User talk:P-123/Archive 3

"Israel Declares ISIS and Abdullah Azzam as Terrorist Organizations!

"The Israeli Ministry of Defense declared on Wednesday, on the recommendation of the Israeli General Security Service, that the organizations Islamic State (known publicly as "ISIS") and the Abdullah Azzam Brigades as terrorist organizations according to local journalists.

"Yedioth Ahronoth stated in a report posted on its web site: 'The Israeli Ministry of Defense has declared that ISIS is regarded as a terrorist organization, in addition to the Abdullah Azzam Brigades.'

"The paper added that the radification of the recommendation 'is in order for the Israeli security apparatus to take legal steps against these groups."

It's a super short article so I'm kind of afraid I'm translating the wrong thing. If so, I let me know and I will move on to the correct story. I believe the "Israeli Gen Security Service" refers to Shin Bet though I'm not sure as the article doesn't specify. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

talk

) 06:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem wasn't with the translation but with my English grammar. The pronoun "that" wasn't in the sentence of the original Arabic though I wrote it here...actually I'm not sure why. Here's a version with the superfluous pronoun deleted:

"Israel Declares ISIS and Abdullah Azzam as Terrorist Organizations!

"The Israeli Ministry of Defense declared on Wednesday, on the recommendation of the Israeli General Security Service, the organizations Islamic State (known publicly as "ISIS") and the Abdullah Azzam Brigades as terrorist organizations according to local journalists.

"Yedioth Ahronoth stated in a report posted on its web site: 'The Israeli Ministry of Defense has declared that ISIS is regarded as a terrorist organization, in addition to the Abdullah Azzam Brigades.'

"The paper added that the radification of the recommendation 'is in order for the Israeli security apparatus to take legal steps against these groups."

Again, sorry for the delay. It only took about 45 seconds to translate and I should have done it earlier. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes sense now. Twenty-one days to do a translation that only took 45 second to do! That must be a record! --

talk

) 06:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh God, did I really take that long? That's a bit embarrassing...thanks for your patience. I hope you guys are able to use this. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

@

talk

) 09:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC) [Original thread title was "Cabal", altered by Gregkaye]

@

talk

) 11:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

@

@

talk

) 12:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I've read the thread. My perception is that there has been an undisclosed edit war with the wholesale deletion of content. After a war, at peace negotiations, it is most fair to return to starting positions and then work out directions. It isn't right to just take ground and then begin talks from there.

✍♪

12:16, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

@

talk

) 12:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Apols to you that this last episode has wasted your time. It wasn't well thought through.

✍♪

13:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

@

talk

) 14:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that I have the excuse of either fog or battle. There is definitely a release after setting a few things straight ... and - then - I - do - this. It wasn't my thought or intention but all I achieved was a fairly false making of a

✍♪

14:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

@

talk

) 14:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

With regard to my late edit after you had given comment, would it be better if I went back to redact. I've added explanations but would be happy to redo things if need be.

✍♪

16:42, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

@

talk

) 17:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Whatever works but thanks :)

✍♪

17:15, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

@

talk

) 21:06, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I think I will go back to the original. The chat recently has related to the need to steer away from the bad editing behaviours that I have exhibited. I think that the full message gets this over succintly:

"I would like to explain/apologise for the timing and placement of some of my recent edits. For various reasons, which were partly due to my own responses, I had felt it difficult to respond to certain situations. Response has been late and has often been out of the continuity order of threads. This is bad editing practice and not an example to be followed.

A further sin in this particular thread was that, when getting an edit conflict note from P123ct1's edit, I simply copied my initially planned edit and, without taking the new edit content into account, stuck with the same text. I hope none of you does the same.

✍♪

17:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)"

I plan to revert to similar to the above but please edit this to your preference. PS. I was never a Catholic but think that one clear way to indicate good practice is in admission of bad practice.

✍♪

06:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Have changed "do" to "does" in the last line, though they won't remember what happened and if they did it would have barely registered, so I don't think you need to explain. The notes "Comments removed by agreement", perhaps adding "(edit conflict)", would be enough, IMO, but go ahead. :) ~

talk

) 07:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

talk

) 10:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

NP and thanks. I'm just working on a proposal "To [b] or not to be - a qualification to Wikipedia's endorsement of ISIL as jihadist" at the moment

✍♪

10:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Re: "Comments removed by agreement" and "(edit conflict)" I don't mind which wording was used. My prose often lack the current lucidness of the text and am happy to leave further changes to you. I'll also add a note for

talk

) 12:54, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

talk

) 22:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

With this edit you are going around it the wrong way. The correct and accepted way is leave the header alone:

their actions are “not jihad at all, but rather, warmongering and criminality

Then just under the header add:

:''See also [[Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Logical Order in Lead|Logical Order in Lead]]''

:''See also [[Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#The word "jihad", criticism and disruption|The word "jihad", criticism and disruption]]''

This will add:

See also

Logical Order in Lead

See also

The word "jihad", criticism and disruption

to the top of the section. There is no need to show the page name and when the section gets archived all that needs adding is

:''See also [[Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/Archive num#The word "jihad", criticism and disruption|The word "jihad", criticism and disruption]]''

To the headers. This is not a novel idea and you will see it in many places on Wikipedia talk pages, when an editor wants to link to an older conversation. -- PBS (talk) 15:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

@PBS: Thank you very much. While I was blundering around with the headings I was looking for help - I even asked the VPTHD as I couldn't understand the WP Help on this, but didn't get a very useful answer. I was trying to get the links on the same line as the heading so that they would show up in the TOC, which would make it easier for editors to scan for related discussion, but ended up with confusing title headings on the TOC which cancelled out the very help I was trying to give. I will sort out my horrors now I know what to do. I am surprised you could use the Wikiblame tool. I used to use it a lot and then it seemed to be broken. Perhaps it has been repaired now, which is good because it is a very useful tool, after Hedonil's, which has not worked for some time for maintenance reasons, I understand, though I have not checked lately.

PS Bring back Reflinks! Its replacement is nowhere near as good, as it only fills in some of the parameters. I know about the dispute over Reflinks, and it doesn't look very hopeful that it will return. :( ~

talk

) 16:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

(I wish all "blundering" could be as effective to leave serviceable and in some ways advantageous results. It's interesting to hear that it isn't a novel idea and, who knows, if Wikipedia were to be rethought a related system might even be institutionalised. (A system that gave access to see also information in [related threads]/[related topics] drop down menus in the TOC might bring out the best from both worlds).

✍♪

05:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC))

@

talk

) 10:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

One last point. If you add such hat-notes and another editor complains that edit was made out of order and was not signed -- This will happen occasionally -- then just move the see also lines down to the current bottom of the section and sign the edit, as it is better to do that than get into pointless arguments over the format of a talk page section. -- PBS (talk) 12:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

talk

) 13:33, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The hatnotes are much better, but please do not put jump forwards at the top of sections but only jump backs. I think it is very confusing to have jump forwards at the top of sections, because people are expecting older comments to be at the top of a section, so how can an old comment at the top anticipate a new section lower down the page? As I said confusing! However if as you have done in one place, you want to include at the bottom of a section information indicating that the conversation continues lower down in a new section, I think that is fine.

Also on reviewing what you are doing, it will be better if you put "Archive n:" into the visible part of link to a section if a section is archived otherwise editors may be tempted to start to add comments into the section not realising it is a section in an archive. PBS (talk) -- 16:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

✍♪

22:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Also I think that the above relates to Technophant's accusation that I was going to other parent despite the fact that we had previous dealings with PBS and s/he had initiated with another admin. Whether you want to comment on this is up to you

✍♪

13:23, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

talk

) 14:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments on the RfC/U page. Thanks. :) ~

talk

)

I also find the other parent comments quite curious for amongst other reasons that I'm 45. Bonfire boy(e)s come in all ages and, unless they are part of the Waterloo, we wunt be druv[2] :)

Re:T (s)he is considered to have used sock puppets which is something that, even going through the most recent archive, is something that (s)he has been in and out of bans with for some time. My RfC/U comments were just a straightforward presentation of facts as I have seen them and, as with other editors, only go as far as to comment on content that I have seen. If it had been up to me I would have awarded you a peacekeeping barnstar (or whatever its called) quite some time ago due to your notable and appreciated efforts towards what may have been an impossible goal. Such an award would have clearly overstretched boundaries related to potential issues of conflict of interest and its easier to give awards to people when situations are neutral or negative than to engage in the conceit of giving awards to those with whom you happen to share a level of agreement. (graphics being absent you should still consider yourself awarded) :)

✍♪

14:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

talk

) 15:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately there are plenty of things that may

✍♪

15:35, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

:D. Yes, I mostly copy-edit on this page, which is why my edit count is so embarrassingly high (I have contributed very little in terms of new content), and would never want to be an admin. :( ~

talk

) 16:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Not wanting may make you even more qualified :)

✍♪

10:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

@

In the phrases "bear pit" and "snake pit" I think that "pit" can also be a problem. In the context of a level playing field and fair action genuine problems are sometimes best dealt with in fair and direct ways. Ironically it may have been my recent interventions that may have taken the fight out of Worldedixor. There is a mentality that some people have where they want to see themselves as the set upon fighter and will prefer to focus on any other subject presented rather than face up to some genuine home truths. I'm pleased about what I said because, whether s/he comes back or not, I think s/he now has a better chance to face up to his/her own issues.

I say "genuine problems are sometimes best dealt with in fair and direct ways". I would have said always but, if it were not for [[User:Technophant|Technophant]'s thankfully, and I use the words deliberately, "badgering" and "lynching" tactics with "vindictive" appearance which I think were used with tactical intent, I would have happily continued to have gone down as a martyr for the cause of a fair representation of jihad. If it was not for what I saw as actions brought, to borrow a valid phrase, "with unclean hands" I would have continued with my planned route and would have been, to borrow another relevant phrase, "out of here". I am still open to the idea that actions may have been driven by unconscious drives but this does not make them any less wrong. I have long theorised that the campaigns were partly driven within Technophant's preference to remove opposition to his own, he/she taught me the phrase, tendentious editing. However, I could not really share my views because I neither knew the facts or the rules. I try not to speak out of turn about people until I know what I'm saying and, at the time around the beginning of my AN/I, this was my most difficult time.. lately. I was bullied about three decades ago - honestly I'm not still affected, lol - and vowed that it would never happen again. In my work I will continue to ping Technophant partly as it may seem rude to reply to others and not to him/her in topics started. My hope is that both Worldedixor and Technophant can learn relevant lessons from recent experiences. As is my habit I will leave it to you to decide whether to complete the ping above.

✍♪

11:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

@

talk

) 12:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Good for you. Peace is a VERY relevant goal. I'd encourage you both to keep WP related conversation to the talk page though as possible. I think that this is another aspect of fair practice that he should consider.

✍♪

12:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

@

talk

) 20:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

talk

) 12:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, you blanked the article. I don't know what file you are talking about. Widr (talk) 12:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)]

talk

) 12:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

That's blanking of the article. There's no file there. Widr (talk) 12:42, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

talk

) 12:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not a big deal. You blanked the article without giving a valid reason in the edit summary. That's why you got the warning. No harm done. We all learn as we go along here. Happy editing. Widr (talk) 13:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

talk

) 13:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion for last paragraph

Please take a look at

I propose that the last paragraph of the lead can read:

The group has been designated as a terrorist organization by the United Nations, the European Union, the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, Canada, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, the UAE and Israel. The United Nations and Amnesty International have accused the group of grave human rights abuses, and Amnesty International has found it guilty of ethnic cleansing on a "historic scale". The group's actions, have been widely criticized around the world with many voices in Islamic communities variously describing the group as not representing Islam.

That final section could equally read: "... variously describing the group as "Un-Islamic"".

Gregkaye

: I think pared down to this:

"The group's actions have been widely criticized around the world with many Islamic communities describing the group as not representing Islam."

But you may have a reason for "variously"? I think "not representing Islam" is clearer for readers than "Un-Islamic". This will be different from the consensus decision on the wording some time ago, of course, but I don't see why you shouldn't reopen this. At least you're putting it on the Talk page first! :) I think this detail is better than "notably within the Muslim community", which is a bit bland and doesn't say much, does it?

Re the additions to "Criticism", I cut out a few words as Reuters reports the Grand Mufti's quote as being only about the Islamic State and al-Qaeda, not other militants, and I put Ban Ki-Moon's name as "author=" without splitting it since it isn't clear which is his surname and which his first name. I was told by an editor once it was best to put the name in full without splitting it when the names are from those parts of the world where surname can come first and if it is unclear. I am not sure about Ban Ki-Moon, so safest not to split it. (Though I notice the wiki article on him calls him "Ban" suggesting that is his surname, but hope the article is correct. As I say, when in doubt, don't split it.) The Grand Mufti citation does not have an "author", it just says "Reuters", and when there is no author it is okay to skip that parameter. I know it was the Grand Mufti's words, but it is Reuters' report of them, and no journalist for the report is named. Well done for checking his name for the wikilink - what a mouthful! Otherwise you have got the hang of the cite templates now. :) Even some of the regular editors don't bother and leave bare URLs. :(

I added the fifth diff to the Edit-Warring Noticeboard post as I thought you may have missed it by accident, but didn't alter anything else. Haven't checked to see the result there yet. Have you seen T's email to Brangifer on his T page! Well deserved, IMO. (I am the "friend".) Hope Signedzzz doesn't reappear this evening. =( ~

talk

) 21:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all. So you think that "The group's actions, have been

✍♪

06:29, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think "many voices" is needed, just "... around the world with many Islamic communities describing the group as not representing Islam". I am not sure that "many voices" really adds anything. ~

talk

) 08:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for this, it was definitely worth the asking :)

✍♪

09:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

You also "agree with the last sentence" as you wrote it :) al-be-it on base supplied :)

✍♪

12:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

You see this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Signedzzz_reported_by_User:Legacypac_.28Result:_.29

Yep, Pls ping me when on your page. I need a good pinging :)

✍♪

12:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

talk

) 13:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I really want to ask about the flouts yet again and where the previous occurrences may have been. The only thing that I can think of is "Diktats". This is one of a few possible words that may be applied but which describes the situation under the administration really well. I certainly don't see any flouting involved. I feel it unfair to apply yet again kind of terminologies to some references which are not specified and which I am at a loss to know what they are.

It seems to me that you, as you are entitled to do, will make your judgement on an acceptable level of action and then anything beyond this becomes infringement. A related case relates to the moving up the page of the terrorist organisation designation reference and my simultaneous consideration of putting a similar reference into the infobox status field which, at the time, was filled with an otherwise unused piece of terminology. My main objection was to the previous unsubstantiated content and, in this context, I proposed the only thing that I knew was cited by high level sources.

Are there other issues that you are thinking of?

In the current situation the actual content of the section named "Criticisms" has remarkably little connection to the actual content of "Group characteristics and structure" and I see no valid relational reason to say that one section should follow another and, after that, its just different editors POVs. I've written up my reasonings on this on the page and won't repeat them here. The only related content in

also as a copy-ed I thought you might be interested in a proposals thread that I started

✍♪

09:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

talk

) 10:18, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

And I don't like the moral upbraiding. It is uncalled for.

Direct communication what is called for. You haven't said that you think the article flouts NPOV. You haven't said how.

As far as I can see the POV always seems to go one way. People are quick to fairly say that you can't say murder or terrorist. The issue on execution was only raised by chance through a conversation that we were both party to with PBS on footnotes. On the topic of footnotes editors go into full derailment and wall of text mode to stop one being put on "jihadism". NPOV should be a two way street.

I've looked through the NPOV refs on the talk page and through the last few archives. One other comment still on the page that I thought was of note was HammerFilmFan's, "NPOV doesn't mean being stupid in editorial policy. For example, the general tone of any article on Nazi atrocities can hardly be "neutral" in the terms you like to see because that would neither faithfully represent the issue, nor reflect what RS's say about it. This group is committing atrocities - crimes against humanity. "NPOV" should not be carried to ridiculous extremes." We have to present facts and attach due importance to them and on this I honestly don't think that you have an NPOV.

NPOV is an issue that you have cited as being a difference between us. You say that you think that the article flouts NPOV. I have asked how? I don't think it fair to drop in "

✍♪

12:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:IDHT

and didn't seem to want to understand what NPOV is. At first I thought it was willful misunderstanding, but now I believe it is genuine. But this is academic now as I do not intend to contribute further to the page/Talk page except with copy-eds. I will keep my opinions to myself from now on and not put them on the Talk page as they seem to be so offensive and I don't like the flak that follows for anyone who dares to speak their mind. Gazkthul has said on the Talk page that the article is too full of criticism and POV, and he is a very experienced editor. I can see what is happening to this article and it is so against what I believe what WP as an encyclopaedia should be that I cannot with integrity take part in editing it any more, except with copy-eds. I make no criticism of Legacypac having read a comment he subsequently made about putting criticism first in his reorganization, btw.

And I will not be browbeaten by you in the way you have tried to browbeat other editors into behaving as you think they should behave, and I find your weasel words accusation more than insulting. I am very tolerant but can only be pushed so far.

~

You have said that you think the article flouts NPOV. You haven't said how. Your comment did not relate to the talk page and remains unjustified. Your comment was "... is not neutral, as an encylopaedia article should be and it flouts WP:NPOV, yet again, IMO." It was this that I questioned. In relation to other issues raised: "Criticism" is a very accurate and neutrally described description of that section. Individuals, groups and nations have been critical. They looked at a group that were displaying the behaviours of the group called "ISIL" and they, to a large extent, condemned. We described the section as criticism. What would you call it? There is fair reporting. To report a criticism as in "X criticized Y in this way ..." is to report that "X criticized Y in this way ...". Things happened. We reflect what happened. I don't think you have anywhere near NPOV on this. Censorship is an important topic to you. Before you archive this content please consider related issues.

What has the "jihadism" issue got to do with this. Please remember your expressed view here and in many texts at the time. There is nothing regarding POV about wanting to present readers with neutral information on meanings of words.

As I have said many times in many ways I am more than happy for you to speak your mind. As expressed, I do not think that your content, "... is not neutral, as an encylopaedia article should be and it flouts WP:NPOV, yet again, IMO" was fair. I agree that an encyclopedia should be NPOV. You have said that you think the article flouts NPOV. You haven't said how. I am also asking a question because I want to understand. I also do not want to be in discussion when you may quote phantom POV contents in the article and not be able to say what they are.

✍♪

14:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC

With everything else I forgot to mention that I have turned your template reference into a link

✍♪

14:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Read again and you will find I have answered all those points, here and on the Talk page. Linking the template is very optimistic. Despite adding the template to the Talk page in both articles recently, the bare URL count in both articles is today the highest it has ever been, as I noted on #Talk page/Footnotes. ~

talk

) 15:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

By raising this topic here I have done you the favour and I do not begrudge the fact that, without a withdrawal, I have allowed you to get your words in first. In a less friendly dispute this would not happen. I am adding related content to the talk page that is certainly warranted but have certainly held back in what I have said.

My sincere view is that you are POV pushing but we both know where we both stand on this. I am open to a continuation of this or similar dialogues but also recognise the option that we agree to differ.

✍♪

18:18, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I disagree, but you are entitled to your view. Why are you so disputacious? I can't even understand what you mean in your last message. Why are you so sensitive about what I think? I am not interested in more dialogue. Say what you like on the Talk page and don't hold back; I never have done in recent months. ~

talk

) 18:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

All I have done here is to give you notification of a talk page content that I found questionable and I put this in a the context of my perspectives of recent article situations. Through the resulting discussion, all we really achieved was that we ran through our individual perspectives of POV. Hopefully this discussion has also facilitated a more cordial exchange on the talk page than may otherwise have been facilitated. I am quite happy in situations where I don't hold back, at least in terms of forceful argument, on talk pages. There have been a number of times that you have been unhappy on Wikipedia about the way that things have been said.

✍♪

18:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Largely in defence of others, you may remember. I have quoted

talk

) 19:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

not ignoring what you said but You asked me a question earlier "Why are you so sensitive about what I think?" which at the time I paid little mid to. I can honestly say that I don't generally give a fuck what people think about me and, for better or worse, that is how I have been for a very long time. However, when I was going through my AN/I you made some incredibly meaningful initiatives to me. I had been in contact with a couple of editors to touch base on a few situations but, at that time, my only real meaningful contact here was with you and I don't know if you know how much that meant to me. It was and is very deeply appreciated and, beyond the fact that we both know that we won't compromise with each other, you are very special to me. I make efforts to keep, get peace with several editors but I feel an extra motivation to get, keep things right with you. There are times that I don't agree with all you say but your words are meaningful to me. As you know, have stood up on your behalf in a number of situations and in a number of interventions and appreciate that, on a number of occasions, I have been under "your wing". You have an integrity here and that is not a quality shared by all. I will continue to think about whether sensitive is the right word. I have always been sensitive to the issues of others but have not often considered the same about myself.

✍♪

20:06, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

TY. I hadn't thought of that. Our "professional" disagreements have always paled into insignificance for me compared to the rest of it, but I do get impatient sometimes. I didn't like to see you embattled and attacked for your great "sins" as they were made out to be in the AN/I, and I always try to help where I can when people are in difficulty. Let us keep the peace. ~

talk

) 20:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if peace is totally an option. I think we may both be too strong willed for that . I still stick by my evoking phantoms comment above and I know that there are things that you stick to as well. All the same I'll try to keep overt conflict away from article talk. You know that if there is something I disagree with I will speak my mind. I have come to expect the same from you. A "backlash" isn't always a bad thing.

✍♪

21:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

There will never be peace over our difference of views, but we managed to keep the peace on our TPs. That is what I meant. Please be forthright with me on the ISIS Talk page, I don't mind overt conflict and will not rise to any criticism. I wish editors did hit back more - Legacy is the only one who has done and we patched up our differences once we both knew it was not personal. You and I are indeed both very strong-willed so there was bound to be a big clash.sooner or later. I think we are more similar than first meets the eye in other ways, too. I particularly like your independent spirit, which I share. ~

talk

) 21:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• Sigh* I will take your advice. Six hours ago the diktats thread got archived and I missed the chance to give fair comment on your POV push by editors such as yourself and Gazkthul to use less than descriptive content. Please see
  ✍♪
  07:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Most recently it was diktats which gives good description to a large portion if not all of the content of the text. I think that there was something else further back. Most immediately even to your cautions regarding the use of "Criticism" a word which is already far towards the passive side of NPOV.

✍♪

08:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

talk

) 09:18, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

:)

✍♪

09:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Have you seen the move of the "Countries and groups at war with ISIL" section. I left a 10:03, 25 November 2014 comment on the article talk page.

I'd also be interested in any suggestions regarding a wording such as, ""Jihadism has become an ideological descriptor in the English speaking world and no religious sanction is implied in it's use throughout this article." I will follow Technophant's badly timed suggestion to take the issue to

I know that you also expressed views on this. After a lot of largely fruitless searching in Hebrew, this was the best reference that I could find. I think that the citations on Israel are already gratuitously overloaded. What, if anything, do you think should be done with the Hebrew citation. I am still uneasy as to whether this defines 'SIL as terrorist. The word טרור (<r-oh-r-t<) doesn't appear once and the wording used (בלתי מותרת של ארגון) means >not>allowed>of>organization>. Sources translate as Unlawful organisation but I would translate prohibited. I have seen an Israeli gov page that talks of Terrorism and the use of unlawful type designations to sanction attacks but haven't found any related listing of groups. However, the Hebrew language has a description for terrorist organisations (he:ארגון_טרור - ergoon t^erohr) and I'm sure that, if they wanted to specifically designate the group as terrorist, they would have. As I'm writing I'm thinking more that it may be good to propose removal from the list and to perhaps add a footnote or a written note following the main table to present the Israeli info. I really came to ask about citations but all thoughts welcome. I also think that the Indonesian entry is more than a little suspect.

There is no need to be paranoid. Search the archived Talk pages for long discussions on this under "Israel", "Israel (2)" and "Israel (3)". The Israeli government does not use "terrorist designation", their word for it is "unlawful". One citation shows the official Israeli government's designation, using "unlawful". But the Arabic citation shows the Israel government has indeed designated them as a terrorist organization. I hsd to get an independent WP translation of that Arabic citation (translated by WE) to prove it (and he was right). I have just put quote marks round the words I added beside that citation with a note to show that it is a translation. (See also my archived Talk page under "Translation".) (I see my archives have suddenly disappeared. I have no idea how that happened. Someone must have refactored them.) If you want to dispute and undo a carefully thought-out edit, that is up to you. I will not revert what you do, but some editor may at some stage. On your edit in "Analysis" please note my edit summary. ~

talk

) 16:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I found the relevant part on my Talk page re translation here. ~

talk

) 16:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

And here. ~

talk

) 17:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll just read the second link. Thanks. I am kind of wondering how reliable a source elfagr.org/ are. I know that I am just going by site appearance here. With a lot of searching I could not find a reverence to a Hebrew designation of the group as terrorist. I've been thinking about this while out and about and I think that this may be a POV spin by the Arabic source. I don't think that there would have been an Israeli designation as terrorist that was retracted and there is no mention of it on any of the related Wikipedia pages in Hebrew.

✍♪

17:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

See third para down in Jewish source cited (third one, JP Updates). The discussion on the Talk pages was a lot of hot air as editors kept getting hold of the wrong end of the stick re the citations then being provided. That is why I had to investigate it myself, on their behalf, first at

talk

) 18:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The first part of the Talk page discussion on the citations put forward for this designation is under two headings - click on "Israel" for the TOC headings - here. You can look at those citations provided there. I listed them all at the RSN, ~

talk

) 18:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Its strange because I've searched in a few ways on the

✍♪

20:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

also on the talk page I wrote a comment about "If the WP:LEAD is to reflect article content then this should reflect content that states.. "which I put in the wrong section and you rightly saie what? Is it ok to move it?

✍♪

20:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

talk

) 20:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I've searched quite a wide range of terms but not all of them specifically on that site. The thing is that the Israelis used a term other than terrorism. The Arabic press said they designated terrorist but that wasn't so.

✍♪

20:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I really think you are seeing a distinction where there is none, and that it is just the term used for it that is different. Try and see how the Israeli government classifies other terrorist groups. I bet it uses the word "unlawful". Try looking as Israel's designation of Hamas as a terrorist group, for example (see wiki article on Hamas). ~

talk

) 20:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I am open to the idea that I am just being anal about this. The Hebrew language has words for terror and it has words for unlawful. It may well be that Israel does not call designate any group with use of the otherwise commonly used Hebrew terminology for terror. I think that, if they don't

✍♪

20:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I think I will ask all the people I had fights with over anti-Semitism

✍♪

20:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

How objective will they be? Have you any Jewish acquaintances who might shed some light on this, lawyers, for example? ~

talk

) 20:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

And I didn't mean wiki will be accurate, just that its footnotes might provide a lead. Try doing the same for all "terrorist designations", so-called by wiki, by Israel for various groups like Hamas. Wiki must show quite a number of Israeli designations for terrorist groups. I suspect this apparent difference may just stem from a Hebrew legal language translation difficulty. If it idoes, splitting hairs over the wording in WP seems unnecessary to me. If you find the Israeli government uses "unlawful" for other terrorist designations, there is no point quibbling over terminology in this article, I think. ~

talk

) 21:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

This goes back to the cat sat on the mat joke, of course. ~

talk

) 21:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

talk

) 21:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Many governments around the world may have talked about a wide range of organisations that are variously listed at

Israel has ten times issued a "הכרזה כארגון טרור לפי פקודת מניעת טרור" Declaration as a terrorist organization by the Command of preventing terror. I counted ten groups on the list and they included PLO, Fatah, Hamas, Palestine al-muslima, Palestinian relief and development...

Israel has also often issued a "הכרזה על התאחדות בלתי מותרת" Declaration of an unlawful association. I estimate about 100 items and groups include:

3.9.14 דאע"ש או המדינה האסלאמית או המדינה האסלאמית בעיראק ובסוריה או החליפות האסלאמית או אלקאעדה עיראק ISLAMIC STATE או ISLAMIC STATE IN IRAQ AND SYRIA/ALSHAM/LEVEANT או ISIL/ISIS או AQI אלדולה אלאסלאמיה פי עיראק ואלשאם או אלקאעדה פי עיראק الدولة الاسلامية או الدولة الاسلامية في عراق والشام או داﻋﺶ או اﳋلافۃ الاسلامية הכרזה על התאחדות בלתי מותרת לפי תקנות ההגנה (שעת חירום) 1945 שר הביטחון - משה (בוגי) יעלון 03/09/14 Daa"s or Islamic state or an Islamic state in Iraq and Syria or Islamic caliphate or Al-Qaeda or Iraq ISLAMIC STATE ISLAMIC STATE IN IRAQ AND SYRIA / ALSHAM / LEVEANT or ISIL / ISIS or AQI Haldol Alislamiya Iraq and al-Sham according to Al-Qaeda or Iraq الدولة الاسلامية times or الدولة الاسلامية في عراق والشام or داعش or الخلافۃ الاسلامية declaration of an unlawful association under the Defense (Emergency) Regulations, 1945 Defense Minister - Moshe (Bogie) Ya'alon

I found this information by searching on "הכרזה כארגון טרור לפי פקודת מניעת טרור" and choosing the download link with partial address given by google as: www.mod.gov.il/Defence-and.../teror16.11.xls which had the title "רשימת ההכרזות - משרד הביטחון" which translates as: List of Announcements - Office of security (Ministry of Defence)

The cat is still on a mat. Its a different mat.

I'm really pleased to have talked with you about all this first. You asked the right questions to help me eventually dig out some relevant info.

I'm not even sure if this is something that still needs to be asked about or just notified of changes. What do you think?

Gregkaye The "Israel has ten times issued..." source looks the best lead so far. If you cannot find ISIL/ISIS/IS on that list at any date, it does look as if Israel has not issued a terrorist designation for ISIL; many of the obvious ones are listed there, so why not ISIL? There is a link I gave in the RSN to a possibly helpful article here

which Technophant dug it out, about future plans for terrorist listings by the Israeli government.

What do you mean by your last comment? Especially what does "just notified of changes" mean?

I have taken Indonesia off the list in the article as that designation was by the Indonesian Counterterrorism body, not by the Indonesian government itself, and the designation box is about countries/supranational bodies. Well spotted. Perhaps I should add a line under the designation box to say what Indonesia has done. ~

talk

) 13:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

If Israel remains in the infobox, perhaps there should be another note underneath it, saying that Israel has declared it "unlawful" or whatever the wording is. You have got me into cat sat on the mat mode now. I have a thing about misleading readers, and accuracy, so maybe that will be needed. ~

talk

) 13:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

TY. No reason for asking but what do you think of cats. I have always liked my sister cats but I'm allergic, even to the mats lol. Sorry not to get back quickly. Not getting your pings here &@#%. Last comment: I think the case is conclusive. I have a range of experiences with Jewish issues and am well aware that their authorities don't tend to say things in ways they don't want. This may be one of the reason why according to claim there are so many Jewish Lawyers. I think its fine just to remove the Israeli reference and present reasons why on the talk page.

✍♪

16:22, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

talk

) 16:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I did not get any pings except for the last one so that's WPs problem I guess. I gave a guide as to how to download the Hebrew spreadsheet and have quoted the word for word texts. 'SIL are listed on a line in the where the declaration of unlawful group is entered. Declarations of organisations of terror are quoted on other lines.

✍♪

16:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

talk

) 17:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

All Israel have effectively done is to jump through their own legal hoops going through their own legal proceedure to warrant a level of military action that they haven't taken. I think that this is a non-issue. This does not even get them onto any of the lists of state opponents and says nothing more than that the country has left its options, should they ever want to take them, open.

✍♪

17:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Beyond the table the text of the section on "Designation as a terrorist organization" states, "Many world leaders and government spokespeople have called ISIL a terrorist group..." Israel, as far as I can see, has not even done this. I think that there has been a Wikipedia storm in a tea cup pushed by some previous Arabic misrepresentation. I don't think that the information is relevant to the section.

✍♪

17:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

talk

) 18:00, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

talk

) 18:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Can't leave a long reply. the 350th I think is just because it is most recent. Thats an assumption.

✍♪

18:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm also adding a column for Israel in the article list of terrorist designations. They (Israel) hide their information, it seems to me, and I think it is important that they can be kept accountable.

✍♪

18:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

talk

) 18:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2010/09/08/indonesia-launches-first-counterterrorism-agency.html and https://www.unodc.org/indonesia/en/response/terrorism-prevention.html says that the Agency is a creation of the government. It answers only to the President. The agency is like the FBI or CIA in the USA - an instrument for implementing government policy. Legacypac (talk) 00:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

talk

) 08:37, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I just wrote a customary lengthy text on this but I had a prob with edit conflict that my lap top didn't resolve so you've been spared. In short

✍♪

09:50, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I cannot understand why my subsequent comments after my first questions did not show up. They are in this diff here. This was the full text of my questions to you:

Gregkaye; What is your opinion on this? I cannot see [in Legacypac's refs] where it says the Agency is the creation of the government, although it does say it answers only to the President. Should Indonesia go back into the terrorist designation infobox? In the original citation (see in note re Indonesia in Terrorist Designation section) the BNPT only "says" that ISIL is "categorised" as a terrorist organization, and there is no specific date given for the statement. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 08:37, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Any further comments? ~

talk

) 10:19, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

talk

) 16:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I would think that the Indonesian designation should be added back IMO. The Indonesians have used it and they will have the best feel for the tone of the politics there. I don't see a reason to doubt the content in the same way as with Israel. It also fits in with other things that the gov is saying.

(First I hope you get the ping from my page)

✍♪ 16:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC) ping: @Legacypac

:

The Jakarta Post article is very clear to me - look at the title "Indonesia launches" refering to the state creating the "interdepartmental" National Antiterrorism Agency (BNPT). then it talks about greater authority then the police etc. "Under the aurthority of the BNPT, he said, the police would need the Army’s support in conducting its missions." suggesting BNPT can direct both the police and the army, which only an arm of the govt can do. The indonesian wikipedia has an article that says in the first sentences "National Agency for Combating Terrorism, abbreviated BNPT, is a government agency in Indonesia, which has the task of carrying out government duties in the field of counter-terrorism. BNPT headed by a chief who is responsible to the president through the Coordinating Minister for Political, Legal and Security." Legacypac (talk) 21:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

talk

) 22:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• By 2014, ISIL was increasingly being viewed as a militia rather than as a terrorist group. As major Iraqi cities fell to ISIL in June 2014, Jessica Lewis, a former US army intelligence officer at the Institute for the Study of War, described ISIL as "not a terrorism problem anymore", but rather "an army on the move in Iraq and Syria, and they are taking terrain. They have shadow governments in and around Baghdad, and they have an aspirational goal to govern. I don't know whether they want to control Baghdad, or if they want to destroy the functions of the Iraqi state, but either way the outcome will be disastrous for Iraq." Lewis has called ISIL "an advanced military leadership". She said, "They have incredible command and control and they have a sophisticated reporting mechanism from the field that can relay tactics and directives up and down the line. They are well-financed, and they have big sources of manpower, not just the foreign fighters, but also prisoner escapees."

They don't tend to undertake the particular type of activity of flying aircraft into buildings and the like. Its possible that you have your words the wrong way round. Consider a revert?

@

talk

) 20:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Its a group that calls itself the "Islamic State..." in the middle east, Does this look right to you?:

✍♪

19:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

@

talk

) 20:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

In your edit summary in swapping around the criticisms section you talked about the designation as terrorist as being the general thing. The use of a particular type of designation, if anything, is particular. Far, far away from the conflict men in suits decide on uses of words. They decide to call a distant group by the name terrorist and yet it becomes apparent that the group are not primarily defined as a terrorist group. Their emphasis is not on terrorist attack. The think that 'SIL are known for is attacking, killing both fighters and prisoners. They are known for war crimes and ethnic cleansing. These are amongst the things that Muslims criticise the group for - and they also call the group terrorist. The thing that is of general importance with regard to "Islamic State..." is Islam and it is this criticism that is of central relevance. Consider a revert?

✍♪

20:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Please take a look at the TOC, It mentions a load of islam related issues. Yes there are a fes suicide bombings mentioned in the text but there is only one title related to terrorism and that's the designation. Most of the rest of the content is to do with Islam and war. The Islamic criticism part is more relevant in my view. The heading title is criticism but the content does not start with criticism.

✍♪

21:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

@

talk

) 23:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

With regard to what you say above we would need to begin with a section on

List of terrorist incidents connected to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

. We can't put this as No. 1 consideration. This would be unencyclopedic. Its a group calling itself "Islamic State ..." being criticised by Islam and by surrounding states. Can you not see this? This is the central issue. You are brushing aside central issues for the sake of lesser used terminologies.

As for my use of 'SIS, please don't be offended. According to the article,

✍♪

03:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

@

@

talk

) 09:29, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• To be honest I have previously argued similar points as you have on a broad understanding of terror. This was following objections to the jihadist proposals and, mainly as an illustration, I proposed that terrorist should equally be added as a prime descriptor. I agree that this is a situation where many may live [or not] in terror. The fact though is that a lot of the abuses occur caused by people that regard themselves to be Muslim so as to affect other people who largely also regard themselves to be Muslim. Both sides as a generalisation question the faithfulness of the other side. It is a Sunni-Shia/ Sunni-Sunni issue. The great wrongs that I would want to right are mainly the ones on Wikipedia. I have appreciated your attitude, after large representations of critical content in the article were downgraded or wiped, you were instrumental in helping to bring it back to prominence. I think think that the presentation of a rebel group as a nation which seems to be a POV pushed by many editors. The attitude of arranging beheadings articles so as to present the hand full of Westeners first and then to mention an unknown number of Syrians and Iraqis last is wrong. The Rhetorical mention of U.S. is wrong and I suspect bad faith. Have you seen the article that Legacypac highlighted for possible deletion on the talk page? I am anti-discrimination, anti-coercion, anti-misretpresentation and the list goes on. I'm not anti-ISIL to any greater extent than I was anti-WE or anti-Technophant. I am however anti-the things that groups and people do that I think are wrong and am also appalled at the abuses of countries like Israel.

I also fear a backlash too the people under ISIL but they regime is not helping itself. Any normal group that wasn't pushing their own POV dominance agenda would say to Iraq and Syria, let's talk peace. As you may have gathered there are many situations in which I will go out of my way to defend people. I wish that the situation would allow this attitude to extend to this group. They live by the sword with no apparent mercy. In the current state of things I will not defend them but I have been known to radically change my stance when situations change. There are many situations where I would sympathise with a claim to independence and nationhood. Scotland, no problem. Ireland, if wanted. Its not an issue. Hong Kong. Why not? If people can muster a live and let live attitude its all good. It pains me that similar situation does not exist in Iraq, Syria border regions. The issue is largely a religious dispute and this is how it is best understood.

✍♪

10:04, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Curiously the

✍♪

10:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

@

Gregkaye

:: (edit conflict) I had been thinking that the more I went on and nearly said it, that it boils down to how terrorism is defined. :)

I concede that I have - have, not may have - downplayed the importance of what I know to be true, your standing up for justice and fair treatment and wish to correct the balance when you see it going the wrong way, wherever it is. I agree completely that the ordering of beheadings is wrong and shows unforgivable bias – I found that distasteful as well – but really WP as an encylopaedia is not the place to defend Muslims against ISIL in the way you have been doing by taking such a strong anti-ISIL stance. WP really isn't the place to fight any kind of moral battles. Do you understand the NPOV principle, and do you think this article is a special case which justifies overriding it? A clear answer, please, would help in understanding many of your edits better.

The Sunni-Shia conflict generally in the Middle East as it relates to the current ISIL crisis would make an interesting article, wouldn't it? – though it obviously couldn't be covered in this article because of length problems. We are not so far apart in many ways, for as I think you were alluding to I opened that section on criticism specifically to deal with all the criticisms of ISIL from everywhere that were beginning to pile up and couldn't possibly be ignored by the article any longer. I can't remember if that was before or after you arrived. I hoped the criticisms could be confined to that section, but to my dismay they have bled into the very way the article is now constructed and destroyed its neutral stance, IMO, an unforeseen consequence. Gazkthul opened the human rights abuses section, btw, when they could no longer be ignored by the article either. It is very interesting to see how the article has grown since about mid-June. It was tiny in comparison in the sense of aspects covered – look at all the sections it has acquired since – though obviously this is a function of the rapid growth of ISIL's strength and influence since then.

Which article has Legacypac highlighted for deletion? I don't read everything on the Talk page.. :( I hadn't noticed the US bias before, and that's probably because in the text I concentrate on copy-editing and do it sort of blindly. :( ~

talk

) 11:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

As the norm for all humanity I feel that I am in the perfect position to comment on NPOV. On a more serious note I'll try my best to answer when I've given it some thought. I think I know where i stand but don't want to jump the gun. (I don't normally use phrases like "jump the gun"). The article was add is

✍♪

13:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

talk

) 13:31, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

lol, I also said that I don't give a *fuck* what people think of me and that was meant in a simple factual (non value laden statement) kind of way). The two issues (past experience and present attitude) are definitely connected. I have no problem in saying where I think things are. It was something I wanted to give it some thought. You have a history of asking good and relevant questions. I would be stupid not to take the opportunity.

I have always been clear that I am not a neutral person. But, if you were to draw a parameter between a Caligula, Pot or Stalin and the likes of a Geldoff, I would hope that I would come out towards the relatively scruffy end.

I still have deep respect for the goals of NPOV (add: more thoughts follow) in that, "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". However I have always had the view that views on talk pages can venture further than this as long as the end goal is kept in sight. This has been a bit of an eye opener taking another look at the content of the text. I don't need to ask! but feel free to comment.

Explanation of the neutral point of view

• Avoid stating opinions as facts. I think I do OK on this. I have presented opinions strongly.
• Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. I wouldn't say this is a major flaw.
• Avoid stating facts as opinions. My instinct was to say no but then I doubted that as well. As I think you have well judged I am a disputer of things. Was that even a cat? I think that I am even handed in my questioning. I have trust issues but don't manipulate in the same way as I think some have.
• Prefer nonjudgmental language. Opps. This has rapidly gone backwards and forwards in my mind. In the context of a great many strong and judgemental statements being made against this group I think there is some leeway but my presentation of, I seem to recollect, "this hateful group" possibly (certainly) crosses the line. I had hoped that I had got off that soapbox.

I have also presented POV arguments. For instance presenting google searches on words such as "terrorist" AND "game" was clearly an appeal to conscience issues and I knew it. I am fairly happy with this and to an extent I think it to be an alternative ideal that Wikipedia can be an encyclopaedia with shades of conscience. I said at the time that I thought that presenting terrorist in isolation would be irresponsible. I stick to that and think that, while such issues should not be considered as central arguments, I think that they can be of relevance in debatable or tipping the balance situations.

If it were up to me I would rewrite the basic NPOV statement that, "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written so that it presents a neutral point of view". I know that I don't have a NPOV but I also sincerely want to develop encyclopedic content.

I also stick to my view that I don't think that you have had a completely NPOV in regard to topics such as diktats, the semantics of criticism and, on the other side of things, perhaps not being as quick to tackle the issue of execution as implying, to an admittedly incomplete extent, legality. Back to me, with regard to other editors I think I have been fairly even handed with all and, even in cases where I have been personally wronged, have not pushed proceedings.

✍♪

14:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I won't be able to reply for a while.

✍♪

14:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

talk

) 15:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I was quite at your mercy which, in capable hands, wasn't at all disagreeable. Strangely, the thread started generally and ended with aesthetic . I am not surprised at your friends reactions. I have long had the impression that I could talk to you and I think that this would have still been the case even if I were more guarded than I am .. no can be.

On diktats,..., as I said, I think that this is a clean, simple description of most if not all the content in that section. On Criticism, I think that anyone that heard about either a group or a person that had an acquaintance with something like killing would have hardly be surprised that a related commentary had a content such as criticism. Many people would be far from surprised to see something much stronger and I don't see any reason for special care to be taken with a word like this. Maybe with other article topics but not with QSIL/UIS/'SIL. I wasn't intending to ask this but here goes, what offends you (if that's the right word) most, me using alternate acronyms like those or something such as my earlier profanity?

We had both been in the PBS thread in which the murder - execution POV issues were mentioned and, certainly the comments were addressed to me in relation to a query of mine. I had seen the word executed placed in the timeline text and yet the word wasn't found in the citation. It was slightly later that you brought up the diktats issue which, as I have mentioned, is, in my POV, a good, straightforward description of content. Ask yourself why this was the issue that struck a chord with you. I know it is with good motives but it seemed that you felt quite strongly that this wording was inappropriate. All the same I won't say that the case on execution as being certainly inappropriate is in anyway clear cut. Lego, for instance, followed up on a related comment of mine to say that his main base for objecting to it was that, in categories, it is connected to capital punishment. In this light I am not sure whether I should have mentioned this again. At the time of the diktats question I felt a bit embattled about something and hadn't myself edited out the references. Your sequence for removal was references to massacres first and executions second. (how's that for forensic?) I know that you have done a lot of content editing on the timeline and, while I should have had no reason to think that you might have gone back over previous content to deal with references there as well, I still unfairly noted that these references hadn't been removed. On this point this probably says more about me than about you.

Anyway, all is good.

Gregkaye

: Yes, you should add that to your userpage. On the swearing, I find it more offensive than the acronym, which doesn't offend me at all! I only raised the acronym as being indicative of your attitude to the group. On executions, I should first say that I have not been anywhere near as methodical and regular in copy-editing the timeline article as I have the main one. I tend to do it in dribs and drabs, quite unsystematically, and have never altered "executed" when I should have done. I ought to do the same for "executed" and "massacred" in the timeline article as I did in the main one. There is MUCH more to copy-ed in the timeline article and I get bogged down with that rather than taking in the actual sense of what I am copy-editing, if that makes sense. It is densely packed with infelicities of expression, but I know it is because a lot non-native English speakers contribute to it, it is very obvious, and I don't mind tidying that up at all. I never check that the citations are accurately reflected in the timeline as that would be a 24/7 job, but when there seemed to be fewer entries per week in June/July/August I did. I found quite a few misreports. (I wasn't so heavily involved in the TP as now so had more time to do it. The TP discussion has exploded in size since then.) Also, it is difficult to keep track of the timeline article now as I have noticed new entries popping up for dates much earlier this year, and they are not always easy to spot.

On dikats, I am sure I explained in the thread that it could be either a POV or NPOV word depending on context. I can't remember whether it was on your TP or on the main TP. "Diktat" used colloquially is always a POV word with bad overtones (of totalitarianism, etc) and is regularly used that way by modern media, the press, especially the redtops, etc. There is a dictionary definition which describes that use and I am sure I put in on that thread. I have often seen the word used pejoratively in the press to describe someone's or some organization's actions as outrageously and culpably authoritarian. That is why I reacted to it the way I did when I saw it in the title of that section. To me it screamed POV! When you quoted the British Encyclopaedia references, I looked them up and am sure said to you that "diktat" there had a very precise meaning. It is a good, history-writing word with a narrow, inference-free and precise meaning, which is the way it was being used by the BE and obviously as I can see now by you in the title. I was reacting to first sense of the word, and still don't like it in the title, as the word still jumps out in its pejorative sense to me, but am (half) happy to let it stand, as I can see it may not resonate that way for many readers, especially the younger generation. Legacypac seemed not to be aware of the pejorative sense, nor did any other editors. Out of curiosity only, have you ever seen the word used in the pejorative sense I described? Can I get back to you on "Criticisms", to explain my objections there? That may take longer! It is good to straighten these things out as I don't like these misunderstandings/differences between us spoil things if it can be avoided. I looked at our colleague's article, a brave shot for a non-English speaker, but clearly the article will have to be deleted as it repeats other articles and is too POV according to one editor. Wheels of Steel0 is a dark horse. Have you noticed how sometimes his English is very broken and at others excellent? Very odd. I have my theories. ~

talk

) 19:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure I have heard the term used pejoratively. But in the new order such use will be outlawed . grin. In the pejorative sense I would interpret the meaning to affect an entity whose actions were less extreme than 'SIL's so as to infer that the entity's actions are in actuality as extreme as 'SIL's. As I've said I am not fussed which strong and descriptive phrase gets added to each section and I think that there may be a variety of possibilities. I am happy and interested in what you'll say but, as far as.I'm concerned, its not strictly necessary.

All this talk about POV suddenly got me thinking about "Stepford editors". I think that a lot of editors have POV and I think that while we both view things passionately, we can deal with things directly.

I has been pointed out to me at various points that my English isn't always so good. In fact in previous discussions some editors have been convinced that English was my se.. was not my first language. What can you do?

✍♪

21:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

talk

)

talk

) 13:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

It has been a long and winding road that has led to the current state of the article. I had earlier alluded to the dichotomy between "Criticism" and designation and agree with the split. I don't see any justification for putting the designation as terrorist before group characteristics and not similarly placing criticisms at a similar stage in the article. I could understand it if the designation had been placed at a relevant sequence point within the history section. I am guessing that all our earlier opinions on all this still stand.

✍♪

13:49, 1 December 2014 (UTC)]

talk

) 14:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I certainly agree in the unilateral decisions point but mainly on the basis on building the collegiate atmosphere we talked of earlier. I also have no problem in the fact that you made the move of designation content which, on this thread, got notification. I personally don't agree with the move and, for all my earlier reasons, it makes me deeply uneasy. In relation to this another thing that I recently spotted was that most of the listed groups at:

✍♪

14:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

talk

) 15:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

talk

) 16:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. I'm replying now. He definitely pushes on the topic.

✍♪

16:41, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

talk

) 20:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

And I was hoping you liked to keep me alarmed

✍♪

22:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

talk

) 22:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Well its nice to see you with a smiley . But, believe me, this is a subject that I know something about>

✍♪

23:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

talk

) 23:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I mean facing groups of antagonists. When there is a constant and predictable pressure, fear does not always factor into the situation. By general usage of the term, terrorism is far from being the best description of 'SIL's activities. Its grinding systematic human rights abuse. There are UN criticisms that would be more appropriate to quote if needed. On issues beyond encyclopaedic issues, I think that an emphasis on terrorism can be counterproductive but I have explained this before.

✍♪

00:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

talk

) 01:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

How, if at all, does this affect your views on the TP question? Can some of these views go there?

✍♪

05:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

talk

) 07:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I was referring to the talk page question relating to the positioning of table with the terrorist designation information in which you said " this all boils down to semantics, doesn't it? Without an agreed definition of terrorism by the experts, what hope is there for us here?" The hope is that we can fairly consider the use of definitions and not throw up "there's no hope type derailing comments". You have said that you think Human rights abuse is the best reference for the group and yet you promote a term that is not centrally relevant to many of the abuses.

✍♪

08:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye

: I was stating the truth as I see it, as do other editors. Sometimes what we say you are not going to like, but that is the nature of editing in Wikipedia. The truth as I see it is that it is very hard to define terrorism satisfactorily as the wiki article clearly demonstrates, and that is a truth which is inconvenient for this article is what I meant. I said human rights abuse was a better reference than war crimes, not that terrorism is a better reference. I was not promoting the term terrorism, I was simply saying that one of ISIL's defining characteristics was that they are terrorists, which is not quite the same thing. You really must to stop regarding editors' comments that you don't like as derailing tactics, Greg. They are editors' honest opinions in the majority of cases and they are not intended to derail anything. My views on anything will not affect my editing now as I said before, I am going to concentrate on copy-editing. I have no more stomach for the endless squabbles. My long comments on terrorism yesterday were made with no thought at all of how it would or should end up in an edit. I just wanted to make the point that I thought ISIL were terrorists, full stop. I took the question to the Talk page so that editors could decide where to put the reference. As I said, I got sidetracked when you said ISIL were not terrorists.

I don't know what has happened to the terrorist designation placement. I put it back into the "Criticism" section after the muddle caused by Legacy, which he freely acknowledged, and it has somehow got back to the top again. Another of my restorations after the muddle got knocked out as well. I have just restored that one and will now restore the terrorist designation to where it was in "Criticism". Maybe Legacy did it by accident when he was trying to restore some other edits, I don't know. It is quite hard to sort out the mess when someone edits onto an old version. WE once did a sterling job of sorting out one such mess. ~

talk

) 09:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

talk

) 09:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1

The content edit would seem to have been in line with current talk page consensus which looks to be going against arguments I presented. What I said was that your comments on "grinding systematic human rights abuse" as being the best way to describe ISIL now, while being of interest to me, would also be of relevance in the article talk page discussion. In response to your comment I have edited the related section title in the article to: "Human rights abuse/war crime accusations and findings"

On the other issue I think there is hope. There are very few words to which clear definitions are provided by experts and yet, in hope, we work with the situations we have. True we don't have expert provided definitions, at least not that are universally accepted. We do have definitions and in most situations this is enough.

✍♪

09:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

talk

) 11:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that heading is good and Legopac thanked me for it. I'm also pleased that you raised position issue on the talk page. I freely admit that I may have misjudged the consensus view on this topic. What will be will be. I still think that we need to be clear on terminologies. With this in mind I have started a thread at;

✍♪

12:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

talk

) 12:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

as previously mentioned I admire your ability to raise/ ask good questions. Lego, for instance would want to list every beheading on all pages.

✍♪

12:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Um, no, I would not. Legacypac (talk) 17:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I think technically it can be, as this case is still waiting to be dealt with – see list in

talk

) 10:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I really think that your action on this is up to you. As you know, my thoughts were that the ed, when confronted with behaviour, then changed. At this point this does not seem to be the case. I think that you can either add it now or leave it as a

✍♪

14:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

talk

) 16:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

You are quite the disciplinarian. I should have handled things differently with Mohammed at the start with and I don't think it helped that I got him off. I still think that the directional approach can also work. Over doing things can get a WE type response and I still think that the hardest things said in that case came from me. When dealing with anti-Semitism issues I encountered a whole load of unreasoning and unencyclopeadic POV and was not expecting reasoned approaches when I came here. When I came to the page I made my 1RR infringements on ISIL. A slap down approach was taken from which the easiest options would have been fight or flight and I don't think that everyone would have jumped through the hoops that I did. I'd like to see an approach that would keep people engaged in WP while dealing with behaviour would be great.

✍♪

00:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

talk

) 00:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

No I mean when I first joined the page with my original ISIL edits. As I said earlier, I would have been quite happy to have committed WP suicide on the jihadist issue on the basis that I think that it is right and I was quite happy to ignore the warnings on the TP. The only thing that stopped me was what I considered to be a gaming inspired vindictive and, as it turned out, extremely partial approach taken in the AN/I's "execution". The hoops go back to the ISIL issue at which point I pinged a number of editors to explain my actions and put them in context and to initiate with you for guidance on how to fix footnotes which, I'm pleased to say, you were happy to give. Hoops may be an exaggeration.

Wheels is putting up a fight.

✍♪

01:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

talk

) 01:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that there have been a few editors to favour edits that 'SIL's pr wing would be proud of. Wheels would take some beating.

✍♪

01:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Lightanddarkness has also been busy *sigh*

✍♪

08:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Lor: Thanks. The sad part is that we basically get got on very well. [Redacted] ~ P-123 (talk) 02:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The edit above has in fact been redacted several times from an original version that additionally stated: "I understand why he does this, too; his motives are always impeccable."

I greatly appreciated that here you stated, "Don't know why I got a half-barnstar... as I didn't walk away... " but you worded this more strongly still.

It would have been a kindness if you had made some kind of similar factually based comment in this thread. Instead, above, you seem to merely endorse a response from Lor that it seems we both think was one sided.

Intervening redactions of the above response "provoked" content below. I am the same editor as I was.

✍♪

08:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

P-123 I would be interested in your perceptions in the way that you think we differ in regard to editing policy to the extent of being polar opposites.

We have both contributed to a lot of threads since I first raised the issue of

On the ISIL Talk page a lot was said about jihadism and I was grateful for your support with regard to the later proposals.

There were also a lot of discussions where we agreed on things and/or worked constructively together:

• Propose scrapping timeline from main article 22:04, 27 October 2014
• Logos 08:01, 30 October 2014
• Restoration of deleted lead text re criticism 10:51, 31 October 2014
• Life in ISIL-controlled Ar-Raqqah 23:22, 1 November 2014
• Section 1: Index of names 22:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
• History of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant infobox 08:27, 2 November 2014
• Lead 23:59, 8 December 2014

There are other discussions within which our disagreements have been in regard to article content:

• Diktats 17:44, 13 November 2014
• Lead references 12:32, 12 November 2014
• ISIL propaganda 22:48, 13 November 2014
• Infoboxes and Lead 09:09, 25 November 2014
• Positioning of "Terrorist designation" infobox 16:05, 1 December 2014
• No nation recognizes ... 16:35, 14 December 2014

We've had both agreements and disagreements on article content. Where are our differences on article policy to the extent of being polar opposites?

✍♪

23:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

This is exactly the sort of discussion and 3D-ing I mentioned that I do not want to get into. I have struck out my comment accordingly. P-123 (talk) 00:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I first raised this issue subtly within a post that I suggested be deleted purely for the sake of saving face. Amongst content I said:

• "I will not dispute your claim that "we are polar opposites on editing policy" but I would like to see it justified. Where do you think you are on with regard to editing policy? Where do you think I am?"

You took me up on the offer of deletion while dismissing content as bizarre and that was all. My simple request is that comments are not made about me or other editors unless they are substantiated. I have been making requests on this theme with you for a very long time. I don't want to get into this is the kind of thing either. There has got to be some give on both sides.

✍♪

08:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I have repeatedly asked you to drop this, to stop asking so many questions and making "requests" of this kind. You cannot police another editor's thoughts and actions in the way you have been attempting to do, for what seems like a very long time. You seem to have developed an obsession about this. P-123 (talk) 14:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

In midway edits of your reply to the half barnstar award you had commented, "...though he would probably dispute that". Despite this you still left the "we are polar opposites on editing policy" claim. Your thoughts are your own. I once privately expressed a desire to see this claim justified and subsequently posted as above. Perhaps I do have an obsession. This was a mild example but I have felt worn down and frustrated by unreferenced comments. I don't have anything more to say on this that I haven't said many times already.

✍♪

16:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I meant my comment as just that, a comment. Absolutely no criticism of you was intended. You must have a very short memory if you cannot see that. There have been many, many times on the main Talk page where we have (amicably) clashed over what NPOV means. You know it was only ever a professional disagreement. I cannot understand your obsession about what I think. I have never set out to damage you on the main Talk page, I have just expressed disagreement, as we all do with each other, routinely. That is what editing is about. Drop it, will you? P-123 (talk)

I didn't argue about what was intended. I have a pretty good memory the judgement was not necessary. True. Which that was. I also think that many of your interactions with me on my user page have also been constructive. You have done more than that. I will represent myself.

✍♪

17:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

"The judgment was not necessary." Please stop behaving like thought-police, and please stop posting comments. P-123 (talk) 17:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)