Talk:Juba (sniper)

message: I have seen glancing references on other sites to juba using israeli made equipment, is this true? do we have references?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.109.24 (talk) 19:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Israeli equipment?

message: I'm not a fan of using megaupload or yousendit in these cases, since the links go bad after a time.  I say they should be removed, or moved to permenant hosting. humblefool®Deletion Reform 01:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree, but I don't want them removed till a stable surce is found --Irishpunktom\talk 19:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Video links

message: In this article there are links to long videos which shows US Soldiers beeing killed by a sniper! I think that's ethically not right to link to videos which are glorifying the killing of people!
User:Echalone
19:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Despite the... unorthodox content of the video material, I have to agree. If it's not illegal, it should be up here so everyone can access the information and judge it on his own.  ナイトスタリオン ✉ 09:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

text: )
I am enjoying that you did that- I was going to propose something similar.... 
What I like about your changes:
~using the word "may" as in "may be terrorist propoganda
~that it is an attempt to satisfy both your desires, wiki's neutrility and some of the other people's desires
There are two changes I would like:
~I don't like the wording you used, "Glorifying the killing of people," it is too interprative for my tastes
~I don't like that the same sentence is repeated three times.
I would like ONE sentence that is a little more neutral, right above the video links, something like:
Some of these links below lead to graphic videos, some of which seem to celebrate the killings that occur in them.
What I am after is the most neutral descriptive, description.
For now, I'll just leave it as is and see if others have thoughts. 
peace,
Sethie 23:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Odd, last I checked the Fourth Geneva Convention does.  GreatGatsby 01:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: People seem to be confusing the legality of making a video like this with watching one.  The argument of "why don't we have videos of children being abused in child abuse articles" is flawed, because watching AND making those videos is illegal, whereas watching a video of someone being shot is not illegal (even if killing the person is illegal).  I know it's not easy to watch (that's the whole point), but it certainly isn't illegal. Dave420 (talk) 13:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Video links ethically not right

message: I have re-written the article in a way which I believe is better. I also removed the small piece at the bottom which was a direct quote from the article in the Guardian Unlimited as its inclusion was in contravention of the Guardian Unlimited's terms and conditions (Section three, paragraph three). --cheese-cube 06:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Re-Write

message: I don't know what this page was like when the NPOV check was posted, however, it seems neutral to me now. I propose if after a week there are no major objections, the NPOV be removed.
Any thoughts, feelings, etc, feel free to post em here.
peace,
Sethie 06:54, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the neutrality issue seems to have been resolved. --cheese-cube 07:03, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV? 

message: I've gone ahead and removed the {npov} tag for now, because as far as I can tell it was related to the presence of fringe allegations of links to Israel - as far as I can tell there's a rough consensus that they should not be included in the article. If someone disagrees, and feels that the article is still not sufficiently neutral, please feel free to re-add the {npov} tag, or, better yet, fix the problem. CDC (talk) 19:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Tag removed

message: Leaving aside the videos issue, why is the sniper/s known as Juba? Lisiate 02:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a nickname. Ask the soldiers who came up with it, but I doubt if you will find them on Wikipedia. --The1exile 16:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: *If you search for "Juba" in Google news will come up with nearly 500 references to Sudan, and hardly any on the sniper. When looking for the sniper I usually use this search string because of the trouble in separating the articles. No matter how much we speculate though the name is "Juba" and no reason we come up with here can be published because of Wikipedia policy on Original Research. --The1exile - Talk - Contribs - 16:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why the name Juba?

message: And I recently just watched the videos. If that is him shouldn't they look for in cars? He's obviously hidden in a vehicle since he always is always lined up to a sidewalk and attacking road patrols!
Read carefully, in the article "Each time in these incidents a single bullet casing and a note have been found at the location where the sniper was believed to have been. The message, in Arabic, "What has been taken in blood cannot be regained except by blood. Baghdad Sniper". These items were found after the sniper attack when buildings were scoured by U.S. forces."
We can negate the possibility that Juba has allies, or is a group of insurgents and the evidences are placed by Juba's companions, in order to trick the coalition force to assume Juba shot from buildings.
---Ah just read the "rumors of capture" section. Looks like I may have been right about his techniques. If that was him, but there may be more than one Juba for all we know. I remember watching a similar video of a failed attack that led to that capture of the sniper and cameraman who operated almost identically. Addition: OMG, new stuff aded in that ecact section says it was the excact incident of the medic getting shot I described.-Original poster.
--- no dude the shots arent coming from where the camera is.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.0.182.93 (talk) 05:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I read this article a while back about the Americans looking for him in bushes and buildings. 

message: Are there any citations for the details in the "Technique" section - about "getting comfortable" and the "perfect shot"? This reads like unverifiable original research. CDC (talk) 00:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Technique" section 

message: I'm going to remove the "Rumors of capture" section as well - the linked source, to Army Times, doesn't say anything about Juba (and is from before the linked Guardian article, for that matter).  I think making this connection is original research. CDC (talk) 23:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Rumors of capture" section

message: In a previous version of the article, it was mentioned that Juba used a Tobuk sniper rifle (whatever that is, I can find no reference to this model). However, now someone has changed this to mention that the supposed Juba who was captured used an SVD. Can anyone provide evidence for this? See WP:CS.
I find this one, where the sniper was captured.
There sniper who was caught used a modified Dragunov Sniper Rifle. (84.155.223.248 18:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change to the type of sniper rifle 

message: This whole article has been reworked, and so now we have a section which has nothing but a tag on it, with a "see also" list of templates followed by poorly edited content stuck in a wrong section. Personally I was happier before any mention of who, how, if or when "Juba" was captured has seemingly dragged this article down to a lower level of quality. I am going to attempt a re-write, but not reversions, as this has got out of hand now. --The1exile 02:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a total rewrite, but I have removed the tag, as the information has been verified at  as actually being in the main truthful. A further warning has been posted at the top of the page regarding the videos. Any Inquiries should come down here, I will attempt to change and improve this article another time when I am not so busy or indeed tired. Read the new version; if you disagree please don't put a tag on the article or section, but instead spend your time writing your arguments here and citing sources. I dont want to destroy anyones work, but do read the warning on the editing pages if you have a problem, under more information. --The1exile 02:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Two problems here: First, per Wikipedia:Reliable sources, blogs are not considered reliable sources (see the section "personal websites as secondary sources"). Second, neither the blog entry nor the Army Times link in it mentions a "Juba", just the capture of an unnamed sniper.  The linked media sources in the article do call the sniper by name.  If a media source quoted someone vaguely credible saying something like "we think the guy we caught might be the guy we were calling Juba", then we'd have something. As it is right now, the only place I'm seeing this link between this unnamed sniper being caught and the mysterious "Juba" is here on Wikipedia. Thus this is unsourced original research. CDC (talk) 17:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I understand your arguments here. I can understand why you might not be certain that Juba has been captured, see the title "Rumours of capture", reinforcing that no-one has confirmed that Juba has been captured/killed/disabled etc. What would you do, remove the whole section? Then we become guilty of not informing the reader of this article about Juba's possible capture. The media is relatively silent on Juba (a conspiracy perhaps? ;) so verifying any information on this page is a difficult task, the guardian article is this articles equivalent of gold dust, explain your problem more clearly please. --The1exile 23:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I seem to be finding huge problems here 

message: Someone has added to the rumours of capture section, with comments that are POV. The information is fine if it can be verified, which I have no problem with, but the wording "alleged" and "he is alive and well" are pushing POV. See the above discussion; I think you have disregarded it. If there is no response soon then I will revert. --The1exile 15:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone changing the rumours of capture section 

message: Juba was the nickname of an American soldier.  The Guardian reporter falsly quoted an American Officer and basically created this myth.  The terrorists have used this in a brilliant propaganda war...
Six letters and a colon should resolve this, WP:CITE. Also, "brilliant propaganda war" is POV. Finally, sign your comments! --The1exile 19:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Juba is a propaganda tool 

message: I removed links to videos violating WP:NOT (they are propaganda and also unverified info). There is no reason why, just because these videos exist, they should be linked on wikipedia. If somebody wishes to find the videos they can use google. As it is, these clips are competely unverified, and thus should not be linked to from the article. Of course, if they can be supported with evidence then they can be replaced, but only if they are supported.
I also removed a link to a supposed official website. There was nothing to support that claim whatsoever. Mushintalk 21:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The video clips have been repeatedly added to the article, and I have been forced to leave them remaining. There has been no discussion on the talk page regarding the re-insertion of the video links. I have edited the descriptions of these video links to make quite clear that they do not neccessarily show anything that is connected to "Juba". As for the "official site", that has nothing claiming to be the official site of "Juba". Anybody can make a website and post a link to it here. Without verification it does not belong. Mushintalk 13:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mushin, earlier discussions showed that we cannot accurately predict the effect of the videos with viewers of this article. We placed warnings, but had problems with phrasing of them. All in all we did everything we could to try and prevent any POV whatsoever, but could not come to a satisfactory conclusion. And I believe the Jawa report said the banner above will take you to Jubas official website. Naturally this would be disputed, so the message here read "Apparently Juba's official website. Meanwhile you entered the chat, reverted the links and appeared to disregard the earlier discussions. --The1exile 16:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, I appreciate that no consensus was reached previously. For that reason I have left the video clips in the article, albeit with a wording that leaves no ambiguity about the evidence in them, or lack thereof. As for the 'official website', even if it stays, the wording "allegedly" is a lot more clear than "apparently", which is based on POV. It needs to remain clear at all times that the material contained in these links is NOT verified, therefore it is alleged and not apparent that they show "Juba" at all. Mushintalk 16:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. We did have another warning message here before, but I'm not sure where it got to. Leave out "Jubas official website" if you want, but leave the Jawa report in, as that has a link and references to it. "Allegedly" is fine with me, add it to all the links if you want. --The1exile 16:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad we could reach an agreement. It can always evolve to another wording later, as long as it doesn't go back to what it was before! Mushintalk 17:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed video links 

message: This entire article needs a re-write.  "Juba may be the world record holder for having sex with a goat?" Yeah, I think that's pretty POV.
The video intitled "juba in training" has nothing to do with juba or IAI, it's a video of another group, "mujahideen central command" shows what they say is modification of a gun (I think AK) by their engineers, some aspects of the modification(s) allow it to be used for sniping, and they show a sniping test-run.
Nothing related to Juba at all!
:Remove it then. Mushintalk 14:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video descriptions incorrect!! 

message: Can someone give advice on whether or not to include this article? The Sydney Morning Herald reported this, and although it never mentions Juba directly I found it when doing a google news search for Juba. Just confused about whether it's relevant. --The1exile 17:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, should have been clearer. The article DOES mention Juba, but only on the second page and beyond, and he is not the main subject, and I believe he is only mentioned as a well known insurgent. --The1exile - Talk - Contribs 19:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I would personally vote against including that in this article, though I hope we have another WP article that could use it.  Sadly I don't think we have a "The role of Internet in the Iraq conflict" article...yet! There's a new goal for you! *grins* Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 16:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I'll make that my new goal. However, I have found that there is a picture of an American soldier in the ABC news report. If no-one objects I think we should include this. Any thoughts? --The1exile - Talk - Contribs - 17:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More news articles regarding Juba, but I might need some help with this one 

message: Where are the sources, let alone specifics, for the information in the "Defeat of Juba" section of the article? A claim that he has been killed is significant information, therefore I feel there is a great need for verification and sources. It may or may not be false information. 
A Google search for "Zarqurihi" turns up nothing, and a Yahoo! search returns only this article. Because of this, and a lack of evidence to otherwise give belief that is valid information, I am marking it as dubious.
Any help/comments? --Lan56 04:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Section removed.--Lan56 03:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Defeat of Juba" is lacking sources... 

message: rewrote the article a bit to make it clearer and more NPOV. Screwed up the refs, but don't have time to fix them. Wachholder0 14:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: rewriting

message: This looks pretty bad being on wikipedia, I just wrote out many reasons why but the spam filter was triggered so I'll make it short this time.
1.There is NO proof this person exists.
2.The videos that are meant to be of him, listen to the voices, they're completly different.
3.The videos do not contain a mans image that can be compared.
4.The videos do not contain anyone claiming to be Juba.
5.Its obvious this Juba person is made up by insurgents to boost morale and spirit of other insurgents.
6.WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A PROPAGANDA TOOL!
7.This article serves only to glorify the killing of innocent people.
8.If this article MUST stay then it should be made VERY clear that there is ZERO evidence he exists and is a made up person.
If someone would like to explain as to why this article even manage to get here in the first place I'd be grateful, as I find it pretty poor that it was allowed to be here this long. I could come up with 10 more reasons as to why this shouldnt be here but I think the eight I already provided are MORE than enough to delete it.
:The article was created because the "Baghdad sniper", real or not, has been written about in many respectable news sources, like The Times , The Guardian , Reuters , The Independent , The New York Times , ABC News , and so forth. 
:Please review wp:deletion and wp:npov. I doubt the issues you mention merit deletion. If you think the article is inaccurate, perhaps you should consider improving it by inserting additional information. Wachholder0 03:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nominated article for deletion 

message: here site of juba  http://www.jubaonline.org/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.132.196.215 (talk) 03:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  site of juba  

message: The popular conspiracy theory web site Judicial Inc have the web page on Juba the Sniper explaining what the author suspects is of Israeli origin (part of the Mossad intelligence unit) by showing how Juba record the video of sniping hits for the purpose of fostering enemy propaganda by deception. Because the URL of a particular web site have been blacklisted (put on spam filter due to possible political bias), I advise Googling the words "judicial inc juba" and click on the first link. G.O.L.A.Z. 09:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conspiracy theory on the identity and M.O. of Juba the Sniper 

message: If I recall correctly it is not Dragunov but Al Kadesiah. While you folks will call these two are the same, but the fact is they cannot be called the same. Another example is Canadian C7A2 VS American M16A2. They arent the same. granted they're both assault rifle but you cannot put it as the same. Sort of like Chinese people and African American. Kullwarrior  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.170.5 (talk) 04:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrong Rifle name

message: Juba watched his 14 year old daughter being killed by an American sniper and thus he swore to revenge this injustice. Maybe? I don't know. Watched Baghdad sniper 3 at Youtube and I think that's what the message was. Should this perhaps be added to the article or is it too unAmerican?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.220.36.110 (talk) 20:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not 'unAmerican' at all, just completely unverifiable. This article has a lot of unverifiable claims, and very little in the way of facts. Mushintalk 17:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Background story

message: Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 19:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008 

message: Recently the 4th Baghdad Sniper has came out. In this video, we could not spot Juba, I wonder whether Juba exists  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fallujasurvivor (talk • contribs) 15:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The 4th Baghdad sniper

message: His name is Ali Nazar Al-Jubory and he was captured by Iraqi forces in August 2006 in eastern Baghdad during shooting on Shia piligrims and but escaped few days later but he was killed the next year ( 2007)by Americans in western Baghdad.
Source : me Iraqi  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.8.246.12 (talk) 07:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The name Juba 

message: This page says 645 kills (which, in itself, is probably a lie, as that is gunna be very hard to achieve. Vry few eve got above that in WWII, where they didn't have body armour), the Guardian link says in the region of 12, other pages say between 45 and 20 kills. Seeming as we are not going to be able to get an accurate figure, should we not just replace the numbers that we are giving with something like 'a large number'?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamish MacKellar (talk • contribs) 12:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discrepancies 

message: This acronym is referenced in the article but no shortening is specified. There's no widely accepted acronym relevant to this and shouldn't be used here ~~~ Jellinator (talk) 23:23, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  IAI