Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:46, 17 November 2014

Welcome!

Hello, Gazkthul, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Misplaced Pages
• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Fiddle Faddle 07:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

2014 Latakia Offensive

Please keep an eye on this article as an anonyonous user keep adding on whole section which is basically fringe proaganda. Also Misplaced Pages user Ekograf keeps inserting WP:Undue and inflamitory POV statements into the introduction. Thanks.

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

Could you look my message on the Talk page, please? I have a difficult question about nomenclature in this article. --P123ct1 (talk) 14:28, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Al-Nusra and al-Bukamal

Apologies. It was me who edited the entry incorrectly. I read the Gulf News report first, which did not specify that it was just the al-Bukamal part, and then missed it in the France 24 report.  : ( --P123ct1 (talk) 23:33, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Abu Omar al-Shishani

Re your message, I have left an explanation on the Abu Omar al-Shishani Talk page. I hope it makes sense! --P123ct1 (talk) 11:08, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

@Gazkthul: I have been trying to make one of the main footnotes more accessible, the Wall Street Journal one (footnote #2); it is referred to many times in the article but can only be read by those with a subscription to the WSJ. It is probably the most informative footnote about him in the whole article and I could only reach it by googling it. (It didn't work with yahoo.) Would it be acceptable to give the google URL in this footnote? All the other details for the WSJ article would remain in the footnote, and it is obvious which google entry applies when the page comes up. I don't know what Misplaced Pages's policy is on this sort of thing - perhaps the only purpose of a footnote is to back up text, not provide extra information, I'm not sure. --P123ct1 (talk) 01:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

@P123ct1: I'm not completely sure if that is or isn't appropriate, but reading WP:RSC I think it might be best to leave the link to WSJ. You could add Subscription required after the citation to flag that is has a paywall. People can use the google method to access it. Gazkthul (talk) 03:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

@Gazkthul: Thanks. I've done that and added the google link as an extra (had forgotten I'd seen extra links put in footnotes before but not for this purpose) and will do this when I can to get round paywall restrictions.

Someone has added some bizarre words re his father's religion, needs attention! --P123ct1 (talk) 08:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC) I will put in those links because unsophisticated internet users will probably not realise they can often read paywalled articles on google. --P123ct1 (talk) 08:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

You reverted an recent edit of mine in a section where none of the deaths have citations. Did you click through to the article on Abu Omar al-Shishani to see the ref ? I will not revert you because of the 1R sanctions, but consider reverting your own revert please. Note there is only one report I could find, so called it "reported" to be careful. Legacypac (talk) 04:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

@Legacypac: Hi there, Omar al-Shishani has been reported as dead in Feb 2013 , September 2013 , May 2014 , June 2014 (in Mosul) and now August 2014 (again in Mosul!) . I think we need to be more careful about this report and wait until more RS start reporting his death, particularly as the photo in the article looks pretty questionable. Gazkthul (talk) 04:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

AN/I discussion tangentially related to an edit you made

There is a discussion at WP:AN/I#Septate breaking his newly imposed editing restrictions in which an edit you made came up. Nothing problematic about your edit, the discussion is entirely focused on another editor, but per policy you need to be notified that you were mentioned. Monty₈₄₅ 14:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

August 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Abu Bakar Bashir may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• imprisoned without trial from 1978 to 1982.<ref> 2006]</ref> Soon after his release, Bashir was convicted on similar charges; he was also linked to the
• lb/News/World/2014/Aug-05/266107-indonesia-preacher-pledges-allegiance-to-isis.ashx#ixzz39ZbQ1ZTy]]</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

ISIS

Someone has just added the group Jeish al-Taiifa al-Mansoura as one of ISIS's predecessor organizations (see Lead). I see that group joined AQI and others to form the Mujahideen Shura Council, but how accurate is it to call Jeish a predecessor of ISIS? (I added the "citation needed" tag.) I suppose if the MSC is one of ISIS's predecessor organizations, it will be accurate, or will it? --P123ct1 (talk) 21:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's really appropriate, there were lots of groups that combined to from the MSC, but Al Qaeda in Iraq was the principal one. You either include only AQI or all of the others, it really gives undue weight to Jeish al-Taiifa al-Mansoura. Gazkthul (talk) 07:40, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

You confirm my first thoughts. Thanks for your edit. BTW, I was the one who changed "Army of the Mujahideen" to the "Mujahideen Army". I didn't realise they were two distinct groups. I saw the second in WP, but not the first until I saw your edit. Sorry. --P123ct1 (talk) 09:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Not a problem, it's very hard to keep all these things straight! Gazkthul (talk) 11:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Syrian civil war sanctions notice

As a result of a community decision, broad editing restrictions apply to all pages broadly related to the Syrian Civil War. These sanctions are described at Talk:Syrian Civil War/General sanctions and a brief summary is included below:

• Sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process.
• If you inappropriately edit pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or a topic or article ban.
• A one revert per twenty-four hours restriction applies to articles broadly related to the Syrian Civil War, with the wording listed here.
• Please familiarise yourself with the full decision at Talk:Syrian Civil War/General sanctions before making any further edits to pages related to the Syrian Civil War.
• Sanctions imposed may be appealed to the imposing administrator or at the appropriate administrators' noticeboard.

This notice is effective only if given by an uninvolved administrator and logged at Talk:Syrian civil war/General sanctions#Log of notifications.

--Bbb23 (talk) 05:18, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I was going to do this myself but I see someone beat me to it. Did you really not read the edit notice that comes up when you edit, or the talk page? I lost count of the reverts (which included restoring material that had been removed, that's a revert). Dougweller (talk) 07:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

@Dougweller: I'm sorry I've not really encountered this situation or a message like this while I have been editing articles before, I didn't realise that doing this was inappropriate. Is there something I should do now? Gazkthul (talk) 09:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Most articles don't have this sort of restriction. Just be sure you have read the above and adhere to 1RR. As long as you do that you have no worries. Dougweller (talk) 19:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

ISIS Names

I have yet another question about one of ISIS's names, I'm afraid, and cannot believe I never spotted this before. In the "Name and name changes" section, in the third paragraph from the bottom which mentions DAESH, it says that ISIS is also known (at the time of writing, that is) as al-Dawlah, "the State" or al-Dawlah al-Islamiyah, "the Islamic State", so very close to its current new name (or the same as it, if the first "al" in the second name there should be "ad"). How does that fit in? There is no footnote for this, which could be useful here, as I think readers will struggle with why it says that and yet ISIS announced "Islamic State" at the end of June this year as if it was a new name. Or was it just moving to using one of its other names? Or was the editor wrong about this? Very confusing. Can you enlighten and perhaps do something with that paragraph, please? --P123ct1 (talk) 19:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

PS Can you solve another mystery for me, please? Obviously I don't speak Arabic, but I suspect that Arabic doesn't make a distinction between "the" and "The" as we do in English, in the titles of organisations, newspapers, etc. (For example, it is "The Times" newspaper, never 'the "Times"', and "The Telegraph", never 'the "Telegraph"'.) There is some question on the Talk page about whether ISIS's new name is "the Islamic State" or "The Islamic State", but I suspect there isn't a difference because Arabic doesn't make that distinction. Is that right? Not that it really matters, as Misplaced Pages has to choose the name most commonly used in sources for the new title of the article, but I was just curious. --P123ct1 (talk) 19:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

@P123ct1: I don't speak Arabic, so I would only be taking a guess about the/The usage. Regarding your first question, ISIS supporters, particularly online, sometimes shortened the name from al Dawlat al-ʾIslāmiyya fi al-'Iraq wa-l-Sham to al Dawlat. A bit like people using 'The States' to refer to the 'United States of America'. One reason is that the full name wouldn't fit into a Tweet, but using the Arabic acronym DAISH wasn't an option because supporters consider that term to be disrespectful. Gazkthul (talk) 23:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

This footnote suddenly appeared when I saved my message. It is not mine! And Shishani's death hasn't been confirmed yet, has it? --P123ct1 (talk)

@P123ct1: No confirmation, and I highly doubt that it will be, like I mentioned in the talk page, he is getting reported as dead every other month. By accounts I've read he isn't even fighting in Iraq. Gazkthul (talk) 23:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

So a bit like Dokka Umarov. His death hasn't been confirmed either, or has it? So you say that name is short for Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham. Perhaps I can edit that paragraph now to make it clearer. Do you know why supporters find DAISH disrespectful? I know it is an acronym for that name, but I can't find anything about this on the internet. It would be useful to know, as I think readers will be curious to know why, as I was. I could add that in as well. --P123ct1 (talk) 07:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Umarov's death has been confirmed, there is even a video floating around online of his funeral, it took a while to come out though. Generally when a Jihadist dies, their group publicly announces it, so I suspect when Shishani does die it will be confirmed in short order.

I found this interesting blog post on the name Daesh , I don't think it can be used as a WP:RS though. Gazkthul (talk) 08:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

No, it can't, far too much speculation. It reminds me of the speculations about the origins of certain phrases or sayings in English. It is amazing how inventive people, especially academics, can be. I have come across that blogger before when googling something on ISIS and get the feeling his views are not trustworthy, or are biased should I say. But Misplaced Pages can't (or shouldn't) use blogs as sources anyway apparently, so that takes care of that! --P123ct1 (talk) 10:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

ISIS DAESH

Can you help out here, please? Somebody has queried what DAESH stands for, why it is considered derogatory and why there is no citation for this. I already knew it was not explained in the footnotes, but I really don't know how to deal with this, being a strict non-expert. The edit is at . I have repaired one of the links he says is dead, but the last time I looked (last week) they were both working. Perhaps links can go dead at any time, I don't know. --P123ct1 (talk) 14:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I haven't been working much on IS related stuff lately due to the IRR, but i'll add a new source to hopefully help Gazkthul (talk) 02:06, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that edit looks fine, and what a useful footnote. The 1RR is really slowing things down - an unintended consequence. The newer editors are scared to do much because of it. : ( --P123ct1 (talk) 14:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

You have reverted my well-sourced content

You have reverted my well-sourced content in a 1RR article after I spent substantial time on it.

Peshmerga, aided by the US air campaign began an offensive to take back the strategic Mosul Dam from the Islamic State fearing that the destruction by the IS of this critical dam that holds back 11 billion m of water and supplies 1000MW of electric power to northern Iraq, may result in tsunami waves of up to 18m, flooding of up to 4m, famine and a human disaster in Mosul.

Assuming good faith, and since this is your very first interaction with me on your talk page, I will take a moment to help you understand a few things in a civil manner.

Before I say what I have to say, let me ask you a few reasonable questions.

1. Do you know what MTV Lebanon News is?

2. Are you aware that news agencies have "official" reliable presence on Youtube?

3. Can you tell me what this is ?

4. Can you tell me what this is ?

5. Do you understand Arabic and do you understand that WP allows reliable sources in Arabic?

6. Are you aware that MTV Lebanon News official news videos are a reliable source of Middle East news just as much as Fox News on Youtube and NJ12 are reliable sources of news?

7. Are you aware that the reliable source you provided cannot be read unless you have subscription?

Worldedixor (talk) 23:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

@Worldedixor: I'm sorry that you spent time on the post, however an English language reliable source is preferable to an Arabic language source, particularly when the latter source is a video and so cannot be put through Google Translate to verify it. Gazkthul (talk) 01:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

That's OK... However, please understand that Citations to non-English sources are expressly allowed on Misplaced Pages. I am certainly NOT violating WP rules in providing "very well sourced" content and using citations to non-English sources, am I? I am providing good content, and I ask you not to revert my edits until you respond to my reasonable questions and I can help you understand that I am in full compliance with WP Rules and we come to a mutual understanding on how to move forward from here in civil manner and without edit wars. BTW, there are many editors that are fluent in non-English languages. So please give them a chance to verify my "very well sourced" edits. Worldedixor (talk) 01:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) – ISIS

When you have some time, could you help with this, please? You may remember I asked about it some time ago. I have copied this query from Archive 1 in ISIS. I don't know how you will manage to do it with the 1RR restriction - perhaps correct the passage offline and add it back in with one "Save"? This was the query:

There is some confusion in section 6.3 over the use of the name "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" (AQI) which I am sure will bother readers new to the subject. Most of section 6.3 ("As Islamic State of Iraq") seems to do with Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) rather than the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI). I know that at one point AQI became the common name for the ISI (as it says in section 6.3), but seemingly in the earlier part of section 6.3 and definitely at the end of section 6.2, AQI is spoken of as a distinctly separate group. I don't know anything about this beyond what I have read in the article, and to me the use of "AQI" with two different meanings in section 6.3 is sometimes very confusing. Is there an expert who can either reorganise section 6.3 or change the names in it so that it is clear when "AQI" means "ISI" and when it means ISI's precedessor, Tanẓīm Qāʻidat al-Jihād fī Bilād al-Rāfidayn (as described in "Name & name changes" and section 5)? --P123ct1 (talk) 14:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I can take a look at it when I get some time. Basically, "AQI" and the Mujahideen Shura Council it was a part of ceased to exist when the Islamic State of Iraq was declared in 2006. However many media outlets and Government officials continue to referred to it as Al Qaeda in Iraq (or just Al Qaeda) until very recently. Gazkthul (talk) 22:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I realise that. (Sorry, I should have said AQI-MSC, not Tanzim Qaidat etc - I jumped a stage.) That's exactly why the terminology in section 6.3 is so muddled. It's often hard in that section to tell when "AQI" means "ISI" and when it means "AQI-MSC". Even when it is clear, there is no way AQI-MSC and AQI-ISI can both be called "AQI" in section 6.3 without confusing the general reader. --P123ct1 (talk) 23:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

It was a confusing passage and it would be good to get it straight. --P123ct1 (talk) 06:56, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

@P123ct1: Hey there, I am planning to work on that whole AQI → Islamic State of Iraq section, it looks like it hasn't really been touched in a few years. Just need to get around to getting proper sources and things. Gazkthul (talk) 02:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! --P123ct1 (talk) 06:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

"Timeline and history", ISIS Talk page

You said something here which I interpreted; I think you had better check it in case I am challenged on it. This is just an FYI, no action needed. --P123ct1 (talk) 11:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Jamāʻat al-Tawḥīd wa-al-Jihād

The Lead in ISIS says that ISIS is the successor to Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn, but in "Name and name changes", ISIS is described as originating as Jamāʻat al-Tawḥīd wa-al-Jihād. Should Jamāʻat al-Tawḥīd wa-al-Jihād not be mentioned in the Lead as well, for the avoidance of doubt? --P123ct1 (talk) 14:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm of two minds, ultimately Tawhid wal Jihad did come first, but it was very different to what the Islamic State is, I think that being in the Names and History sections might be sufficient. Gazkthul (talk) 08:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually i've just noticed it says currently ISIS is the successor to Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn—more commonly known as Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI)—formed by Abu Musab Al Zarqawi in 1999 that is totally wrong. Qaeda in Iraq was formed in 2004, Tawhid wal Jihad was formed in 1999, so it's the worst of both worlds at the moment! Gazkthul (talk) 08:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I just thought the general reader would be confused to see "ISIS is the successor to Tanzim" and then read in the names section that ISIS began as Jamat, which became Tanzim. I noticed that 1999 change, but can't do anything about this as I know nothing about the group's background and history beyond what is in this article. My ignorance is probably quite useful, as I can read the article as a general reader would, and so see the fuzzy areas clearly! It's why I've been picking your brains on so many points, as you are clearly very knowledgeable about these groups in the Middle East generally - all in the interests of making the article clearer for the uniformed Misplaced Pages reader. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:34, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Gazkthul has some good points. The article are contradicts itself about this, and this needs to be viewed and discussed by a wider audience. I think this discussion should be moved the ISIL talk page.~Technophant (talk) 12:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

This issue has come up. I'm copying this to ISIL talk page.~Technophant (talk) 21:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I've been WP:BOLD and rewritten the second sentence in the Lead! The issue has been raised on the Talk page, but there was very little response. I have mentioned my edit on the Talk page, asking editors to comment/improve/discuss. At least it will get the ball rolling, I hope. --P123ct1 (talk) 15:36, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

No ball rolled and my edit seems to have stuck. I am assuming you were agreeable, Gazkthul, as we heard nothing from you. (Or maybe you are battle-weary from that page, lol.) I don't mind criticism, btw. My rewrite is a bit ugly, but it has eliminated the discrepancy, I think; I might have a brainwave later on how to express it better. Could I safely work into that Lead para and "Name and name changes" that al-Zarqawi founded Jamat as well, as it says in this RS here? I am hesitant because as you know I am no expert on these groups. "He founded" is different from "he founded with others", but is just "he founded" safe? I don't want to expand on that para too much, as it is just a summary para, but it might be worth mentioning in a few extra words for the sake of completeness. --P123ct1 (talk) 21:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it reads fine now, i'm not sure if you need to add too much more info because we have split off the Tawhid section into it's own article that can have all the ins and outs. Gazkthul (talk) 08:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

ISIL 2014 Timeline

Do you think this is a case where a move should be made as uncontroversial without waiting a week for a full discussion? The current title is unacceptable.~Technophant (talk) 02:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I do yes, as long as it is explained on the Talk page. Even the creation of this article has the comment (change the title if you must. But I got permission to do this....). Gazkthul (talk) 02:25, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

You approved the title I put out. Let's go with that. I'll notify User:ericl with this ping. Too late tonight to do the move though.~Technophant (talk) 05:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Re split articles - ISIS

I noticed in the new history summary you did for ISIS that one footnote didn't support the text, no 203. I found this out when I noticed the wikitext said it was dead, but it wasn't. I added a "failed verification" tag, but maybe that footnote isn't needed and another footnote slipped off when you were doing the summary.

As I said on the Talk page, I have changed the heading of this section from "Origins" to "As Jamaat, Al-Qaeda in Iraq and Mujahideen Shura Council", only so that they show up in the TOC. Readers having read about these three groups in the Lead may wonder where they are dealt with in the article. Also, if they don't appear in the TOC and readers click on the names in the Lead, they will be taken to the full articles on them, not realising they are dealt with in this article. I hope this tinkering around is acceptable. Please ask me to revert if you think not.

The ISIS page is still very long and unwieldy and I was wondering about the section on the ISI, which is now very long compared to the other history sections. Do you think perhaps that should be siphoned off to its own article as well? It is the only early group that doesn't have its own article now. Regards, --P123ct1 (talk) 13:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for checking the sources, I have added what looks like the original (from The Guardian), so you can remove the tag or for that matter the whole footnote. The source actually has the letter being sent to al-Zarqawi, not from him, so I've corrected that.

You're right about splitting the ISI section off, it's well written and sourced but it is too detailed compared with the later sections and most people coming to the Islamic State page probably want more on recent events. I've put in a split proposal now on the Talk page. Gazkthul (talk) 23:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I have removed that footnote. Another problem. The sentence now reads: "In a letter to al-Zarqawi in July 2005, Ayman al-Zawahiri outlined a four-stage plan to expand the Iraq War, which included ... establishing an Islamic authority—a caliphate ...". Because I had thought that letter came from al-Zarqawi, not al-Zawahiri, I had assumed the caliphate ambition was al-Zarqawi's and therefore changed the Lead wording from "ISIS's original ambition was to establish a caliphate" to "the group's original ambition ...". When did the group start to have that ambition? Was it only ISIS's ambition? I am sure I read somewhere else that the ambition started before ISIS, but I could be wrong. --P123ct1 (talk) 06:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I was a little surprised myself to be honest! But they've always had that as an ambition, all Jihadist groups would at least notionaly like to see one return. But maybe it should be changed to the more general "Islamic state" rather than the very specific caliphate (unless another source turns up) Gazkthul (talk) 07:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I have changed it to "Islamic state". Your split proposal for the ISI doesn't seem to be on the Talk page yet? --P123ct1 (talk) 21:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Should be up now. Gazkthul (talk) 23:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Islamic State of Iraq

Thanks for finally making the split! The first part has the problem I mentioned before, in that the beginning of the history section jumps straight to calling the ISI AQI, with no explanation. Can you add brief explanation that the ISI eventually became known as AQI? I am not confident to do it myself, as I don't know exactly when this happened. --P123ct1 (talk) 08:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks P123ct1. I worry that people are getting too distracted by different names when it has been essentially the same organization with the same people for the last decade. I've put an explanation but feel free to change it to something better. Based on what you said there needs to be more of a clarification, as ISI didn't "eventually became known as AQI". The media and the Bush & Obama Administrations called them Al Qaeda in Iraq (or just plain Al Qaeda) pretty much continuously from 2003 to 2013, regardless of how inaccurate this was, I don't have any quick WP:RS for that statement though. Gazkthul (talk) 05:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the names distraction is a case of editors worrying about getting the many different names right in their own heads, and describing them accurately in this article for readers, more than anything. It is quite a lot for non-specialists to get their head round. I think that is where the apparent obsession comes from. (I think the names index has got too complicated, though, and I will diplomatically try to get it simplified.) It might be worth stressing that it has been basically the same group with the same people for the last decade. That would put some sensible perspective on what looks to an outsider like a complicated history. I will try and devise just one sentence about it and put it in somewhere, as I think this is an important point . --P123ct1 (talk) 07:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Change to Lead in ISIS

Could you look at this doubtful-looking edit in the first sentence of the Lead, please? I could be wrong, but it looks like one of the long line of dubious edits to the ISIS page recently. --P123ct1 (talk) 22:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure Gazkthul (talk) 02:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Al Hayat Media Center in ISIS – spelling

Technophant says you might be a good person to ask about this. In ISIS the logo in "Propaganda and social media" shows "ALHAYAT", the legend has "Al-Hayat" and the text has "Al Hayat". The two citations (which are not from the Al Hayat organisation) have "Al Hayat". Archive.org shows "al-Hayat" here and other spellings. I can't find anything definitive on Google. Do you know which is the correct spelling? --P123ct1 (talk) 10:37, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, I don't think there really is a correct spelling. Many Arabic words and names get translated into English in lots of different ways, like Mohamad vs Mohamed vs Mohammad vs Mohammed. I'd just go with whatever it looks like Reliable Sources are using most frequently. Gazkthul (talk) 22:33, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I should have known better by now than to say "correct" spelling! I really meant "accepted". I will check in a RS, though may not be that easy. --P123ct1 (talk) 23:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

It will have to be a version picked out of a hat. The RSs I have Googled give all the different versions! Is Zelin and Jihadology an RS source? Their version agrees with the British newspapers, "al-Hayat". --P123ct1 (talk) 13:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Zelin is a good source, i'm not sure about Jihadology just because blogs are a bit iffy in general, still, it sounds good to me! Gazkthul (talk) 13:37, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

He has always struck me as reliable, though I didn't realise Jihadology was a blog! --P123ct1 (talk) 23:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Islamic State of Iraq - ISIS

Sorry, names again. Which is the accepted spelling of the Arabic name for the ISI, al-Dawlah al-Islamiyah or al-Dawlat al-Islamiyah? I saw al-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah for "the Islamic State" in the index of names and assumed the "t" was a typo, so changed it, but now think I may have been wrong. --P123ct1 (talk) 07:26, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Happy to be asked :)

I just don't have much of an answer, except to say I have seen sources using both spellings for years, so not a typo. Gazkthul (talk) 08:31, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

ISIS - two more points

Thanks. Also, when was Jamāʻat al-Tawḥīd wa-al-Jihād formed? I put in 1999, following the WINEP/Zelin citation (footnote 37), but saw yesterday that the Uppsala Conflict Encyclopaedia (footnote 10) says 2003 or early 2004. The WINEP citation is dated June 2014 and there is no date for the Uppsala Encyclopaedia but it will be earlier. Do you think it is okay to quote the 1999 date? I altered all the 2003-4s to 1999 some time ago!

It was founded in 1999, it just played no role in Iraq until after the 2003 invasion, so 1999 is more accurate Gazkthul (talk) 00:15, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Finally, can you answer this so that I can make the Da'esh reference in "Names" clearer? Do all those different spellings arise from the fact that they are acronyms based on different transliterations of the Arabic name for the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham? I know you don't speak Arabic, but thought you might know. I will have to do something about the muddled wording there. --P123ct1 (talk) 09:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe that because it is a madeup word ie there was nothing called Da'esh until a couple years ago, there is no agreed upon way to translate it, but it should all be from the same transliteration. Gazkthul (talk) 00:15, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Jund al-Khilafah (Algeria)

Hi,

I noticed that you moved the Jund al-Khilafah article to Jund al-Khilafah (Algeria). Normally, a parenthetical clause is only used in an article name to disambiguate between two or more articles that would otherwise have the same name. When there is only one article that would have a given name, then such clauses aren't normally used. Also, even if articles on the other groups called "Jund al-Khilafah" were created, I think the Algerian Jund al-Khilafah is probably the primary topic based on the disambiguation guidelines. The Algerian Jund al-Khilafah has been in the news, so it is probably the topic people want when they search for "Jund al-Khilafah". The primary topic normally has a page without a disambiguation clause in the name, and a note is then placed at the top of that page linking to the other articles with the same title. Since there currently aren't any other articles that would be named "Jund al-Khilafah", and since I think the Algerian group is the primary topic, I think the article on the Algerian group should be moved back to Jund al-Khilafah. Calathan (talk) 20:43, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Although the groups official name is Jund al-Khalifa fi Ard al-Jazayer, I accept your point that most people including media are only using the Jund al-Khilafah without including the Algeria part, i'm not sure how to do a move back to what is now a redirect page, but feel free to go ahead. Gazkthul (talk) 00:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I've gone ahead and moved it back. Calathan (talk) 15:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

ANI

A topic in which you may be involved, is the subject of discussion at ANI here. SantiLak (talk) 21:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit to the Lead in ISIS

This fringe edit has appeared in the Lead. Obviously it is the wrong place for it, but are the two citations given reliable sources anyway? If they are, this edit should possibly be moved to the "Ideology and beliefs" section, but even then I'm not sure. Could you look at it, please? --P123ct1 (talk) 18:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

There are several POV-pushers among the latest crop of editors and one of them has just removed "jihadist" from the Lead, which I think is outrageous. The "justification" is on the Talk page. --P123ct1 (talk) 19:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

RfC - Syrian Inclusion

Hi, I noticed that you registered a vote here and here. Because DocError is informing some editors who have participated in RfC's on Syrian inclusion, I'm letting other editors who voted in the RfC's know about this RfC here where all Syrian government forces is addressed here. - SantiLak (talk) 08:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Abu Yusuf Al-Turki

An article that you have been involved in editing, Abu Yusuf Al-Turki , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. David O. Johnson (talk) 03:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

"History" section in ISIS

An editor has tacked onto the first "History" subsection a sentence from the Lead, I suspect when they were cutting down the history part of the Lead, and they have clearly put it in the wrong place:

"At its height the group enjoyed a significant presence in the Iraqi governorates of Al Anbar, Nineveh, Kirkuk, most of Salah ad Din, parts of Babil, Diyala and Baghdad, and claimed Baqubah as a capital city."

That refers to the ISI, doesn't it? I cannot see how to work that sentence it into the wording in the ISI subsection as it stands. Can you see a way to do this? (There were no footnotes for the sentence either, but I remembered there being some in the Lead some time ago, which I retrieved without too much difficulty and I have restored them.)

How about putting it after the first sentence in the ISI subsection?

"According to a study compiled by US intelligence agencies ... turn it into a Sunni Islamic State. The ISI built in strength and at its height enjoyed a significant presence in the Iraqi governorates of Al Anbar, Nineveh, Kirkuk, most of Salah ad Din, parts of Babil, Diyala and Baghdad, and claimed Baqubah as a capital city. However, by late 2007, violent and indiscriminate...".

Would that be accurate? --P123ct1 (talk) 11:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Have just noticed that the text says Baqubah was the capital and the nearby photo says Ramadi was the capital! Which is correct? --P123ct1 (talk) 19:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe that Ramadi was it's defacto capital until it got expelled from the region by the Sunni Awakening, afterwards Baqubah acted as a defacto capital until the American's were able to largely kick them out and kill their leader, Zarqawi. I notice that both claims are poorly sourced, so not sure about the best way to proceed. Your History changes read well, though. Gazkthul (talk) 22:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I will alter the "History" wording now. Btw, you may have seen Toolen is still insisting on the 2013 date. He does not have consensus and I was going to remove it on those grounds, but there will be a backlash. Am suffering from battle fatigue after the Gregkaye debacle at the moment, so will attempt it later. --P123ct1 (talk) 06:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I have, try not to let it get to you. I have no interested in getting into an edit war but I hate seeing incorrect info posted as fact. Gazkthul (talk) 21:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I changed the date back to 2013 a while ago and the edit has stuck. For how long it will I don't know. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 10:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Liwa al-Umma Flag.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Liwa al-Umma Flag.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Article

Thank you for accepting the article Abu Ayman al-Iraqi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StanMan87 (talk • contribs) 07:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

ISIL non-aggression treaty

I noticed this revert where you removed a semi-reliably sourced edit. I say semi because the named sourced is IBTimes, and after they repeated that crank story about Snowden/CIA/Baghdadi, I no longer view them as a reliable source. However, in the source named in your edit summary the original source is AFP which I believe is regarded as reliable. Anyway, the way these things are usually treated is to keep the first statement (and with improved sourcing) and refute it with the newer one. It goes along the lines of the "verifiability, not truth" idea that used to be part of policy. Do you see a problem of keeping two contradicting reliably sourced statements instead of no mention? Maybe it could be moved to #Controversies. ~Technophant (talk) 02:32, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

@Technophant: I don't think the story is notable enough to bother keeping and expanding/clarifying. Essentially one (of the many) Syrian rebel factions in Damascus (just one Syrian city) apparently reached a cease fire (not any sort of alliance) with Islamic State, and another source shows even that story isn't accurate. But I'm neutral, so feel free to make changes if you think they are better. Gazkthul (talk) 03:12, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

"Criticism" in ISIL

You have defended NPOV again on the Talk page, and as you may know it is one of my main concerns in WP editing. However, I am wondering if I went too far when expanding the third para of "Criticism" (mainly by adding more quotation from the letter). Do you think the language in WP's voice in the sentence beginning, "Referring to the ..." is too strong? I'd value your opinion on this. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 10:31, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

No I don't think the changes are too strong, although that paragraph, and the Criticism section in general seems to me like it could do with some trimming. Along with maintaining NPOV I'm also interested in managing the length of this article. Gazkthul (talk) 23:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I have deleted the "Index of names" as it is repeated in the "History of the Islamic State" template, and there has been some talk of cutting out the "Support" and "Opposition" section - which seems to get longer and longer - as there is already an article on 2014 intervention. I am sure much of those sections is repetition of what is in that article. What do you think the maximum size of this article should be? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 09:14, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Ideally 100k would be a good sized article, of course that would require a lot of article splits and removal of content, very hard to do with the 1RR and contentious nature of the article. I would just keep working on reducing it in small ways just as you work on other improvements. Eliminating the timeline would be a good start. Gazkthul (talk) 03:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Without the timeline, it is about 184k! ~ P123ct1 (talk) 19:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

By my count there are 32(!) paragraphs of criticism and HR abuses in this article, there is room for big reductions there. Unfortunately this is unlikely to be permitted, but perhaps splitting this section off would be worth pursuing. Gazkthul (talk) 01:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for updating!

Thanks for updating the lists at List of designated terrorist organizations! I am double-checking right now, looks great :-D That's a very tiring work but necessary, thanks a lot for doing it! Nicolas1981 (talk) 02:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Gazkthul (talk) 07:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

ISIS clean-up

In the recent dispute you said there is too much unencyclopaedic criticism and POV-pushing in the article. The latter is still very serious and is now spreading way beyond the "jihadist" question and, worse, editors seem to have lost the will to resist it. I seem to be the only defender of NPOV now as the editors who were vocal in their concern about this before the AN/I have fallen away, probably because they see it as a hopeless case! There is a war of attrition going on and it is being lost. This is clearly disastrous for the article, which is becoming like a piece of anti-ISIL propaganda and an opinion piece by one editor! (See in particular some of the latest threads.) It is difficult to know what to do about this. But I really wanted to ask about "unencyclopaedic criticism". I have only been editing since February this year (mainly copy-editing) and this is the first article I have been involved in to any degree (since June) and am unclear about many things that go to make a good article. You have said it is too long, which it is, but am not sure what you mean by "unencyclopaedic criticism" in an article. Perhaps you just mean the anti-ISIL criticism in this one that goes with the POV-pushing and it is as simple as that. Can you explain? Can you give specific examples? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 09:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes that is what I meant, sorry if it wasn't clear. To me, if I want to learn about this group and look it up on Misplaced Pages, I want to know things like it's history, how it's achieved success on the battlefield, where it's money comes from and so on. I don't really see the point of paragraph after paragraph of criticism, and various emotive words throughout. It's clear that they aren't boy-scouts, but I'm sure most readers could draw their conclusions from reading a neutral, just-the-facts take on the group and it's actions.

Thanks for all your work on the article by the way, I, and I assume other editors, don't have the patience to wade in to the Talk Pages much these days. Gazkthul (talk) 11:05, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

The quarrelling and walls of text on the Talk page now I think is driving editors away. I have only just seen your comments on the Talk page about the length of the article, and the answer to my question about criticism was there! Sorry about this. I am assuming you mean the emotive words in "Criticism". I have already gone through the article changing "massacres" and "executions" to neutral "killings". What about "diktat"? In history-writing this is a neutral term, but to me for a heading in "Governance" it is a POV, loaded word. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 11:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)