Talk:Islamic State/Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Islamic State. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
Alleged Snowden leaks
On the Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi an anonymous user added this interesting diff. It says "On July 15 2014, as part of former US NSA Edward Snowden leaks, it was reported that "the British and American intelligence and the Mossad worked together to create the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)." Since the story was picked up by the International Business Times[1] it may be worth noting on the site, however I don't think it's authentic information. Snowden handed over his files to journalists Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras. I don't think either one of those would submit a story to "The Voice of Bahrain" Gulf Daily News without even being quoted. I could post and article in my self-owned tabloid titled "Snowden Leaks: Wikipedia Edited by Extraterrestrials" and I'm sure it would get some attention, but that doesn't make it reliable or verifiable. Comments? - Technophant (talk) 04:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- I agree entirely which is why I removed it earlier. If there is such a leak, why haven't the major media picked it up? Oh sure, maybe there's a conspiracy to keep it silent, but without much better sources we can't use this. Dougweller (talk) 12:15, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- Just a general point here: do you not think that rumours which become widespread, sometimes internationally, and persist although they have been disproved should nevertheless be recorded? Readers could wonder why there is no mention of them and (falsely) accuse Wikipedia of missing "facts", e.g. the idea that ISIS is "too extreme" for even al-Qaeda (said wrongly to be one reason AQ gave for cutting ties with them) and the al-Baghdadi threat, "I'll see you in New York", which still have very wide currency although they are not true and yet Wikipedia is silent on them. Rumours or false stories can always be worded diplomatically so that Wikipedia is not seen to be recording them as fact. I did this twice - in the Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi article - with the "I'll see you in New York" story (which I still see repeated in the media) but was reverted both times. In other words, I think rumours that gain traction should be recorded in Wikipedia, especially since they sometimes become folklore over time. Looks like it is happening already with the ISIS being "too extreme" for al-Qaeda notion. --P123ct1 (talk) 15:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- When the mainstream media report that there is a rumour to this effect we can include it, meanwhile we should not be party to spreading it. Dougweller (talk) 16:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with that, but don't agree that reporting something as a rumour would be being a party to spreading it; that is what I meant about choosing careful wording. Does "The Daily Beast" count as mainstream media? They were the first to report the threat story, I believe, which caught on everywhere. My edit was "'The Daily Beast' reported that ... However, the US Defence Department said ...", giving their plain statement, backed up with a citation, which clearly refuted the DB's story. That seemed fair enough to me and made it clear that Wikipedia was not passing on the story as fact. --P123ct1 (talk) 19:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC) (I ought to make clear that the story and the refutation were not my edits, only the linking of the two in the way I did was. P123ct1)
- Actually being to extreme is a cited reason by aq for disafilliating ISIS, but not the primary reason. Al-Qaeda central issued several letters rebuking ISIS for its progress towards building a state, something which al-qaeda central did not want to happen for many years to come. Furthermore there is a long history of Al-Qaeda central rebuking ISI / ISIS for excessively specifically targeting muslim civilians as it thought it would sully the image of the organizaitons efforts in iraq. That being said, the primary reason it was disowned was for overstepping its operational area by expanding into Syria and refusing Al-Qaeda's decsision that Al-Nusra was a seperate operational command from ISIS.XavierGreen (talk) 22:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- @XavierGreen: Where have you seen Al-Qaeda say being too extreme was one reason for disaffiliating them? In all the footnotes to this article, this has not appeared once. It would be useful to have a source for this information added in, as it changes the overall impression that this is merely journalistic inference. (See discussion above at #39) It would be nice to set the record straight. --P123ct1 (talk) 08:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
- Actually being to extreme is a cited reason by aq for disafilliating ISIS, but not the primary reason. Al-Qaeda central issued several letters rebuking ISIS for its progress towards building a state, something which al-qaeda central did not want to happen for many years to come. Furthermore there is a long history of Al-Qaeda central rebuking ISI / ISIS for excessively specifically targeting muslim civilians as it thought it would sully the image of the organizaitons efforts in iraq. That being said, the primary reason it was disowned was for overstepping its operational area by expanding into Syria and refusing Al-Qaeda's decsision that Al-Nusra was a seperate operational command from ISIS.XavierGreen (talk) 22:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with that, but don't agree that reporting something as a rumour would be being a party to spreading it; that is what I meant about choosing careful wording. Does "The Daily Beast" count as mainstream media? They were the first to report the threat story, I believe, which caught on everywhere. My edit was "'The Daily Beast' reported that ... However, the US Defence Department said ...", giving their plain statement, backed up with a citation, which clearly refuted the DB's story. That seemed fair enough to me and made it clear that Wikipedia was not passing on the story as fact. --P123ct1 (talk) 19:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC) (I ought to make clear that the story and the refutation were not my edits, only the linking of the two in the way I did was. P123ct1)
- When the mainstream media report that there is a rumour to this effect we can include it, meanwhile we should not be party to spreading it. Dougweller (talk) 16:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- Just a general point here: do you not think that rumours which become widespread, sometimes internationally, and persist although they have been disproved should nevertheless be recorded? Readers could wonder why there is no mention of them and (falsely) accuse Wikipedia of missing "facts", e.g. the idea that ISIS is "too extreme" for even al-Qaeda (said wrongly to be one reason AQ gave for cutting ties with them) and the al-Baghdadi threat, "I'll see you in New York", which still have very wide currency although they are not true and yet Wikipedia is silent on them. Rumours or false stories can always be worded diplomatically so that Wikipedia is not seen to be recording them as fact. I did this twice - in the Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi article - with the "I'll see you in New York" story (which I still see repeated in the media) but was reverted both times. In other words, I think rumours that gain traction should be recorded in Wikipedia, especially since they sometimes become folklore over time. Looks like it is happening already with the ISIS being "too extreme" for al-Qaeda notion. --P123ct1 (talk) 15:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
THANKYOU!!! Al Qaida broke ties with ISIL due to insubordination, it had absolutely nothing to do with them being "to extreme" They follow, to the t, the Quran and Sunnah, which makes them a threat to every "Muslim" dictator and king. YS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.53.148.252 (talk) 17:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- Insubordination is the only reason given by al-Qaeda for their expulsion that I have seen in the press. That is why, as you will see, I have put "not in citation" beside the footnote appended to the vague term that implies being extreme was another of AQ's reasons (see para 4 of Lead). I would not want readers to be misled. I am glad to have your support. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC) (I made a mistake: the footnote does say being extreme was a supposed reason, as a later editor indicated, which is why the "not in citation" tag has now gone. I am grateful to the editor for pointing out my mistake. P123ct1)
- Is there any RS discrediting the Gulf Daily News article? If so then this story could be added in a verifiable context. How widespread is is this rumor? - Technophant (talk) 13:27, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I found this personal blog refuting the Snowden leak and http://globalresearch.ca 's somewhat inexplicible reporting and expansion of this material. Of course material on Blogspot, unless it can be confirmed to be written by a reliable author, is not permissible on Wikipedia. However I had the impression that Global Research was a reliable source. Apparently it's more like LiveLeak, just covering picking up on other news channels without doing it's own independent verification.
- The Wiki article on globalresearch.ca shows it to be a suspect source - see under "Criticisms" - it is clearly anti-American and anti-Semitic. (@Dougweller: You may want to comment here.) --P123ct1 (talk) 15:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
- The July 16 Global Research article is certainly not the first source of this hoax, since it credits the July 15 Gulf Daily News report. However, Gulf Daily News simply revised a story published four days earlier at Som Daily News. Among the details Gulf Daily News judiciously cut out was Som's key clause in its lead: "according to Iranian news agency Farsnews." So not even Som Daily News is the original source. The reference to Iran's semi-official Fars News Agency may be to this story in Arabic published by Fars on July 8. As for Fars being a reliable source, it's useful to recall that in January 2014, Fars also cited Snowden as the source of its classic report "Snowden Documents Proving 'US-Alien-Hitler' Link" that space aliens run the U.S. government. JohnValeron (talk) 18:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
ISIL Leader Closely Cooperating with CIA
Additionally, there's been another story along similar lines put out by FARS News Agency ("Iran's leading independent news agency") titled "Russian Expert: ISIL Leader Closely Cooperating with CIA" quoting Vyacheslav Matuzov (bio). This story is probably worth mentioning, however it must be very clear that it's only Matuzov's opinion and not established fact. I started a thread at WP:RS/N to establish this sources reliability. - Technophant (talk) 14:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Population figures
Above I said we shouldn't include them, but I see they've just been added. Besides the fact I don't understand why there is text about an April estimate with a source that doesn't say April, I'm still not convinced that because one source says six million living "under their watch" we should start putting population figures here. I realise others may disagree which is why I haven't reverted. Dougweller (talk) 21:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- And the same paper mentions an exodus of hundreds of thousands.[2] - hard to know how many people are "under its watch" with such population movements. Dougweller (talk) 21:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Treat the "Islamic State" as an empire?
Should Wikipedia treat the "Islamic State" as an empire, and not just an organization? Specifically, I think the article should include information on the population, geography, and economy of the territory they control. Readers don't get a sense of how many people are under the control of ISIS at the moment. Every war machine relies on the civilian economy to some extent, so the size of population and economy is important to understand ISIS's power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.169.126.56 (talk) 10:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- No. There is actually no way of being certain about any of this. The population is moving about, they are wrecking economies, and boundaries are changing. Dougweller (talk) 12:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Dougweller. The use of the term Empire could be possible in the future, but as of now ISIS/ISIL doesn't match the criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epistance (talk • contribs) 23:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Technical help
There is a table of the countries which have declared ISIS as a terror group, this is incomplete. I tried to edit it using the references from the top (Canada, Australia, UN and Saudi) but somehow it deleted everything after the table, even though I was only editing the section! Can somebody help? '''tAD''' (talk) 21:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Please create a list, COUNTRY : REFERENCE/CITATION Twillisjr (talk) 12:21, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- Someone has completed the table now. --P123ct1 (talk) 12:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Goals
Does the article needs a "Goal" section? The two last paragraphs that come under "Ideology and Beliefs" has nothing to do withIdeology and Beliefs and would better go under another section such as "Goals". Mhhossein (talk) 08:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
As a minor note about the "Goals" section. There is a repeated punctuation error with the sections in quotations. The period is supposed to be placed inside the quotation marks, not outside. Epistance (talk) 23:53, 8 Aug 2014 (UTC)
- Epistance: WP:MOS says if the quotation is incomplete, i.e. does not start at the beginning of the quoted sentence or does not finish at the end of it, the full stop goes outside the quotation marks, but if the last part of the quotation is a complete sentence, the full stop goes inside the quotation marks. e.g. (1) She said, "ISIS is jihadist group which fights in Syria and Iraq." (2) She said that ISIS is a jihadist group "which fights in Syria and Iraq". (3) She said, "ISIS is a jihadist group". --P123ct1 (talk) 19:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
New Players
According to this article, http://gulfnews.com/news/region/syria/pkk-joins-battle-against-isil-1.1360183, the PKK has been fighting ISIL in Syria since about July 10, and about 1000 PKK fights in Syria - http://www.voanews.com/content/turkish-kurds-want-ankara-to-declare-stance-on-isil/1965256.html. Enemies are becoming friends out of necessity. See http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/forming-the-anti-isil-front.aspx?PageID=238&NID=70169&NewsCatID=466. Legacypac (talk) 01:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Map - hard to understand, doesn't seem to reflect its source
I find the map hard to understand. It also doesn't seem to reflect the source.[3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 15:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- The map should at least show the borders of Iraq and Syria, preferably all country borders in the region. Readers not familiar with the geography of the region will find it very hard to understand. A few key cities marked on it would not go amiss either. --P123ct1 (talk) 15:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- I don't know if it's changed recently, but the map does seem to be showing the borders between countries. I will grant you that the presence of major rivers like the Euphrates on the map does make it hard to distinguish, as does the choice of colours. Gazkthul (talk) 06:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- The borders are shown on the map in "2104 events", but not on the map in the Lead, which is the map readers will home in on when starting to read the article. --P123ct1 (talk) 08:40, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- I've removed the map, see my edit summary. Not only is the latest source quite out of date, the map bears almost no resemblance to it so we are misleading our readers. Dougweller (talk) 15:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- The borders are shown on the map in "2104 events", but not on the map in the Lead, which is the map readers will home in on when starting to read the article. --P123ct1 (talk) 08:40, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- I don't know if it's changed recently, but the map does seem to be showing the borders between countries. I will grant you that the presence of major rivers like the Euphrates on the map does make it hard to distinguish, as does the choice of colours. Gazkthul (talk) 06:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Category Islamic states
I've had my revert for the day, but this doesn't belong here. Dougweller (talk) 16:52, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Dougweller. I don't see it. Is there another spelling, or has it been removed already? -- Brangifer (talk) 20:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- I removed it. [4] --NeilN talk to me 20:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 20:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- I removed it. [4] --NeilN talk to me 20:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Merging content from persecution articles
I nominated Yazidi persecution by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant to be merged into this article. In comments/votes by others, I learned there is also an article Persecution of Iraqi Christians by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Both of these articles are short and I think that there is a lot of overlap regarding IS/ISIS/ISIL theology and actions carried out against both groups. In the nomination of the former, I said that the subject (Yazidi persecution) could be added to this article in a section called "Persecution of religious minorities" or "Persecution of Shia and non-Muslims" (this section can have subsections like "Yazidis", "Shiites", "Christians", etc). If there is sufficient content on that subject or this article gets too long (already at 52kB "readable prose size"), then it could be split (although it would still need to have a summary on this page).
So, should those pages be merged into this one or combined into one, separate article (eg. Religious persecution by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (following naming of this article...I see the name discussion above))? To keep the discussion of this topic in one place, please make comments at Talk:Yazidi persecution by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Merge to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. AHeneen (talk) 14:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Competence Matters
Incompetence to read and fathom a well researched and "abundantly clear" reliable source should not be used as an excuse to affix a disruptive "not in citation given" in a 1RR article. It's like saying you cannot add a "well researched, sourced and verifiable content" that says "The Islamic State had advanced to within 30 km of Erbil" with a reliable source whose "title" CLEARLY says "الدولة الإسلامية على بعد 30 كيلومترا من إربيل". This is getting too old already. Worldedixor (talk) 01:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- @Worldedixor, I thought you said you above you were going to stop editing this article? *shrugs* Can you give a "diff" link for the edits you are questioning above? ~Technophant (talk) 01:48, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- No need to start with "I thought you said you above you were going to stop editing this article? *shrugs*" if you want to communicate with me the first time and in good faith. My "well sourced" edits should be commended. I would never tell you not to edit and I have no need for your *shrugs*". I will be removing the disruptive "not in citation given" tomorrow. I just don't want further disruption when a "very clear" reliable source has been provided. Worldedixor (talk) 01:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
The reliable source I provided http://ynewsiq.com/index.php?aa=news&id22=7265#.U-iSt5p0z6V clearly states "الدولة الإسلامية على بعد 30 كيلومترا من إربيل" twice in the title as well as the body of the news report. This reliable and verifiable source is completely satisfactory according to WP rules. However, the well sourced content I added is further evidenced by http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/11024844/American-air-strikes-help-Kurdish-forces-reclaim-towns-from-Islamic-State.html albeit the false usage of 30 miles rather than 30 kilometers. I had to wait to remove the disruptive "not in citation given" falsely used on a reliable and verifiable source, and ask that no further disruption is employed as a pretext to slow down my "well sourced" contributions. Worldedixor (talk) 10:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- The translation from the Arabic to English in the footnote was incomprehensible. That is why I added the tag. (I should have said "not in citation given, in the English translation".) You have now put in a good second citation in English (The Telegraph) for non-Arabic speakers, so it doesn't matter any more. --P123ct1 (talk) 17:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- Good Lord! Please cease and desist making disruptive edits to my edits. It is getting too old in a 1RR article!!!!... WP allows reliable sources in ANY language. This is an article about an Arabic group and non-Arabic reliable sources are not always available or easily found. I do NOT have to spoon-feed you nor listen to your new fabricated rules. You do no WP:OWN the article. There are other competent editors who can "easily" tell that the reliable source I provided WAS indeed comprehensible and 100% CLEAR, and can edit accordingly. WP:AGF and let someone competent read the reliable source rather than be disruptive. Please do not WP:Wikihounding and stay away from my "well sourced" edits.Worldedixor (talk) 17:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- Foreign language sources, although permitted, are always "second best" in en.WP. See WP:NOENG: "Citations to non-English sources are allowed. However, because this is the English-language Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, whenever English sources of equal quality and relevance are available." I don't see that P123ct1 can be criticized for wanting an English-language source.DeCausa (talk) 20:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- I believe that you are missing the larger picture of things here, but I will WP:AGF that you deserve at this point in time, and will extend to you the genuine benefit of the doubt. So, thank you for asserting your unalienable right to express your opinion. I respect and defend your right. "Citations to non-English sources are allowed." Worldedixor (talk) 20:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- TBH, DeCausa, I wasn't necessarily after an English source, just one that was comprehensible! The Google translations from the Arabic in some Arabic sources can be a bit bizarre sometimes, unfortunately, and quite misleading. I have noticed it before. This was one of them. --P123ct1 (talk) 22:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- I believe that you are missing the larger picture of things here, but I will WP:AGF that you deserve at this point in time, and will extend to you the genuine benefit of the doubt. So, thank you for asserting your unalienable right to express your opinion. I respect and defend your right. "Citations to non-English sources are allowed." Worldedixor (talk) 20:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- Foreign language sources, although permitted, are always "second best" in en.WP. See WP:NOENG: "Citations to non-English sources are allowed. However, because this is the English-language Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, whenever English sources of equal quality and relevance are available." I don't see that P123ct1 can be criticized for wanting an English-language source.DeCausa (talk) 20:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- Good Lord! Please cease and desist making disruptive edits to my edits. It is getting too old in a 1RR article!!!!... WP allows reliable sources in ANY language. This is an article about an Arabic group and non-Arabic reliable sources are not always available or easily found. I do NOT have to spoon-feed you nor listen to your new fabricated rules. You do no WP:OWN the article. There are other competent editors who can "easily" tell that the reliable source I provided WAS indeed comprehensible and 100% CLEAR, and can edit accordingly. WP:AGF and let someone competent read the reliable source rather than be disruptive. Please do not WP:Wikihounding and stay away from my "well sourced" edits.Worldedixor (talk) 17:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
WP:OWN to new editors
Some contributors feel possessive about material they have contributed to Wikipedia. No one has the right to act as though he or she is the owner of a particular article. Worldedixor (talk) 08:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- Ok, since you've replaced this, I agree that you are right that possessiveness is a bad thing.. But I don't see that there is a problem here and I feel that rather than make vague statements like this you should be pointing out such problems that you see to the editors you have in mind on their talk pages.
- I also note that you seem to be at 3RR on a 1RR page. Whatever you may feel about WP:OWN, you should not be doing this. The whole point of the 1RR restriction is to avoid edit warring. Dougweller (talk) 11:47, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- I ask you not to repeatedly violate WP Rules and gang up on me via e-mails to "remove the joy of editing Wikipedia". The record shows what you did after you misconstrued "once again" what I said and after I provided well sourced edits to the article. Everyone was editing peacefully. Do not just remove my edits and falsely accuse me of stuff, and do not use bureaucracy as a pretext to make unwanted contact and instigate me. As for explaining WP rules, I have my way of doing so.Worldedixor (talk) 18:39, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- I think you might have mis-interpreted him. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 07:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- I ask you not to repeatedly violate WP Rules and gang up on me via e-mails to "remove the joy of editing Wikipedia". The record shows what you did after you misconstrued "once again" what I said and after I provided well sourced edits to the article. Everyone was editing peacefully. Do not just remove my edits and falsely accuse me of stuff, and do not use bureaucracy as a pretext to make unwanted contact and instigate me. As for explaining WP rules, I have my way of doing so.Worldedixor (talk) 18:39, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Suggested split of Al-Hayat Media Center as own article
I've had an article in my userspace now moved to User:Technophant/Al Furqan Media Productions where anybody who is wishing to help develop this article can edit. Even though Al Furqan Media (recently renamed Al-Hayat Media Center (HMC)) is an integral part of IS/ISIS, it is its own separate entity, notable, and has enough written about it to develop into a separate article. ~Technophant (talk) 22:11, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- If it has enough to become its own article, then go for it. It still needs some developing though. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 22:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
"2014 events" section
I have been feeling uncomfortable for some time about how the "2014 events" section is turning into a bulletin board for this conflict. I don't think it is appropriate for Wikipedia to act like a newspaper or a press agency. Editor Why should I have a User Name? has criticised this as well (see above). Perhaps it might be an idea to have a separate page where these events can be listed in the way they are being now, and after each month, write up a resume of the month's main events as a historical narrative and then put it into this section. People will be reading Wikipedia this article for information about ISIS/IS, not about how the conflict is developing. --P123ct1 (talk) 08:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- I agree. See Timeline of the Syrian Civil War. Dougweller (talk) 16:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- That Syrian Civil War timeline looks like a good idea. It would need to be decided at what point in 2014 this timeline should begin, i.e. exactly when did this latest conflict begin, with what event? What should the page be called? I wouldn't have a clue how to set up a page like that, but I am sure someone here could. It would also get round the vexed problem of what tense to use when reporting these events. Do people think this is a good idea? --P123ct1 (talk) 18:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- The whole Timeline of Events section sticks out like a sore thumb and should be split off into another page, with key events summarised into the article. Gazkthul (talk) 22:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- That Syrian Civil War timeline looks like a good idea. It would need to be decided at what point in 2014 this timeline should begin, i.e. exactly when did this latest conflict begin, with what event? What should the page be called? I wouldn't have a clue how to set up a page like that, but I am sure someone here could. It would also get round the vexed problem of what tense to use when reporting these events. Do people think this is a good idea? --P123ct1 (talk) 18:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- I agree. See Timeline of the Syrian Civil War. Dougweller (talk) 16:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Location map of Islamic State
Where has the location map of Islamic State - showing areas controlled by them and claimed by them - gone ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoneCahill85 (talk • contribs) 12:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- It was removed right here[5] because the map does not match the source given at File:Territorial control of the ISIS.svg and even that source is 27th July, not August 9th. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 12:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Is United Kingdom an opponent?
I'm wondering if there are any reliable references that could decide this. I know that they have sent aid drops, and that is obviously not a declaration that they are an opponent. However, they have stated they have sent Tornado jets, but I'm unsure as to whether they are for military surveillance, or if they are for the surveillance of the aid drops. I did find this reference post showing David Cameron's union with Barack Obama, and since the United States of America are listed as opponents - well, you get the idea. Ryanicus Girraficus (talk) 21:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- Surveillance[6]. Changing your ref to an url as otherwise it will keep dropping down to the thread at the bottom of the page (which this is at the moment but not for long). I would have thought opponent meant taking action against. Dougweller (talk) 08:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- Dougweller could you be kind enough to use this somewhere in this or parallel articles? Thank you and regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 08:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- Why should I have a User Name?, why me? Why don't you do it? I'll have to see, I am really busy, have a huge watchlist and need to spend some time off Wikipedia today. :-) Dougweller (talk) 09:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- Because I saw in your page that you are a "Most Plusquamperfect Looshpah Laureate" and an admin. I don't know what the former means but the latter inspires some experience. What is better and more normal than asking help from a more experienced user? Look into my recent edits and you will see I have asked help to other users like yourself -those that I thought could to this or that thing better than me. Do it tomorrow if you're busy today and don't spend your time to answer me but to help me. Thank you. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 09:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- Are your fingers broken? - why don't YOU do it - this is perhaps one of the silliest/laziest requests I've seen of another editor. Are you topic-banned or something?HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- Are you alright? Is your name Dougweller? Please mind your own editing. Good-bye. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 14:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- Are your fingers broken? - why don't YOU do it - this is perhaps one of the silliest/laziest requests I've seen of another editor. Are you topic-banned or something?HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- Because I saw in your page that you are a "Most Plusquamperfect Looshpah Laureate" and an admin. I don't know what the former means but the latter inspires some experience. What is better and more normal than asking help from a more experienced user? Look into my recent edits and you will see I have asked help to other users like yourself -those that I thought could to this or that thing better than me. Do it tomorrow if you're busy today and don't spend your time to answer me but to help me. Thank you. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 09:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- Why should I have a User Name?, why me? Why don't you do it? I'll have to see, I am really busy, have a huge watchlist and need to spend some time off Wikipedia today. :-) Dougweller (talk) 09:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- Dougweller could you be kind enough to use this somewhere in this or parallel articles? Thank you and regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 08:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
What is the current relationship between IS and Al Qaida?
The infobox for IS lists AQ as "opponents" (along with the the US, the Iraqi army, and all the governments and militias actively fighting against them). Is this correct? Are AQ and IS in active hostilities, or are they (as I had thought), merely non-cooperative? (Note also that the AQ article doesn't list IS as an opponent). Iapetus (talk) 16:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- IS and Nusra (Al Qaeda's franchise in Syria) are in conflict in Syria. There aren't active hostilities between IS and AQ Core. Gazkthul (talk) 23:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Population, Area Data, Foreign Fighters?
35,000 km2 (Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxX_THjtXOw&index=5&list=PLw613M86o5o7ELT6LKyJFKawB6gUsZSf7, at 2:16 ). More data? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.93.61.117 (talk) 23:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
400 fighters from Germany (Russia Today)
Section headed "As Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant"
Looks redundant User:Mehdi ghaed, why did you add it? You can remove your own edit without it being counted as a revert for the purposes of 1RR. Dougweller (talk) 12:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- it seems that,unlike your opinion(User talk:Dougweller), in the early paragraph of the page, there is no accurate and comprehensive about ISIL. because of this I add this explanation to headline.. of course the information mentioned , are both in summary and also give a preliminary knowledge on ISIL..I can summarize it...Mehdi ghaed (talk) 12:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
1RR restriction redux
Either people aren't reading the edit notice that you see when you edit the article and/or the notice at the top of the talk page or they are just ignoring it. Please folks, stop this if you don't want to be blocked. And to clarify, reinstating something that an editor has removed is a revert. 1RR can include several edits in a row with no one editing in between, that's fine. But revert something, another editor edits, and revert again is a violation. Dougweller (talk) 07:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- I made that mistake because I did not know how this functioned. I had also not noticed this explanation before. Thank you Dougweller. I will consider and obey it. Regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 07:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Should ISIS redirect to this article?
The ISIS page is currently a redirect to Isis (disambiguation). Shouldn't it be to redirected to this article? Supersaiyen312 (talk) 07:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- No. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 07:32, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- Well, the redirect was made in 2008. The Isis page (with lowercase) links to the Egyptain goddess. I guess I could understand why ISIS needs to redirect to a disambiguation page though. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 07:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Name "doesn't matter"
"It doesn't matter if you call it ISIS, ISIL or Islamic State, the extremist brand is winning" (Washington Post). Would still prefer Islamic State. :P AntiqueReader (talk) 14:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- Nice source surveying the name issue! DeCausa (talk) 06:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- It would be easier to just call it the "Islamic State" or ISIS. The U.S. government has decided to call them ISIL though. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 07:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- There is a source on the UN calling them an "armed group". This source also names the four ethno-religious groups "persecuted" by this armed group. We have articles on the persecution of two of them, but not the other two: Turkmens and Shabaks. Why? Please also see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Iraqi_Turkmens#No_persecution.3F. Thanks. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 08:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- It would be easier to just call it the "Islamic State" or ISIS. The U.S. government has decided to call them ISIL though. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 07:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
"Genocide"
Dougweller has advised that the word "genocide", like "terrorist", should not be used in this article without sources to back it up. --P123ct1 (talk) 14:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- I've been out the loop for a while, however I
Agree in principle. - Technophant (talk) 21:04, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- I Agree. The reliable and verifiable source I have provided (The Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/08/08/when-obama-talks-about-iraq-his-use-of-the-word-genocide-is-vital/) does indeed back it up. I also add two more reliable sources that also back it up (The Guardian http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/08/isis-persecution-iraqi-christians-genocide-asylum) and (Al 3arabi http://www.alaraby.co.uk/flashnews/4624503a-9999-4864-836f-c3f3a8b72340). Why was my edit reverted twice (not by the same editor)? Changing WP rules and reverting well sourced edits is disruptive. I cannot revert it back today in a 1RR article. Worldedixor (talk) 05:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- No one has changed the rules - it's ok for two editors to revert you and shows you don't have consensus and need to get agreement here - reverting again would be a bad idea as such actions may be seen as edit warring. We can however use the word in context, ie say that Obama and Archbishop Athanasius Toma Dawod describe it as genocidal, perhaps with a couple of quotes. But note that Patriarch Louis Sako doesn't call it genocide but states there is a risk of genocide. الأناضول - which Google translates as Anatolia is a Turkish News Agency. the article is quoting Salama al-Khafaji. The French Foreign Minister has also referred to it as genocide.[7][8]. But we need to attribute and Obama should not be described as the US. Why not work out some wording here on the talk page so what we can get consensus and avoid edit warring? Dougweller (talk) 06:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) The solution is very simple. As with all things here, it really isn't a question of whether it really is or is not genocide, but what RS say. We simply state who said it was genocide, and include the source(s) every single time the word is used in the text, even in the lead (because it's controversial). There are likely several notable people and institutions which have used that term. Wikipedia is not censored, including use of strongly pejorative terms. If a source uses the term, we are not allowed to shy away from also using it. NPOV requires that we reproduce the spirit of the source. This is not a BLP issue. So,... attribution solves this problem. (BTW, it really is genocide.
). -- Brangifer (talk) 07:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks Brangifer. You make a lot of sense. I will let whoever wants to discuss "genocide" discuss it. It weighs on my consciousness what's happening to innocent people over there who have never hurt anyone, and it really is a genocide. There's something wrong in WP when an editor is allowed to just dismiss ALL reliable sources and revert a well sourced edit in a 1RR article, and we have to sit here and debate the obvious. Those poor folks fled fearing genocide which unfortunately happened. I made my research and shared it in good faith. I now recuse myself from this particular process "i.e. adding genocide" that I don't particularly find enjoyable. Perfection is not required in WP. Worldedixor (talk) 08:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- I think Brangifer has the right idea here, except that I don't agree Wikipedia can use the word directly. I reverted the word "genocide" only because it wasn't backed up by that particular source, although it is quite clear that this is what it is. If some other RS source can be found to support the statement, I think it can be kept in, but only as "X reported .... genocide ...", or making it plain that they are not Wikipedia's words but someone else's. --P123ct1 (talk) 08:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks Brangifer. You make a lot of sense. I will let whoever wants to discuss "genocide" discuss it. It weighs on my consciousness what's happening to innocent people over there who have never hurt anyone, and it really is a genocide. There's something wrong in WP when an editor is allowed to just dismiss ALL reliable sources and revert a well sourced edit in a 1RR article, and we have to sit here and debate the obvious. Those poor folks fled fearing genocide which unfortunately happened. I made my research and shared it in good faith. I now recuse myself from this particular process "i.e. adding genocide" that I don't particularly find enjoyable. Perfection is not required in WP. Worldedixor (talk) 08:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) The solution is very simple. As with all things here, it really isn't a question of whether it really is or is not genocide, but what RS say. We simply state who said it was genocide, and include the source(s) every single time the word is used in the text, even in the lead (because it's controversial). There are likely several notable people and institutions which have used that term. Wikipedia is not censored, including use of strongly pejorative terms. If a source uses the term, we are not allowed to shy away from also using it. NPOV requires that we reproduce the spirit of the source. This is not a BLP issue. So,... attribution solves this problem. (BTW, it really is genocide.
- I was another editor who (12 Aug) changed the word ‘genocide’ into a description with ‘killings’, simply because by the mentioning on 5Aug2014 in the article no source was added qualifying it as ‘genocide’. And if no such source is delivered, Wiki should report facts and not make political or juridical or whatever sort of judgments. Ofcourse the terrible events in IS-country weighed on Worldedixor’s consciousness, as he said 12Aug,08:02, but the only thing to do here in that case is make a good, neutral encyclopedia. --Corriebertus (talk) 09:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- No one has changed the rules - it's ok for two editors to revert you and shows you don't have consensus and need to get agreement here - reverting again would be a bad idea as such actions may be seen as edit warring. We can however use the word in context, ie say that Obama and Archbishop Athanasius Toma Dawod describe it as genocidal, perhaps with a couple of quotes. But note that Patriarch Louis Sako doesn't call it genocide but states there is a risk of genocide. الأناضول - which Google translates as Anatolia is a Turkish News Agency. the article is quoting Salama al-Khafaji. The French Foreign Minister has also referred to it as genocide.[7][8]. But we need to attribute and Obama should not be described as the US. Why not work out some wording here on the talk page so what we can get consensus and avoid edit warring? Dougweller (talk) 06:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- I
![[3]](http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/76526000/jpg/_76526461_iraq_syria_isis_caliphate_25.07.14_624map.jpg){kind=link}
Proposed wording for description of actions as genocidal
Starting a new section to discuss wording. Dougweller (talk) 06:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- Persecution of Yazidis by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (I moved it to its current title) was begun as "Yazidi Genocide" on 8 August 2014, when there were not even news on a Yazidi massacre. (Which I still consider as a "claim" until independently confirmed.) A similar story/history is valid for Persecution of Assyrians by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. I am afraid when questions on violations of human rights arise we tend to take Wikipedia as a News Agency or an Internet Forum and rush to create articles. This is an encyclopedia. We have to act in cold blood. For me, we can wait until an international court (for months) or an international body like UN (for weeks perhaps) define the issue. Nobody expects from Wikipedia to cover events on-line. When an airplane falls or is downed nobody -except WP editors- rush here to "read" the news in Wikipedia. (Let's be honest, indeed we rush to be "first" to write, not to read.) News are read in news-sites. People come here to read the Holocaust, for example, not Israel's ongoing operation in Gaza. (At least I hope so.) If they do come here to read current events, they may cool off from Wikipedia. Which of us can tell me that while we are discussing if something is a genocide or not we do not have CoI? If I had Assyrian or Yazidi relatives or friends in Iraq I could be looking at things differently, I imagine. (Thank God I don't have anybody in Iraq; so I hope I am looking neutrally into all this.) I know people may talk to me about sources or censure but I will repeat myself: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It has no reason to run after the events and try to cover them "on-line". Let us wait until everything is clear; we will not lose anything (including prestige). Regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 08:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, the title of this sub-section (…wording for description…as genocidal…?) is nonsensical, so this is not really a discussion. The User(12Aug,08:07) who refuses to take on a normal, short, Username seems to be obstinate by profession and I disagree with him at some points, but since this is not a serious discussion (and he not a serious User) I won’t elaborate on that. --Corriebertus (talk) 11:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- If you don't want to elaborate on something then don't do it; no need to explain. I don't think there are many users here wondering why Corriebertus did not elaborate on anything. I also cannot understand why a user's user name could be an issue for you. If you want to tell something to me you may use WSIHAUN, or simply call me Pepe, no problem. (There are other people who have had no problem interacting with me; I guess they copy-paste the user name.) The words "not a serious user" could be seen as a personal attack by others but I am a mature person, I only see that as an unnecessary (indeed it is never necessary) rudeness. Please do not talk or opine on the contributors, concentrate on their contributions. Regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 19:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, no offence meant. Since this ‘discussion’ is total nonsense, as I said before, I got confused by reading important things said by mr “Why” in an otherwise nonsensical sub-section. Mr Why poses that Wikipedia should better not write al all about Islamic State until a court or the UN has “defined” some “issue”. I disagree: it is good and important for Wiki to write immediately about ‘current events’ like Gaza or IS. (What means: “...we do not have CoI?” ?) --Corriebertus (talk) 11:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- If you don't want to elaborate on something then don't do it; no need to explain. I don't think there are many users here wondering why Corriebertus did not elaborate on anything. I also cannot understand why a user's user name could be an issue for you. If you want to tell something to me you may use WSIHAUN, or simply call me Pepe, no problem. (There are other people who have had no problem interacting with me; I guess they copy-paste the user name.) The words "not a serious user" could be seen as a personal attack by others but I am a mature person, I only see that as an unnecessary (indeed it is never necessary) rudeness. Please do not talk or opine on the contributors, concentrate on their contributions. Regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 19:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, the title of this sub-section (…wording for description…as genocidal…?) is nonsensical, so this is not really a discussion. The User(12Aug,08:07) who refuses to take on a normal, short, Username seems to be obstinate by profession and I disagree with him at some points, but since this is not a serious discussion (and he not a serious User) I won’t elaborate on that. --Corriebertus (talk) 11:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
UN security council statement
As I can't see anything in the statement about terrorism I've taken this to WP:RSN#Is this UN document a reliable source to say the UN Security Council designated the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant is a terrorist organisation? rather than just reverting. Dougweller (talk) 12:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- I have seen the decision on that page and have therefore removed the UN from the list in the Lead. --P123ct1 (talk) 14:16, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- What decision? Also, "editors" are breaking the 1RR rule and others doing "reverts" and getting away with it. Worldedixor (talk) 17:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- I would say you could get it back in with the wording suggested in the last message there, which I think is fair. I hadn't seen that message until now. I reverted AGF, as I didn't want Wikipedia readers to be misled (see my comments in #8 and #41 above). I put all those "citation needed"s in for the same reason, just until we can fix it. I think your input on that linked page has helped to come to a solution here. --P123ct1 (talk) 18:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- What decision? Also, "editors" are breaking the 1RR rule and others doing "reverts" and getting away with it. Worldedixor (talk) 17:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- I rest my case. What you are "permitting" me to do constitutes edit warring and a violation of the 1RR in 24 hours. They are very strict on this "apparently". However, competence matters, and impatient and baseless "complete" reverts of well known United Nations facts and well sourced content without the absolute minimum of due diligence (it took me 2 seconds) is tedious and disruptive. As for 1RR, this is one example of violations of 1RR in 24 hours. There are others by other editors.
- 14:13, 14 August 2014 P123ct1 (talk | contribs) . . (234,124 bytes) (-362) . . (→top: Adjusted punctuation, removed unnecessary wikilinks from countries, and removed UN Security Council (see Talk page for reasons))
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant&diff=621213898&oldid=621204472
- 19:27, 13 August 2014 P123ct1 (talk | contribs) . . (232,152 bytes) (-4) . . (Undid revision 621091737 by Lahaun (talk) There is already a wikilink for him two paragraphs above) (undo | thank)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant&diff=621103288&oldid=621102636
- Let us see an unbiased admin address this matter without any further bias and double standards, and WP:OWN. Worldedixor (talk) 19:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- Admins don't get involved as Admins in content disputes. I took this to WP:RSN because I could not find the word 'terrorist' in your source. If you want to complain that an editor has broken 1RR then the place to report this is WP:AE. As the Secretary General has called it a terrorist group, we can add that. But not that the Security Council has designated it as a terrorist group without a UN source stating that explicitly. And the lack of good faith and the personal attacks aren't conducive to a collegial environment, which is what we want this to be. Dougweller (talk) 21:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- You have just proven my point. Your recent actions show that you "did" get involved many times in content disputes the latest being today when I reverted a baseless revert. The record also shows flagrant bias, double standards and your and your pals'"selective" enforcement of WP rules. I am abiding by WP rules regardless of your digs and your false insinuations about me. All is documented and organized and can be verified. I don't see you send an "e-mail" like you did before about 1RR. I don't see you remove "personal attacks" against me when I asked you to. Also, it was not "my" source. Another editor found it and it has been used more than once on WP. The reliable source I found "in 2 seconds" confirms that the other editor's source was a reliable UN source. I am NOT adding well sourced content because it is tedious. Worldedixor (talk) 21:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- Just picking up on your first point, I think you misunderstood. An admin could either be acting as an admin on the page - in which case they wouldn't be engaged in any content issues - or they could be acting as an editor - in which case they wouldn't be using admin tools or acting with admin authority, But they're not permitted to do both. An admin has no more authority than any other editor in a content dispute. There's no point looking for admins to "adjudicate" on a content dispute, therefore. Dougweller is clearly participating on this page as an experienced editor not as an admin. DeCausa (talk) 22:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you DeCausa for expressing your opinion. I honor your unalienable right to do so. However, it is far more involved than this. I have it all organized, and I reserve all my rights. Worldedixor (talk) 22:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- Just picking up on your first point, I think you misunderstood. An admin could either be acting as an admin on the page - in which case they wouldn't be engaged in any content issues - or they could be acting as an editor - in which case they wouldn't be using admin tools or acting with admin authority, But they're not permitted to do both. An admin has no more authority than any other editor in a content dispute. There's no point looking for admins to "adjudicate" on a content dispute, therefore. Dougweller is clearly participating on this page as an experienced editor not as an admin. DeCausa (talk) 22:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- You have just proven my point. Your recent actions show that you "did" get involved many times in content disputes the latest being today when I reverted a baseless revert. The record also shows flagrant bias, double standards and your and your pals'"selective" enforcement of WP rules. I am abiding by WP rules regardless of your digs and your false insinuations about me. All is documented and organized and can be verified. I don't see you send an "e-mail" like you did before about 1RR. I don't see you remove "personal attacks" against me when I asked you to. Also, it was not "my" source. Another editor found it and it has been used more than once on WP. The reliable source I found "in 2 seconds" confirms that the other editor's source was a reliable UN source. I am NOT adding well sourced content because it is tedious. Worldedixor (talk) 21:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- Admins don't get involved as Admins in content disputes. I took this to WP:RSN because I could not find the word 'terrorist' in your source. If you want to complain that an editor has broken 1RR then the place to report this is WP:AE. As the Secretary General has called it a terrorist group, we can add that. But not that the Security Council has designated it as a terrorist group without a UN source stating that explicitly. And the lack of good faith and the personal attacks aren't conducive to a collegial environment, which is what we want this to be. Dougweller (talk) 21:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
My revert was a holding action until something could be sorted out. It was to protect Wikipedia's reputation, as I have clearly said before. Is it okay to let Wikpedia persist in stating a fact it knows to be untrue (after the document was found by others on the other page not to support the statement), just because of a pending dispute among editors? Is it okay for Wikipedia to knowingly mislead its readers? As for my 1RR infraction, I had completely forgotten about removing one single wikilink the day before the UN reversion. I am very tired of having my edits and comments interpreted as "personal attacks", and I don't like veiled threats. --P123ct1 (talk) 01:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- "Editors are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction when reverting logged-in users on all pages related to the Syrian Civil War, broadly construed. 'When in doubt, assume it is related, and don't revert". Do not be impatient to revert a well sourced content. Leave my FACTUAL revert in a 1RR article until something could be sorted out not violate 1RR and revert it. The record clearly shows that the biased admin was quick to send an "email" unsolicited to his "pal" when I "inadvertently" did a 1RR in GOOD FAITH and "protecting WP", and did not do anything in your case even though I brought it up with strong and convincing evidence. That reeks of double standards and selective enforcement of WP rules. Also, you are NOT the only one who is concerned about WP. Most importantly, one of your personal attacks (that I expressly asked to be removed and the biased admin ignored my request AND instead added insult to injury in a vindictive manner, something an admin should never do) is your saying "I think he is unbalanced". If that was not a personal attack (that is clearly non-conducive to a collegial environment), what is? RESPECT WP Rules and "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Cease and desist... I am following WP Rules and you are removing the joy of my editing WP. Worldedixor (talk) 01:32, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, the comment "I think he is unbalanced was made. But you left out the rest of the sentence, which was " and having more people on him will only make it worse for him and therefore for Wikipedia in the end." In other words, a suggestion that you be left alone. That was followed in another post by ". I didn't mean what I said unkindly at all, it was just how I see it. I seem to have put my foot in it again." All of this was on my talk page. Not on yours. Bringing stuff from my talk page to an article talk age is entirely inappropriate. Use of article talk pages is discussed at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Dougweller (talk) 17:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- "Editors are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction when reverting logged-in users on all pages related to the Syrian Civil War, broadly construed. 'When in doubt, assume it is related, and don't revert". Do not be impatient to revert a well sourced content. Leave my FACTUAL revert in a 1RR article until something could be sorted out not violate 1RR and revert it. The record clearly shows that the biased admin was quick to send an "email" unsolicited to his "pal" when I "inadvertently" did a 1RR in GOOD FAITH and "protecting WP", and did not do anything in your case even though I brought it up with strong and convincing evidence. That reeks of double standards and selective enforcement of WP rules. Also, you are NOT the only one who is concerned about WP. Most importantly, one of your personal attacks (that I expressly asked to be removed and the biased admin ignored my request AND instead added insult to injury in a vindictive manner, something an admin should never do) is your saying "I think he is unbalanced". If that was not a personal attack (that is clearly non-conducive to a collegial environment), what is? RESPECT WP Rules and "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Cease and desist... I am following WP Rules and you are removing the joy of my editing WP. Worldedixor (talk) 01:32, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Country designations of ISIS as a terrorist organization
I have brought back the footnotes from section 12 (where I moved them yesterday) and appended them to the countries in the Lead, and added "citation needed" tags to the new countries added today. I know it looks messy, but there are many thousands reading this article daily (see statistics) and it would be wrong to mislead them. I hope citations can be added soon to these other countries. --P123ct1 (talk) 11:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- Could the countries be listed in date order of when designated rather than alphabetical? I think this would make it more meaningful. Robertm25 (talk) 22:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Flag
its top templet two flag its not systmatic top templeteAmt000 (talk) 02:35, 3 August 2014 (UTC
- Can you rephrase that, please? --P123ct1 (talk) 09:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- where your reviwer or admin . i am not expercined Amt000 (talk) 08:37, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't know what Amt000 is trying to say, but that flag has been around a lot longer than ISIS has existed. Here in New Jersey, somebody was threatened for flying the same flag he's been flying on Ramadan for 10 years because somebody erroneously associated it with ISIS. Sources: http://www.nj.com/union/index.ssf/2014/08/garwood_resident_removes_isis_flag.html http://www.nj.com/union/index.ssf/2014/08/man_who_thought_flag_was_isis_apologizes_for_tweeting_photo.html For this page to simply say it's an ISIS flag is a misrepresentation at best, and an incitation of hatred at worst. Kire1975 (talk) 01:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
United Nations designation of ISIS as a terrorist organization
The United Nations Security Council reference (citation number 55, http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2013/sc11019.doc.htm) does not use the word terrorist to describe ISIS, so the reference provided does not sufficiently evidence that the UN classifies ISIS as a terrorist group. I didn’t see the term anywhere so wanted to suggest removing the United Nations Security Council and its reference from the sentence. Checking here before editing. Zurose (talk) 16:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- Zurose: You are quite right. I have tried looking on the internet to see if the UN has an official list of groups they designate as terrorist organisations, but cannot find one. That doesn't mean one doesn't exist, of course. --P123ct1 (talk) 15:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- I looked too, P123ct1. I have removed the UN mention and citation for now. Zurose (talk) 08:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- Zurose: I hope you don't mind, but I have turned this into a separate discussion, as I think this is a major point. Not only is the word "terrorist" not mentioned in this document, it has nothing to do with designating organisations as terrorist groups, although it does suggest there might be a UN document somewhere doing that, doesn't it? Someone today has included Amnesty International as calling them a terrorist group, without a citation, and one will be needed there, too. We can't play fast and loose with such important organisations and possibly misrepresent them in Wikipedia. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- Clicking on the link in the UN source document leads to this: [9]. ISIS appears here under "Al-Qaida in Iraq" (p.42). Is this a list officially designating the people and organisations the UN class as terrorists? --P123ct1 (talk) 12:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- Zurose: I hope you don't mind, but I have turned this into a separate discussion, as I think this is a major point. Not only is the word "terrorist" not mentioned in this document, it has nothing to do with designating organisations as terrorist groups, although it does suggest there might be a UN document somewhere doing that, doesn't it? Someone today has included Amnesty International as calling them a terrorist group, without a citation, and one will be needed there, too. We can't play fast and loose with such important organisations and possibly misrepresent them in Wikipedia. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- I looked too, P123ct1. I have removed the UN mention and citation for now. Zurose (talk) 08:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- P123ct - I'm glad you've found this important enough for a new discussion! You are too right that 'fast and loose' doesn't cut it. Looking at the UN Al-Qaeda Sanctions List I still don't see the UN explicitly designating ISIS a terrorist organisation, although the list does link ISIS to Al-Qaeda, members of which the document also asserts have been convicted of acts of terrorism by various states (perhaps a fine difference, but a vital one in my view). I wonder if this source belongs somehow in the second paragraph of the WP article (which is sadly sourceless!)? What do you think? Zurose (talk) 10:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Zurose: This discussion continued below at #43. Did you see it? It was agreed that sanctions list cannot be used as it isn't specific enough, and it is very unclear exactly what that document is - but it seems there are sources which quote the UN calling ISIS a "terrorist" group, though that isn't a formal designation, of course. After removing the UN from the list of countries with a formal designation yesterday I have put it at the end of the sentence with those sources that call ISIS terrorist and now a couple of citations are needed to back up its inclusion there. Have a look at the discussion in the link Dougweller gave in #43, WP:RSN#Is this UN document a reliable source to say the UN Security Council designated the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant is a terrorist organisation?, to get a fuller picture. --P123ct1 (talk) 08:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)