Talk:Boko Haram: Difference between revisions

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Links

• 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

--Lihaas (talk) 15:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

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. <Sarcasm off>. --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)

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)

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)

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)

References

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)

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)

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 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)

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