: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/30/AR2005113002098.html - nothing to say Al-qaeda carried out any attacks. removing. Vexorg (talk) 05:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Main article: Bosnian mujahideen

Following systematic checking of sources, there's no source of any al-qaeda being involved in attacks in Bosnia. removing section. Vexorg (talk) 05:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

London Bombings

The two sources provided are journalistic implication and not really sources. The fox source even says Al-qaeda are not directly involved. The video of Mohammad Sidique Khan does not claim it was al-qaeda. The picture of zawahiri edited into the video do not prove involvement. In fact Here's a more concrete source about the inquiry involving MI5, MI6, the listening centre at GCHQ, and the police which find no evidence of involvement by Al-qaeda

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/london-bombings-the-truth-emerges-502660.html 90.241.169.91 (talk) 22:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Gave time for comment. Reputable source says MI5, MI6, the listening centre at GCHQ, and the police all found no evidence of Al-qaeda invlvoement. Therfore removing section. Vexorg (talk) 00:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Added info: 7_July_2005_London_bombings#Claims_of_responsibility -- Sources show al-qaeda not resonsible. Vexorg (talk) 17:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

User Joshua Darkins: According to all the sources there is no evidence of Al-qaeda having any involvement in the London 7-7 bombings. Even you fox news source says A-Qaeda didn't directly claim responsibility. Why are you so intent on including this event in a list of Al-Qaeda involvement in Europe. Vexorg (talk) 20:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

FOR REFERENCE: link to Editor assistance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Al-Qaeda_involvement_in_Europe Vexorg (talk) 20:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It's fine for this article to explain specifics about al-Qaeda's extent of involvement and claims of responsibility in the London bombings. It's okay to say the involvement was indirect, but it's not okay to completely remove the section. Same goes for the section about Spain and others. --Aude (talk) 08:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

My main concern is readers being misled. Personally I think an article that is titled Al-Qaeda involvement in Europe is easily going to be construed as definite Al-Qaeda attacks and as such shouldn't exist. However as long as this article doesn't mislead anyone I won't fight for it's removal. The big problem with these type of wikipedia articles is that they are largely built upon sources from mainstream media articles which generally use a lot of journalistic license. We must be careful not to allow Wikipedia to become yet another tabloid newspaper. Vexorg (talk) 19:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Spain

The first ref I've removed as it is not a source for al-qaeda involvement In fact the article itself even recognizes this 90.241.169.91 (talk) 22:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

2004_Madrid_train_bombings - It's been established in the actual Wikipedia article that no evidence of al-qaeda involvement has been found. With sources. 90.241.169.91 (talk) 22:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Then, here is a source.

2004—The Madrid Bombing - On March 11, 2004, Spain's most horrific terrorist attack occurred: 202 people were killed and 1,400 were injured in bombings at Madrid's railway station. Evidence soon emerged that al-Qaeda was responsible. By April, a dozen suspects, most of them Moroccan, were arrested for the bombings. On April 4, several suspects blew themselves up during a police raid to avoid capture. Joshua Darkins (talk) 21:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, let's start again ...

1st source: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/12/world/main605547.shtml - "The group making the claim, Abu Hafs al Masri Brigades, is affiliated with al Qaeda and has carried out bombings before. But U.S. officials caution the group is "notoriously unreliable" and does not necessarily speak for Osama bin Laden's organization. For example, Abu Hafs took credit for last summer's Northeast blackout, Orr reports. " - This source offers no evidence of al-qaeda involvement. Comments by US officals back this up. Vexorg (talk) 05:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

2nd source: http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2007/08/06/internacional/1186414637.html - This source simply says Al-qaeda has stated "be proud of "destruction" which struck Madrid and London." This is not a source that shows Al-Qaeda Committed the Madrid bombings- Removing source. Vexorg (talk) 05:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

3rd source: http://www.infoplease.com/spot/al-qaeda-terrorism.html - This is simply not a reputable source. It makes claims with no backup nor rationale. It also contradicts itself. removing. Vexorg (talk) 05:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, in keeping with the main article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Madrid_train_bombings#Responsibility which sources that no evidence of Al-Qaeda involvement has been found and the weakness and untenability of the sources above I'm removing the section for spain Vexorg (talk) 05:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Scotland

removing first source. Someone meeting Zarqawi is not a source that says the scottish attack was Al-qaeda 90.241.169.91 (talk) 22:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

removing second source as no source of al-qaeda being responsible 90.241.169.91 (talk) 22:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

removing third source and section. someone claiming it has the "hallmarks of Al-qaeda" is no credible source of it being an al-qaeda attack. 90.241.169.91 (talk) 23:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Please seek consensus, i. e. waiting for other users' comments on your proposals or ideas. Your assumption of what is or is not a credible source is against WP:NPOV and WP:VERIFY. You are free to remove unsourced claims, but your edits remove sourced material (see WP:SOURCE). Thank you for your cooperation. --Catgut (talk) 23:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

They are not assumptions nor POV. One can objectively see those sources for what they are. Or rather for they are not. I have given proper rationale for removing those sections. Even the main wikipedia articles do not attribute these events to Al-Qaeda. Just because someone provides a link it doesn't mean it's a source. You have reverted material that is actually non sourced. Have you actually read those sources? In respect of other editors I shall leave as is for now to give reasonable time for comment before editing further. 90.241.169.91 (talk) 03:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Further: WP:SOURCE says: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[1] The source cited must clearly support the information as it is presented in the article." --- The sources cited here DO NOT clearly support the information as it is presented in the article. 90.241.169.91 (talk) 03:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I also notice that these edits were initially pounced and reverted upon using WP:HG. And application written for dealing with vandalism I see. Perhaps this could be the result of being a bit trigger happy? But I can assure you that this is OT valndalism. Like I say I have given proper rationale for removing these sections. The sources are not sources. But shall leave a sensible time for comment before rendering this article more accurate. 90.241.169.91 (talk) 05:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

This article is about Al-Qaeda involvement in Europe

Please stop edit warring by putting back events in this article which are not Al-Qaeda attacks and thus there is no Al-Qaeda involvement, Being inspired by something does not mean what inspired you was involved. Vexorg (talk) 18:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

2006 transatlantic aircraft plot

This plot was not an Al-Qaeda plot. The 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot has it's own article where any inspiration/alleged connections with Al-Qaeda are included. Please stop putting events in this article which are not carried out by Al-Qaeda! Thankyou Vexorg (talk) 22:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

to add. Please stop edit warring, and do not patronise me by putting 'Welcome to Wikipedia' templates on my talk page. If you carry on with this unconstructive style of editing I shall report you. Vexorg (talk) 22:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I have reported the user User:TheoloJ for inserting innappropriate material and edit warring without enterign this discussion. User reporteed here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:TheoloJ_reported_by_User:Vexorg_.28Result:_.29 Vexorg (talk) 22:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

This article should be deleted

Given that this article is called "Al-Qaeda involvement in Europe" and there has been no Al-Qaeda involvement in Europe then this article should be deleted. Vexorg (talk) 07:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I still think that this article should be deleted. There is no evidence of any Al-Qaeda Attacks in Europe. There has been no comment on this fopr 20 days now. I shall put up a quick delete tag soon. Vexorg (talk) 03:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

What on earth is your bizarre obsession with trying to delete all the material from this article and get it deleted all about? Did you even bother to do a quick search for information to add to this article instead of deleting sourced material? You can see dozens of news articles from major news agencies and websites on Al-Qaeda terror cells in Europe (There, I made the important parts bold for you) as well as world leaders such as Obama warning of the Al-Qaeda threat to Europe, so this article will become even more relevant as times goes on and therefore there is no reason to delete this article. TheoloJ (talk) 12:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I can see you're new to editing Wikipedia. Dozens of news articles speculating about Al-Qaeda terror cells from years ago when it was pertinent to do so does not mean there is Al-Qaeda involvement in Europe. The terror attacks in London and Madrid have seen no evidence of any AL-Qaeda involvement and have their own articles and have no relevance in this article. Wikipedia isn't about scouring old news articles and trying to make that speculative info into current facts.

And there is no bizarre obsession son. Material that isn't notable or relevant is removed from wikipedia articles. This article should be deleted becuase there isn't enough to make an article. Any small relevance of Al-Qaeda to Europe such as political spin from people like Obama should be put in the main Al-Qaeda Article. Vexorg (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Third Opinion

I came across this from the Third Opinion page. I've taken a look, and in my opinion the sources for the transatlantic airplane plot are enough to include that in this article.

That being said, I'm not totally convinced that this article is one that is worthwhile; if I saw it on AFD, I'd probably !vote delete/merge. PGWG (talk) 17:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree the article should be deleted. The small amount of info here should go into the main Al-Qaeda article. Vexorg (talk) 17:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Russia is NOT in Europe

User:TheoloJ - Now you are getting desperate to cling on to this dying article becuase it is up for deletion. Vexorg (talk) 22:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Errr... Russia is in Europe, it is considered to be part of both Europe and Asia. PGWG (talk) 12:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

North Caucasus - The North Caucasus is the northern part of the Caucasus region between the Black and Caspian Seas and within European Russia. Northern Caucasus region is included in the Southern Federal District and consists of Krasnodar Krai, Stavropol Krai, and the constituent republics, approximately from west to east: Adygea, Karachay-Cherkessia, Kabardino-Balkaria, North Ossetia-Alania, Ingushetia, Chechnya, and Dagestan. TheoloJ (talk) 13:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

TheoloJ, you are clearly very desperate to keep this pointless article open. I can see you trying to add anything that even the most remote speculative links with Al-Qaeda. Wikipedia simply becomes a mirror of tabloid newspapers when it is fuill of stories where "A source says the suspect was possibly linked with Al-Qaeda. What are you going to do next? Include a news story of someone who once sat in the same restaurant as Osama Bin Laden and has now travelled on a road that just skims inside the out edges of Europe? Your desperate attempts to fill the article with anything that has even the most flimsy connections are making you look silly, but worse is devaluing Wikipedia. Vexorg (talk) 19:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? The two things mentioned in the article are a major terrorist plot which would have resulted in the deaths of a minimum of 2000 people and an Al-Qaeda militant being killed near Chechnya, Chechnya is a major conflict, you don't think the fact that there is Al-Qaeda support for the Chechen insurgents is worth mentioning? Making me look "silly"? What planet are you on!? The purpose of being a Wikipedia editor is to improve articles, the information I'm adding will either remain or be merged into the main article and will be expanded and improved by other editors with more knowledge. You're the one trying to devalue Wikipedia, at first you tried to remove the 2006 plot saying there was no Al-Qaeda involvement, when there were numerous sources supporting the fact there was Al-Qaeda involvement from Pakistan, then you remove Russia claiming it's not in Europe, when it would have taken about 30 seconds to see that Dagestan is in Europe, then you remove the external links for no good reason. As I'm the one trying to add information rather than making snidy, pathetic comments about editors try to help the article and removing valid sourced material based on ignorance and misinformation, I don't thinks is's me that's looking "silly" here. TheoloJ (talk) 21:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

TheoloJ says ... "and an Al-Qaeda militant being killed near Chechnya, Chechnya is a major conflict, you don't think the fact that there is Al-Qaeda support for the Chechen insurgents is worth mentioning?" - This is exactly why you making yourself look silly. Firstly Al-Qaeda supporting a conflict in Chechnya is not involvement by Al-Qaeda in Europe or anywhere else. Secondly what on earth has the Chechnya War, or even Chechnya got to do with this? Using the weight of a serious and completely unrelated conflict to boost your argument is making you look extremely silly.

The militant who is only alleged to have connections with Al-Qaeda was killed in Dagestan, not Chechnya. The that you wrote in the article "in Dagestan, which is near Chechnya" nearly made me spit coffee over my computer monitor.

It's obvious you are scraping the barrel to include anything remotely alleged to be connected with groups alleged to be part of al-qaeda. It's obvious you stepped up this campaign as soon as the article was nominated for deletion. Vexorg (talk) 21:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

This article is about Al-Qaeda involvement in Europe, Chechnya is a major European conflict, there are Al-Qaeda militants fighting in Chechnya, the Chechnya war is related to this because there are Al-Qaeda militants fighting against the EUROPEAN Russian forces as part of the Chechen war. So... One could safely say that there is Al-Qaeda involvement in Europe and because this is an article about Al-Qaeda involvement in Europe, any Al-Qaeda involvement in Europe should be mentioned.

"Firstly Al-Qaeda supporting a conflict in Chechnya is not involvement by Al-Qaeda in Europe" - Are you serious?

By the way, does anyone else think it's ironic that I'm being called silly under the heading (started by Vexorg) "Russia is NOT in Europe"? TheoloJ (talk) 22:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear. Vexorg (talk) 22:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

TheoloJ ""Firstly Al-Qaeda supporting a conflict in Chechnya is not involvement by Al-Qaeda in Europe" - Are you serious?" - yes of course. Supporting something doesn't mean you are involved in it. I support the 'war on crime' but it doesn't mean that I involved in it. Vexorg (talk) 22:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

... I clearly was using the word "support" in the sense of military support. Which most certainly would constitute as involvement. TheoloJ (talk) 22:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

yeah yeah of course you were. Vexorg (talk) 22:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

"Al-Qaeda militant being killed near Chechnya, Chechnya is a major conflict, you don't think the fact that there is Al-Qaeda support for the Chechen insurgents is worth mentioning?" - Come on, this was clearly referring to military support rather than Al-Qaeda militants holding up banners and throwing parades in support of the Chechen insurgents. TheoloJ (talk) 22:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)