Talk:Juba (sniper)

Israeli equipment?

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)

"Juba" might not even be real

It is doubtful that "Juba" even exists. Seems more like a propaganda tool for insurgents and terrorists. 68.125.62.98

Well, I was looking at Faces of the Fallen in the Washington Post the other day, and it seemed like there were more sniper deaths than there used to be. Of course, I wouldn't blindly trust either of the sources.-LtNOWIS 20:50, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

They may have determined that it's a fair strategy and have decided to use it more. Also, since the article now explicitly mentions that his existence has not been proven, the concerns of 68.125.62.98 have been addressed and there's no further need for the NPOV tag. I'm going to remove it, since the current article is perfectly neutral, if, admittedly, short. 68.125.62.98's record leads me to doubt he would do it himself or I would let him handle it. 68.9.205.10 22:17, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

He is real. user:George

So you've met him personally? 68.9.205.10 22:17, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Don't be an ass. It's my opinion. user:George

I agree that Juba could well be a insurgent propaganda tool, however, a recent article mentions that sniper attacks are the 2nd largest killer of US troops, after car bombs, and excepting clashes with insurgents. I have asked a friend, who has confirmed from a contact of his that this is indeed the case, which seems to support the case that there is more than one sniper operating. However, if the insurgents do have a particular sniper operating, he is unlikely to be camping as suggested, and rather hitting certain targets, as a higher profile sniper would. Any links are welcome.

--The1exile 18:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The insurgents themselves never insisted on a "Juba Sniper" existing, this was started by the US military. They themselves nicknamed the sniper "Juba". Man appearing in Juba 2nd compilation says himself that there are many Juba snipers, if one is killed that does not mean that the attacks will stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.214.204.164 (talk) 18:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, according to the statements in the second video, it seems like IAI recognises "Juba" more as a collective term for their snipers, instead of the name of a single guy. Quote: "The enemy must know there are hundreds of Juba". Malangyar (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

A large part of the article seems NPOV.

Example? --Irishpunktom\^talk 19:34, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

This page is neutral. I don't know what people are talking about. user:George

Its very unlikely, that all shots fired on the video are done by the same person. If it was only one person, they would track him down very fast, because he would have to travel very much. If he stayed in the same region, he would get caught even faster. (84.155.208.198 18:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)).

JUBA might be a group. Visiting the website http://www.jubaonline.org/ today, I saw this (in French): La Deuxième partie du "Sniper de Baghdad" reprenant une partie des opérations de l'unité de snipers de Baghdad (JUBA) effectuée cette année, causant la mort de 668 soldats croisés, i.e.: "The second part of [the video] 'Baghdad sniper', resuming a part of of the operations of the Baghdad snipers unit (JUBA) carried on this year, causing the death of 668 cruzader soldiers." This seems to indicate JUBA is a group. Is it an acronym? Would "-BA" stand for "Baghdad"? Ensjo 12:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this whole story is a huge hoax to promote terrorist actions. Also, considering the lack of notability of this "mysterious person", I'd rather see this article deleted, if possible. Let's see if others agree with me.--89.26.192.174

You should read up on the definition of terrorism. Attacking invading soldiers is not terrorism, as it's not designed to coerce a population by the use or threat of use of force. I'd be very surprised if this article is deleted. Dave420 (talk) 13:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Video links

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)

I would agree, but I don't want them removed till a stable surce is found --Irishpunktom\^talk 19:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

how is this page NPOV? let's remove that

Sethie 19:53, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Video links ethically not right

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)

• Wikipedia is not censored - ethically or otherwise. BD2412 T 20:19, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
• And what's next? Child pornography in the Paedophilia Article?? So there's at least some sort of censorship! I definatly think glorifying of the killing of human beings should be censored... and if you watch those videos you will see that they are clearly glorifying the killing of people! Wikipedia should be a neutral encyclopedia... glorifying the killing of human beings isn't neutral.User:Echalone 01:43, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Child porn would be illegal, whereas (so far as I know) links to video of war deaths are not. That being said, I have no intention of adding such links, or of restoring such links if they are deleted, as they do nothing to enhance the encyclopedic nature of the article. BD2412 T 01:58, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

How is it unethical? If you somehow tricked someone to watch them without them knowing, you could argue that you had slighlty harmed someone, please elaborate on how you view this as morally wrong?

The glorification of killing? I mean, it is part of the human experience... you may not like it, I may not like it, and, certain people cheer when certain people are killed. It happens in war, it happens in with the death penalty, it happens when criminals shoot each other. I warmly welcome you to view the glorification of killing as unethical, and if you view it as such, you have a much bigger fight on your hands then this article.

I am not in the mood to watch those vidoes, however I am skeptical that the intent or function of the vidoes is to glorify killing.

Keep them. What an amazing resource, wiki is, the good, the bad and the ugly, and with multimedia!

Sethie 08:39, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

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)

Since when is killing people on video legal? If we linked to a video of an American child being sexually assualted, it wouldn't be legal just because the Americans never caught the person on the video who did it. Likewise, it isn't legal to link to videos of people killing other people, whether they be terrorists or Americans.

• You said "I am not in the mood to watch those vidoes, however I am skeptical that the intent or function of the vidoes is to glorify killing."... but if you would watch them you would clearly see that there is a, to me sounding pretty happy, arabian music in the background and it's clearly like a commercial video for killing americans. It seems to be one of those terrorist videos which should glorify their doings (like the last statements of suecide bombers in Palestina). The Videos seemed to be shot BY the sniper himself, between each killed soldier there is a intro to the next killing... its definatly glorifying and therefor should be banned. If you argue about illegal context it it will get pretty complex since wikipedia is a global project and there are different laws in each country! To refer to child pornography again: In the EU child pornography is every video or picture document with nude male or female people under 18, whereas in other countries it is only child pornography if they are under 14. So, you see, there are different laws in different countries! We can't simply settle on the definition "we show what's legal" since this is a very dubious definition on the internet. And in the United States (or other countries which are on a fanatic hunt for terrorists) such videos could possibly be interpreted as terrorist properties and therefor be illegal. (since it's apparently a promotional video of a terrorist) User:Echalone 11:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• By the way: Such images and videos which are glorifying the killing of people and showing their moment of death for the propaganda of one party (like terrorists) is pretty sure a violation against the Geneva Convetion and/or the human rights (as well as the "European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms" and severel other international rights) User:Echalone 12:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Facts: ~there is arabic music in the background ~there is music in it. some people would say that some of it sounds happy ~it appears to be shot by the snipers

Interpretations (your thoughts about the facts): ~it is glorifying the killing ~it is like a commerical video for killing americans ~Any film shot by terrorists "is illegal" ~it is a promotional video of terrorism

What do you mean it is illegal? Illegal to own, to watch, to have, to show? Whether something was shot by terrorists or not doesn't mean it is "terrorist property," nor does it mean it is illegal. By your thinking, any film that terrorist have shot MUST NOT be shown to anyone. News shows however show terrorist shot footage all the time.

If the video flat out SAID- "Hey- go kill Americans, it's cool, it's fun!" it would still be news, and would still be worthy of looking at. See WWII propaganda- which is definately more overt then these videos: http://www.teacheroz.com/WWIIpropaganda.htm

Some preacher recently said, "We (the US) needs to go kill the leader of Venezuala. We need to take him out." Should we censor that?

I agree with Nightstallion, let people draw their own conclusions!

If the video MADE people go out and kill Americans and become terrorists, I would agree with you, take it off. However, look at the effect it had on you- it made you mad at the people who shot it. So if it is a recruitment/glorification video- it obviously is a very INNEFFECTIVE one.

Showing videos of someone's death for political purposes MAY be against the Geneeva convention... I don't know. Quote me the particular section and I'll listen.

However, do you really believe that is what this Wiki is for? Is this Wiki a terrorist promotion center? If you can show that this is the case, that this is not a neutral presentation of facts of actual occurances, like any other footage of violence we can see on the news or the net, then ok.

I have now watched it. Yuck. I am guessing that the video was designed with the intent to celebrate those deaths.

However, you haven't convinced me (or apparently anyone else on this page) that this is reason to censor it.

Sethie 20:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• I have changed it from a dispute over context to a dispute over neutrality nomination since I think I made a mistake there... I also added the line 'This article contains explicit videos that some may find uncomfortable. Discretion is advised.' to the beginning of the article like I have seen it in the Nanking Massacre article. I also added the line 'be advised that this may be a terrorist propaganda video and glorifies the killing of people.' to each link of a maybe terrorist propaganda video. I think that would maybe be an acceptable compromise for all. Even if I'm still for the deleting of the links, I think that lines at least keeps up some sort of neutrality to the wikipedia since you simply can't show such videos without comment in my opinion. (For example: In Austria old Nazi propaganda videos are sometimes shown in cinemas with a following discussion about what you just have seen. It's importand to clarify the context of propaganda so it's loosing it's effect and moreover makes you aware [and hopefully immune] of propaganda) User:Echalone 23:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

)

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)

• Yes, I think your proposal for one neutral sentence above the video links and the changing from "glroifying the killing of people" to "some of which seem to celebrate the killings that occur in them" seems ok to me. I would support this decision. Thanks for your positiv thoughts. User:Echalone 15:39, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

thank you... i like solutions both people feel comfortable with! :) Sethie 20:48, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

• Have any of you watched Fox or CNN news since the start of the invasion? They are 24/7 commercials for glorifying of the killing of Arab peoples.

Ugh god. Stop talking about how this video violates your Geneva Convention rights. The Geneva convention does not apply to civilians. Swatjester 10:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Odd, last I checked the Fourth Geneva Convention does. GreatGatsby 01:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Stop talking like the sniper is a terrorist. He's not. He's a warrior. He is shooting people who are armed with tanks and rifles. He is killing the same people that kills his people and kin. He is a soldier standing against the invaders. Stop talking of him like he was some sort of criminal. Given the circumstances, he's nothing short of a hero.

Sign your comments. We are all neutral here on wikipedia, don't accuse us of calling Juba a terrorist. One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. --The1exile 13:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC) In a war, homicide is legal. Furthermore juba is targeting uniformed soldiers and not civilians, something that cant be said of the people he's shooting. I think the problem some people have with these "videos" is that it shows u.s soldiers being owned by an unseen enemy and that gives them the willies. I'm sure these same people who have a problem with these videos dont mind the videos of un seen war planes hitting some mosque killing people. War's a bitch and a two way street, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

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)

Re-Write

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)

NPOV?

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)

I agree the neutrality issue seems to have been resolved. --cheese-cube 07:03, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I have postet the NPOV check so I feel free to remove it now (since it seemed I was also the only one who had problems with the article). I also feel the neutrality issue has been solved. I'm happy with the solution we have found. Thx for your support in this discussion! User:Echalone 14:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC) I added NPOV to this article since it seems to have an unsupported anti-Israeli bias. The first external link is to a Holocaust denial & other conspiracy theories website. Whoever orignally created this article needs to come up with some real sources or I may have to recommend this article for deletion. Any article that talks about Israel and Jordan jointly running an Arab terrorist training camp with "death chants" written by American Jewish songwriters needs to have pages and pages of supporting documentation, not the non-existant support given here!Iwalters 02:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Suggest removing the references to Israeli provocateurs and supposed 'false-flag' terorrism training camps, related chants and certainly the 'highly' questionable linked blog. Where is the suppoting evidence ? What justification for removing the entire article given the Guardian report, the video footage and similar disparate and corroborating supporting references re a 'Juba'(s) ? The analysis re the possible use of a digital camera synched to the snipers rifle re the actual footage appears valid though.

On second thought, deletion would be extreme, since there is, via the Guardian article some evidence that US forces think this guy exists. How ever, these totally unsupported assertions linking JUBA to Israel either need to be supported by the creator[and without citing to Holocaust denial websites] or I'm going to delete them. Iwalters 13:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

--- You should not immediately rule out "holocaust denial websites". Holocaust revisionism represents a serious historical endeavor to sort truth from propaganda.

• I think you should rule out such a web site. In Austria the denying of the holocaust isn't a serious historical endeavor, it is a serious criminal offence! If you are saying, the holocaust was just a lie, you are a criminal in my country! And I absolutely agree with the law of my country in this question. User:Echalone 17:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Tag removed

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)

Eliminating Israeli links?

Classifying a [*removed as it was triggering the spam filter*]as 'Holocaust denial', and then eliminating the link is wrong. There are US Marine lives at stake, and this censorship is adding to possible fatalities.

Why the name Juba?

Leaving aside the videos issue, why is the sniper/s known as Juba? Lisiate 02:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea. Great question. Anyone know why?--Mimbster 22:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

"Juba" was a pouplar name in the area(Mesopotamia) in ancient times, including some Kings and so forth. not sure if its still a popular given name.~~K.B.

• I was aware of the ancient Jubas but they're North African - Mauretania and Numidia. Lisiate 20:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• 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)

I read this article a while back about the Americans looking for him in bushes and buildings.

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)

"Technique" section

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)

Perhaps "getting comfortable" means get prepared - prepare for the shot, the removal of evidences, the escape routes and the next sniping spots, I think. I have never handled real guns so, maybe we need a sniper to help elaborate the terms. Unsigned edit by User:221.127.154.11.

The problem is that if this is based on some sort of generalities about how snipers operate, it's just speculation about how this sniper works. I removed the section - the only thing in it that seems to be substantiated by the external links is that s/he only shoots one person at a time, and this is already mentioned in the first paragraph. CDC (talk) 23:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I added that section. To tell the truth I didn't have any proof that he did those things except for what people said on a forum, which is where i got all the information from. Which was a bad thing of me to have done, and I'd like to appologise. I'm sorry. But I have learned my lesson. And i don't post non-factual information or information i can't prove any more... Frexe 10:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Israeli bias over American patriots?

This rifle and video cam are Israeli, and American lives are at stake. This board seems to be made up of dual citizens

-There is no proof of that. The only "evidence" that can be provided is from some crackpot site that blames zionism for every evil in the world. Not that's bias. --Someguy 08:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Footage of what are allegedly Juba attacks, debunk the Isreali theory anyway. First in the "official video compilation" released by the insurgents themselves one segment shows the camera's POV looking through the telescopic sight. So it's not a Rafael camera system which is mounted by the side. Second the Corner Shot weapon system which the site accuses the sniper of using can only attatch pistols currently and not a high powered rifle that the military says he is using. Third the incident mentioned in the "rumors of capture" section was filmed as well. If the shooter really was Juba (if he exists), we know he didn't have a a fancy system or Israeli rifle. The vid shows that they were filmed by his pal with a camcorder who seemingly panicked at one part and pointed the camera down at part of an ordinary rifle which reports state was a Dragunov.

Cite your sources next time pal before turning accusations into "fact". With your ludicrous argument that simply because he uses Israeli weapons (which is untrue) he's automatically an israeli, I can say Soviets are behind the rebel activity. I mean so many of them have an affinity with the AK 47, RPG-7 and of course Juba's Dragunov SVD which are all Soviet weapons.

---They're not really 'Soviet' weapons as you claim. True they may have been of Russian design (even though the AK47 was adapted from a German WW2 design -MP44), but AKs, RPGs and Dragunovs are unfortunately manufactured all over the world, and in alarmingly high qauntities.

-hey for all who dont know its not that hard to get that stuff.- [laleluloli]

"Rumors of capture" section

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)

I dont think you should be making that call. I have heard about this before and its not giving any facts, just rumors...like the title says. And plus the article wasnt meant to show the story of the soldier shot by the sniper, thats all. unsigned message by Someguy.

Since the factuality of this is disputed, how about providing a news article or source? Sethie 06:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia isn't the right place for rumors; we need to stick to what credible, published, external sources tell us. Have the (anonymous?) military commander's "hints" about Juba's capture been reported anywhere? I'm not going to revert this section right now, but I will put a {disputed} tag on it until we clear this up. CDC (talk) 19:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Since we cannot find where a military person said this, maybe we can remove that part and leave the part about a sniper with a comfortable sniping nest has been captured. [1]

Hey I'm the OP who made the "I read this article a while back about the Americans looking for him in bushes and buildings" discussion topic. I also referenced that excact video of Stephen Tschiderer getting shot and mentioned how similar the videos are and how it seems like he operates in a car. If that sniper is really is him, I'm luckier than I thought.

Not that it helps, since the link isn't for public dissemination, but I've seen documents verifying that the above referenced case was indeed the so called "juba sniper" Swatjester 10:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

warnings above videos

User Echalone and I came to an agreement about the warnings over the vidoes, we settled on: Some of these links below lead to graphic videos, some of which seem to celebrate the killings that occur in them.

Please read our discussion and comment here.

Personally I was not 100% satisfied with the line we came up with, however I am 0% satisfied with having no warning about graphic videos. Sethie 23:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

What if instead of a warning, the link is changed to a better, but carefully neutral, description of what the video shows - that way the reader can decide for themselves whether it's something they want to see. I'd suggest "Video compilation of Juba attacks, showing US soldiers being shot and killed" (possibly insert "allegedly" before "showing" - not sure).

Regarding "seeming to celebrate" the killings - in the text, we can mention credible media sources that describe this "celebration" aspect, but saying something "seems" to be so without a citation is original research.

The version of the warning I removed the other day also described the videos as propaganda. Propaganda is a hugely loaded term - what's propaganda and what's not depends greatly on who's speaking and who's listening, so it's not neutral for us to declare those videos propaganda. I trust our readers enough to figure they can recognize things that they believe to be propaganda without it being pointed out, and to decide what sort of video they want to see. CDC (talk) 02:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Wowsa- are you suggesting building the website yourself? Sethie 02:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. By "changing the link", I was referring to modifying the text on the encyclopedia page that is linked to the external site. Is that what you are responding to? CDC (talk) 03:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Miscommunication, gotcha. "Video compilation of Juba attacks, showing US soldiers being shot and killed"

Works for me. Of course, the videos are much more then that, though I do not know how to describe it in a neutral way.... Sethie 00:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Change to the type of sniper rifle

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.[2]

There sniper who was caught used a modified Dragunov Sniper Rifle. (84.155.223.248 18:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC))

There is a link at the bottom of the Juba sniper page that hosts a video of "Juba", and in the video he's showing a very modified AK-47 designed rifle, i'm not too sure as to what rifle it is though. have a look for yourself: http://rapidshare.de/files/7538300/juba-training.wmv.html Frexe 13:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The Guardian article referred to a Tobuk - they meant a Tabuk. It's an Iraqi-made sniper rifle based on the AK-47. If the video shows a "very modified AK-47" then it's probably a Tabuk. From Google: http://www.pmulcahy.com/sniper_rifles/iraqi_sniper_rifles.htm

i like to get a hold of the video if some one could tell me were i could find a link thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankkuppe (talk • contribs)

I seem to be finding huge problems here

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)

Not a total rewrite, but I have removed the tag, as the information has been verified at [3] 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)

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)

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)

On a different subject, I have added two other websites to the list of references as one has direct mentions to a video of "Juba's" "top ten kills". The other, Jubaonline.net has references on this page, but is in Arabic I believe so I cannot comment on the content. Any controversy on naming should be said down here. --The1exile 11:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Why do you wish to place "The links provided at the bottom of the page are purely for information purposes and as such may be biased or unethical in their content" INSIDE of the article?

Why not above the link section? Sethie 21:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure if I completely understand your argument. I place the warning at the end of the introduction, as some people might read the introduction and disregard the rest of the article as itis about capture at this moment in time. Also, there are further warnings on the links themselves; if you are suggesting that there is an over-abundancy of warnings then I must point you to the fact that it is better to have an article with more warnings than neccessary than one with no warnings at all. --The1exile 21:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

First off, I am making no arguement, hence your lack of understanding makes sense! :)

I like "The lack of reliable or verifiable information about "Juba" has made it hard to provide accurate and neutral viewpoints."

I don't like: "The links provided at the bottom of the page are purely for information purposes and as such may be biased or unethical in their content." placed where it is.

>as some people might read the introduction and disregard the rest of the article as itis about capture at this moment in time. That is possible. It is also possible they might read the first paragraph, skip your warning and go to the videos; they might read the first three paragraphs and get so excited that they jump right to the videos! They might only read every 3rd word. Who knows? Trying to predict possible reader's patterns.... good luck!

I've had it with this page, in the last month, yours is the 6th attempt at a warning! Do whatever you want, I am unwatching it. Claim Juba is Donald Duck, or that the videos are dangerous to not watch! Sethie 22:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Someone changing the rumours of capture section

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)

Juba is a propaganda tool

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)

Removed video links

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. Mushin^talk 21:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

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. Mushin^talk 13:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

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. Mushin^talk 16:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

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! Mushin^talk 17:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I've re-removed the links that violate WP:NOT, WP:EL and WP:RS. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 16:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Evident conflict with WP:NOT in "1.10 Wikipedia is not censored" -- the videos are integral to the story, they are the story. Not only have you removed the video links due to a personal stance on WP:NOT, but you don't even include reference to the fact that the videos were linked are have been removed, thereby causing many to wonder "why does this article talk so much about Juba videos but there are no links". It is not irrelevant propaganda if the videos are central to the entire story.

Video descriptions incorrect!!

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. Mushin^talk 14:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

More news articles regarding Juba, but I might need some help with this one

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)

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)

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)

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)

Sorry to Edit your thread Exile, but is the video still up anywhere to view? or has it been taken down becasue of the whole killing aspect of it? - Ash

"The Defeat of Juba" is lacking sources...

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)

Who is Zarqurihi? I'm assuming he meant Zarqawi (who was not an Iraqi warlord, but a Jordanian insurgent leader in Iraq). Even so, what does that have to do with Juba? This is section is very poorly written, obviously by someone who has absolutely no knowledge of Iraq. --Zeyad w 1:24, 26 September, 2006 (GMT+2:00)

Section removed.--Lan56 03:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

rewriting

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)

There are many "claims" and "supposedly" and "alleged" as well as "appearing to be" and other words that make the article seem like a half-hearted attempt. This ought to be cleared up. You do not see any article saying that: "Supposed U.S. forces claim to have killed insurgents, showing a video of what appears to be Iraqi individuals falling, after the sound of what is alleged to be gunfire is heard". 211.25.50.10 13:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC) did not register...

IF no one objects, I would like to remove some of the 'allegedly's plaguing this article. Unflavoured 09:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Possible explanation for name 'Juba'

Juba, whose name is taken from an African death dance[4]

It is not clear that the times has a solid source for their claim as to the selection of the name Juba.

Links to the video

why are the links to the videos not anymore?

Why the HELL is this article on wiki? is wiki no allowing articles of fairy tales and ghosties and goblins? wow this site started well but has REALLY gone down hill, the wiki admins should be pretty damn ashamed of themselves for allowing this sort of crap to go into an encyclopedia....

Nominated article for deletion

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 [5], The Guardian [6], Reuters [7], The Independent [8], The New York Times [9], ABC News [10], 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)

Agreed. Article deserves to stay, whether Juba exists or not. Deleting this article just because someone thinks its propaganda would be same as deleting Peter Pan. Clearly, boys can't fly. I've added hopeflly objective description of two videos, feel free to correct/change. Videos are available along with many others on http://www.terroristmedia.com/nukem/ but you have to register. No, I don't think the links to the videos should be included.

site of juba

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).

Conspiracy theory on the identity and M.O. of Juba the Sniper

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)

Wrong Rifle name

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)

Considering Dragunov is Soviet origin, a good example might be the finnish Rk-62 vs Ak-47 (having bigger structural differences of course but the concept of working is still very much the same). And yes, indeed it's Al Kadesiah. None of the parts between Al Kadesiah and Dragunov are compatible as far as I know so so so.. 88.115.187.49 (talk) 12:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Background story

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)

Not 'unAmerican' at all, just completely unverifiable. This article has a lot of unverifiable claims, and very little in the way of facts. Mushin^talk 17:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 19:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Having problems with another JUBA

I have seen another JUBA video, but the location is in Falluja, west of Baghdad. At the beginning of the video, a piece of words came out and JUBA killed several soldiers. The background music is "lions of Falluja"(kind of nasheed). At the end of the video, JUBA pasted his picture and a picture of his family. The video has disappeared recently, but I have a copy of it.I uploaded a few pictures got from the video here.

http://fallujasurvivor.blogspot.com/

I'm not quite sure whether it is JUBA.

The 4th Baghdad sniper

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)

The name Juba

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)

Well the insurgents uploaded a video in 2008 proving to the world that he has not been killed. If he is a sniper, than it will be very difficult to find or kill him. Finally, provide references and quotes to your statement otherwise it will be considered false and a opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.154.84 (talk) 11:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Discrepancies

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)

Stop linking "terrorism" portal to his page. Just because he is shooting to kill invading soldiers does not make him a terrorist. Look up the definition of terrorism before you link anything to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.154.84 (talk) 11:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

IAI

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)