Talk:Boko Haram insurgency/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1


Statistics regarding religious affiliation

According to a Nigerian study on demographics and religion, Muslims make up 50.5% of the population. They mainly live in the North of the country. The majority of the Nigerian Muslims are Sunnis. Christians are the second-largest religious groups and make up 48.2% of the population. They predominate in the centre and in the South of the country, whereas adherents of other religions make up 1.4%.[5]

There is an issue with this body of text in that, besides being a bit nonspecific ("According to a Nigeria study..." Which? Did the Nigerians do the study?), it doesn't use the same source as other articles about religion in Nigeria. Specifically, I am referring to Religion in Nigeria, which cites a Pew article/infographic [1] that claims Christianity makes up 50.8% of the population. This Pew article is from 2011, and the one currently linked to no longer exists... If there is no great objection, I will change it.

As a side note: I'm also going to remove:

As Mus lims narrowly form the majority of the population, many of them demand to introduce the Sharia - the Islamic law - as main source of legislation. 12 Northern states have introduced sharia as base of the executive and the judiciary in the years 1999 and 2000.

It is unsourced, based on what I would consider a faulty premise, and a bit of hearsay. Many of them demand Sharia law? Too vague, in my opinion. The second sentence can stay, if sourced. Ljpernic (talk) 18:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Rediculous Assertion in Article

The article states that muslims intentd to spread Sharia (law) to the country/area using war. The idea law is spread by war is simply an awful use of faulty logic. Call a thing what it is: it is a war of aggression, to oust those of differing interests; with a hell of allot of civilians attacks at un-awares. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sven nestle2 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

citation and OR tags

There are old tags on this article for lack of citations and possible original research. At a glance, the article seems reasonable at this point, although it could probably still use additional attention from an expert (what can't?). I'm not going to remove the tags myself at the moment however, in a distinct lack of WP:BOLD. But I thought I'd at least leave a comment suggesting reconsidering them. 75.168.197.78 (talk) 08:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

French wikipedia article

This is an excellent coverage of this topic over on French Wikipedia. Maybe we can use this to improve here on the English wiki. I think we have a lot to learn from there. If they are reading this, then bien fait (but my French isn't too good)! Bokoharamwatch (talk) 20:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing - Harnischfeger page 188

@Nederlandse Leeuw, I notice you have removed "citation needed" tags, and replaced with repeated citations to "Harnischfeger page 188". Can you please confirm that this page states specifically that "The Islamist insurgency in Nigeria began in 1999", as stated in the first sentence of the article. This is a highly controversial statement that does not appear in any source I have seen: perhaps you are confusing what the book - or the article - actually says. Please quote the sentence/sentences you are using from p188 of this book. Thanks zzz (talk) 20:59, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello zzz, Harnischfeger does not use the term 'Islamist insurgency', but 'Sharia conflict', which are synonymous terms according to the intro. Page 188 does mention that the 'Sharia conflict' was started by Zamfara state adopting Sharia law. Page 16 supports that. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Unfortunately, that is what I guessed. Obviously, the Sharia conflict started in 1999. This is the problem: no source I have read says that 'Islamist insurgency' is synonymous with 'Sharia conflict' - or that the so-called 'Sharia conflict' (a series of sectarian riots) was an 'Islamist insurgency' (a term I have only seen applied, in Nigeria, to militant activities post-2011). In general usage, riots are only an insurgency if they are focussed against government institutions with the clear aim of overthrowing the government - which these riots were definitely not. So I am highly doubtful that other sources do in fact make this claim, either. Since the book you are citing only actually says that the Sharia conflict started in 1999, the first sentence of the lead should not put the two separate statements contained in separate parts of this book together to form one statement, that the Islamist insurgency started in 1999- it is a clear case of WP:SYNTH. The source does not actually say that, so the lead should not use it as a source for saying that. zzz (talk) 21:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree, see my reply under 'Islamist insurgency'. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:59, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Islamist insurgency

Nederlandse Leeuw: As I pointed out in the recent AfD, the phrase "Islamist insurgency" has only, to my knowledge, been applied to Boko Haram since 2011/2012. Since the AfD failed largely due to your efforts, I trust that you have/are aware of sources using the phrase to refer to earlier events also, as covered in this article. These sources should be cited, obviously. zzz (talk) 21:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I just checked and it seems that you're right. The oldest mention of an "Islamist insurgency" inside Nigeria comes from Defense & Foreign Affairs Special Analysis on 31 July 2009, clearly commenting on the 2009 Boko Haram rebellion: "The Nigerian Army, working effectively with the State Security Service and Defence Intelligence networks, had, by July 30, 2009, broken the Boko Haram extremist Islamist insurgency after less than a week of fighting, principally in four states of Nigeria's predominantly Muslim far-North." It tells us that they thought the insurgency only took a few days, but they obviously didn't know yet that Boko Haram would rise again in January 2010. It also tells us they didn't consider it an "insurgency" before July 2009. This may point to "Islamist insurgency in Nigeria" and "Sharia Conflict in Nigeria" not necessarily being synonymous, but perhaps that the insurgency is part of the sharia conflict. I don't mind renaming the article to 'Sharia Conflict' instead, and labeling only the post-2009 period as the "Islamist insurgency" as I've previously stated. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
As I just mentioned above, I was not aware that anyone referred to the 2009 rebellion as an insurgency, although police stations were attacked (along with churches, etc). Various sources I've seen do not call it an "insurgency" - since it lasted only a few days, with no clear or stated aims - but only an "uprising" or "riots". And, in 2010, apart from the prison break, only civilians were attacked.
Calling the uprising part of the "Sharia conflict" I also see as problematic, for similar reasons: some sources may group Boko Haram together with Nigerian sectarian riots, but I believe that the vast majority do not. zzz (talk) 22:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Anyhow, since I've made it abundantly (and repetitively) clear that I don't think this article should exist, I'll try to abstain from tagging it. Hopefully, my objections can be dealt with (although, I have my doubts!) zzz (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
No, scratch that. This article needs fixing badly, and the only way to fix it - barring deletion, which would have been most appropriate - is placing the correct tags in the opening sentence, at least, so that the reader is aware of the problems. zzz (talk) 16:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Title

Which title should be chosen for this article?` Muslims in Nigeria revolt against Culture of Death imported from the West197.231.19.153 (talk) 13:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

haha are you a member of boko haram?Saberking321 (talk) 04:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Delete this article

I propose to delete this article, since there is already an article about Boko Haram, which is unrelated to anything before. There is also an article about riots, and one about sharia law. There is no justification for an article which attempts to link these unrelated events, still less one which describes them all as an "Islamist insurgency". zzz (talk) 15:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I disagree they are unrelated for the reasons stated above. At most we can split up 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 September 2010. Deleting the entire article is nonsense. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
PS: While there may be overlap between the Boko Haram page and this one, that doesn't mean they are duplicitous. For one thing, Boko Haram has no monopoly on the Islamist violence: there is also Ansaru and other perhaps less organised armed Islamist (as well as Christian) groups responsible for religious violence in Nigeria in the past 5 years (I already gave the 2010 Jos riots as an example of an exception). Another is that this page focused on the events happening in the whole of Nigeria, while the Boko Haram page focuses on that organisation's history alone. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:37, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
As I pointed out, the riots in Jos have nothing to do with Boko Haram; apparently you agree, so why connect them? And, sources do not label riots like this as an "Islamist insurgency". zzz (talk) 10:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I have looked through the HRW report you link to above, which you claim "makes no clear distinction between the attacks of Boko Haram and other Islamist groups". It is about inter-communal violence in Plateau and Kaduna States, not Boko Haram.

  • The report doesn't discuss "other Islamist groups". The report is about conflict between Christians and Hausa-Fulani Muslims in Plateau and Kaduna, states in central Nigeria.
  • The report only makes one single mention of Boko Haram, to say "Alarmingly, Boko Haram, a militant Islamist group in northern Nigeria, has invoked the lack of justice in these Middle Belt killings as one of its justifications".
  • Your claim that this report makes no distinction is therefore completely wrong. The fact is, you won't be able to find any reliable source that "makes no distinction". The Boko Haram campaign of violence is entirely separate from the Hausa-Fulani communal violence.
  • You suggest splitting the article in two, one of which would be "Boko Haram's sustained rebellion since September 2010" - this sounds very much like the Boko Haram article which already exists. Ansaru, which you also mention, was a splinter group of Boko Haram, and as such is covered in the Boko Haram article and in its own article.
  • As I mentioned, there is also already a page about Religious violence in Nigeria.
  • This article seems to exist solely to propagate a POV that all sectarian conflicts involving Muslims (which this article calls "Islamist") in Nigeria are closely related somehow. However, reliable sources (including the source you link to above) do not make this claim, or support it in any way. zzz (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - deletion is out of question, though a more precise naming and content may be re-established.GreyShark (dibra) 11:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - User:Greyshark, you are seconded. Bokoharamwatch (talk) 12:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Revamp

This article is a complete mess, it lists a whole bunch secterian clashes in that have occured in Nigeria throughout the decades with providing any detail of any of them or establishing a common theme (if there even is one). This article needs focus and I think we should discuss what that should be. Charles Essie (talk) 20:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Well, I don't where this user is, but it seems many of the issues (presumably) he was one of the first (but as can clearly be seen, far from the last) to raise seem not to have died down, despite having been ignored for a while. I have been watching this page in my absence, and it seems to have changed a lot. I am rather surprised at the sudden intensification of the debate, though not completely given the parallel intensification of the situation on the ground itself. I myself will be offering my opinions later. Bokoharamwatch (talk) 12:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

MEND implication?

The Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta has threatened to start a bombing campaign in defense of christianity against mosques and islamic clerics in southern Nigeria, see http://allafrica.com/stories/201304150038.html. If thats confirmed true and if they finally made their menaces real, they should be included in the infobox as another combatant.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 12:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

  • It's funny how many of things that have been discussed and forgotten for years now are coming back. It seems they too are threatning to resume their insurgency if Goodluck loses the 2015 General Election. Bokoharamwatch (talk) 12:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Against merging

I would argue against merging the two suggested articles. It seems to me that they refer to two very distinct topics; I accede that both articles need expansion, but this is no reason to take the easy way out and just merge them together. Any thoughts? Uranium grenade (talk) 23:06, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree, especially since there has been violent spike in the conflict over the past several months. Charles Essie (talk) 15:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Also agree. I don't see reasons for this article merging with Sharia in Nigeria. Bokoharamwatch (talk) 12:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Better Map

http://imgur.com/wUEOCyY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.252.33.11 (talk) 00:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Map update?

Hi,

The current map at the top of the article is now outdated, since the military intervention from other regional states such as Cameroon and Chad. Can someone update it please?

--Patronus95 (talk) 13:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Spinning-off / Sharia conflict - not Boko Haram

I think this article conflates several issues. This should focus on the current Islamist insurgency and post-1999 religious violence. Another article should perhaps be made/spun out to focus on the previous riots and the Maitatsine insurgency, and then connections can be made between the two. What think you, Wikipedians? Bokoharamwatch (talk) 18:42, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

This article should
  • be called Sharia conflict in Nigeria, so as to avoid confucion with Boko Haram
  • not conflate the Sharia conflict (starting 1999/2000) with Boko Haram (an Islamist group which was formed around 2002, and was not involved in any armed conflict until 2009 - which had no particluar connection to previous conflict in general, or Sharia law )
  • To sort out this confusion, Boko Haram shoulf be removed from lead section and infobox zzz (talk) 08:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
I see reasonable points in what both of you say, and since it's about the same thing, I put your comments under the same heading. I agree with Bokoharamwatch that the Maitatsine insurgency of the 1970s and 1980s is separate from both the Sharia conflict started in 1999 and the Boko Haram rebellion started in 2009. But it is hard to separate the Sharia Conflict and the Boko Haram rebellion in time; for example, were the 2010 Jos riots part of the former or the latter? It seems Boko Haram was not involved at all until the Bauchi prison break. What if we called the 1999–2009 period the 'Sharia Conflict', and the 2009–now period the 'Boko Haram insurgency'? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Boko Haram is unrelated to anything before. And they have their own separate article anyway. In answer to your question, the Jos riots of 2010 have no connection to Boko Haram. zzz (talk) 15:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
I disagree it is 'unrelated to anything before'. While it is correct it didn't participate in any of the religious violence until July 2009, Boko Haram has become part of the same religious conflict, an element of which is the struggle to introduce Sharia law that triggered the Sharia Conflict in 1999 to begin with. Human Rights Watch makes no clear distinction between the attacks of Boko Haram and other Islamist groups; they've simply entered the conflict that already existed. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
It's amazing to think the debates between zzz and NederlandseLeeuw have led to so much impact on the direction of this article. I want to thank them very much, although they just managed to avoid tugging the article in many directions! I think Sharia conflict in Nigeria (or a similar name there of) in itself should be a viable article in itself describing a separate but important issue from that in this one here. Bokoharamwatch (talk) 22:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry I've been away for a while. I'm back - for now, at least. Bokoharamwatch (talk) 12:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Name change

The name should be changed to Boko Haram conflict. Alternatively, 'Boko Haram war' or 'Boko Haram insurgency'. The scope of the article covers both Nigeria and Cameroon. Ansaru would remain in the infobox, as they appear to be an ally of Boko Haram. I see 'conflict' as a better description than 'Islamist insurgency' at this stage. This page has been severely neglected in favour of the Boko Haram page, hopefully this will change. DylanLacey (talk) 12:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

good idea, see also Lord's Resistance Army insurgency for similar. We should definitely have two articles, one for the movement, another for the conflict.--78.1.75.101 (talk) 14:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Very Strong Oppose - Insurgency articles are named after the locations first off, not the organizations involved, unless there happen to be multiple insurgencies occurring concurrently in the same country. And in this case, Boko Haram is NOT the only terrorist group involved in the conflict, so no, the name change cannot happen. LightandDark2000 (talk) 09:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Support change to "Boko Haram insurgency". The insurgency takes place not only in Nigeria but also in Cameroon and neighbouring states (increasingly so), and Boko Haram is by far the most important insurgent group. The title "Islamist insurgency in Nigeria" is too vague and has led to include in this article a lot of information about pre-2009 inter-religious violence, which belongs to the Religious violence in Nigeria article. Nykterinos (talk) 16:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment/Question: It seems it's not clear what the scope of this article is. What is it? It seems rather unfair to have have this page talk about the Nigerian and Camerounian uprisings, when there is already one devoted to the latter, but none exclusively for the first. By the way, the corresponding Cameroun article as at this time is languishing. What do we do with that one? Bokoharamwatch (talk) 22:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I have an idea. Simply merge it into this article. After all, Boko Haram has spread their conflict into Cameroon, basically merging the two insurgencies, so we can afford to merge the articles. LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Merge with Boko Haram

Involved editor close long overdue, however there is a clear consensus against the merge. There are 2 supports & 2 conditional supports vs 6 oppose & 2 comments with opposition tendency - thus not merged.GreyShark (dibra) 19:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I propose to merge this article with Boko Haram, as both articles are about the same thing, which makes it a content fork. If anyone can see a reason not to, please reply here. Saberking321 (talk) 04:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

A few clarificatons: This article and Boko Haram contain exactly the same subject matter, except that it is covered in more detail on Boko Haram. I understand the difference between Boko Haram themselves and their insurgency, however your analogies are not appropriate. In the Syrian Civil War it is not a simple case of government vs ISIL; also the Iraqi insurgency is not the same thing as ISIL operates in other countries too. (Yes I know Boko Haram has done a few things across the border in Cameroon but it is still essentially about Nigeria). Since the Islamist insurgency in Nigeria is synonymous with the Boko Haram insurgency, do we really need 1 article discussing Boko Haram and another discussing Boko Haram's insurgency, when that is the only thing Boko Haram is known for and hence makes up all of the material for Boko Haram anyway. If this article is to stay, it needs improving and the most sensible method would be to copy-paste the more up-to-date Boko Haram article, thereby creating 2 identical pages differing only in the format of the infobox. Were Boko Haram known for things other than the insurgency, or had they participated in multiple insurgencies, this article would have a purpose.In this case, however, i can see none. Saberking321 (talk) 20:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Just a few examples: Turkey-PKK conflict and Kurdistan Workers' Party; EPP insurgency and Paraguayan People's Army; Allied Democratic Forces insurgency and Allied Democratic Forces; RENAMO insurgency (2013–14) and RENAMO; etc.GreyShark (dibra) 21:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
OK, in those cases the related articles are written from a different standpoint and are valuable in their own right. I think you are right, this article could be valuable, but it really needs improvement. In its current state it is a joke. Maybe some of the material from Boko Haram which does not directly link to the group should be moved here.Saberking321 (talk) 21:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Notwithstanding otherstuffexists, if two articles cover the same material why fight merging them? What will the insurgency article cover that is not already covered in Boko Haram or Timeline of Boko Haram? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs) 00:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - i tagged the articles with merger notices and invited all participants of a related discussion at talk:List of ongoing military conflicts#Boko Haram in Cameroon.GreyShark (dibra) 19:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - The insurgent group pages (viz. Boko Haram) and the actual insurgencies are typically kept separate, with the latter usually summarized in a standalone "War in...." page (the present page would be its equivalent). The significant militant attacks are in turn covered on a separate timeline page(s) (e.g. Timeline of the Islamist insurgency in Nigeria), which is then linked to on both the main "War in..." page and the insurgent group page. A brief, summarizing timeline section is also often appended onto the insurgent group page. Middayexpress (talk) 19:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - I understand the reasons of the merging proposal: currently, the article about Boko Haram is the best article we have about its insurgency, and it’s also the most viewed. If we want to keep the separate article about the insurgency, we should move much of the text in the “History” and “Campaign of violence” sections of Boko Haram to the “History” section of Islamist insurgency in Nigeria (which, by the way, could be renamed “Boko Haram insurgency”, now that it has expanded to Cameroon), and keep only a short summary in the Boko Haram article. I’ve seen that a similar discussion took place about LRA/LRA insurgency: Talk:Lord's Resistance Army#Merger proposal. Nykterinos (talk) 23:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

We also have this short article Boko_Haram_insurgency_in_Cameroon and Timeline_of_the_Islamist_insurgency_in_Nigeria which was moved a couple times recently. Legacypac (talk) 00:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Red XN Oppose - Pretty much the same exact reasons mentioned by Greyshark above, if anything we need to expand the insurgency article with new information, probably a new name and definitely a nice new map :) Skycycle (talk) 14:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • 'Oppose - Couldn't we just remove some info from the Boko Haram page? Also, there's the Boko Haram insurgency in Cameroon (which definitely needs a lot of work especially because there is no introduction sentence) and the Timeline of the Islamist insurgency in Nigeria. To me, it is kinda like saying we should merge War in Afghanistan (2001–14) with Taliban or War in Somalia (2009–present) with Al-Shabaab (militant group). Jackninja5 (talk) 14:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support merge proposal - WP:CONTENTFORK. Explanation of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not relevant in this case, as per OP. zzz (talk) 23:34, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Boko Haram and the war between Boko Haram and the Nigerian gov't are separate topics. DylanLacey (talk) 02:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Very Strongly Oppose - Insurgencies are not synonymous with organizations, so it would be illogical to merge this article into Boko Haram. Besides, there is a lot of content in this article that will probably only be expanded further, so merging now would only result in a later split in the future, thus making it a complete waste of effort. LightandDark2000 (talk) 09:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: I want to point out that in a military conflict (of which this is effectively an example), the usual WP policy is to have an article on the conflict itself, and not to merge the conflict and combatants into one article. Bokoharamwatch (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
That is true, which is another reason why the two articles should not be merged. LightandDark2000 (talk) 06:45, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose We need two separate articles. One for the conflict and one for a belligerent of the said conflict (Boko Haram). EkoGraf (talk) 04:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merger proposal

There is a discussion on this page that involves this page. Please do share your thoughts. Jackninja5 (talk) 17:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Updated Map

Will someone please do something about the maps on this page? They are all out of date. Either update the maps or create a new one on Wikimedia. I know for a fact that both Bama and Gwoza have been liberated. Anasaitis (talk) 04:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Seriously? The map is outdated and needs to be refreshed. Here is an updated map (as of May 5, 2015) that can be used for the update. LightandDark2000 (talk) 12:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I updated the map (and changed the format to the one traditionally used for the other ISIL maps). As of November 12, 2015, Boko Haram/ISIL controls only the Sambisa Forest area in Nigeria (which has remained this way since September 8, 2015). LightandDark2000 (talk) 07:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Naming

In February this year, there was a proposal to rename this article from Islamist insurgency in Nigeria to Boko Haram insurgency. There was no consensus to make the move, but still someone has made the procedure. I'm currently reverting this back, as "Boko Haram insurgency" lost relevance due to the split of Boko Haram (the group split into Ansaru and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant - West Africa Province). It is however clear that the naming might be changed and thus i would like to propose the following options:

  • 1. Keep as Islamist insurgency in Nigeria
  • 2. Rename to Jihadist insurgency in Nigeria
  • 3. Rename to another name (please propose another option).

Thank you.GreyShark (dibra) 15:48, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Ansaru was formed in January 2012[2], when the Islamic State was a strictly Iraqi group with no pretence to being a caliphate. Gazkthul (talk) 23:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
About the "in Nigeria", considering that conflict spread to neighbouring countries, what could more approriate? Wykx 18:44, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Maybe "West Africa"?GreyShark (dibra) 05:17, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
The impacted countries cover West and Central Africa then maybe 'Islamist insurgency in West and Central Africa'. Wykx 16:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't agree with moving the title back to "Islamist insurgency in Nigeria", nor with moving it to "Islamist insurgency in West Africa". Nigeria is too narrow (Boko Haram operates in Cameroon, Niger and Chad, too), and West Africa too broad (the Northern Mali insurgency is an islamist insurgency in West africa, too, but it is waged by different groups and is not dealt with in this article). Therefore, the title needs to mention the group which wages the insurgency, not the countries or region where the insurgency is waged. This group is still commonly called "Boko Haram" by secondary sources, and "Boko Haram insurgency" is by far the most used name for the conflict (384,000 results on Google, compared with 14,900 results for "islamist insurgency in Nigeria" and almost no results for "islamist insurgency in West Africa"). For these reasons, I propose to move the article back to "Boko Haram insurgency". Nykterinos (talk) 11:50, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Boko Haram insurgency is best. I object to any names for ISIL units that suggest they govern a place. You would not have State of New York if ISIL set up a branch there and called itself State of New York. Legacypac (talk) 17:59, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Boko Haram insurgency is the best title to me, since the insurgency is happening beyond Nigerian borders, and "West Africa" is vast, making its usage ambiguous.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 19:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on Boko Haram insurgency. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Boko Haram insurgency. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:34, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Boko Haram insurgency. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:00, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Boko Haram insurgency. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Boko Haram insurgency. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:34, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Boko Haram insurgency. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:05, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect (or ... confusing) background coloring of areas (on map)

Please [feel free to] "see" the oldest (and, at this time, the "only") version of the "Talk:" page File talk:Boko Haram insurgency map.png. --Mike Schwartz (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:08, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Timeline information

Should we continue to record day-to-day events both on this page and the timeline page or should we only record events on the timeline page to avoid text congestion on the main page?ThePaganUK (talk) 17:07, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@ThePaganUK: In my opinion, the history section in this article should be summary of events in full sentences, as part of a narrative, as in most other conflict articles. We should probably move the timeline into a separate article which can be kept up-to-date with details. As example for this split, see Anglophone Crisis, and its sub-articles such as Timeline of the Anglophone Crisis (2019). Applodion (talk) 17:41, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
@Applodion: I agree. I've already moved the day-to-day events from the '2021' history section to the timeline article, so no new information will be lost if the history section on the main article is to be edited.ThePaganUK (talk) 23:26, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Just a comment...

Thinking aloud, only. What effect will the fall of Shekau have on content? Bokoharamwatch (talk) 22:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Theatre

Do we need to expand areas, given the pledged allegiance of groups in other parts of the north? Bokoharamwatch (talk) 17:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Still here, no change, no answer. Bokoharamwatch (talk) 22:13, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
@Bokoharamwatch: If you feel that the article can be expanded, feel free to do so (with references). As it is, the article is in need of an overhaul anyway. Applodion (talk) 11:47, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Traffic(s)

What is the role of drug trafficking in crisis?Bokoharamwatch (talk) 19:45, 2 January 2022 (UTC) pS Just noticed this:here. andhere

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boko_Haram_insurgency/Archive_1&oldid=1096081709"