![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on July 28, 2021. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
![]() | This page was proposed for deletion by Thepharoah17 ( talk · contribs) on 28 July 2021. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Khorasan group article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS The article Khorasan group, along with other pages relating to the Syrian Civil War and ISIL, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | Page views of this article over the last 90 days:
|
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
At this point this is purely WP:OR, but Abu Muslim Khorasani is a presumptive historical reference for the name of the group.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)
Khorasan is just south of Turkmenistan. It is not Afghanistan. http://en.wikipedia.org/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.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gedrosia#mediaviewer/File:Map-alexander-empire.png
Khorasan was another word for Parthia or Parthynia.
See discussion here: Talk:Khorasan Group 71.20.250.51 ( talk) 03:29, 24 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)
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)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
and |year=
/ |date=
mismatch (
help)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)
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)
It isn't called "Khorasan Group"
/khɒˈreɪ.sən/? 85.193.241.184 ( talk) 10:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This article's factual accuracy is
disputed. |
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)
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)
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)
She worked for The Jerusalem Report as well, and seems reliable to me as well. Drmies ( talk) 23:01, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This article describes a work or element of fiction in a primarily
in-universe style. |
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)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on July 28, 2021. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
![]() | This page was proposed for deletion by Thepharoah17 ( talk · contribs) on 28 July 2021. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Khorasan group article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS The article Khorasan group, along with other pages relating to the Syrian Civil War and ISIL, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | Page views of this article over the last 90 days:
|
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
Khorasan is just south of Turkmenistan. It is not Afghanistan. http://en.wikipedia.org/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.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gedrosia#mediaviewer/File:Map-alexander-empire.png
Khorasan was another word for Parthia or Parthynia.
See discussion here: Talk:Khorasan Group 71.20.250.51 ( talk) 03:29, 24 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)
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)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
and |year=
/ |date=
mismatch (
help)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)
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)
It isn't called "Khorasan Group"
/khɒˈreɪ.sən/? 85.193.241.184 ( talk) 10:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This article's factual accuracy is
disputed. |
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)
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)
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)
She worked for The Jerusalem Report as well, and seems reliable to me as well. Drmies ( talk) 23:01, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This article describes a work or element of fiction in a primarily
in-universe style. |
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)