Talk:Jemaah Islamiyah
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Jemaah Islamiyah is part of WikiProject Indonesia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Indonesia and Indonesia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. Please do not substitute this template.
|
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
|
|
|
 |
||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
 |
This article is within the scope of Tambayan Philippines, the WikiProject and notice board for topics related to the Philippines. To participate, visit the Tambayan for more information. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in:
|
Contents |
[edit] Comment 1
Jemaah Islamiah has also setup shop in West Papua and may become part of the West Papuan Genocide problems. The Australian ABC reports: In May this year, up to 10 villages in the West Papuan highlands were burned and at least 20 people were killed, in what local people claim were terrorist actions attacks by groups linked to Jemaah Islamiah.Daeron 17:00, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC) see also Laskar Jihad
Does anyone know the English translation of the name Jemaah Islamiah?
Yes, it means "Islamic Group" or "Islamic Organization".
-
- I have *often* heard it translated as 'Islamic brotherhood'. In fact, it is the only translation I have ever heard before coming to this page. But as I don't even know what language it is in let alone speak it, I don't know if this is a literal translation or a popular interpretation. 203.206.24.90 13:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Announcing Wikipedia:Indonesia-related topics notice board
After some thought and consideration, I created an Indonesia-related topics notice board, along the same lines as other regional notice boards (such as those for Malaysia and Africa). This was established to coordinate efforts to improve Indonesia-related Wikipedia entries. If you've made contributions to Indonesia-related articles in the past, or would like to, please take some time to visit, introduce yourself, and sign the roster. --Daniel June 30, 2005 18:42 (UTC)
[edit] Jack Roche
I removed this sentence from the Jack Roche paragraph:
- However, it remains to be seen whether Roche is telling the truth of his full commitment to the alleged attack, and/or, his status within the Islamic-extremist world.
It sounds like commentary. Is it based on any citeable source? What is it actually trying to say? Ashmoo 00:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Current Leader
Anyone have any information about who is leading the group since Hambali was captured? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 18:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Category
Somebody has mis-labeled JI as a Secessionist organization; as far as I know JI shares Laskar Jihad's desire to have Indonesia adopt its form of Islam. The FPI political party being the political arm of the militant group's activities. The main difference between JI and Laskar Jihad is that Laskar Jihad also wishes to purify Indonesia of non-Javanese races.
- Agreed on JI as not a secessionist organisation. As for the rest, sources are helpful. Also, please sign your posts. Merbabu 03:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] appropriate use of tags
Someone put a {expert} and {cleanup} tags on this page.
The people who added these tags didn't complete the procedure. Both tags tell readers to look to the talk page for the discussion of the tag-placer's concern.
I think tags that aren't explained are cruft, and should be deleted on sight.
I explain my reasoning here -- User:Geo Swan/opinions/responsible use of maintenance wikitags.
Cheers! -- Geo Swan 05:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Still no explanation of tagsPrester John 19:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Thailand
The bombings in Thailand's capital may have been the work of JI. [1]
[edit] Contradiction
The date of the group's founding is given as both 1969 and 1993. -- Beland 16:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- You have a point, it is not clear, however I have had a go at fixing it up. See this edit. It is known that an organisation that became JI had been in existence in some form for decades. And yes, the only reference mentions 1993 although that source doesn't preclude pre 1993 activity. So, please check my changes (btw, I removed the contradict tag now). Merbabu 01:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Zarkasih captured
From smh.com.au. Should be useful for the article. Merbabu 09:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Major update
This article needs a big update. A lot of things have happened in the past year. The new spiritual leader (emir) and the military leader of JI have been captured. And JI's strategy had changed from going after Western targets to Indonesian targets, due to the massive setbacks inflicted by the Indonesian CT forces and Australian police. Heck, Abu Dujana (which there isn't even an article on!) admitted that Abu Bakr Bashir was the spiritual head of JI during the Bali bombings. And all the clues that led to these high profile captures, found since the JI bomb maker (which I don't even see in this article) was killed during a police dragnet around his house. Update! -- Permafrost 09:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- agreed - there has been a fair bit of stuff in www.smh.com.au (good because the links remain) as I suggested above. Merbabu 10:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Better citations
Folks, if y'all can put citations on some of these sentences it help to wikify the article. "Is suspected of" is pretty weak. I personally haven't read a lot about JI, but I have read that there is dispute about whether or not they espouse violence against civilians. Seems like there might be abundant data to indicate that they have murdered civilians, but I to be safe let's make sure we know who's putting forth the evidence. Technically, this article could use FACT tags all over the place, but I just hate doing that. Cheers, --Dylanfly 13:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well, seeing President Bush was just talking about them today at APEC (with a bit of mispronunciation), I think they have a pretty valid notoriety. But yes, I've been planning on helping clean up this article eventually. The CNN Abu Dujana interview is a goldmine of information, for anyone interested in the meantime. -- Permafrost 13:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Google is a good start. --Merbabu 13:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- LOL--Bush! Well, that's sorta the issue here. You remember Bush and his cohort: the guys who knew "exactly" where to find the WMD; the guys who lied--blatantly--about Saddam's "relationship" to AlQuaida... the team who has a vested interest in exaggerating/distorting "terrorism." Same is true for the Indonesian state, which has pretty eagerly embraced the "War on Terror" which can also conveniently apply to Papua, Aceh, etc. I'm sure I don't have to review that litany here. I'll assume fluency in Bush's misdeeds and in the Indonesian oligarchy's biases. On the other hand, I don't want to go so far as to doubt everything the White House or SBY says: for all I know JI is behind the bombings and all of that. I just don't trust Bush, CNN, or even the SMH, unless someone's putting up good evidence. Even the NYTimes got royally snookered on the WMD thing. My basic assumption here, is that this article is more or less on target; just that it isn't referencing its data. Peace, --Dylanfly 16:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well, once you start labeling the major media outlets as all blatantly biased (which basically all are), then you really have nothing to back up wiki with. I reckon half of all articles on this website at least use one of the major outlets as references. So people made mistakes in the WMD business, they still have to report it as factually as possible based on current knowledge. And I really don't think CNN would go to so much trouble to bribe the Indonesian Government to interview a wanted man into talking when he clearly doesn't want to, and who is unabashed in his beliefs. Wiki is here to place all the facts; the reader is there to form their own opinion about the matter at hand. -- Permafrost 05:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not letting the media industry off the hook for their inability to critique and scrutinize (it's part of the job description), but I agree that for WP and this article, the corporate news may be a key source. There are lots of academic studies of JI--those would be better, as the academics have presumably tried to use the best journalism and cross-ref it with police records, interviews, etc. Anyway, I just put a lot of fact tags up. If people want to use news reports to verify, fine by me. But right now, it feels like a lot of hearsay and rumor. Cheers, --Smilo Don 18:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well, once you start labeling the major media outlets as all blatantly biased (which basically all are), then you really have nothing to back up wiki with. I reckon half of all articles on this website at least use one of the major outlets as references. So people made mistakes in the WMD business, they still have to report it as factually as possible based on current knowledge. And I really don't think CNN would go to so much trouble to bribe the Indonesian Government to interview a wanted man into talking when he clearly doesn't want to, and who is unabashed in his beliefs. Wiki is here to place all the facts; the reader is there to form their own opinion about the matter at hand. -- Permafrost 05:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- LOL--Bush! Well, that's sorta the issue here. You remember Bush and his cohort: the guys who knew "exactly" where to find the WMD; the guys who lied--blatantly--about Saddam's "relationship" to AlQuaida... the team who has a vested interest in exaggerating/distorting "terrorism." Same is true for the Indonesian state, which has pretty eagerly embraced the "War on Terror" which can also conveniently apply to Papua, Aceh, etc. I'm sure I don't have to review that litany here. I'll assume fluency in Bush's misdeeds and in the Indonesian oligarchy's biases. On the other hand, I don't want to go so far as to doubt everything the White House or SBY says: for all I know JI is behind the bombings and all of that. I just don't trust Bush, CNN, or even the SMH, unless someone's putting up good evidence. Even the NYTimes got royally snookered on the WMD thing. My basic assumption here, is that this article is more or less on target; just that it isn't referencing its data. Peace, --Dylanfly 16:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Google is a good start. --Merbabu 13:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Delete the box?
The little box at the top of the page serves to restate the name and provide a start date and a "known for." Isn't this all handled in the first several sentences already? Do we really need a box? --Smilo Don 18:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
