Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:50, 10 December 2014

Template:Merry Christmas Banner

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

“	I order you to be truthful, for indeed truthfulness leads to righteousness, and indeed righteousness leads to Paradise. A man continues to be truthful and strives for truthfulness until he is written as a truthful person with God. And beware of falsehood, for indeed falsehood leads to sinning, and indeed sinning leads to the Fire. A man continues to tell lies and strives upon falsehood until he is written as a liar with God	”
— Saheeh Muslim

“	In matters of truth and justice, there is no difference between large and small problems, for issues concerning the treatment of people are all the same	”
— Albert Einstein

WP:TALK#USE: "Explaining why you have a certain opinion helps to demonstrate its validity.."

My admission of wrong

P123ct1, I am happy to hear your thoughts on this but, as I see it, the issues that were of most relevance were WP:SOAPBOX, issues related to use of words associated with profanity in relation to my indication of a "bastardisation" of terminologies over time and WP:CONSENSUS particularly, as I see it, in relation to Vote!. As I see it the question of NPOV in this case most centrally depends on whether there was a legitimate justification for an association of an explanatory content to the word "jihadist". This was something that, in the context of a supply of such an explanatory content in the form of a footnote, that you agreed with. The only difference with regard to suggestions before I was taken to AN/I was a level of affect to article content in the provision of a relevant explanation.

I mentioned my views on WP:NPOV and WP:RS here. At the time leading up to the AN/I, and not stating that I was right, I gave considerable considerable consideration to NPOV and RS related issues. I am quite happy that we acknowledge a difference in our views in regard to the validity of my interpretation of issues related to NPOV and RS. I wouldn't even mind if someone had any even extreme view of any of my attitudes or actions. It is only when someone asserts as fact that I disregarded issues that I think that I have a right to dispute that assertion. As you know, I also think that Misplaced Pages's fixated focus on so called "reliable" but secondary sources is quite simply nuts. I don't think that there has been reliability in presentation on this issue right down the line from many extreme organisations that have, none-the-less called themselves Mujahideen or jihadist and down to a range of sources that have then used jihadism related terminologies in their description. My view is that an encyclopedia should give good, accurate and useful information.

As previously mentioned, if I have a POV, I think that it is a good POV. It was a POV that, at the time, I was prepared to follow through even to the point of being banned. This was not something that I decided on lightly and honestly I gave considerable attention to the relevant issues concerned. I am happy for us to disagree but please do not say that I have disregarded issues especially when, at a later point in time, you have agreed.

The article talk page is clearly a place for the discussion of article content issues and I have voluntarily admitted to having taken this to a soapbox extent. I stated one thread on this. I honestly do not think that this constitutes turning the talk page into a battleground. I maintain that throughout, I dealt my presentation of content in more straightforward and civil way than various editors that argued opposing points. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:55, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Greg, I agree that WP:SOAPBOX and WP:CONSENSUS were the main issues in that debate, and from what you say can see why you might even have thought our NPOV was POV! You did give the impression that you were disregarding the issues around NPOV and RS, but even then I could see after a time during those debates that your POV, or your interpretation of what NPOV is, was well-thought through and well-motivated. So "disregarded" was the wrong word to have used, "disputed" would have been better. I came to agree with you about the RS use of "jihadist", hence my support on that. The overuse of "Criticism" and the use of "diktat" I still believe gave a POV impression, but that problem has sort of disappeared of its own accord now, which I think is revealing. It leads me to wonder now if your seeming strong anti-ISIL stance is another artifact, an artifact of the sort I mentioned before – only in this case the opposite – that your choice of words for text and text headings and your resistant stance against other editors gave the impression of a strong anti-ISIL POV you never intended, but really you were keeping to NPOV in your eyes. As always the choice of words is critical in wording things in a particular way, in this case in the article text neutrally.

The long arguments over some of the Lead wording, in which you indeed were always measured and much more civil than some, did nevertheless cause disruption, because you would not accept the consensus view as you acknowledge and because it took up so much time. But I would not call that turning the Talk page into a battleground. The battleground that I was referring to concerned the later disputes between you and Felino and then with Technophant. All three of you did turn the Talk page into a battleground for what seemed a long time and was much more disruptive, IMO. Those were bitter and personal disputes mostly caused by but really tangential to content disagreement and I think they should have been conducted on user Talk pages, not the main Talk page.

I know you believe that an encyclopedia should give good, accurate and useful information, and I would add balanced. Your emphasis on Muslim criticism in the Lead did look unbalanced at one time, but I think the right balance has been struck now. As part of correcting the imbalance I supported your fairly strong "judging" because I think it reflects the strength of the Muslim criticism and I think other editors were wrong in wanting to play it down.

I think really the main difference between us is over how to strike the right NPOV balance in telling the facts as they are. Is that fair? Is our difference over NPOV a red herring, even? ~ P-123 (talk) 16:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

P-123 To reference Red Dwarf, repository of all wisdom, there may be an extent that that kipper should be smoked (as final moments here). WP:CONSENSUS still relates to WP's goals and not vote but, perhaps with influence of my Japanese blood, I can see that I was going kamikaze. I agree now about balance in the lead at the time with regard to criticism. I was new to the article and, the irony is that in the context of distractions that I had initiated, content swung the other way. As far as battleground is concerned, as you know, I considered this to be a very territorial edit. Will also know from reference to User talk pages that I, wastefully it turns out, invested a great deal of effort attempting to broach peace. I think that what you see as anti-ISIL POV is largely representative of both a lot of content in RS and of attitudes within a large coalition of nations and local combatants. My views on ISIL as being murderous tyrants can be fairly presented on the talk page but, in truth, I don't want any of these militants to suffer and die. I may be mistaken but my view is that the best way that I can be pro-ISIL (to the extent of being pro their membership) is to present accurate content and informative content that may act to burst their bubble. Given the chance I would also be anti any pershmerger or similar abuse. I am anti many of the facets of Hussain, Bush, Blair, Assad and Netanyatu. I will support any valid criticism of coalition activities but, when the Analysis section contained a misrepresentation of an article so as to place all blame at the American door, I edit so as to present citation content in an NPOV way. How was the original presentation get developed? Why was I the only one to point it out? Despite accepted definitions of State there are editors that want to unjustifiably want to apply this definition to the miltants. Despite the generally critical tone throughout RS there are editors that would want to take criticism from the lead and denude this content within the article while relegating it to the bottom of the page. Yes I tend to edit on one side of things... and the result, I think, is balance. As mentioned I think that on several issues, you have presented ISIL sympathetic POVs but that is another issue.

I also think that there was political naievity (ironic that I can't spell the word) after the Iraq war and that, perhaps, the country should have been divided at this point. I see no problem in a peaceful Sunni region ASKING for recognition and independence. Please don't let us fall out over anti-'SIL issues as well. I won't argue unnecessarily but I will defend myself. Gregkaye ✍♪ 19:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I also found it interesting going through all the articles on groups designated as terrorist. The non Islam related articles all spoke of all the nations that had described as terrorist. The Islam related articles all focused on US designations in semi isolation. Gregkaye ✍♪ 19:19, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to fall out over anti-ISIL issues either. Out of curiosity only when have you thought I presented ISIL-sympathetic POVs? If I defend myself – I may not – it won't be to open another dispute. ~ P-123 (talk) 20:02, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1, You, of course, can take whichever position you like but: Diktats, Criticisms, making note of anti-ISIL POV and not ISIL sympathetic/ compliant tendencies as with relegation of criticism etc. I know in the situations such as the last case you stood against the relegation but, as far as I've seen, you've only labelled the anti side of things as you have seen it. This may be my POV again but, beyond my use of 'SIL, Daesh etc. I think that my proposed contents and dealings with other editors has been more balanced than others. I've asked questions of people and have moaned a lot to you about them, but that's all. However, as you've also said, we generally have commonality on most things. I also respect that you have a level of will not to take my comments above as any form of censorship which I know, rightly, you would not heed. This is more a commentary about me than anything. How narcissistic is that! Gregkaye ✍♪ 21:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Oddly enough, the word "censorship" or the idea of it never crossed my mind, so there was no restraint there and I cannot take credit for that. I can see how being utterly neutral could look like pro-ISIL POV. This idea cropped up very early on, when I said on the Talk page that stating the facts barely and calling the group the "Islamic State", a "caliphate" and al-Baghadi "caliph" without any qualification like "self-declared" could look like pro-ISIL POV, but that qualifiying those words could look departing from NPOV. It is a paradox, or dilemma rather, that I don't think can ever be satisfactorily resolved. I don't see how any kind of wording could escape this. That is my only comment as I said I didn't want to open up another dispute. ~ P-123 (talk) 22:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

P-123 I would like to see any content in guidelines that specifies a type of "utterly neutral" approach that could look like a pro-ISIL bias. This is where I think that you can have n-NPOV. I do not see that NPOV with regard to ISIL would raise issue with diktats of criticisms. A NPOV should simply seek accurate description without any involvement of another agenda. gregkaye ✍♪ 06:43, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Respectful interjection

Respectfully in my opinion both of you have been taking a perfectionist "challenge everything" and eliminate anything that could be read as POV by anyone. Remember this is WP and anyone can edit. We will never get the article perfect and the most carefully worded consensus sentence will be butchered eventually. I'm all for accuracy, but this incessant challenging of everything and debating phrases is not productive. We can't copy sources verbatim, so we have to rephrase, which means the article may say blue when the source says navy or whatever.

I'd suggest starting or growing another article like the one on ISIL human rights abuses, or the much needed articles about ISIL setting up in Pakistan, or a whole article on finances (there was a big multinational meeting on that topic recently, yet no updates to the article) rather then fretting over words like jihad or the intricacies of terrorist designations. If many RS call ISIL terrorist or jihad or whatever, let it be. We have enough problems with other editors putting in or deleting large blocks of text based on clear agendas. As the editors who regularly update the article and have a good handle on what ISIL is all about don't need to edit war and fill the talk page with debates over a word or phrase that frankly is not a big deal. Legacypac (talk) 08:42, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac: While I agree with you that the endless debating of phrases has got out of hand - this only began in October in this article - citations have to back up statements accurately, not vaguely, and I am referring in particular to the citation that Signedzzz and I disputed. I have found quite a few footnotes in this article that bear no relation to the statements they are supposed to back up. On the POV issue, there has always been a lot of debate and argument on this, from the time the Islamic State was set up, and it is a genuine problem and not one to be swept aside lightly. ~ P-123 (talk) 09:19, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac Respectfully, of all the things within Criticism of Misplaced Pages, a lack of content does not come high on the list.

If it were not for the efforts of P-123, the article would be in a very considerably worse state than they currently are. Apparently I have created 197 pages on Misplaced Pages but I think that my more important contributions have been in development and correction. There is a major difference in meaning between "territorial claims", which have not been made, and "Areas in which ISIL have claimed to have presence or control". It turns presented content on its head and this is just one example where Misplaced Pages has provided misinformation. Our quoted figures on issues like troop numbers in ISIL need to be checked. The relative positioning of article content are of importance as is the dealing with misinformation. Objections that have been made to Signedzzz are similar to objections that have been made to you regarding editing without referral to talk page discussion. Signedzzz went to an extreme and with regard an unwarranted hacking of content but the problem of lack of discussion and a potentially POV driven agenda shouldn't let us ignore an admirable view of wanting to ensure the existence of accurate content. The passage mentioned is certainly in my mind as being one that is only justified by association with allied contents such as those that describe caliphate. Issues like whether we call the group a state or not are of similar importance. There are things that we need to get right. We have been thrashing out a disagreement on POV which may or may not relate to the issues that get challenge but there needs to be challenge. Philosophy found here. My POV agenda is to add warranted information that I think will promote peace and to remove or adapt unwarranted information or presentations that I think act as obstructions to peace and my intention is to build an encyclopaedia along the way. How I go about this is up to me. gregkaye ✍♪ 10:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Personally I'd rather work on big picture stuff like exploring areas not covered well then debating "territorial claims" vs "Areas in which ISIL have claimed to have presence or control". which seem pretty similar concepts to me. Edit in a way you enjoy :) - just suggesting taking a deep breath and keeping it all in perspective. The families of the 300,000 dead so far in the Syrian Civil War are not debating phasing. I also wish for peace, and an accurate representation of what ISIL about is a little part of the path to peace someday. Legacypac (talk) 10:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac Editors have different strengths in different areas in building an article. Debating phrasing and getting it right is just as important as providing facts. The way those facts are presented is crucial to making a good and accurate encyclopaedic article that may help towards peace efforts. Do not underestimate it and dismiss these considerations as worthless set against the suffering caused by ISIL. ~ P-123 (talk) 10:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Your edit

Are you aware that your edit changing title headings in "Resources" has been reverted? I cannot see how this has happened. ~ P-123 (talk) 12:01, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

P-123 TY. I don't regard my edit as being much more than a shuffling of content, but I think it made sense. Its documented on talk:isil and I guess I will make comment. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:11, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure anyone has deliberately reverted it. It seemed to happen when you were editing the "Designations" box, so you may have done it by editing onto a slightly earlier version. I don't think any other edits have been affected. ~ P-123 (talk) 12:19, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I caused that problem, when reverting an earlier edit which added unnecessary wikilinks. The usual warning about intervening edits and that the revert would have to be done manually did not come up, so that is why it happened. I have rectified now by self-reverting and your original changes to those titles have been restored. ~ P-123 (talk) 13:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Btw, if you want to delete this exchange, which has been a waste of your time, sorry, that's okay by me. ~ P-123 (talk) 16:55, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

P-123 Thinking of name changes I've only now sorted out the capitalisation of my user name. If I wasn't editing on political issues I would probably put my name in business format with both my initials: KayeGB gregkaye ✍♪ 05:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Cheryl Cole#Rename request 4

Another page move is requested. You were previously involved, so I invite you. --George Ho (talk) 17:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Please stop

Please stop arguing on AN, it's not serving any useful purpose, and is helping keeping the thread going. Thanks. NE Ent 18:00, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

NE Ent I agree that further comments would not serve a purpose. @Signedzzz: had made a range of statements in the report and I think my related comments to those were apt. I didn't expect to have needed to have added the comments made. Gregkaye ✍♪ 18:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Edit in "Terrorist designation" box

You added: "Multinational Organizations (associating with al-Qaeda)". I am not sure what that means and I am not readers will understand it! Could you think of some clearer wording, perhaps? ~ P-123 (talk) 21:48, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I was actually quite disappointed when I found the UNs content. I'm not sure if I understand and I'm not convinced that they do either. What we now have is a faithful representation of and link to the UNs content. Any reader will then be faced with the same difficulties as a Misplaced Pages editor in there own original thought OR as to what the list is or what it implies. However you may be proud of me. I have not taken my cat sat on the mat pedantry to the point of noting that ISIL are not actually on the list. Some of its members, exmembers are. Some editors might say that this was uncited content and want it removed. I may adjust the citation to reflect this.

Possible: (indicating as "associated with al-Qaeda"). I see the point. Its not the Multinational Organizations that are associating with al-Qaeda. The new wording uses the same as format used in: Nations (designating as terrorist) gregkaye ✍♪ 05:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

The group is in the second list in that document, dated 24 November 2014, under the name "Al-Qaida in Iraq". The pages are not numbered, unfortunately. So I am not sure that "Indicating as associated with al-Qaeda" is the right wording. Legacypac looked into this in great detail and came up with that reference. P-123 (talk) 07:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Look for this listing under section b entities and other groups ... (alphabetical) http://www.un.org/sc/committees/1267/AQList.htm#alqaedaent

QE.J.115.04. Name: AL-QAIDA IN IRAQ Name (original script): القاعدة في العراق A.k.a.: a) AQI b) al-Tawhid c) the Monotheism and Jihad Group d) Qaida of the Jihad in the Land of the Two Rivers e) Al-Qaida of Jihad in the Land of the Two Rivers f) The Organization of Jihad’s Base in the Country of the Two Rivers g) The Organization Base of Jihad/Country of the Two Rivers h) The Organization Base of Jihad/Mesopotamia i) Tanzim Qa’idat Al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn j) Tanzeem Qa’idat al Jihad/Bilad al Raafidaini k) Jama'at Al-Tawhid Wa'al-Jihad l) JTJ m) Islamic State of Iraq n) ISI o) al-Zarqawi network p) Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant F.k.a.: na Address: na Listed on: 18 Oct. 2004 (amended on 2 Dec. 2004, 5 Mar. 2009, 13 Dec. 2011, 30 May 2013, 13 May 2014, 2 Jun. 2014) Other information: Review pursuant to Security Council resolution 1822 (2008) was concluded on 25 May 2010.

Also see http://www.un.org/sc/committees/1267/resolutions.shtml where ISIL is repeatedly named as a stand alone group in SC resolutions. I removed your confusing notes in the headings. Very clear UN SC says ISIL is a terrorist organization in its own right. Legacypac (talk) 08:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

P-123 Legacypac please read the contents that you supplied. I made a mistake in that I searched on a different spelling of AL-QAIDA IN IRAQ but this does not change the fact that the texts do not designate the group as terrorist. gregkaye ✍♪ 11:35, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

This designation was discussed at length on the Talk page some months back. You will find references to them here and particularly here. It was decided then by editors that this document, http://www.un.org/sc/committees/1267/AQList.htm#alqaedaent, the one above, could not be used to support a designation of the group as a terrorist organization by the UN. Recently Legacypac overturned this after some research and added the UN to the infobox. Please refer to him for details. ~ P-123 (talk) 15:06, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

P-123 TY, and don't get me wrong, I am probably more appalled at 'SIL's association with al-Qaeda as at anything else. They joined al-Quada and got chucked out. The UN is the first item in the table and the last item in the table's notes which I will see to. The group was not designated as terrorist but I'm not going to argue. The cat is on this mat whether or not it was clearly stated. also ping @Legacypac: gregkaye ✍♪ 12:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I may be on a better track now. (add:) *sigh*, when you are done copy editing ISIL could you do some work for the UN. They fail to make their point. Also see: #Gas giant below. gregkaye ✍♪ 12:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

The UN has not designated ISIL a terrorist organisation as those countries have. The consensus was against having this designation in the infobox precisely because of this document. Legacypac went against the consensus some months later. There was no explanation given for the change on the Talk page that I can remember. I am tired of documents and citations being laboriously interpreted to fit edits. Nowhere in that document or the other citation does it say categorically that the group has been designated by the UN as a terrorist organisation, it is all interpretation. This document is a sanctions list, which is not the same thing at all. The UN does not keep a designation list. The paragraph about the UN Sanctions list that is already there should be enough for this section. The EU should not be in that box either, as it follows the UN Sanctions List. It has a note as well, which should be enough. ~ P-123 (talk) 12:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I have just seen from the wikilink that the UN Sanctions List was not established until 2002 and it says in this article that the EU adopted it in 2001; the citation appended for the EU date says 2002. So the muddle gets worse. Can you add some words about this Sanctions List? I don't want to interfere with your edit which looks fine. Then if you don't mind I will tighten up the para syntax (but not alter the facts). ~ P-123 (talk) 13:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

What are you two talking about? An old consensus based on a failure to read the sources correctly is worthless. P-123 previously agreed with me on this. After I added and sourced it the new consensus is that the UN and EU designations stay. I don't have time to redo all points but its real simple. UN Security council resolution 1267 (199) designated AQ and the taliban (later split off in their own list) as terrorists - please read 1267 - just google is as you can't link directly into the UN site docs. Under 167 the UNSC created a list of organizations and people that fall under the 1267 designation and are to be sanctioned. A secondary source: http://justsecurity.org/15014/isisisil-remains-al-qaida-security-council-so/ A recent secondary source: www.wsj.com/articles/syrian-rebels-issue-demands-for-u-n-hostages-1409662075 (al Nusra cited as a UN designated terrorist - on the list just a few spots from ISIL., kidnapped UN peacekeepers and demanded to be taken off the UN list!) The UN docs are all linked from here http://www.un.org/sc/committees/1267/. Legacypac (talk) 16:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• Legacypac the articles mention of the UN listing of AKA the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant is notable but the content should be presented accurately. I first moved to put descriptive content in the titles but P-123 disagreed. There is now, as far as I can see it, an accurate picture of the situation presented in a corrected sequence of notes beneath the table. What do you think about that wording? Is there a way in which it needs adjusting? I also think that the word designation, in the full context, may be overblown. gregkaye ✍♪ 17:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
• Legacypac To clarify, the UN and EU content contained no designation. It gave an indication of association. Editors are overblowing the importance of the terrorist description at present. gregkaye ✍♪ 17:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages in English

P-123 In an old college of mine there were posters up saying, in not so many words, don't trust Misplaced Pages. To an extent i still think this was harsh - but less so now. gregkaye ✍♪ 12:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Finished copy-editing this article? Some of my very basic copy-eds (for consistent formatting, syntax, etc) are now being reverted by barely literate editors. Copy-editing this article is becoming a waste of time and I will not trawl through it to unearth citations that do not back up the text, which I suspect is a very much bigger problem than seemed until recently. ~ P-123 (talk) 13:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I thought that before coming to Misplaced Pages and am afraid experience in this article confirms it. ~ P-123 (talk) 13:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

P-123 Well if the UN cannot clearly describe al-Quada as terrorist and then generate long listings on associations to al-Quada, then a low standard for specification has been set. gregkaye ✍♪ 13:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

P-123 Perhaps a template could be developed to request users with incoherent grammar etc. to ask them to refer to English advisers before editing. Bad quality edits, I think, are a form of vandalism. This encyclopaedia is meant to be comparable to Britannica. gregkaye ✍♪ 13:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

In some ways it is a repeat of the Israel designation problem, not that the UN are evading anything this time. WP is an encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, there are no rules about having to have a good grasp of the language. You would not believe what I came across in this article when I first started copy-editing it or what I have weeded out since. I refused to touch the clumsy edit about the coalition Yazidi relief operation as the editor is so touchy, but someone has attempted to rescue it since. I would put WP at the bottom of the list of encyclopaedias comparable to the Britannica. It is an insult to it to compare it with WP, IMO! ~ P-123 (talk) 13:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Gas giant

Could you respond to my response to you at Talk:Gas giant#Requested move III, please? Thank you. --JorisvS (talk) 14:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Lead

You will see my reordering of paras in the Lead and reasons for it on the Talk page. I don't think there was consensus on the positioning, though I know and I cannot remember if there was on the ordering inside the "criticism" para. This is an FYI just in case you think I have gone over your head here. WP:BRD seems the best way to make changes now that there are so few editors to discuss things with first. ~ P-123 (talk) 14:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

P-123 This has happened just after I have used a revert. I really can't see the logic of that. If you were looking for a deliberate way to wind me up you have found it. I will have to forget about guarding the document so that I can guard against you. They are not primarily a terrorist organisation. They are a group that conducts ethnic cleansing. They are amongst the most criticised group that there has ever been. Do you think Britannica would have separated the two contents in the lead? I do not see that anything has changed since you made this edit with the fair justification "best to keep terrorist designation and criticisms together, not split between top and bottom". gregkaye ✍♪ 15:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

This edit was done with no thought of what effect it would have on the sensibilities of editors. My main concern is for the article, not editors. I had not seen the effect of the edit I agreed to earlier until yesterday. It gives a very bad impression to start this article with a barrage of criticism. That is profound anti-ISIL POV. I hope you realise "I will have to forget about guarding the document so that I can guard against you" is a WP:PA, and if it were not for you making it, I would do something about it. It is editors like you and Legacypac who does a fine line in the put-down who are driving me away from this page. I consider you and Legacypac to be exerting ownership of this page and am tired of defending it against you. No other editor stands up to you both any more. You both chase away opposition by taking "offenders", i.e. editors who cross you or disagree with you, to some form of arbitration or reporting them to "other parent". It has become very noticeable. This is no way to edit a page. I have tried to be civil with you since the last dispute, but this time will not forgive you. I was considering reverting, but in view of your WP:PA will not and will ping all editors involved in those discussions. I think we had better restrict communication to the main Talk page from now on. I shall not be returning here. ~ P-123 (talk) 15:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

P-123 The lesser issue of terrorist activities has been left at the top of the page. The main criticism of the group is of its merciless killing of people. Terrorist is a Buzzword and, even if attractive to editors, its disproportionate use is unencyclopaedic and pushed according to POV. As I have previously stated I also think that this is dangerous. With regard to arbitration I have once done this long after having made appeals on the user talk page. You noted that comments were full of PA. To be honest I did not even notice the thread on the lead. I had been spending my efforts on chasing down information on the map images as requested and tidying up and relegating the section on Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Criticism of claim as "Islamic State" and "caliphate" which was largely done because I knew that it was a topic that was important to you. gregkaye ✍♪ 16:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I noted one WP:PA. I have made edits following your suggestions on the Talk page as well, and thank you for that. ~ P-123 (talk) 16:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

P-123 I also spoke before even realising that a thread on the subject had even been raised on the subject so apologise for that. I see your reasoning but consider that your POV priorities are wrong regarding the importance of the issues both related to each other and in relation to other contents. Do you think Britannica would have separated the two contents in the lead? gregkaye ✍♪ 16:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

The current wording is fine. Not sure what you mean about designation. Legacypac (talk) 17:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac The current wording of what is fine? This thread relates to the movement of content without textual change. Feel free to delete this and move your comment if appropriate. gregkaye ✍♪ 17:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

P-123 You stated that you "consider the effect of the second para before I changed it to show profound anti-ISIL POV, in that barrage of criticism." could you either add something like ".. from my original edit .." or remove or refactor some of the content. Any pinged editor coming straight to the content may assume that another editor made the original change. I also consider your comment: "gregkaye: Please remember that the consensus was to have the terrorist designation part at the beginning of the Lead and that you have to comply per WP:CONSENSUS. Please do not distract by repeating all the arguments here that you have put before on this" to be unwarranted in all respects. gregkaye ✍♪ 17:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done ~ P-123 (talk) 17:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Is it? Your rhetorical repetition of consensus and unjustified comments on repeating content remain. I am also happy for you to delete my comments in reply. Your reactions to me with their sporadic accusations and insinuations varies depending on circumstances not in my control. I have always attempted to limit these kind of issues to User talk discussion. If there are issues then perhaps you can present them here. gregkaye ✍♪ 18:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

There was an edit conflict and I did not see your subsequent angry remark. I said on the Talk page that the edit I made was to an edit agreed on by editors as far as I remember, which last bit I have just added to satisfy you. I said on the TP there was consensus (1) to move the terrorist designation part to the top of the Lead and (2) on your "judging" wording. I cannot remember whether the ordering of that paragraph was agreed by consensus and said so. I knew there was no consensus to move the criticisms part back to the bottom again, which I did per BRD, and invited editors to comment. I cannot see what is rhetorical about that. Why can you not leave it at that? You are seeing into this more than is there. "Sporadic accusations and insinuations" I object to, as I was trying to show restraint on personal matters on the Talk page. Perhaps you would have preferred me to be frank, which I will be now as that it what you seem to want, and it is this: whenever an editor opposes you on a disputed point that has been much discussed, you tend to repeat at great length only in different words the arguments you have put forward before, and when anyone disagrees again with it, you press the point to destruction. I honestly believe it has been driving editors away. You probably got more than you bargained for there, but I think it is safest for me to be totally frank with you now. I am protecting myself here, not trying to help you, because I do not like the accusations you have been mounting against me recently, which I think are unjustified and quite insulting. I do not want to get involved in yet another of your squabbles with editors so would like to withdraw now. I find this a very good example of the sort of childishness than I mentioned to PBS the other day that I seem to see everywhere I turn in WP now. As I say, I think it is best if we confine exchanges to the main Talk page from now on, although I have something to say about the UN and EU terrorist designation as I have looked carefully at Legacypac's links again and at the wiki article on the crucial UNSC resolution 1267. ~ P-123 (talk) 21:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

P-123 Please note that I have not edited against consensus since the AN/I. As you also know, WP:CONSENSUS is about achieving Misplaced Pages's goal of being an encyclopaedia. As mentioned I do not think that a description of this group in isolation as terrorist is encyclopaedic. As indicated, I think it was gratuitous to say, ".. and that you have to comply per WP:CONSENSUS. Please do not distract by repeating all the arguments here that you have put before on this". In regard to early conduct you have clearly said that you consider it fine for content issues to be raised on article talk pages and you have said that you think it is fine to respond to misrepresentations. This is exactly what I have done. Again if you want to mention accusations you have to be specific. Not being so is not fair/ Anything that I said, and I am happy for you to check, was in response to your content. On the other hand, the way that we have treated each other on the article talk page has been, as the phrase goes, chalk and cheese. In previous contents I justified what I said. You toss in words like squabbles while pointing to no specific content with the clear insinuation that all perceived fault was mine. This again is not fair but yes, unfortunately this is exactly what I have bargained for. Before replying to your last message I had decided that I would just present my case on the talk page and, unless an incorrect content or a misrepresentation of my content is presented, be done with it. Where have I otherwise acted differently? gregkaye ✍♪ 21:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Consensus=never edited against but disputed later. Squabbles=you=Felino=Technophant=each as bad as the other. My impression=much repetition of same arguments (views) on Talk page and most "misrepresentations" too trivial to pursue. Agreeing/disagreeing=normal between two who have fundamentally different views but are not enemies, normal cut-and-thrust, concessions possible. Conclusion/advice (cynical)=don't take everything to heart so much, most people are not worth it, just say bugger to them and ignore it. ~ P-123 (talk) 23:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

P-123 In response to my "could you either add something like ".. from my original edit .." or remove or refactor some of the content", how does this constitute done. Nothing was done "to further clarify". Re your public remark: "this is getting ludicrous". It certainly is. gregkaye ✍♪ 00:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I have written what I believed: it is "as far as I remember". What else do suggest? A blow-by-blow account of how that paragraph came to be written, who agreed with what? Do you think editors cannot read it for themselves? Do they need signposts to those discussions? Do you think they really care? If you wanted something more specific than my addition, you should have given clearer instructions. Are you trying to save face or something? Do you think editors will think the worse of you for my remark? They know I can be brusque and probably think "Oh, it's P-123 going off on one again". I cannot understand why you get so obsessed on these points. Is this a manifestation of your preoccupation with misrepresentation? Can no-one ever make a slightly critical remark on the Talk page without you making a big issue of it? You seem constantly to want redress for perceived slurs. Most people take this sort of thing in their stride on unimportant matters and probably ignore it when it happens to others. This is Misplaced Pages editing, not warfare between ISIL and Muslims or between Jews and Arabs. Come ON! And if you cannot see that this is a slightly bizarre cross between teasing and remonstrating, you don't know me. ~ P-123 (talk) 01:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

P-123 One "blow" would have done it, as was indicated in my earlier edit. My comment was:

• You stated that you "consider the effect of the second para before I changed it to show profound anti-ISIL POV, in that barrage of criticism." could you either add something like ".. from my original edit .." or remove or refactor some of the content.

A direct result of this would have either been, "consider the effect, from my original edit, of the second para before I changed it to show profound anti-ISIL POV, in that barrage of criticism" or "consider the effect of the second para, from my original edit, before I changed it to show profound anti-ISIL POV, in that barrage of criticism."

I had stated: "Any pinged editor coming straight to the content may assume that another editor made the original change."

As I have previously requested, take responsibility for your words. You take the credit for the removal of "profound anti-ISIL POV" but you do not take same sentence responsibility for adding the "profound anti-ISIL POV". In the absence of you taking responsibility here for "profound POV", as said, a pinged editor may think that this POV was "pushed" by someone else.

Your editing content is up to you. You also rhetorically implied a lack of compliance to consensus and also implied actions based on distraction. I have never treated you like this.

You also make mention, in text above, of "accusations you have been mounting against me recently". Issues mentioned came in context. You have also previously made it clear that you don't like contents related to inter editor wrangling to be on display for passing readers to see. In response, I decided to place the related content in archive but despite this you seem insistent on dredging up the past. I am trying my best to do the right thing and honestly don't know what to do. gregkaye ✍♪ 02:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I see what you mean now. First I moved up the terrorist designation part, editors agreed, then I moved up the criticism, editors discussed it all at length, altered parts of it, but agreed both parts should remain at the top. By that stage I honestly didn't regard it as "my" edit any more, but a joint decision, although I can see how it could be seen that way. I was shocked at what I/we had done, then changed it back, per BRD. Don't use kid gloves on me on the Talk page, btw. By lack of compliance I meant challenging consensus, as I explained, which you tend to do, but wasn't suggesting you would go against it, not since the AN/I, and don't think you would. I wasn't aware that you had moved the ISIS TP wrangling to archive. Did you? The memory of that wrangling is still very strong which is why I brought it up. I wasn't referring to users' Talk pages. You must do the right thing by your own lights and not concern yourself with what I or anyone else thinks. It does not matter what we think; no-one is going to take you to "court" again over what you do. I don't for one minute think you will infringe any "rule" but your disputaciousness can be a problem on the Talk page, IMHO. It is late now, but I will try tomorrow to think of a way to amend that wording. ~ P-123 (talk) 03:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I have further redacted the comment, but I had already opened the thread by saying, "I first moved the designations as terrorist organisation part of the Lead to the top and the consensus was to keep it there. I think I made a mistake in moving the criticisms part of the Lead from the bottom to the top to join it. The first thing that hits when reading the Lead now is that second para of heavy criticism." Is that not a clear admission of "guilt"? I have added a "because" to make it even clearer. This is just one of many instances where you have tried to make editors retract or modify their comments and this is very bad practice indeed, IMO. You are lucky that I complied, and I am not surprised other editors have not. I have never known an editor try to do this before. You see it as "fairness", but to me it is thought-police behaviour. Please can you drop this now? ~ P-123 (talk) 09:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Nearly seven screens of text generated because you didn't like one editor's comments is utter madness. You would think you had been libelled. What makes it worse is that I don't think editors will have even noticed. ~ P-123 (talk) 09:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

seven screens of text generated without meaningful response is utter madness.

As far as thought police are concerned, I can respond as I want and so can you. Please actually consider content.

A piece of advice that you have often given me of late is to try to resolve disputes on User talk pages and not let disputes spill over onto article talk pages. I have put a huge amount of effort into this but with little and perhaps no response from anyone but you and Worldedixor - and then Worldedixor disconnected after more issues were raised. I have certainly never had an "I see what you mean now" response from anyone else. WP can indeed be a battleground. In Positioning of "Terrorist designation" infobox Felino123 and Azx2 both delivered unjustified attacks on me in regard to consensus to which I am grateful that you said, "Would editors please be careful when they use the word "consensus"? Gregkaye is right, there was no consensus at this point." You have also forcefully argued some specific arguments regarding censorship activities on the page. Then in Talk:ISIL#Lead you said, "gregkaye: Please remember that the consensus was to have the terrorist designation part at the beginning of the Lead and that you have to comply per WP:CONSENSUS. Please do not distract by repeating all the arguments here that you have put before on this." Please see: Freedom of speech. There have been attempts on the ISIL talk page to shut down talk page discussion before as in this instance which followed I think 2 instances in which I had gone against talk page Vote:consensus on the jihadist issue. Despite the context of a thread whose whole premiss was based on a stilted untruth I replied politely here. As was always the case with Technophant, my calmly presented question "On what grounds do you say that editors should "refrain from discussion here"? remained unanswered. I have neither been able to gain meaningful dialogue with certain editors at any talk page location and this has not been for lack of trying. I similarly don't appreciate your discussion shut down and pre-judgemental comment: "Please do not distract by repeating all the arguments here that you have put before on this." Its a new thread. Do you expect something such as a new reader to read back through all previously related threads before responding? You do not own the page. You do not own my responses.

In regard to your accusation of my "disputaciousness" you have previously stated that it is perfectly acceptable to defend against misrepresentations. See: squabble. I am quite in my rights to dispute what I consider to be unfairly presented arguments. If you disagree with this then dispute resolution is also available. Please, let's resolve things. I have made concerted efforts with you to achieve resolution with you as per User_talk:Gregkaye#My admission of wrong, my first thread since my mass archive, and in it I made a concerted personally initiated effort to clarify the lines. That thread is still open. I suggest that if you have further accusations of "disputaciousness" that this would be a suitable contextualised place to raise them. I echo some of Legacypac's comments. There are more important issues to deal with. If you have a disagreement then mention it. I will maintain my right to respond. There are no thought police. As per my reply to you here, "people can think what they like. the only issue is what they do".

The issue presented in Talk:ISIL#Lead presents a purported problem of a previous condition of "the second para before I changed it to show profound anti-ISIL POV, in that barrage of criticism" but you never once make direct comment that you were editor that instituted this seemingly heinous crime. Take another look at the lead in the state it was in before your edit. (Para 1: 4.5 lines of text al-be-it with bold type; para 2: 5 lines of text; paras 3-4: 12-13 lines on group history; para 5: 8 lines on the groups goals, ideologies and claims; para 6; 1+ lines mentioning propaganda and beheading, added by an unknown editor and the inclusion of which you disputed). Criticism is a big part the worldwide real world situation regarding this group. A change in section title from "Criticism" to "Torrent of criticism" would not be unwarranted. It has been unrelenting.

The second paragraph has now been changed from a content describing real issues to content that will likely be interpreted as international name calling and fairly so. Misplaced Pages, by "consensus" has not even got its names right. My clarification of the UN's response has already been hacked. Another thing at the back of my mind is that I think the workers at the al-Hayat Media Center may be quite happy about this resultant situation. gregkaye ✍♪ 10:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Have you not read my latest comment or seen my redactions? Drop it, Greg. Legacypac is right about the UN terrorist designation, btw. Read all the links he provided and the wiki article on resolution 1267, especially http://justsecurity.org/15014/isisisil-remains-al-qaida-security-council-so/ and http://www.wsj.com/articles/syrian-rebels-issue-demands-for-u-n-hostages-1409662075. You can get an unpaywalled version of the WSJ article if you google it. If you take issue with any of that, refer to Legacypac. I think the designation should stay. P-123 (talk) 10:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

P-123 I will happily drop anything whenever I am enabled to do so. Please, if at any time you want to make accusations in the future, be specific and state the content concerned. If I then think I am wrong I will happily retract, apologise or whatever. You are quite entitles to think what you like and, in regard to any of your accusations, I will be quite happy to agree to disagree. In any case where an unjustified accusation of wrong is maintained regarding some unsubstantiated catalogue of offence or some such, I will respond.

In turn, if I make an accusation regarding a content that I think is unfair. An editor can either reply to say why s/he thinks the content is fair, give some other reply or not respond. There is no restriction. If you have a problem with this then please go to dispute resolution. Please see: the term "Rebel group controlling territory" is fake term made up in order to replace the term "unrecognized state". Compared to the responses of others I am extremely moderate. Why not tackle others as well. I also would like a collegiate atmosphere to further develop on Misplaced Pages. I think that part of this is the straightforward representation of situations. The consensus that you referred to related to the expressed views of four editors and was finalised in the context of your edit made on the view that it would be "best to keep terrorist designation and criticisms together, not split between top and bottom". All points were later made in that context. You understand the parameters of consensus and understand that this case is not beyond fairly presented dispute. I still do not understand your approach here or your framing of the discussion - but I have said all this already. gregkaye ✍♪ 11:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)