User talk:P123ct1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Congratulations on your new archive[edit]

It's always good to keep things organized. Anyway, I finally am back at my computer and have checked out the article and it definitely mentions that Israel declared both ISIL (S? Whatever) and the Abdullah Azzam Brigades as teroris organizations (I intentionally misspell words like that to avoid certain filters). However, the talk page for the article on the former is really long. Where exactly is the discussion being held there? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

ISIS infoboxes[edit]

Thanks. However, I can't adjust the organization box to make them match the country box dimensions, because the length depends on how many bytes are taking up the space. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 07:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)



I know you've given this a fair bit of thought and wondered whether it might be appropriate to suggest scrapping this section and just keeping the link in history. I recently gave the section the title "Timeline (latest events)" but it still takes three lines in the TOC. Current page size is 205,088 bytes. Cheers. Gregkaye 17:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

@Gregkaye: Couldn't agree more. Have never been able to understand why it is duplicated in the ISIS article. I think a link with suitable wording is enough. --P123ct1 (talk) 18:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


Linking is really quite simple once you get the hang of it. [moved instructions here to userpage] I hope that helps -- PBS (talk) 19:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for going to all that trouble PBS, it is really appreciated. I think I will add this to my userpage! --P123ct1 (talk) 20:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I used to put stuff like this on my main user page, I now put notes like this into a subpage -- unimaginatively called user:PBS/Notes. If you look at my user page you will see that I have various subpages for different things. -- PBS (talk) 20:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
@PBS: Good tip. Thanks. --P123ct1 (talk) 20:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
If you decide that you want change the look of your user page then take a look at WP:UPDC and if that looks too complicated there are other users willing to help (see WP:UPH) -- PBS (talk) 20:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
@PBS: I haven't been here long enough (since Feb this year) to put much into it. I'm just a humble copy-editor! But thanks. --P123ct1 (talk) 20:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey this is the translation[edit]

I hope this is the article you mentioned. I haven't been logging in much to be honest. I'm sorry for the delay as truthfully I could have done this before, but we're all hit by procrastination sometimes. Anyway:

I was pretty certain Worldedixor's translation was accurate, which of course it is, but obviously it had to be corroborated by an independent source. I saw a WP guideline on this stressing the point, but cannot remember now where. I am not very good on WP guidelines and policy. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 11:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

UK Designation of ISIL[edit]

I reverted your revert of my change to the UK listing date. Please read pages 13, 14 and 15 of the linked Home Office doc and refer to Al-Qaida's listing of for the March 2011 date. If you still disagree, we can discuss. I understand that the UK designation ties in with the EU designation which ties back to the US Security Council designation. Legacypac (talk) 01:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac: Sorry, I missed it. It says March 2001 in the document, not 2011, and the spelling is "al-Qaeda" as per the Wiki article on al-Qaeda and this article. Could you alter the infobox, please? --P123ct1 (talk) 08:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Legacypac: I see your "UN Sanctions List" in the infobox has been changed to "via UN Sanctions", which is meaningless, so you may want to alter that as well. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 11:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Ok we are on the same page. Yes March 2001 not 2011. I'm ok if you make the adjustments. Legacypac (talk) 20:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Legacypac: Please would you correct them as they were your errors? Moving the cell in the infobox to fit in with the date sequence is particularly tricky and I am not used to dealing with infoboxes. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 09:34, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


Hi P123ct1, I have previously found (Talk:Anti-Semitism etc.) that people talk most about WP:consensus when their arguments are not supported by policy. Category:Wikipedia discussion, WP:VOTE, Wikipedia:Consensus not numbers and WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT may find relevance. Who knows? Gregkaye 09:33, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk pages[edit]

Please place a diff on my user page and I will tell you what I think. -- PBS (talk) 11:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I was not sure who was altering section headers so I used a nifty tool called Wikipedia:WikiBlame which is usually used to help to find copyright violation but is also useful for other things.

PBS: Only a few of the linked discussions are consecutive. They can run in parallel with considerable overlap even though one may begin before another. This is why your point never occurred to me, but I understand what you mean. This is also why a couple of them, or at least in one because I did it, have a note at the end of the thread saying please stop commenting here and continue in the linked discussion (with name). Surely it would help editors to know about all the discussions there might be on a topic? Leaving it to the end of the thread to tell them is not as helpful, I think. Perhaps each link underneath the main heading could indicate whether it is "earlier" or "later" discussion. If I can think of a short way of doing that I could add it. I take your point about adding "archive "n"". ~ P123ct1 (talk) 17:43, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Anbar campaign (2013–14)[edit]

I was wondering if you could help me rewrite this article. It includes an event around new year 2013 that seems to be the spark that ignited this current conflict into what it is, however it isn't written well at all. There's also poor coverage of these events in the Timeline and complete absence of these events in the ISIL article.~Technophant (talk) 18:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I can knock it into shape by rewriting badly-written passages and cleaning up syntax, grammar, etc, if that is what you mean? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 19:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
The account in the Lead is a horrendous muddle, going by the citation appended. It will have to be completely rewritten. I am surprised no-one has done this before. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 20:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes. I perhaps at the time there wasn't foreknowledge as to what these events would lead to. Best to put article comments on article talk page.~Technophant (talk) 10:21, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't looking at it with hindsight, I was just comparing the Lead with the citation, and it misrepresented it woefully. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 17:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 3 November[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Timeline 2[edit]

@P123ct1: What were your reasons for supporting the removal of timeline content from ISIL? Mine were only the length of the content and that it wasn't within the history section. Just a thought. Gregkaye 21:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

@Gregkaye: It just seemed logical that as there was a separate timeline article there was no need to duplicate parts of it in this article. I have always thought that. If it has to stay, it will have to be at the end, as after the history section would mess up the article. Not very satisfactory I know.
I think our friend is back. The shadowing is a dead giveaway.  :D ~ P123ct1 (talk) 21:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Whoever that was I'm glad it's gone. Makes me feel like turtle dancing! on YouTube~Technophant (talk) 04:37, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I was wondering whether it would be possible to get a limited content from timeline at the end of history and to make notable members as a stand alone section. Even 0 - ~30 days might work rather than ~30 - ~60 days. I've mentioned this on the talk page. Gregkaye 22:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

@Gregkaye: I think having "Notable members" as a standalone would be a good idea. Where could it go? Even ~30 days would unbalance the page, I think, and it would push "Criticism" down again. One reason why I moved the appendix-like section on "Support" and "Opponents" to the end was so that "Criticism" would rise higher. Though it was discussed on the Talk page I am waiting for someone to revert that bold move! ~ P123ct1 (talk) 22:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I think we need a significant criticism content in the lead. I think a timeline content might go well in history. My ideal would be 7 days but 0 - 30 averages at ~2 weeks Gregkaye 22:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
@Gregkaye:I don't mind much one way or the other, really. But I agree there needs to be more criticism in the Lead, at the end. I have said so on the Talk page. You realize this will be interpreted as tag-teaming, don't you? Ridiculous, but any ammunition will do for our friend. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 22:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I moved the onlyinclude tag, now there's about 15 days of material. Almost all of the citations put into the timeline are bare urls with no titles. I haven't taken a look to see who is doing it.~Technophant (talk) 04:31, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


How do you make an indented list, 1, 2, 3, 4, etc? MoS on lists says uses #, but when I do that, they all come out as "1.", "1.", "1.", etc. I asked at the Help Desk and they said the same, use "#". Is there something wrong at my end? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Don't use extra line breaks. See:
  1. one
  2. two
  3. three

cheers~Technophant (talk) 01:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I made a similar suggestion on the Help Desk. ~Technophant (talk) 02:06, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Technophant Thanks. I was trying to convert the "History of names" from a bulleted list to a numbered list and it wouldn't work there, but I have found a way to do it at last. It worked when I made my own list. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 08:20, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
I hope you were able to figure out your problem. It's hard without being able to see what's on your screen. There's a remote desktop software program I've used to help people remotely with computer problem called Teamviewer. It's free to download and install at their website, (use the full install). It's safe, secure, reliable and trusted by millions of personal and professional user. I recommend that you look into installing you can accept remote assistance requests.~Technophant (talk) 12:31, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Technophant That is a very good tip, thanks. I have used the Village Pump technical help desk for problems like this before (usually much more complicated ones than this) and it is sometimes very difficult describing in words for them what is on the screen and what I have done or attempted. I am not very computer-literate but by trial and error and sheer persistence I usually get there in the end! For example, when the Help Desk said they suspected I had started a new line each time, I tried running all the text together into a block, saving it, then splitting it up back into paras with the code for the numbering and it worked! I have taught myself how to use lots of new software programs as they evolved over the years, but wikitext still baffles me. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 13:34, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


Any chance[edit]

Any chance that you can alter your edit on talk:ISIL at 15:57, 9 November 2014 from "editors wish to retain the word unqualified" to "editors so far wish to retain the word unqualified" or something similar. I really feel that !voting has been blocked and harried at various points and that it may need opportunities. I often use the phrase not wanting to close the discussion but any such text is up to you. Gregkaye 13:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Widr. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Tempo (Indonesian magazine) because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Widr (talk) 19:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Can I get some copy ed advice :)[edit]

I'm thinking of starting a thread regarding the last para of the lead with a first write up to follow my signature. Please feel free to change wording or otherwise make suggestions. Thanks. Gregkaye 20:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Message to editor[edit]

I know you cannot reply to this, Worldedixor, but I send you greetings and hope you are well. I have often thought about you since the ban and hope you are thinking of appealing it. It would be a shame for Wikipedia to lose you as an editor, where your careful contributions are not forgotten by some of us. I look forward to being able to work with you again as we did in July and hope that we can put the past behind us. With best wishes, P123ct1 (talk) 15:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

PS I will remove this message after a while when I think you have perhaps read it.

Your intent here?[edit]

Do you have any constructive comments on the revised order or will you stick to assuming bad faith (yet again) and disparaging me and my efforts to improve the article? I'm here to build a better encyclopedia, not sure why you seem to want to fight. Legacypac (talk) 17:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

No, Legacypac, I believe your reorganisation was done in good faith, but it seemed to me to oppose some basic things in Wikipedia, discussion of major edits before they are made and broadbrush consensus agreement. This is what happened the last time there was a wholesale revision of the ordering. Please don't assume that the motive behind my criticisms is to pick a fight. You have worked hard on this article and made a lot of improvements, but I just wish you could have taken editors' views more into account this time. I assume and hope you will not resist any criticism of it. We clash on the way we see things in WP editing and it is unfortunate that lately it has made us both believe the worst of each other. I hope this can stop now. I don't have any criticism of the new ordering as you will probably be pleased to hear I am beginning to lose interest in editing the ISIS page, but at first glance it looks fine. On the other matter, let me add that collapsing has always bothered me, whoever does it, for the reason I gave on PBS's Talk page. I would have said what I did whoever the editor was. Can we call a truce on the unpleasantness now that we understand each other a little better, I hope? We used to get along, whatever happened to that? Face-sad.svg ~ P123ct1 (talk) 18:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough - I think we have an understanding. Thank-you. Would you please comment on the talk page about the reorg itself rather then the process. It will go along way toward helping build a positive environment there. Legacypac (talk) 18:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Legacypac Okay, will do. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 18:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


Hi P123ct1, You made this strong statement "flouts WP:NPOV, yet again" in the talk page thread title Article Section Reorg - from 14 top level headings to 6. I hope that you will have seen last replies.

Gregkaye What do you mean by less than descriptive comment? Which part of the encyclopaedia reference are you referring to? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 08:11, 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. Gregkaye 08:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Gregkaye I prefer it when you criticise me directly as on the TP just now re this. It makes for a more meaningful exchange. :) ~ P123ct1 (talk) 09:18, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 :) Gregkaye 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 Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. PBS' comments on my talk page at 13:17, 14 November 2014 in regard to the [b] thread included: "there is clearly bad faith between editors involved in the exchange." Gregkaye 10:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how you would broach this in mediation. I can see what that wording is driving at, but I think the sentence (I don't think you came up with it, did you?) is badly written and needs to be made more precise. It is too obscure. Is this wording to go in an efn footnote attached to "jihadist"? The wikilink for "jihadsim" is useless for this purpose, IMO; it has just one vague sentence on the difference between the way modern media use the word and its true meaning for Islam. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 11:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Name change for Islamic State article[edit]

As you know, there is a moratorium on discussing name changes for this article. I just wanted to ask what will happen once the moratorium ends, and if I am unable to voice my opinion when the time comes. StanMan87 (talk) 12:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

StanMan87 I am not the right person to ask as I have no idea. Do you think you should post this message on the Talk page? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 12:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Apologies, I thought you knew as you were the one who brought it to my attention that a moratorium on name changes existed. I'll post this message in the talk page. StanMan87 (talk) 12:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Hebrew Israel citation/Israel inclusion[edit]

True to form the Israel cell in the table for terrorist organizations is already populated with three citations. I remember from a certain RfC that a certain editor had previously pushed regarding the validity of foreign language citations. 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 terohr) 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. Face-smile.svg

I also think that the Indonesian entry is more than a little suspect. Gregkaye 15:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

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. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 16:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I found the relevant part on my Talk page re translation here. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 16:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
And here. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 17:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I'll just read the second link. Thanks. I am kind of wondering how reliable a source 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. Gregkaye 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 WP:RSN mentioned here, got nowhere there, then get the Arabic translation, then put in those three citations to back up the designation. It was a lot of hard work. The RSN was useless, as Legacypac also discovered when he found proper citations for the United Nations terrorist designation. ~ P123ct1 (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, ~ P123ct1 (talk) 18:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Its strange because I've searched in a few ways on the Yedioth Ahronoth site, for instance on the first and last names of the guy that was meant to be speaking and on terms like Daas ("Islamic State" doesn't seem to be used) and terror all on 3rd September when the report was meant to be made and have done other searches as well. I found nothing which is odd. (This is just reporting to say things have been done. Its not a request). I did lots of other searching as well and nothing came up. In other news searches I have found nothing on Israel calling the group terrorist but only found that one official document. The western media reported that Israel had called the group unlawful and as just the Arabic source said they called them terrorist, I think that the Arabic source is probably sensationalising or something. In this case we can go back to an original document which contradicts secondary sources. Gregkaye 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? Gregkaye 20:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Gregkaye Of course, and cut out my "what" comment if you like. What about the Jewish JP Updates citation, where it mentions "terrorist"? You obviously won't find anything if you use "terrorist" as a search word, as the Israeli government uses "unlawful" to designate groups as terrorist and do not use the word "terrorist" in designations the way other countries do. I have said that already, I think, or it may have cropped up on the Talk page. Search using "unlawful" and it may be more fruitful. ~ P123ct1 (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. Gregkaye 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). ~ P123ct1 (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 wikt:designate groups as "terrorist", we should not put words in their mouths that they have chosen not to use. Gregkaye 20:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I think I will ask all the people I had fights with over anti-Semitism Gregkaye 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? ~ P123ct1 (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. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 21:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
This goes back to the cat sat on the mat joke, of course. Face-smile.svg ~ P123ct1 (talk) 21:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Gregkaye You could always use the WP translation service to translate the Hebrew citations I listed, or any others you may come across. That may help. The link for that is WP:HD here. Don't trust Google Translate, they're rubbish. ~ P123ct1 (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 List of designated terrorist organizations. However not all governments are on this list and for good reason. They have not themselves designated these organisations to be terrorist. Israel, from all Hebrew texts that I have so far taken my basic steps through, has not designated Daesh, as they tend to designate them, by terrorist type terminologies.

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: 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 12:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

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. ~ P123ct1 (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. ~ P123ct1 (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. Gregkaye 16:22, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Gregkaye: From reputation, though not experience because mine has always been good, you could be right. Did you find ISIL on that government list of 10 terrorist oganisations or not? If they are NOT on that list (can you confirm?) probably best to remove and add a note at the bottom of the designation infobox, along with a note about Indonesia. Did you see the article about the Israeli government's plans to list the organizations? I wonder how that list will be worded. ;S Sorry about pings, keep forgetting whose page I am on. Face-sad.svg ~ P123ct1 (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. Gregkaye 16:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Gregkaye: Sorry, missed the link. Google, internet searching, lists of links, wikitext, etc I absolutely loathe, tbh, tend to glaze over whenever I see them. That link might be useful to quote in the note I suggested under the designation box. I have noticed the ping notification lists behaving erratically in the last few days. I will look at the link ~ P123ct1 (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. Gregkaye 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. Gregkaye 17:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Gregkaye It was my fault, thinking the translated Arabic citation reflected the truth, when clearly it was a misreport. I was just curious to see the citation you quoted, which am now looking at. Probably best to drop the whole thing and remove Israel. Didn't realise Israel wasn't in the state opponents section, have not followed the development of that section, or the TP discussions on Israel, can only remember something about intelligence aid. If I had, maybe I would have twigged earlier. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 18:00, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Gregkaye I see ISIL is listed no. 350 on that spreadsheet as an "unlawful" association and there are many "terrorist" designations, so proof positive the Israel has not given it a terrorist designation. Will remove Israel from infobox and Lead and leave a note on the TP, and one for the infobox later. Thanks for your careful sleuthing. Your background knowledge has helped, thanks. ~ P123ct1 (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. Gregkaye 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. Gregkaye 18:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Gregkaye: (edit conflict) The date at no.350 is the date given in two of the three citations in the infobox, including that Arabic one, 3rd September 2014. I doubt Israel has changed its mind since 3rd September. Why are you adding a column for Israel in that article, if they obviously haven't designated them as a terrorist organization? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 18:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Gregkaye: Have just seen what you said on the TP and I added the link to that doc. THE END. (I hope Face-smile.svg) ~ P123ct1 (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


I saw you removed indonesia designation. and 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)

Gregkaye; What is your opinion on this? Should Indonesia go back into the terrorist designation infobox? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 08:37, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I just wrote a customary lengthy text Face-smile.svg on this but I had a prob with edit conflict that my lap top didn't resolve so you've been spared. In short id:Negara_Islam_Irak_dan_Syam#Penyebut_sebagai_organisasi_teroris trusts the same ref as the English page ( ) which states that id:Ansyaad Mbai, has said that the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is categorized as a terrorist organization. Of course the Indonesians may have copied the English article but they trust the ref. Maybe we just haven't found central refs. or maybe the Indonesian government don't produce/publish them. I don't have a reason to doubt the Indonesian ref like I did the Israeli one. Gregkaye 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? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 10:19, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Gregkaye Sorry, forgot to ping you re the above. ~ P123ct1 (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) Gregkaye 16:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC) ping: @Legacypac: