Jump to content

Talk:Ansar Bait al-Maqdis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Recent edit

[edit]

I removed some recent, unsourced material from the article. The information is accurate, but it needs a source if it's going to stay. 132.76.50.6 (talk) 09:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The cited article for the Muslim Brotherhood connection is not credible

[edit]

No one outside of Egypt takes seriously the idea that Khairat al-Shater or the Muslim Brotherhood are 'funding' or 'directing' this outfit. Their ideologies and goals are fundamentally at odds. The cited newspaper is more or less a propaganda mouthpiece for the new military regime in Cairo (it's owned by Naguib Suwairis, one of the main backers of the 2013 coup).

I am not going to delete the sentence for now, but I would strongly suggest that another editor on this article consider the seriousness of this charge, its libelous nature vis a vis Khairat al-Shater, and the propaganda value of such a statement and its prominent position in Wikipedia. I nominate the sentence for deletion.jackbrown (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it is concern for a living person to be accused in an article to be sponsoring a group designated a terrorist organisation by many countries, and only on the say so of a political opponent. There also seem to me to be serious ideological differences between the Muslim Brotherhood and ABM which would make an alliance highly unlikely. I have removed the claim pending further information by WP:RS. Gazkthul (talk) 22:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the translation of "Bait al-Maqdis" wrong?

[edit]

Shouldn't the translation of of Bait al-Maqdis be The Temple (literally, the house of the holiness)?
I'd appreciate any authorise Arabic ⇄ English translators' opinion.
Ronbarak (talk) 18:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would interpret yes and no. The words "Holy House" are a synonym of temple and are wikilinked to temple of Jerusalem. I personally think that this is one of those things that could be well presented in a number of different ways. GregKaye 13:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we move the article to a new one with the name "Wilayat Sinai" ?

[edit]

The group changed their name we should redirect this page to a new page

I agree, but perhaps we need more consensus before moving it Gazkthul (talk) 23:39, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We usually go by the most commonly used name in the sources, not the official name. Best to wait and see if "Wilayat Sinai" will be picked up by enough sources in the future. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 00:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Attention! This is a glaring error in the article. You claim ABM became Wilayat Sina' - as if all members did. That's not the case. There are ongoing ABM attacks. It would be incorrect to move discussion entirely to Wilayat Sina' as if ABM had ceased (and you should revise). On the name, why would you change the group's name to ISIL in Sinai, when that second group's name means State of Sinai? (SZ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:82:42EB:7ACA:39FF:FEBB:7586 (talk) 18:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is already Government jurisdictions called North Sinai and South Sinai it would be better to use ISIL in Sinai This way no confusion about this group being a legitimate government. Legacypac (talk) 09:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Someone has created an article here: Wilayah Sinai. David O. Johnson (talk) 19:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wilayat Sinai would be a POV name. It is a minority group there and the territory is disputed. How can the subject be regarded to be "Province of Sinai" by any language presentation or definition? GregKaye 12:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In support of prospective title terminology for a creation of a subsequent article I support "ISIL in Sinai"

To describe "Province of Sinai" in any language seems to me to be massively POV. When it can be shown that the people in Sinai and perhaps of Egypt give support to the idea of Sinai as being an ISIL province then, at that time, I would support the a wilayah or province type name but I believe that we are very far from that situation. GregKaye 13:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move (November 2014)

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 08:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ansar Bait al-Maqdis → ISIL in Sinai – Propose Use of the acronym ISIL is consistent with Military of ISIL, 2014 ISIL takeover of Derna (in naming using ISIL - but a different situation on how they got there), 2014 ISIL beheading incidents. Sinai is consistent with what they are calling the new province and the geographic name but does not suggest a functioning government like Wilayat Sinai / Province of Sinai does. This branch appears confined to Sinai so Egypt is not needed in title. The media will always write stuff like "Islamic State"/ISIL did this or that in Sinai" so the title should have staying power. While this is a contrived title, see WP:NDESC for policy support. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 20:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC) Legacypac (talk) 18:46, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Things may change rapidly in a week but at the moment I have a slight preference for Fitzcarmalan's view that waiting may be good. Having said that I also prefer the terminology ISIL to Wilayat which, today, isn't commonly understood in the west. Gregkaye ✍♪ 21:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment I've just had a look at the article and am concerned that a significant contingent of, I assume, good faith editors had changed content so as to indicate near wholesale allegiance to ISIL. A faction has not gone that way. A choice is set to either take the article and make it into ISIL in Sinai or similar or to leave it either as a historical record or as a record of a now diminished group. Gregkaye ✍♪ 18:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now A page move is a good idea but I'd like to hold off for the moment until events have time to shake out, and there is a chance to see if a consensus RS name becomes widely adopted in the immediate future. Gazkthul (talk) 00:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In any case, I think we should re-add the Wilayat Sinai logo ([1]) somewhere in the article. 130.64.98.51 (talk) 19:32, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The proposed proposition is consistent with the Al-Qaeda affiliates in Yemen (Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula) and North Africa (Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb). However, is it necessary to disregard the name Ansar Bait al-Maqdis, even if it is an affiliate of the Islamic State? The Al-Qaeda affiliate in Syria, Al-Nusra Front, is recognized as Al-Qaeda in Syria, yet retains its own name, even after its leader swore allegiance to Ayman al-Zawahiri over Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in early 2013. Does Ansar Bait al-Maqdis operate under that name or is it now known as 'IS/ISIS/ISIL in Sinai? StanMan87 (talk) 11:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It changed it's name from Ansar Bait al-Maqdis to Wilayat Sinai (Sinai Province). Gazkthul (talk) 21:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, a new article has been created as at Province of Sinai. This allows for a history to now be written regarding this part of the rebel group under its apparent new leadership while allowing the article to remain both a historic document and a continuation of content on the remaining part of the group. Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Became Wilayat Sinai

[edit]

Hasn't Ansar Bait al-Maqdis dissolved and become officially apart of the Islamic State? StanMan87 (talk) 15:21, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A large part of its Sinai composition have become active ISIL supporters. Whether supporters or not Sinai based ex-members of Ansar Bait al-Maqdis live in the area controlled by the ISIL supporters. I do not know of research or official speculations as to numbers of militant Islamists that may have moved to area so as to add to the number of ISIL loyalists. GregKaye 13:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ansar Bait al-Maqdis isn't part of ISIL, as indicated in the infobox; ISIL supporters call themselves Wilayah Sinai. David O. Johnson (talk) 06:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

This article pertains to Ansar Bait al-Maqdis, so the Ansar Bait al-Maqdis logo should be kept.David O. Johnson (talk) 05:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Bulbajer (talk) 21:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ansar Bait al-Maqdis and ISIL

[edit]

Hello David O. Johnson, you just reverted my edit in the infobox which stated Ansar Bait al-Maqdis is allied with ISIL. May I ask why? Mbcap (talk) 07:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ABM changed its name [2].David O. Johnson (talk) 07:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the prompt reply. I am confused. Your edit summary said the information that was added is incorrect as they are allied with AQ and not ISIL. Your reply just now cites an article which states that they are allied with ISIL. Is there something I am not seeing? Mbcap (talk) 08:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ABM was allied w/ AQ; members of ABM affiliated w/ ISIL call themselves Wilayat Sinai.David O. Johnson (talk) 08:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They are allied with ISIL as per your previous citation and also these 8 other sources; [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], and [10]. My question is why can't we write in the infobox that they are allied with ISIL since that is what is stated in reliable sources and they are no longer with AQ. You also mentioned they have changed their name to Wilyat Sinai which yes after doing some reading, I agree with. Creating an article for that is a possibility so that we can include this information. However as it has been deleted before and due to my unfamiliarity with the weight this group is afforded in reliable sources, I am not able to consider such an action as of yet. Please let me know how we can go forward on the "allied with ISIL" issue. Mbcap (talk) 08:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does the person who is deleting updates on the latest attacks know anything about Egypt? Please have a knowledgeable editor here. Anasar/Sinai Province has has pledged allegiance to Islamic State, and did an attack yesterday that killed at least 30 people and wounded many. --67.68.244.247 (talk) 14:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David O. Johnson Please do not delete well sourced information. If you would like something like that changed, please outline your reasons here first for other editors to consider. Also going back to the issue about them allied to ISIL, the evidence above shows that is the case. Therefore I will re-insert that information. Mbcap (talk) 05:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The JPost source you cite states "Ansar is Egypt's most lethal militant group, which used to be called Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis before recently changing its name to Sinai Province." [11]. Haaretz also mentions the same thing: "Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis, Egypt's most lethal militant group, changed its name to Sinai Province last year after swearing allegiance to Islamic State, the hardline Sunni militant group that has seized swathes of Iraq and Syria. (Reuters)". [12]. It's clear that ABM is not affiliated w/ ISIL. The info on the most recent attack does not belong on this page, since ABM did not commit it.David O. Johnson (talk) 06:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even the BBC source that you re-added states the exact same thing: "Sinai Province was previously called Ansar Beit al-Maqdis (Champions of Jerusalem), but announced a name change in November 2014 when it pledged allegiance to IS, the militant organisation that had made rapid advances in Iraq and Syria." [13]06:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)David O. Johnson (talk)

David O. Johnson It is hard to follow what you post in relation to the reverts on the article. You state information that supports inclusion of what was in the article regarding the allegiance with ISIL and their actions in the Sinai. This is the ABM groups page. They have changed their name to Sinai province. Therefore if the information does not go into this article, then where is it going to go? If you still object, would it be all right if I request a third opinion? Mbcap (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand your position; I wouldn't mind a third opinion to help figure this out.David O. Johnson (talk) 06:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
David O. Johnson, Mbcap I've read through these posts and you both make good points. I think we either need to 1) create a new Wilayat Sinai page and use it for future events 2) continue to use this page for Wilayat Sinai (possibly renaming it).
I don't have a firm opinion, but I'd suggest treating this article as the official Wilayat Sinai article, and including a section on those elements of ABM who rejected the merger and have retained their loyalty to Al Qaeda, should they appear in the news in future. Gazkthul (talk) 01:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I completely forgot about getting a third opinion so thank you Gazkthul for providing your insight on this element of the page. I do agree that we need to come up with some sort of plan to accurately represent the information on this page. David O. Johnson what are your thoughts about Gazkhtul's suggestions? Mbcap (talk) 16:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problems with the suggestion. David O. Johnson (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. What activists are still members of Al Qaeda? I read in the press that the group Ansar Bayt Maqdis was renamed Province of Sinai and was renamed in the French page. So I think we should rename and create a new page for a name change is not necessary. Regards. --Panam2014 (talk) 17:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the source [14]. David O. Johnson (talk) 20:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Going forward from what has been discussed, we could put forward an RM. I will do it when time permits or alternatively another editor could be kind enough to do it. Mbcap (talk) 20:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The source said that the entire group Ansar Bayt Maqdis joined the ISIS, not that some have refused to join ISIS. I intend request move in the coming days. Regards. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your statement after rereading the source. It seems like that the Nile Valley faction was opposed to the merge with ISIS, but the merge still happened. I'm going to make changes to to the article indicating ABM no longer active. David O. Johnson (talk) 17:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 16 March 2015

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. Cúchullain t/c 13:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Ansar Bait al-Maqdis → Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant presence in Sinai (Egypt) – Ansar Bayt al Maqdis swore formally allegiance to IS in November 2014 and changed it's name. The group should now be considered an extension of IS in Egypt's Sinai Peninsula. I would redirect Wilayat Sinai to this page and update to it's new "provincial" logo. Gazkthul (talk) 00:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A long time (in ISIL terms) back Legacypac proposed the use of a name such as "ISIL in Sinai". GregKaye 12:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The proposed name is a clunky looking sentence, with a peculiar disambiguator appended, and surely is not how this is commonly known. The BBC is currently calling them "Sinai Province": [15]. Others still use the old name: [16]. I suggest no change at the moment, per the previous discussion on this topic. Let's wait and see, there's no hurry.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, new era, new article. There are articles for Islamic State of Iraq and predecessors. This can be the same. GregKaye 21:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 29 September 2015

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Bit of a mess really. Jenks24 (talk) 08:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Ansar Bait al-Maqdis → ISIL Sinai Province – I would like to take another look at renaming this article since it has been 6 months since the previous RM. It appears Sinai Province has become the commonly used name by WP:RS to refer to the group. Examples: Reuters [17] AFP [18] BBC [19] The Guardian [20] The Independent [21] Al Jazeera [22] The New York Times [23]

The US State Department recently amended it's terrorist designation of the group to include the alias ISIL Sinai Province [24], which I propose we use here. Gazkthul (talk) 23:35, 29 September 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 07:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think Wilayat Sanai is better. --Bolter21 00:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as per: Talk:Ansar_Bait_al-Maqdis#Requested move (November 2014) and Talk:Ansar_Bait_al-Maqdis#Requested move 16 March 2015 I think that this article is best left as (at least) a historical piece. The allegiance to ISIL caused a split in the previous group and far from constituted a wholesale defection to the new allegiance. There is also no way to allow us to wp:crystalball as to whether or not any of the remainder of Ansar Bait al-Maqdis are still cohesive. I see no problem in creating a new article ISIL Sinai Province which could then reference the previous group. GregKaye 06:55, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have created a new article Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant – Sinai Province, so I withdraw my Requested Move for Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis which can stay as a historical article. Gazkthul (talk) 01:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The new article should probably be moved to Sinai Province (militant group), then the question is whether this should be merged into that article. Peter James (talk) 20:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Bolter21. Wilayat Sanai or Wilayah Sayna would be best. Charles Essie (talk) 20:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Former name

[edit]

User:Buckshot06: This is the group who later changed its name to ISIL-Sinai province. Mhhossein (talk) 04:24, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well this article, Ansar Bait al-Maqdis, should be merged into ISIL Sinai Province. PerGregKaye above, the group split; this discussion has already been had. I would recommend no further action. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Mhhossein (talk) 18:52, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting to move Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant – Sinai Province to Ansar Bait al-Maqdis

[edit]

To continue with consensus reached in all previous move requests above, I've requested the newly created page to be moved to here. Please contribute to the discussion at [[25]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magedq (talk • contribs) 14:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ansar Bait al-Maqdis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:35, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ansar_Bait_al-Maqdis&oldid=1256558510"