Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamist insurgency in Nigeria

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Rough consensus indicates that the article should be kept. (non-admin closure) Jim Carter 05:49, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Islamist insurgency in Nigeria[edit]

Islamist insurgency in Nigeria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article seems to exist solely to propagate a POV that all sectarian conflicts involving Muslims (which this article calls "Islamist") in Nigeria, along with Boko Haram, are closely related somehow. However, reliable sources do not make this claim, or support it in any way. The information in this article is duplicated in Boko Haram and the other articles linked to from this article. (See also Talk:Islamist_insurgency_in_Nigeria#Delete_this_article). Essentially, this article frames the Boko Haram Islamist movement as part of a wider "Islamist insurgency in Nigeria" - a purely WP:OR claim that no WP:RS makes. zzz (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. zzz (talk) 00:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let's separate a few claims. 1. Is the phrase "Islamist insurgency in Nigeria" ever used by reliable sources? Yes:
  • Note that this nomination does not claim that the phrase is not used. zzz (talk) 04:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can go on, but I suppose this will suffice. Next claim: 2. is Boko Haram related to "all sectarian conflicts involving Muslims in Nigeria"? No, but the article doesn't claim that. The intro, the infobox and the main text starting from 'History' clearly state Boko Haram didn't get involved in the conflict until 2009.
Next claim: 3. Is the Boko Haram Islamist movement part of a wider "Islamist insurgency in Nigeria"? Well, it's not the only Islamist group in Nigeria, there is also Ansaru and Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, so yes.
Thus I conclude your motivations for nominating this article for deletion are unfounded, since RS back up the claims that are therefore not OR. Greetings, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:46, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - this article details a major armed conflict with thousands of deaths annually it is notable and will continue to be so. It seems to me what you are really arguing for is a rename.XavierGreen (talk) 22:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nederlandse Leeuw 1:"Let's separate a few claims" - You will see, from my statement above, that I did not claim that the phrase "Islamist insurgency" is never used. As you have demonstrated, it sometimes (infrequently) is used. The problem is, it is only used to describe Boko Haram.

2:You state that "Boko Haram didn't get involved in the conflict until 2009" - So, what is the "conflict" which they "joined" in 2009? You have not provided any WP:RS stating that they "joined" a "conflict" in 2009. That is purely an invention of the article.

3: As I explained to you on the talk page, Ansaru was a short-lived off-shoot of Boko Haram which is thought to have conducted some kidnappings on behalf of them in neighbouring Cameroon around 2013. As I explained to you, they are already covered in the Boko Haram article, and in their own article.

Finally, AQIM has never operated in Nigeria. I am frankly amazed that you think otherwise - no WP:RS has ever said anything of the sort. (Boko Haram are thought to have obtained training and funding from them at some point - in other African countries - as stated in the sources you quoted.)

Unfortunately, you have not addressed any of the problems I raised.

@XavierGreen Boko Haram are indeed notable - and there is a Wikipedia article about them. As I said, the phrase "Islamist insurgency in Nigeria" is only ever used to refer to them - at least, that is, outside of the Wikipedia article Islamist insurgency in Nigeria. zzz (talk) 00:29, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are other smaller islamist groups fighting the government as well, most notably ANSARU. The page in question here needs to be expanded to cover the full history of the conflict.XavierGreen (talk) 00:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat: Ansaru was a short-lived off-shoot of Boko Haram which is thought to have conducted some kidnappings on behalf of them in neighbouring Cameroon around 2013. They are already covered in the Boko Haram article, and in their own article.
"There are other smaller islamist groups fighting the government as well". No - there are not. WP:RS, please. zzz (talk) 00:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay zzz, I will attempt to answer your new/remaining questions. 1. You ignore the Mirror article I cited that clearly uses 'Islamist insurgency' referring only to Ansaru, not to Boko Haram, and ignore the two other articles that mention both Boko Haram and Ansaru as groups that are behind the Islamist insurgency, therefore you simply cannot maintain "it is only used to describe Boko Haram".
2. They joined what was until then known as the "Sharia Conflict in Nigeria". It is clear that Boko Haram has aggrevated the already highly contentious introduction of Sharia law in the northern states by starting to fight for introduction of Sharia law all over Nigeria. I can give many examples of newspapers explicitly linking the rise of Boko Haram to the conflict that already existed since 2000, like Ibrahim Mshelliza, Reuters (27 July 2009): "Gun battles between police and members of a local Islamic group, which wants a wider adoption of Islamic law across Nigeria, were reported in Yobe, Kano and Borno states. The attacks came a day after more than 50 people were killed in neighbouring Bauchi state. (...) The four northern states are among the 12 of Nigeria's 36 states that started a stricter enforcement of sharia in 2000 - a decision that has alienated sizeable Christian minorities and sparked bouts of sectarian violence that killed thousands.(...) A senior member of the rebel group Boko Haram, which opposes Western education and demands the adoption of sharia law in all of Nigeria, threatened further attacks."
3. It "was"? What makes you think the organisation has been dissolved or otherwise ceased all its activities? About three weeks ago, Ansaru issued a statement of condolence for the victims of the 28 November attack of the Central Mosque in Kano. That activity is quite recent.
AQIM has definitely operated in Nigeria:

1: The Mirror article which you claim I "ignored" is about the 2013 kidnapping of Brendan Vaughan. The Telegraph: "Brendan Vaughan was killed with six colleagues, from Italy, Greece and Lebanon, who were all taken hostage last month by gunmen from Ansaru, an offshoot of Nigeria’s al-Qaeda-allied militants, Boko Haram."

2: The source you quote here is about the July 2009 uprising of Boko Haram; the source states "Boko Haram, which means 'education illegal,' began its string of attacks in the northeastern city of Bauchi on Sunday after the arrest of some of its members." No source has ever claimed or implied that the uprising was a continuation of the "Sharia conflict", which was a series of sectarian riots. (And, of course, Boko Haram have never been involved in any sectarian riots, which are a completely separate phenomenon - see for example [1]).

3: The (highly dubious) Nigerian article you quote says that Ansaru "apparently (?) issued a statement of condolence for the victims, in effect condemning the attack." The writer of the article offers no evidence whatsoever that they are active, and even helpfully offers the opinion that, based on their "apparent" statement, they are not.

And no, AQIM have never operated in Nigeria: no RS has ever said otherwise. Your Aljazeera quote merely speculates idly that some guy called Tulha "even went to Nigeria" in 2006. zzz (talk) 04:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TL;DR
  • I hope that, at some point, someone will address the reason for deleting this confused, WP:POVFORK of Boko Haram:

    Essentially, this article frames the Boko Haram Islamist movement as part of a wider "Islamist insurgency in Nigeria" - a purely WP:OR claim that no WP:RS makes.

    And, please note that the sectarian riots which constituted the "Sharia conflict" have never been described as an "Islamist insurgency in Nigeria" - except in this Wikipedia article. This article is a complete embarrassment and a liability. zzz (talk) 04:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1. Not sure what you're trying to prove here. I don't doubt that Ansaru is an offshoot of Boko Haram, but that actually proves the point that there are several independent Islamist groups involved in this Islamist insurgency.
2. "No source has ever claimed or implied that the uprising was a continuation of the "Sharia conflict"". You ignore the Reuters article I provided that links the post-1999 religious riots during the introduction of Sharia law in the northern states to Boko Haram's violent efforts to introduce Sharia law to all other Nigerian states as well. Reuters had no reason to bring up the riots unless to trace Boko Haram's attack to the same source of conflict. Here, have some more:
3. It serves to prove that Ansaru is not 'short-lived' because it still exists; in fact, the UN designated Ansaru as a terrorist organisation on 26 June 2014, so they still regard it as relevant. Again you ignore the Abendblatt article that tells how AQIM killed a German man in Kano. If you don't know German, get a machine translation or ask someone to translate it instead of ignoring it. And it's not just 'some guy', this is Abderrahmane alias "Abu Talha Al Mauritani", the amir (chief) of the Al Fourqan brigade of AQIM. What he said in that interview is that he has gone to Nigeria to recruit members for AQIM there. That is AQIM operating in Nigeria, no matter how much you try to ignore, deny or downplay it. Boko Haram, Ansaru and AQIM are three of the Islamist groups we know by name to participate in the 'wider' Islamist insurgency in Nigeria, that should be obvious by now and enough to answer your question.
I agree the term "Islamist insurgency in Nigeria" has never been used to describe the religious riots that constituted the "Sharia conflict". Nor should it: those riots were always short-lived outbursts of religious hatred, and although there is evidence of coordination behind some of them, like the Miss World riots, we don't see an organised rebellion against the Nigerian government until 2009 (interrupted on 29 July, resumed in December 2010). If that is a problem for you, that just means we need to correct the intro and the infobox to saying the conflict began in 2009, even though clarifying the root conflict about introduction and actual implementation of Sharia in some or all of Nigeria's states lie much deeper than the July 2009 Boko Haram uprising. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Per above, voluminous notable sources use the exact phrase to describe the ongoing situation. To even continue entertaining the possibility of an oblique chance this article would be deleted is a disservice to a Wikipedia, and emboldens further zealotry-motivated AfDs.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 20:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Zealotry-motivated": the above vote should be ignored as a blatant personal attack.
<sarc> I think votes should be worth double if they're opposed by people cruising for a block.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 06:59, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No militant Islamist groups other than Boko Haram and Ansaru have ever been identified by any WP:RS as being involved in any "Islamist insurgency in Nigeria". Therefore, this article can only ever be a WP:POVFORK of Boko Haram - Ansaru is an off-shoot of Boko haram, and as such is covered in the Boko Haram article.
  • It currently also contains material about the Sharia conflict, which has never been described as as an "Islamist insurgency": this will therefore have to be removed, leaving only material about Boko Haram and Ansaru. The result being 2 Boko Haram articles. zzz (talk) 20:22, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments: A. The article was clearly not set up as a POV fork of Boko Haram. The oldest version (27 June 2010) by Sarcelles was called Nigerian sectarian violence and did not even mention Boko Haram, and does not remotely resemble the contemporaneous version of Boko Haram.
B. I'll repeat my proposal on the talk page to split the article in two (or three: one for the Maitatsine insurgency, too) to make a clearer distinction between the occasional communal violence from 1999 onwards and the start of Boko Haram's sustained rebellion since 2009/2010.
C. I don't doubt your qualities as a writer on the subject, I've seen you've greatly improved the article on Boko Haram. But I don't see why you so vehemently oppose this article. Do you only want people to read what you wrote or something, and you regard this article as your competitor? There really is no need to worry. The two articles are closely related, but not the same; they support each other, they don't vie for the readers' attention. :(After edit conflict) You don't think Aljazeera and Hamburger Abendblatt are RS? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:39, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say "there are several independent Islamist groups involved in this Islamist insurgency." No: there is Boko Haram, and there is ansaru, an offshoot of Boko Haram. Agreed? zzz (talk) 20:43, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I am right, then this article can only be a POVFORK. If I am wrong and there are several, please name them, with sources. zzz (talk) 20:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong and I have already explained why and named them with sources. That you ignore the sources doesn't mean they don't exist. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:54, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, you have named AQIM, for which you have only found one source (in German). The Aljazeera source does not state that AQIM have been active in Nigeria, only that a member "visited" (supposedly) in 2006. Why are there no (or, arguably, only one) English language sources to support this extraordinary claim? And how can any useful content be added from one or possibly two sources anyway? zzz (talk) 21:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The name of the article is only ever used to refer to Boko Haram and its offshoot Ansaru, so the name has to be changed, but other possible names are taken, eg Religious violence in Nigeria, Sharia in Nigeria etc. I can't see any use for the article. At the moment, it is a synonym for Boko Haram, as used by WP:RS, which is a ridiculous state of affairs. zzz (talk) 21:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Want more sources on AQIM? via Agence France Presse via Deutsche Presse-Agentur also via AFP Stratfor Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
These are all about the same German captive. The first source says "AQIM has not been known to operate directly in Nigeria". It would appear that Boko Haram did at one point hand this one captive to AQIM. And, as of June 2014, Boko Haram is not believed by the US government to be affiliated to al Qaeda [2]. zzz (talk) 22:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"It would appear that Boko Haram did at one point hand this one captive to AQIM". WP:RS, please. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? The 5 sources you just provided "about AQIM" (as you said) are all about this one German engineer (whose existence I was unaware of). The only relevance to this thread is that "AQIM has not been known to operate directly in Nigeria", as the first one (AFP) says, but you were disputing at great length, above. zzz (talk) 03:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - Plenty of great sources. I see no point for this nomination to be honest.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:28, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BabbaQ, There are indeed plenty of sources using the phrase, and they all refer to Boko Haram. So I see no point in this article. zzz (talk) 04:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ill explain one more time, since the voter above admitted to not seeing the point in this nomination.

  1. What should Islamist insurgency in Nigeria be about?
  2. Boko Haram? No, there is already an article about them - including their offshoot Ansaru, and including their past links to Al Qaeda and AQIM. Boko_Haram#Background already covers the background of Boko Haram, and could be expanded.
  3. No one and nothing else in Nigeria has ever been described, by any sources anywhere, at any time, as an Islamist insurgency in Nigeria. Sectarian riots, which are not connected to Boko Haram, have occurred quite frequently, but no one has ever described these as "Islamist" or as an "insurgency".
  4. So change the name? No, because there is already an article called Religious violence in Nigeria, Sharia in Nigeria etc etc. No plausible name change has been suggested by anyone.
  5. Therefore it should be deleted - or alternatively, a redirect to Boko Haram. zzz (talk) 07:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I ask that oppose voters please specify which part of the above they disagree with, and why. Thanks. zzz (talk) 09:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - as amply demonstrated, this clearly meets WP:GNG as being well-sourced. On one hand, it plainly needs quite a bit of editing; it is tagged to death and one source in the external links needs to be cited in the lead. On the other hand, it is not so clearly a content fork nor such as disaster as to require all objective readers to delete this. So it's up to a subjective view of a fellow sysop here: it's your call, closing admin. Bearian (talk) 14:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The entire lead section is a close paraphrase of that one external links source. No other source contains this POV, that "Northern Nigeria has been in a state of conflict since 2001, culminating with the formation of the Boko Haram. Over the past five years, starting in 2009, the conflict has clearly been at its most violent phase." This single statement is factually wrong on several counts (Boko Haram was formed in 2002, and not involved in any violence at all until 2009, facts she was clearly unaware of). It is unnacceptable to have a POVFORK based entirely around one article. Who is "KIRTHI JAYAKUMAR" anyway? She doesn't qualify for her own Wikipedia article, so why should one article she wrote result in an entire POVFORK about Boko Haram? If her theory of the history of Boko Haram is notable, it should be added to the Boko Haram article, clearly - not used as the basis for a POVFORK. zzz (talk) 16:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The sources using the phrase "Islamist insurgency in Nigeria" are all using it to refer to Boko Haram. Of course it is well-sourced - there is an "Islamist insurgency" going on - but it is clearly a WP:FORK, surely? How is it not a FORK? Should we have both ISIS and Islamist insurgency in Syria? What for? I have had a couple of articles concerning Boko Haram deleted (after having brought the Boko Haram article to a reasonable standard), because they were non-notable and created by a banned user (and there are a few more) - but I am completely wasting my time trying to sort this topic out if this article is allowed to remain. If it remains, what is to be done with it, bearing in mind that its title is precisely equivalent to "Boko Haram insurgency in Nigeria" (according to all of the sources that use the phrase)? zzz (talk) 15:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase "Islamist insurgency" is "sourced". But every source is referring to Boko Haram. It is a WP:FORK. zzz (talk) 17:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One last thing: I strongly believe that no one called it (ie, Boko Haram's activities) an "insurgency" til 2011 (at least - probably much later, in fact), when they (Boko Haram) started attacking police stations. (See Talk:Boko_Haram#Terror_campaign_.2F_Insurgency where I discussed this exact point some time ago with a user who actually cared about accuracy). But this article just casually calls everything that happened in Nigeria from 1999 (at least) an "insurgency" (and, "Islamist") with no sources whatsoever. It is a blatant WP:POVFORK. And the enormous length of this discussion is a sad indictment, frankly. I'm actually right here (by which I mean, all the sources back me up), and yet only one voter has admitted (possibly, I think?) that that might be the case - but still voted "Keep". It is depressing. This article just re-writes history. zzz (talk) 00:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"This article will define all violence in Nigeria involving Muslims as an Islamist insurgency in Nigeria. According to an article written by Kirthi Jayakumar, the "Boko Haram conflict" began in 2001, a year before the group had formed, and two years after Sharia in Nigeria was first introduced, and the "most violent phase" began in 2009. Other Islamist insurgencies had occurred before, also, throughout the recorded history of the country since the 11th century CE, but this article will arbitrarily ignore most of them."
That is literally the best I can do for the opening paragraph of this article, if it is kept, in its current form. Note that there is already an article called Religious violence in Nigeria, necessitating the random specificity of this article. I recommend deleting it. zzz (talk) 07:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Subject is clearly notable. Title does not sound NPOV, work on that — "Islamist" is pejorative. Carrite (talk) 15:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's doing anyone any favours having a dubious POV FORK - but that's just my opinion. zzz (talk) 18:06, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Islamist_insurgency_in_Nigeria&oldid=1137936008"