Talk:Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi - Wikipedia


1 person in discussion

Article Images
WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS

The article Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, along with other pages relating to the Syrian Civil War and ISIL, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:

  • Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period)

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.

Remedy instructions and exemptions

Enforcement procedures:

  • Violations of any restrictions (excluding 1RR/reverting violations) and other conduct issues should be reported to the administrators' incidents noticeboard. Violations of revert restrictions should be reported to the administrators' edit warring noticeboard.
  • Editors who violate any listed restrictions may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
  • An editor must be aware before they can be sanctioned.

With respect to any reverting restrictions:

  • Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
  • Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as clear vandalism.
  • Clear vandalism of any origin may be reverted without restriction.
  • Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

A UPE sockfarm closely associated with Michael Patrick Mulroy has substantially edited this article and other related articles. This sockfarm main interest was promoting Mulroy (often with reliable sources but undue weight) and his colleages, as well as introducing refspam to articles written by them and other members of Lobo Institute. Some edits may be due, and I'm unfamiliar with the topic. Could someone review the following edits and clean up if necessary?

Thank you! MarioGom (talk) 12:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:07, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:52, 20 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

There is a statement at the end of the first paragraph of this article that reads: "Some journalists have alleged that al-Baghdadi was Jewish and affiliated with Mossad." Four sources are listed for this statement. However, while some of the sources reference the allegation that Al-Baghdadi was a Mossad agent, none of the sources support or even mention the allegation that he was Jewish. In light of this, what should be done with this statement? RoughEndofthePineapple (talk) 17:52, 18 November 2022 (UTC) (RoughEndofthePineapple, 12:52PM, 11/18/2022)Reply

  • Remove. Sourcing is inadequate for such an extraordinary claim. If retained, it should not be in the lead. (Summoned by bot) Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:35, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • Remove from the lead unless higher-quality sources are provided. Definitely remove the statement that he was Jewish (which none of the other sources say); the statement that he worked for the Mossad, while technically reported in the cited sources, is treated as a conspiracy theory in the higher-quality ones, while I don't think the Daily Trust or the Janta Ka Reporter are high-quality enough to treat it as leadworthy. It might be worth covering as a claim made by Iran in the body, but it is probably not leadworthy and should be more clearly attributed; we should also directly cover the sources calling it a conspiracy theory or saying it is false. --Aquillion (talk) 20:14, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • Remove [article] from Haaretz mentions the claim which has been perpetuated by senior members of the Iranian government, whose views in recent time have widely been considered to be fringe and unsubstantiated. I might be in favour of adding a line somewhere in the article (but not in the introductory paragraph) stating "members of the Iranian government have alleged that al-Baghdadi was Jewish and a member of Mossad, however, such claims have remained unsubstantiated". I should also note that if you look at User:Atiqul Islam Sakib recent contributions, they have been involved in several edit wars where they have tried to push unsourced conspiracy theory narratives. SBA19 (talk) 00:31, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • Remove – The sentence: "Some journalists have alleged that al-Baghdadi was Jewish and affiliated with Mossad.[16][17][18][19]" should be removed from the lead, since it gives undue weight to a false rumour. Also, for clarity in regards to the sources:
Source 16 is a reprint of an article from Infowars which is an unreliable source. The article only states that he is a Mossad agent and does not state that he is Jewish. This unreliable source should be removed.
Source 17 is an article by Haaretz which only states that Iran claims that the Islamic State group is a creation of Mossad. The article does not mention anything about al-Baghadadi being Jewish.
Source 18 is an article which claims based on a UN report that Israel is supporting Islamic State. If you go to the UN document, it does not support this claim. This unreliable source should be removed.
Source 19 is an article by Politifact which disproves the rumor that Islamic State was created by Israel/Mossad. This source can be kept to disprove the rumor that al-Baghdadi is a Mossad agent.
If the sentence is added to the body of the article, it needs to be made clear, as stated in the Politfact article, that this is a false rumour, which countries like Iran, have been promoting for propaganda purposes with no evidence. --Guest2625 (talk) 09:43, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

If I am reading the article history correctly, this was removed once and then re-added; the edit summary says that the edit restoring it was adding sources, but it did not. Leaping straight to an RFC with no discussion seems premature - obviously it should be left out without sources, but we should try and get a sense of what's up first. @Atiqul Islam Sakib:, who restored the text - did you intend to restore it without adding sources? Do you have any sources? --Aquillion (talk) 20:14, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

I did discuss this issue with the user who put in this information-but on their account talk page, so apologies if that was the wrong forum. While I admit I did not start off in the most diplomatic way and assumed anti-semitism, I tried to re-engage in a more constructive way afterward. The latest reply I sent him was to ask him to remove the part of the statement at issue that states that 'sources state that Abu-Bakr Al-Baghdadi was Jewish', because none of the sources state that or even reference that idea. He has not responded since.
I suppose it would be good to let him present his side, but if there is no explanation forthcoming, is there a way to ensure that whatever is done with the statement at issue, (remaining as is, moved down the page, put in as a footnote, language edited, or removed) it isn't subject to constant future changes/ edit wars? RoughEndofthePineapple (talk) 05:07, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • I'm going to go ahead and remove the RfC template from this discussion: the content at-issue appears to have already been removed, there's a strong consensus against it so far in this discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 16:51, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply