Talk:Khorasan group

Additional US govt source

Maybe this interview with Holder should be used: http://news.yahoo.com/holder--al-qaeda-offshoot-struck-by-airstrikes-was-close-to-attac-on-u-s---allies-200859317.html Kdammers (talk) 01:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Historical reference?

At this point this is purely WP:OR, but Abu Muslim Khorasani is a presumptive historical reference for the name of the group. This is in relation to the revolt (cf: Mihna) leading to the transition from Caliphate of Saffah to that of al-Mutawakkil. I considered adding this link (Abu Muslim Khorasani) to a 'See also' section, but decided that relevance was not obvious enough. Comments?   —71.20.250.51 (talk) 03:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

It's named after Khorasan, an old fashioned term for the AfPak region where they came from. Gazkthul (talk) 03:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that the name was chosen from the ancient empire and nothing else. Monart (talk) 03:06, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I was listening to NPR a few weeks ago and they talked about the "grey beards" of AQ, referring to the older members like this group consisted of who dislike the aspirations of the more youthful Islamic State. There's certainly a lot of hype on the news after this group has been suddenly announced and described. I urge editors to take it all in with some skepticism, based on the source, recentism, and potential propaganda. ~Technophant (talk) 05:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

It is unlikely that "Khorasan" is an ad-hoc designation based on membership origin, especially since (from the perspective of the "grey hairs") most people from the greater region could be considered as being "from Khorasan". As mentioned above, this is indeed an "ancient" term, but was not somehow randomly chosen. As of yet, a cursory search does not find publicly released information concerning the designation of the moniker. "Original Research" can find historical correlations, however, concerning elements of technique, objectives and recruitment. My apologies for turning this into an uncited thesis; I was merely attempting to solicit interest for those willing to provide background for this article. This is likely to become a fairly high-traffic WP article in the near future (if not already). In western accounts "background" tends to include the past few years, while in the middle east, "background" tends to include several centuries.   —71.20.250.51 (talk) 10:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I find the whole premise of the group as "suspect" because all of the information we have on this group (that I'm aware of) comes from National Intelligence Director James Clapper. I'm putting "allegedly" in the lead. If I'm wrong go ahead and revert it.~Technophant (talk) 03:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Khorasan is just south of Turkmenistan. It is not Afghanistan. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Khorasan_Province. The farthest west it concerned was the city of Balkh, which is in Afghanistan, but the only part of Afghanistan that is part of Khorasan. BACTRIA was the rest of Northern Afghanistan. And Pakistan was Drangiana, Arachosia, and Gedrosia. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Gedrosia#mediaviewer/File:Map-alexander-empire.png

Khorasan was another word for Parthia or Parthynia.

Merger?

See discussion here: Talk:Khorasan Group  71.20.250.51 (talk) 03:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and redirected. The newer page only had one source (incorporated into this article now) and some text that didn't pass NPOV.~Technophant (talk) 05:11, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Merge – "Khorasan" is not a distinct group, and should redirect to Nusra Front. http://edition.cnn.com/2014/09/24/world/meast/isis-al-nusra-khorasan-difference/ http://www.thedailystar.net/doubts-cast-over-us-strike-on-khorasan-43296 FunkMonk (talk) 17:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

According to the CNN source and [1], the Khorasan Group is simply part of Al Qaeda. David O. Johnson (talk) 16:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The Nusra Front is officially al Qaeda in Syria.[2] There is no separate al Qaeda faction there. FunkMonk (talk) 16:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I disagree; based on the two refs I gave (as well as the SITE reference in the article), it seems like an informal group of Al Qaeda members (the so-called Khorasan Group) traveled from the Af-Pak region to Syria in order to plot attacks against the US.David O. Johnson (talk) 17:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Nusra positions were attacked, so they are hosted by Nusra. That makes them little different from all the other foreign fighters who have joined Nusra. Certainly not worthy of a separate article, I'd say. Anyway, this will probably be explained soon enough by various media, it seems even the Americans are confused by what they hit. FunkMonk (talk) 17:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

No merge. – The Khorasan Group is a de-facto operations arm of Al Qaeda, and by the "common use" WP criterion, is a topic separate from the Nusra Front. What they call themselves is unknown, but the semantics originated from US sources. Cf.:

• Taylor, Adam (September 25). "The strange story behind the 'Khorasan' group's name". Washington Post. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help)
• "The Khorasan Group: Syria's Al Qaeda Threat". Ahlul Bayt News Agency. 24 September 2014. (note organizational chart)

71.20.250.51 (talk) 00:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Ehm, no, your own link contradicts your claim: "What's disputed is whether the Khorasan group is really any different from Jabhat al-Nusra, or whether it can even constitute a distinct entity at all. U.S. intelligence is reported to not see it so much as a rival group to Jabhat al-Nusra but as a group of foreign fighters “nested” with Jabhat al-Nusra and other groups. Analysts agree this seems most likely. "The [Khorasan group] is al-Qaeda, and there are no indications that they have split from al-Qaeda," Neumann explains. "Jabhat al-Nusra is al-Qaeda's official affiliate in Syria, and this means — de facto — that they would be part of Nusra."" FunkMonk (talk) 17:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

What I apparently failed to emphasize is the common usage of the term to describe a distinct entity (regardless of hodge-podge affiliations), therefore having its own article. By the reasoning above newt should be merged with salamander. —71.20.250.51 (talk) 18:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

But how is this "distinct entity" different from all the other foreign fighters who have joined the Nusra Front? In any case, the article here would need to be rewritten, as it is not an "Islamist group", it just refers to whoever joined Nusra from the 'stans. American "intelligence" agencies are good at getting confused by names and "groups". Reminds me of when they tortured a guy (Khalid El-Masri) who was member of a group with the word "Tawheed" in the name in the 80s, because they thought he was a member of recent al-Qaeda group also with the word "Tawheed" in the name FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

One certainly can't argue that 'Khorasan group' hasn't established notability, regardless of its affiliations. This group (according to a plethora of sources) was formed for a specific purpose. Let's say that if a "group of foreign fighters" formed a knitting club to provide sweaters for homeless puppies, and that group received substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject, then that group would qualify for its own WP article. —71.20.250.51 (talk) 19:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that in an almost any group of a significant size you'll find quite a bit of time and attention being paid to "sweater puppies" (but I digress). I'm very suspicious of all this new information from "government sources". It seems all too convenient to create an AQ-based "boogieman" like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was during the 2003-2006 period in order to justify striking JN. I would like all information gained through "government sources" to be attributed and much more information coming from more neutral sources like SITE and other research groups. I don't think there's enough good information right now to say either way whether they are their own group or "just a wing of Jabhat al-Nusra" as claimed in this source [3]. Technophant (talk) 02:47, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• MergeIt seems clear that Khorosan is, at best, an operational unit of the Nusra Front. Al-Qaeda operates through regional "franchises" which are generally non-overlapping. And there is precisely no sourcing to suggest that Khorosan is a separate "franchise" of al Qaeda, and plenty to indicate it is part of the Nusra front. Khorosan should be a section in that article, not an article unto itself. Gabrielthursday (talk) 08:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
• Merge This is just an American misunderstanding of AQC members who came to Syria to fight with Al-Qaeda branch there which is JAN. 3bdulelah (talk) 20:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
• Keep: Clearly meets WP:NOTABILITY guidelines. It's not our job to try to WikiSleuth the organizational structure of a jihadist group based on a bunch of second- and third-hand reports. A lot of WP:RS and notable players are commenting on this group; any uncertainty about its structure and position in the hierarchy can and should be noted in the article, but there is a clear and present basis for keeping it as a separate article from Nusra Front. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
• Merge There is no distinct group by this name, it simply refers to a group of AQ veterans from Afghanistan (referred to with the name Khorasan) that have joined Nusra. Documents found at one of the bombing site for example show the deceased Abu Yousuf al-Turki was a leader of al-Nusra's Wolf Unit. [4] Gazkthul (talk) 02:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
• Keep it is a notable branch of the Al-Nusra front and had planned attacks on the U.S. and was one of the main targets in initial airstrikes over Syria. Reliable sources indicate this is a terrorist group with enough notability so to have an article for it separately is fine. --Acetotyce (talk) 01:05, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment As an operational unit of the Nusra Front, Khorosan could merit a separate article if it outgrew the Nusra Front article. As it stands, that isn't an isue, but as information increases, perhaps it will. Above, Kudzul argues that "It's not our job to try to WikiSleuth the organizational structure of a jihadist group based on a bunch of second- and third-hand reports." While I generally agree with the principle, the current situation is a little different - if we keep the article independent when the sources indicate there isn't any genuine independence, we reflect an view unsupported by the sources. There's a decision to be made, one way or the other. There is no default position: we need to determine what the sources say. Gabrielthursday (talk) 05:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Merge - It appears that this group is somewhat of a distinct group, despite its close relation to al-Nusra. Their origins are slightly different, however. The Khorasan Group originated in Pakistan/Afghanistan, and its members were dispatched to Syria to aid the al-Nusra Front and ISIS's war effort. Even then, the history of this particular group makes it notable enough to have a separate article. LightandDark2000 (talk) 07:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
• Do Not Merge. At this point, the US government has anounced that it has struck targets that it associates with a group of men or operations that it calls by the name Khorosan group. if it turns out to be 1. a misappelation, 2. a puffed-up media campagin, or 3. some other entity that should not be called a separate group, that does not automatically mean merge at this point. if not a bona fide, distinct group, wikpedia should address that fact on the Khorosan group article page, for historical purposes. wikipedia should state that it's just the US govt's preferred name for something else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tango303 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 9 October 2014‎ (UTC)
• Merge – if these are the same, which is indicated, they can indeed be merged. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

It has been a little over a week since the last comment was posted, and it appears that both sides in this issue are evenly matched, without any unanimous support for a merger. Therefore, I'm closing this discussion as no consensus. LightandDark2000 (talk) 14:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Article name

The article should be simply "Khorasan group". Describing it as an "Islamist group" is inaccurate because no such formal group exists; the term is simply a public relations slogan, apparently invented around a week ago by US apparatchiks, to refer to 20 to 30 odd senior Al Qaeda members. Nulla Taciti (talk) 01:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the "Islamist" descriptor is unnecessary. Khorasan (group) or Khorasan Group seems most proper. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and move it to "Khorasan Group".David O. Johnson (talk) 18:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't do it; I'll put it in a request at the Wikipedia:Requested moves page.David O. Johnson (talk) 18:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Request has been added.David O. Johnson (talk) 19:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

We should still move this to Khorasan Group. Legacypac (talk) 22:14, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

It seems like no action was taken on that last requested move. Should I just add it again? David O. Johnson (talk) 23:04, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

It isn't called "Khorasan Group"

• "Khorasan" AND ("al-Qaeda" OR "Syria" OR "Muhsin al-Fadhli") gets"About 3,560 results" in S

"Khorasan Group" AND ("al-Qaeda" OR "Syria" OR "Muhsin al-Fadhli") gets "About 52 results" in S

Suggest Khorasan (militant group) as per Al-Shabaab (militant group). this is the least pov title. Islamist is POV because, as a Salafiyya, Sectarianist group, they don't represent all of Islam. GregKaye 19:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

How to pronounce it?

/khɒˈreɪ.sən/? 85.193.241.184 (talk) 10:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Yet another "new name"

I'm not sure how notable this individual report suggesting Khorasan is known within Nusra Front circles as the "Wolf Pack of Jabhat al-Nusra", from Alaan TV, is, but I figured I would leave it here. It's been picked up by Vox but I haven't seen it elsewhere yet, perhaps because it's an Arabic-language source. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Factual accuracy

This article was created at the same time the U.S. Government invented the Khorasan group and had it promoted on various U.S. networks— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.182.31 (talk) 23:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Correct. Khorasan is just the part of Iran south of Turkmenistan, use to contain Turkmenistan. But it is basically another name for Parthia or Parthynia. People associate it with Afghanistan/Pakistan, even though it never actually refer to such in historical context. It just appear convenient so we can associate Iran and Al-Queda to the same thing. What is better? Two groups that could never find common ground associated as the same thing?

I guess the U.S. government failed to realize that the Average American intelligence is higher than the level that would work for this ruse. It wouldn't be the only thing they had failed at. I suppose they should assume we'll believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy while they are at it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.104.223 (talk) 03:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

questions about right hand talk

Curious to hear thoughts on this notion:

When I go to local KFC, it may be franchised as West Texas Foods, but it bears the hallmarks of the chain. Other threads discuss the al-Queda franchising opportunities that abound with each having territorial integrity within their respective AOs. In re: the removal of this group from al-Nusra semantically, given the timeline, would it be prudent to mention/research the possibility that this group's nomenclature is derived from our end versus something the group's members chose? Simpler: group's members have not mentioned this as their name; proximity to mid term elections; previous declarations that al-Queda is dead; rise of ISIS; beheadings of journalists; perceived inefficacy of policy in the region; absence of effective deterrent or effective US force in AO --- can this article perhaps contain some reference to this group as a possible creation by our guys? With further research? Jigsaw6741 (talk) 18:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no need to resort to conspiracy theories; the name may be of recent coinage, but it is clear that the group existed. David O. Johnson (talk) 18:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, maybe not. I have added some refs to that effect. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 05:03, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Two of the refs you added (Al Jazeera & National Review) indicate that the group does exist; just not under the Khorasan Group name. It is made clear that the designation "Khorasan Group" was created by intelligence agencies, but it is undisputed that the group existed. David O. Johnson (talk) 05:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

One of the references is titled "The Khorosan [sic] Group does not exist", the other "Khorasan: The group that isn't". I don't see how that's ambiguous. I will add some quotes to the refs though so it's perfectly clear. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 06:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

The group does not exist under that name; as the Al Jazeera source points out "All I know is that they don't call themselves that", indicating that the group does exist. The National Review source indicates that ""It is simply a faction within the global terror network’s Syrian franchise, “Jabhat al-Nusra."" It is clear that the group exists, just not with the U.S. government-designated name. I'd rather not start an edit war, so let's discuss it further on here.David O. Johnson (talk) 07:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your temperance. I think it's more than just a disputed term. The New Republic article argues that the so-called group (and others) are parts of a larger terrorist organization and that calling them distinct groups is misleading. The Al Jazeera blog indicates that nobody in Syria seems to have heard of the supposed group, and concludes that the term was created to "push[] the idea that there are groups out there" (i.e. that it does not refer to any specific group). The Intercept article states that that the group was "created in media lore", allegedly to justify military intervention. The common theme to all of these is that not only is the term a made-up term, but there is no corresponding group or organization either. According to these sources, the group as described only exists as media hype. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 08:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I have added the phrase "as a distinct entity" to the sentence in the article to make this clearer. Nobody is disputing that there are terrorists in Syria. But these sources dispute that there is a distinct, identifiable terrorist group referred to as the Khorasan Group. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 08:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I just looked at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace article referenced in the first paragraph. They present a similar analysis: "What is being discussed is not a 'new terrorist group,' but rather a specialized cell that has gradually been established within, or on, the fringes of an already existing al-Qaeda franchise, the so-called Nusra Front." They also note that "The sudden flurry of revelations about the 'Khorasan Group' in the past two weeks smacks of strategic leaks and political spin. ... [T]hese leaks seem to have been designed to bolster the case for strikes against the Nusra Front". 67.188.230.128 (talk) 09:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Another potentially useful ref:

• Makarechi, Kia (29 September 2014). "Did the Government Invent an "Imminent" Threat to Bolster Support for War?". Vanity Fair.

67.188.230.128 (talk) 09:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

This conversation over what to call the group is a bit overblown; the name of the group does not matter that much. The fact that no one heard of the name "Khorasan Group" is because it was only used internally by U.S. government intelligence agencies. Thus, no one in the wider group was aware of the term. David O. Johnson (talk) 22:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Be that as it may, your personal opinion of the matter is of no relevance to the article. See WP:V and WP:OR for more information. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 23:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I am aware of that; I am simply discussing the article.... David O. Johnson (talk) 03:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The Carnegie ref backs what I am saying. It is not my personal opinion. This ref [5] also disputes the idea that the Khorasan Group doesn't exist. The Intercept reference is incorrect, at least in regard to the absolute non-existence of the Khorasan Group. David O. Johnson (talk) 16:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to keep the Intercept source in, but I'm going to add some info indicating that it might not be true. David O. Johnson (talk) 17:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Our job as Wikipedia editors is not to decide on truth, but to report on what sources say. See WP:VNT: "Editors may not add their own views to articles simply because they believe them to be correct, and may not remove sources' views from articles simply because they disagree with them". If you have a reliable source that is specifically responding to criticisms made in the Intercept article, then that may be worth adding. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 02:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and added one. David O. Johnson (talk) 05:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. However, I'm not sure the source you added satisfies either WP:SPS or WP:DUE. It seems like Paul Woodward is arguing against the Intercept / Carnegie Institute's minority view in favor of an even more minority viewpoint, i.e. that the Khorasan Group disclosures were intended as propaganda for the Syrians. I'll leave it in for now though with a tag. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 16:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The Carnegie Institute ref & the Intercept don't have the same views. The Intercept claims that the existence of the group was concocted in order to justify intervention in Syria, while the Carnegie ref indicates that the group of Al Qaeda veterans does exist (though they don't call themselves the Khorasan Group). David O. Johnson (talk) 19:32, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

They agree in as far as that the "leaks" and reports were intended to increase US support for intervention. As far as I know, the blogger you cited is the only one who has proposed that the intended propaganda target was the Syrian population. Anyway, I'll add a relevant quote regarding CI's view on the group's existence. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 16:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the source, its author has a long history in contributing intelligent comments and observations [6] and that particular piece is very well written. I think 67.188.230.128 should get himself/herself a user name. Anonymous editors posting aggressive comments like this [7] on named editors talk pages is not constructive. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• Tiptoethrutheminefield, I might as well ask you to create a user account using your real name. Whether the IP has a user name or not matters nothing at all--though I believe that those templated warnings are a bit strong. Drmies (talk) 21:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Drmies, the point is that there is no way to reply or interact with confidence with an IP address editor: an IP address is not an account and there is no talk page or edit history for the editor using that IP address. Multiple persons could use the same IP address and that editor could also use multiple IP addresses. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

That's not the point you seemed to be making and it's entirely irrelevant. The IP has a talk page (of course), and if you look at their edits it seems that they've been here quite some time, making constructive edits. "Anonymity" has nothing to do with it: you, without a user page and a name, are just as anonymous and for all I know you have a dozen other accounts. Seriously, Wikipedia:IP edits are not anonymous, not to mention On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. As long as there is no indication of foul play, one shall not cast aspersions on an IP editor. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me! I, as the author of the point I am trying to make, am far more likely to know what point I am trying to make than you! My point is that it is not possible to interact longterm with an IP editor because there is no way of knowing if it is the same person. And IP editors do not have their own talk pages - an IP talk page is not the same thing, it is collective for all editors using that IP address. Also, you, as an administrator, pass aspersions on IP editors every time you protect a page and make it editable only by account holders. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I accept your apology. I (semi-)protect in case of foul play. Drmies (talk) 22:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

See WP:SPS: "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable." 67.188.230.128 (talk) 16:31, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

AND the rest of it reads "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:10, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the tag for the Chechens in Syria site; after Googling the author, her work has been published in the Jerusalem Post [8]. David O. Johnson (talk) 22:35, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

She worked for The Jerusalem Report as well, and seems reliable to me as well. Drmies (talk) 23:01, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Sourced information being removed from article

Since my last visit to this article, I see that sourced information has been removed for apparent ideological reasons. Specifically, well-sourced criticism of the propaganda use of the term and questioning of the group's status as a distinct entity has been removed. This is inappropriate, but I do not have the time right now to fix it, so I have added a dispute template to the top of the article. Please do not remove the template until the dispute is resolved. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 16:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

This is already been discussed and answered by experienced users in the discussions above. Attempting to continue this discussion would only be moot. LightandDark2000 (talk) 19:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Said "experienced users" are not even aware of Wikipedia's single most basic and fundamental policy, Wikipedia:Verifiability. Removing sourced information from an article due to personal beliefs against Wikipedia policy. If you want to publish your own views on the subject, you are free to do so on a blog or discussion forum. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 20:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

But Wikipedia isn't a blog. That means you also need to follow the guidelines, and remain neutral by refraining from any additions that might pull the weight of the article towards your point of view. Wikipedia articles need to remain neutral, no matter what opinions the editors may have. It has already been discussed that your source was unreliable, so that last chunk of info was quite possibly inaccurate, if not biased. Anything else you added was already present in the article one way or another, so what you just did was add some redundant info/unnecessary expansions. Another editor has already told you above that you should stop the additions, so please don't continue and start an edit war. By the way, please improve your English, as it was kind of choppy, and I had trouble understanding parts of your last post. LightandDark2000 (talk) 06:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality means presenting all views in proportion to their prevalence in reliable sources. Removing reliable sources because you disagree with them is not neutrality, it is vandalism. The Independent, Vanity Fair, and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace are all reliable sources; as far as I know nobody has disputed that.

Perhaps you are confused because the sources themselves are not neutral, that is, they are arguing for a particular interpretation of events. This does not mean they should not be used; rather, Wikipedia should still report on what sources say in a neutral way. This is an easy mistake to make, don't feel bad about it! If you have more questions about how Wikipedia works, you might want to check out the Wikipedia:Teahouse, a help desk for new users. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 21:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Why are you assuming that LightandDark2000 is a new user? Checking their talk page indicates that they have been a user for 2.5 years. There is no need to talk down to a fellow editor. David O. Johnson (talk) 21:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

You're right, I was being patronizing. Sorry about that. But my point still stands - neutrality means reporting all significant viewpoints. I think to be productive we should be discussing how much weight these sources should be afforded per WP:DUE, not whether or not we think they are correct. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 02:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

By the way, if you include the edits I made as an IP editor, I was editing since early 2009. 5 years does not make me an inexperienced editor. Also, I made around 12,000 edits total, since the beginning of my editing career here on Wikipedia. Just so you know. So please, don't just assume stuff about people; it doesn't work out that way. LightandDark2000 (talk) 09:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Why didn't you know about verifability then? Popish Plot (talk) 20:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Why cannot this rhetoric follow the same course all rhetoric does in the United States. The Khorasan Group is a true terrorist group and holds no implication of trying to tie Iran (which the region of Khorasan is actually located) with Al-Queda and the Taliban, because the American people say so. Yes, it is us the American people who say so and as such just like the Democrats in Congress and the President are interfering and undermining the American People and their elected Republican representatives. This absolutely holds no bearing to the discourse and political infighting witnessed earlier in Obama's presidency when Republicans didn't control the Senate or even prior when they didn't even control the House. - this is all Satire by the way. I expect it could be used on comedy central by you know who. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.104.223 (talk) 03:14, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

McClatchy report (David Drugeon reference)

Recent French reporting shows citations 8 and 14 are false. David Drugeon was neither an intelligence officer, or cooperated with the DGSE or other intelligence agencies. The article should probably be edited to reflect such. http://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/societe/sur-la-piste-du-francais-d-al-qaeda_1613834.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:C6C2:6600:704D:FCAC:1056:B51 (talk) 17:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I've updated the article. David O. Johnson (talk) 01:26, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 29 July 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 15:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

---

Khorasan (Islamist group) → Khorasan group – Per WP:COMMONNAME, Khorasan Group is a much more frequently used term to describe this entity and contains a natural disambiguation as per WP:NATURAL which is not misleading. StanTheMan87 (talk) 12:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Google searches on the two terms:
Khorasan group - 737,000 results [9]
Khorasan (Islamist group) - 435,000 results [10]

Google News searches:
Khorasan group - 35,200 results [11]
Khorasan (Islamist group) - 19,100 results [12]

Sources that use 'Khorasan group' include: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace [13], the United Nations [14], the BBC [15], Reuters [16] and the United States Department of Defense [17]. More sources can be added, but these are all reliable, mainstream and official ones in their own right. StanTheMan87 (talk) 12:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support per WP:UCN and WP:NATURAL. RGloucester — ☎ 14:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support per above. Also consider Khorasan group per the Reuters and UN sources cited above, as Wikipedia generally eschews excess capitalization. (However, note that the UN source does not really appear to be the UN itself, but rather the Ghana delegation to the UN.) —BarrelProof (talk) 17:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support as per arabic wikipedia which presents "group-khorasan" and per WP:NATURAL. However in Google news searches on the two terms:

"khorasan" - 54,600 raw results

"khorasan group" - 27,800 raw results

Per comment by BarrelProof I would prefer Khorasan group. Its a war faction and, at least, Template:Infobox war faction prefers formal name. Other usage between "Khorasan group" and "Khorasan Group" is divided. 01:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support agreeing with earlier points. Gazkthul (talk) 01:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Footnote: Regarding the Google news results discussed above, please note that Khorasan is the name of a geographic place. Most of the mentions of Khorasan in very recent news reports might be about this group of people, but "Khorasan" – used by itself – especially if out of context or as a matter of long-term significance, is definitely a place rather than a group of people. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Propaganda being presented as fact

It's more than a year after this group was invented and the supposed threat from the group never materialized, no one has actually come forward as a member of the group, and US officials have stopped using the term once its purpose as a pretext for Syrian intervention was complete. Feels like the article could use a rewrite to more clearly separate fact from propaganda. 24.130.189.187 (talk) 01:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Khorasan Group is simply a US Gov shorthand for a group of Al Qaeda operatives who moved to Syria from Afghanistan (which was part of the historical region of Khorasan. According to CENTCOM [18]: "The Khorasan Group is a term used to refer to a network of Nusrah Front and al-Qa'ida core extremists who share a history of training operatives, facilitating fighters and money, and planning attacks against U.S. and Western targets".

Also, the term continues to be used by the Pentagon [19] "An Oct. 15 coalition airstrike in northwest Syria killed Abdul Mohsen Adballah Ibrahim al Charekh, also known as Sanafi al-Nasr, a Saudi national and the highest ranking leader of the network of veteran al-Qaida operatives sometimes called the Khorasan group" and the White House [20] "United States Armed Forces are also conducting airstrikes in Syria against operatives of al-Qa'ida, including members of the al-Qa'ida element known as the Khorasan Group". Gazkthul (talk) 03:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. But arguably this is not the same term as the imaginary "threat to das Vaterland" being talked about in this article. What happened to all the scare stories about exploding toothpaste and what not? 24.130.189.187 (talk) 17:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Removing cites and content not directly related to Khorasan Group

Removing references to figures and military actions not directly related to the Khorasan Group according to WP:RS and the current cites in the article:

• Abu Khayr al-Masri, al-Qaida #2 was in Syria with Nusra, but not associated with KG
• Mentions of airstrikes against Tahrir al-Sham, not KG specifically
• Airstrike against Shaykh Sulayman training camp on 19 January 2017, not directly related to KG

Longhornsg (talk) 01:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)