Misplaced Pages

Muslims have criticized ISIL’s actions, authority and theological interpretations, and some Islamic scholars have declared ISIS to be Khawarij. Mohammed al-Bukhari (talk) 18:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

1. Cite error: The named reference theglobeandmail.com was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. "Over 120 Muslim scholars reject IS ideology". The News. 2014-09-26. Retrieved 2014-10-23.

• I agree about including the first half of the sentence, but what will "some Islamic scholars have declared ISIS to be Khawarij" mean to the uninformed Misplaced Pages reader? There is a citation, but do editors seriously expect readers to wade through that long article to find out exactly why they are regarded as Khawarij, and how it is a criticism? The statement carries no meaning on its own, unlike the first half of the sentence. --P123ct1 (talk) 12:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
• I also agree with the 1st half and I'd say "Some Muslims have ..." There are just too few articles on the variety of Islamic critique. I added one from the Economist a few months back. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
• I agree with "Some Muslims have ...". Also, what about "... claims religious authority over all Muslims ..."? Surely not over Shia Muslims? How should this be worded? --P123ct1 (talk) 14:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
• The criticism on the lead, if stated there, should be general, not particular or partial. So we should not single out Muslims, Christians, Jews or any other group. So in order to keep this article clean and arranged, I suggest to put general criticism on the lead, if we put it there at all, on a new paragraph, as mixing ordinary criticism with designations as a terror organizations is a mess. I suggest to put "ISIL’s actions, authority and theological interpretations have been widely criticized around the world," as it is neutral, general and doesn't single out anyone. But I keep thinking that criticism should not be on the lead, as it's not an important part of the article. It's pretty obvious that this group has been widely criticized. Also, criticism is never stated on the lead on similar articles, such as Al-Qaeda's. So I don't think why should it be on the lead on this article. Felino123 (talk) 16:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Felino123 what policy do you base this on? Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• Criticisms fall naturally with terrorist designations and the UN'S and Amnesty International's condemnations, IMO I also think the Muslim condemnation of this group is a pretty major factor which deserves singling out. --P123ct1 (talk) 16:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
• Terrorist designations and human rights reports have nothing to do with religious or ordinary criticism; this is obvious. To mix these different things is to make this article a mess. Also, we should not discriminate between Muslims and non-Muslims, so if we state it criticism on the lead (although I think it should not be there, and it's not on similar articles) it should be neutral and not partial or particular. Opinions we agree with are not above other opinions. Felino123 (talk) 12:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• There needs to be consensus on how this particular sentence is worded, to prevent an edit-war developing. Please will other editors give their views on how it should be worded HERE! --P123ct1 (talk)

• I agree with Felino123's comment that there is no need for a criticism to appear in the lead, when there is a lengthy criticism section more suited for it. Gazkthul (talk) 04:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
• This is the latest edit to that sentence, from Filino: "ISIL’s actions, authority and theological interpretations have been widely criticized around the world." That, especially isolated in its own para, is almost a non-statement. I suggest adding, "especially by Muslims". How on earth is stating that truth discriminatory? --P123ct1 (talk) 19:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• Or phrase it "including within the Islamic community." There is also a great deal of support for ISIL or ISIL's brand of Islam from Muslims. As I mentioned before , a Saudi opinion poll says “92 percent of the target group believes that 'IS conforms to the values of Islam and Islamic law.” Tunisia sends thousands to fight in the IS. Muslims are not monolithic and we can’t attributed any opinion, good or bad, to Muslims as a whole. Jason from nyc (talk) 03:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
• Without researching the methodology of that alleged poll result, even if every single Sunni (the only religious group that could conceivable support them) man and woman in Saudi Arabia supported IS, it still wouldn't add up to 92% of the country. Gazkthul (talk) 04:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
• I am not imposing my point of view and I would never do. If I were, then I would remove all criticism from the lead. You said criticism should be on the lead, although I think it should not. So I clearly put criticism in the lead as you wanted, but of course this criticism should be fair and it should not single out any group or discriminate between groups. Adding "specially by Muslims" is discriminatory, as Muslims are not a monolithic bloc, and also there are many Muslims are supporting ISIS, as Jason from nyc stated. There are also many who don't. But all non-Muslims are against ISIL, so there are infinitely more reasons to add "specially between non-Muslims", as there is more non-Muslim opposition than Muslim overall. That's why I think criticism, if stated on the lead although in my opinion it shouldn't be, should not single out anyone or discriminate, but mention the overwhelming criticism of ISIL around the world. I agree with Gazkthul, criticism should not be on the lead. There's no criticism on the lead on Al Qaeda's article, or Taliban's article. This should not be different. Felino123 (talk) 09:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Felino123 What you may be doing here is highlighting a problem or deficiency in the Al Qaeda and Taliban articles. One of the most noted topics related to ISIL is the great swathe of international and cross cultural criticism that has been leveled against it. Criticism has even some of the most extreme sects associated with Islam. These criticisms should rightly be afforded their due weight in the WP:lead. Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• I apologise for misrepresenting you, Felino123, I need to read more carefully. I have changed my mind and now agree with Felino and Gazkthul, that this last paragraph on criticism is best omitted from the Lead. The criticism is dealt with in the "Criticism" section, and I am still undecided, but the way it is worded now in the Lead is so anodyne that it doesn't mean much! What do you think, Jason from nyc and Gregkaye (about removing it altogether)? --P123ct1 (talk) 09:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
• WP:LEAD asks for prominent controversies and I'm not sure why some other articles don't have it. I still think it should be in the lead but I agree that a single bland unqualified summation has limited value. Aside from mere labeling and name-calling, in-depth criticism (in the world) is in its infancy. To sum up the nature of that criticism (aside from saying there are condemnations) is problematic. I added a citation to an article from The Economist that mentions the variety of critics but that was so terse that it just isn't helpful. That's one of the reasons I haven't propose a better statement than what's in our lead. At least what's there tells the reader we have a criticism section and they will find the details there. I think we have to indicate that in the lead at a minimum. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
• Jason from nyc: In that case, how about adding to that sentence Felino's suggestion (though he is against having this para), "specially between Muslims" – or perhaps better, "especially among Muslims"? I remember that Economist article and it was unhelpful. If criticisms are to be mentioned in the Lead, adding "especially among Muslims" would makes the statement more meaningful. As it stands, it looks faintly comical, as if WP is saying that people are in favour of virtue and against vice! (That's assuming the general reader knows at least something about ISIL.) --P123ct1 (talk) 16:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
• @Legacypac:? @Supersaiyen312:? @Wheels of Steel0:? @Technophant:? We need to get consensus on how this last Lead para on general criticism of ISIL should be worded. Should Muslim criticism be mentioned here as well or not? (See earlier for examples of wording on this.) Please give your view, if you have one. There is a link to related discussion at the head of this section. This has been debated for over a week, so it is time for a consensus decision one way or the other! --P123ct1 (talk) 15:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
• ISIL claims to be practicing pure islam so the opinion of muslims is critically important and should be in the lead. I would not include the word Khawarij as it is not an English word (unlike jihad for example). Legacypac (talk) 16:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
• The Islamic criticisms of ISIL have been big news across the Media. When Cameron, Obama etc. speak about ISIL they often quote Muslim views. Muslims feel so strongly about criticising ISIL that they pay Youtube to play their critical videos. Campaigns like the notinmyname campaign have gained significant prominence. Gregkaye ✍♪ 20:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
• I partly agree with you, Legacypac. Criticism of IS by Muslims is important, but you guys already know my stance: criticism should not be on the lead, as it's not on the lead on similar articles (Al Qaeda's, Taliban...). I think it's necessary to point it out, but only on the criticism section. If we add criticism to the lead, I think it should not be partial or particular, but general, as IS has been widely criticized around the world by people of all religions and ideologies. I don't think it's ok to single out any group. And about the word Khawarij: it should not be included on the lead in any way, as it's not an English word and its meaning is not known by most people. Felino123 (talk) 11:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
• It looks like we’re all struggling to qualify how criticism should be mentioned in the lead. Views have spanned all possibilities from no criticism (Felino123) to immediate criticism in the very 1st sentence next to defining words (Gregkaye and sometimes P123ct1). I held an intermediate position of summarizing Muslim criticism in general terms and got support from P123ct1. Felino123 wants it to be more general to include criticism by non-Muslims, and he/she has removed “Muslims” from the summational sentence. Gregkaye still wants mention of a particular group of Islamic scholars while I argue they don’t fully represent Muslims. Legacypac believes Muslim criticism should be mentioned. P123ct1 and I, however, that agree that specific mention of Islamic criticism is appropriate but without the implication that Muslims are monolithic and in agreement. That's how our differences look to me. I suggest we add to the end of the current sentence of criticism “by non-Muslims and within the Muslim community.” Thus we note that criticism isn’t just by Muslims (Felino123) but we note that Muslims have spoken out (everyone else) and we don’t imply that it is the whole Muslim community (P123ct1 and Jason). Jason from nyc (talk) 12:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
• I have been waiting for two three others I pinged to contribute before determining consensus, but so far it is five for and two against mentioning Muslims in that paragraph. (Felino123 and Gazkthul are against, though Felino123 seems prepared to make a concession with the right wording.) Jason from nyc has summed up the varying views accurately and I agree with his wording, "by non-Muslims and within the Muslim community". The statement needs to be as general as that, I think. --P123ct1 (talk) 13:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
• It looks fine the way it is at the moment, but I do not see anything wrong with including criticism from either side. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 23:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
• I think the way it is as of right now (ISIL’s actions, authority and theological interpretations have been widely criticized around the world.) is good. I support a lean precise lead because there's plenty of detailed content below on whatever topic the reader want to know more about. I added this link to anchor here to help users find the section discussing criticism in more detail.~Technophant (talk) 01:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
• Corribertus: Do you want to add your view here? I know you have not been in the discussions on this, but you may want to contribute. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
• Can I remind editors that this whole debate started in an earlier thread which began:

"WP:LEAD makes it clear that "The lead should define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight." So, if criticism is trivial, it probably doesn't belong in the lead. If it not trivial, it does belong in the lead. It is certainly not true that as a general case "Criticism should on the criticism section, not on the Lead." ... Dougweller (talk) 13:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)"

• Misplaced Pages has rules like this, MOS and several others that are followed. There are ways that Misplaced Pages does things. Can we also remember Misplaced Pages's principles in WP:CONSENSUS. Its the method used to achieve Misplaced Pages's goals. Gregkaye ✍♪ 00:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
• It is now five for (six if Supersaiyen's view counts as "for") and three against (or two as Felino seems prepared to agree to a mention of Muslims). This looks like consensus to include wording on Muslims in the last Lead paragraph. Is "by non-Muslims and within the Muslim community" finally acceptable? (See last comment from Jason of nyc.) -P123ct1 (talk) 10:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
• I agree, let's put "by non-Muslims and within the Muslim community" on the last paragraph. Gregkaye has just put particular cases of criticism by Muslisms on the lead and before terror organization designations on the same paragraph. Has anyone agreed with this? We are discussing criticism on the lead here and now and we are reaching a consensus here. I have put criticism on the lead the way we all agree. Felino123 (talk) 11:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
• Felino123: Thanks. I think your edit wording reflects the majority view here, and thanks also for being prepared to modify your early views in the interests of reaching consensus! P123ct1 (talk) 13:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2014

There was an update from the BBC page quoted on correcting the claim listed above reading: Correction: An earlier version of this article wrongly referred to the contents of the airdrops in Kobane as "US weapons". The weapons were in fact supplied by Kurdish authorities in Iraq. Source http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-29715044 about 2/3 down the page. Thank you. 97.73.240.17 (talk) 07:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages article still seems consistent with the BBC report to me. The clarification was who owned the weapons, not who dropped them (whih still remains the US). Stickee (talk) 09:12, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk page too long (318,000)

See previous discussion: Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/Archive 14#Talk page too long

For reasons of this talk page being too long, I deliberately put this posting in this new section. For the foregoing discussion (2 Sept–20 Oct2014), see Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Talk page too long. Colleagues, the Talk Page today seems excessively long (318,000bytes). Sections are now automatically archived after 14 days without new posting, but that apparently results in this too long Talk page. There was some resistance (P123,Technophant) to shorten it to 7 days (PBS advised 7 days), therefore I propose now to first shorten it to 10 or 12 days, because the situation now causes too much problems for too much visitors. I’ll be bold and now immediately change it into 12 days: just to see whether it gives a satisfactory result. P123 said on 16 October that the Talk page is also being used chaoticly; I agree, but that is, unfortunately, common practice on every Talk page in Misplaced Pages, and probably can’t easily be improved. I don’t see too much disadvantage or hardship however in having to start again a thread on a topic that has also been discussed 13 days earlier and has been replaced to an archive: if one of the discussants considers that older discussion still very relevant, he can easily include a wikilink to that archived discussion in his new posting (like I did in the beginning of this posting): that is really not too much to ask then, I believe. --Corriebertus (talk) 15:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Just as a comment, from June (when I first came here) to around the beginning of September this Talk page was very orderly! There were no problems at all going back to find discussions and threads. --P123ct1 (talk) 16:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not at all sure how you came to that conclusion at it was very orderly because the end of August there were 98 sections (excluding another 17 subsections) and the page was 302k in size. On that day you added just over 1K to the page. As I said before the average novel contains about sixty-four thousand words at the end of August this talk page page contained forty-one thousand words not far short of Slaughterhouse-Five! In fact your first edit to the page was on 13 June 2014 when the page was only 55k in size and had 30 sections. The first archiving took place on 11 July 2014 with an archive date of 60 days. At that time the page was 180k (about 8-9 days at current input) but then there was on average only 3k a day being added. On the 31 July it was changed to 14 days and 1 August it fell from 240k to 138k or put another way about 10k a day was being added to the page. On 11 August Technophant changed the time from 14 days to 48 days. That was bound to lead to problems as even then the page was about 5k a day so that would give a projected size of at least 257k with more than 70 section headers. But the amount of talk doubled in August to 10k a day. On 6 September Technophant changed the page size to 30 days so the page was "only" 300k in size with 110 section! By the last week in September the page was growing at 15k a day which gave a size of about 450k (which is about what it was when I changed it to 14 days on 1 October, but that left the page at 300k, so I reduced it to 7 days on on 3 October because the amount being added to the page was 22k a day. On 15 October Technophant changed it back to 14 days without apparently considering how big that would make the page (either in size or number of sections).--PBS (talk) 14:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

PBS I didn't "conclude" it, I was here and I experienced it: it was much easier to find content then. Probably because editors used to comment in an orderly, not haphazard way as they do now. For example, inserting comments into threads out of sequence was rare then, but it has become almost the norm now. Apologies for adding 1K that day. Did I do something wrong? --P123ct1 (talk) 17:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you did anything wrong. -- PBS (talk) 10:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I did the maths on the 20th:

• 19 23:36, 19 October 2014‎ 257,214 14k
• 18 19:52, 18 October 2014‎ 243,020 28k
• 17 23:50, 17 October 2014‎ 214,212 14k
• 16 23:30, 16 October 2014‎ 200,191 27k
• 15 23:30, 15 October 2014‎ 172,795 40k -10 (from archive) 30K
• 15 01:29, 15 October 2014‎ 131,823 last archive

Average of 22K a day (my previous guess/estemate was accurate and it means that 22K a day is fairly stable)

• At 01:29, 15 October there were 31 sections
• At 23:36, 19 October there were 42 sections

An increase of 10 new sections (less one pulled back from the archive). Which is an average of 2 new sections a day

By date stamp (and known edits to sections without date stamps) four sections would have been archived with 7 days set:

• Apologies to editors
• Lede could use some trimming
• Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2014
• Suggest amalgamating second and last para of lead

The number deleted is not the same as the number added because many editors are still commenting on the sections that are already there.

So with 14 days we can expect there to be 2*14 28 new sections and 8 will be archived making a pool of about 50 headers

The size of the archive will be about 14*22 = 308k (it is 10K larger because of the section pulled back from the archives).

If the archive length changed to 7 then the size will be about 42-4 (archived)=38 sections and the size will be about 7*22 - 154k.

As I said before this is twice the size of the recomended size in the guidline and also your comments on consensus has to be weighed against the wider consensus.

-- PBS (talk) 17:09, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Suggest: the archiving of sections such as:

1 Proposed move from "ISIS" to "ISIL" in the article text

4 Lede could use some trimming 4.1 Suggest trimming nation names

5 their actions are “not jihad at all, but rather, warmongering and criminality” (See related discussion at #Logical Order in Lead)

9 Syria army still free (resolved)

10 second para, first sentence. (notification of change)

11 Logical Order in Lead (See related discussion at #7 their actions are “not jihad at all, but rather, warmongering and criminality”)

13 Discrepancy

15 Official website external link and accurate flag

16 placing Terrorism,

There may be more. Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

It is a bad idea to hand archive sections, for two reasons. The first it is a high manual maintenance issue (it never ends) and selectively choosing what to archive has non-NPOV issues which leads to disputes. It is much better to allow a bot to automatically archive sections. -- PBS (talk) 18:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

8 days?. Gregkaye ✍♪ 20:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it was recently moved from 30 days to 14, so still pretty early. However, I wasn't really following the previous thread. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 22:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

It was over 450k when I adjusted it from 30 to 7. So no it is nothing to do with the 30 days. When I changed it to 7 it fell to about 22*7 = 154k (see here), it was then changed to 14 days (by Technophant). As on average about 22K is added a day there will be a page size on average of about 14*22 = 308k if it is left at 14 (See the maths in my previous posting to this section). If one assumes that editors continue to contribute on average 22k a day and sections:

• At 14 days, 308k average size and at least 50 sections (there were 58 sections before the most recent archive a day or two short of 14 days)
• If it remains at 12 days (set yesterday), 264k average size and at least 45 sections (there were 53 sections after the most recent archive and a size of ).
• At 10 about 220k and at least 37 sections.
• 8 is about 176 and at least 30 sections.
• 7 about 154k and at least 28 sections.

However one additional factor that has a disproportionate affect on the numbers is that the longer sections are left on the page, the more chance there is that editors add a "me to" to the bottom of a section and then it hangs around for yet another time out period. So the larger the time for archiving the more zomby sections remain on the page, so those numbers will expand disproportionately the longer the sections remain on the page to archive.

-- PBS (talk) 14:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

P123 starts talking(25 Oct) about ‘very orderly…’, but that seems to me not the main point of this section. For that reason, I also didn't read PBS’s directly-underneath-reaction of 26Oct,14:05 (I dislike such later ‘in-between-placing’ of postings: please post always on the bottom, or go into a private discussion with P123 on his talk page). Gregkaye suggests manual archiving, but like PBS I see too many disadvantages in it. Supersaiyen(25 Oct) reacts beside the point too. PBS makes then an interesting calculation, expecting with 12 days delay a page size 264 (nevertheless it is at this moment, after archiving this morning, 331k!); with 10 days delay a page size of 220k, with 7 days size 154k.
I see nobody objecting to the idea that a page longer than 100k—and the more so longer than 200k, longer than 300k—is unacceptably troublesome for many users. Therefore, I now again reduce the archiving delay after last new posting, from 12 to 10 days, and if necessary—which I expect—in one or several days we can or should reduce that further to 8 or 7 days. I assume, if a discussion—on this hot-item-article—didn’t get a new posting in six days, we won’t do much harm by archiving it. If necessary, someone can always reopen a discussion that has been held before, and if he chooses so he can include a link to the archived discussion. --Corriebertus (talk) 18:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Slightly off-topic, wouldn't it be a good idea to provide links between discussions that are related? I don't mean just title links, but actual "anchor links", as I believe they are called. (See "Names section.) Gregkaye is good at those. "Anchor links" could perhaps even link discussions on the current Talk page with archived discussion. I don't know how feasible this would be. Should this comment perhaps start another thread/discussion/section, rather than be mixed in with this one? --P123ct1 (talk) 21:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

What {{anchor}} provides are alternative hidden section headers where section headers exist or provide hidden section headers to specific paragraphs (for example I have added an anchor at the top of this page to #Moratorium). So for clarity what one usually wants to use for links are the section headers, because that is what people see on the page and are usually the most obvious names to use. If not then the pipe trick can be used ] TPTL. It is unusual on talk pages to need to use the {{anchor}} template -- PBS (talk) 09:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The way you linked this to the other section is so obvious, didn't spot it until you pointed it out! (Am only familiar with very basic wikicode.) Then I think all related discussions should be linked to each other in that way, for easy reference to other discussion either on the Talk page or in the archives, because just having the name means laboriously trawling through the TOC and/or the archives. I was simply thinking about navigability. Digression over. --P123ct1 (talk) 11:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I find a certain amount of irony that this discussion about "TPTL" is making the problem worse however it does need to be discussed. I propose a change from algo=14d to algo=10d. Rationale: the weekend contributor. I'm not one, but concessions need to made for the Wikipedian who only has time to contribute on their days off, and that day may not be same from week to week. For example, weekend editor sees a talk page thread they are interested in on a Friday afternoon and adds a remark. The following weekend they login on a Sunday evening and can't find the post. Consensus discussion is one of the core values of WP, and limiting it going to get some of the same reactions as limiting free-speech, including outrage, confusion, resentment, etc. It will also increase the likelyhood of repetition of previously discussed ideas. I would rather not have it changed, but if it must be then I can see that a 4 day change could make a considerable improvement over 14d with a reduced impact of a miserly 7d.~Technophant (talk) 22:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Technophant makes a good point about weekend editors. I think 7 days is too short and 14 days will be too long, so 10 days seems a good compromise. For editors to keep track of where discussions are, would it be an idea to have a second TOC, placed at the top of the Talk page, after the regular TOC, which includes the discussions in the current Talk page and the last archived Talk page, placed side by side? (perhaps in smaller print to accommodate page width.) It could be made collapsible so that it does not take up space. I think a handy reference like that would be useful, as clicking on the archive to see its TOC and then going back to compare it with the current TOC is cumbersome and extra hassle, especially for those with less powerful computers. If all linked discussions are clearly labelled as such in the TOCs, it would make scanning for discussions easier as well. I am just thinking of ways to make searching for earlier discussions on a particular topic easier. --P123ct1 (talk) 09:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

7 days will cover weekends as the minim time a section will be on a page is 8 days and that assumes all the conversation about it takes place the first day (this is the reason that the length of RMs were changed from five to seven days a few years ago). -- PBS (talk) 14:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I consider the discussion about links between discussions (P123,26Oct) off-topic here, and disturbing because such technicalities will deter people from entering the discussion what this section was meant for. So please do that somewhere else.
Techno (27Oct) advises to change from 14d to 10d, that is impossible because since 26 Oct it is 10d. Shortening from 14d to 10d did not improve the situation much: on 25Oct by 14d the Talk page was 318k, today after shortening and three days archiving, the page is 314k. As I said 26Oct, I assume long talk pages—longer than 150k—to be (unnecessary) troublesome for many users, and the (possible) disadvantages of an archiving delay of 8 days, or seven days, or even 6 or 5 days, seem to me less weighty than the disadvantages of talk pages of 200k or 300k for probably many of our visitors. Techno comes with the weekend contributor (WC) who should not be disadvantaged. I don’t see that as a strong argument here. The first purpose of talk page is: solve encyclopedical problems. It is totally unlikely that someone starts a really important encyclopedical discussion here, then 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 days not one other editor reacts on it (because the only other Wikipedian interested in it is WC) and it gets archived before our WC has his day off and time to visit this page. If none of the thousands of other editors visiting this page in 6 days considered that discussion relevant, the chance that it really is relevant, is very very small, and to my opinion not good enough reason for the concession to allow the page to get 200k or 310k long and annoy thousands of other visitors every day.
Other scenario: a discussion is running since some time, WC has at least one time contributed, then suddenly 5 or 7 days no new posting is added and it gets archived. WC sees the section disappeared, will understand that ‘his’ discussion is ‘ended’ and archived, and he is very well capable to look up the end result of it in the archive, and if he is unsatisfied he is very well capable and authorized to re-open that (un)'finished' discussion. Yes, that situation can occur, perhaps in one out of 20 archived discussions. It seems reasonable then to let WC go through the ‘trouble’ to re-start that discussion, rather than leave also those other 19 correctly-finished discussions longer on the page for no other reason than facilitate just this WC, at the cost of hindering hundreds or thousands of other visitors day after day with a (needlessly) very long talk page. I think P123’s idea (of 28Oct) of that extra Table Of Contents referring to the last archive is a good supplementary facility.
At this point, I understand that Techno favours 10d but is unaware that 10d is already in action and didn’t help much. P123 follows Techno, and doesn’t seem to care for those (assumed) many readers who will continuously be disadvantaged with a talk page of over 200 or 300k. PBS advises a delay of 7 days. I advise a delay of 7 days or even shorter (6, 5 days — I don’t see (much) harm in that, if with delay 7 days the page is still over 200k). Two against two: I’ll be bold again and now reduce the delay to 8 days. I very much hope that new discussants will join in this discussion. --Corriebertus (talk) 20:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• I wouldn't want it to go as low as 7 days if possible but 8 - 9 sounds great for people taking the week off or weekenders. Gregkaye ✍♪ 21:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

@Greg: Ofcourse I respect your opinion, but you don’t react on my arguments. Yes, it surely may facilitate a (supposed) user who is away for 7 or 8 or 9 days to leave discussions here 8-9 days after last new posting; but is that then worth the price of those thousands of other users having to cope continuously with the troubles of a page of 271,000 bytes (as it is now, with archiving delay of 8 days!)? Why can’t we ask of the ‘Weekend Contributor’ (etc.) to go and look in the archive? We have archives, so we can expect and ask of users to use them occasionally, can’t we? The 'normal' every-day-user of this page every time has to wait (unnecessarily) long for the page to load -- this is simply not complying with our own guidelines. So, I once again plea to shorten the delay to 7 days (and if necessary perhaps after that to 6 days). --Corriebertus (talk) 07:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Ten days minimum. Looking for previous discussion in the archives is cumbersome and a big hassle. It is obvious that navigability is at the heart of this issue. To overlook this is peculiarly short-sighted, IMO. Is anyone keeping track of consensus here? --P123ct1 (talk) 09:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

If Corriebertus really believes that editors are going to search through the archives for previous discussions on a particular topic and read them before commenting then he has more faith in human nature than I do. The most they will do is look at discussion on the Talk page in front of them, and sometimes not even then, as some of the new threads opened and edits made by some of the newer editors here amply demonstrate. It is quite depressing. The more there is on the Talk page, the more likely editors are to at least notice what has gone on before. --P123ct1 (talk) 17:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

@Corriebertus, if you want a reply, in my case, I would appreciate an actual ping. I don't regularly check every thread (or archive) for previous content. I object to your "doesn’t seem to care" comment which seems argumentative although I think the following content may be valid. I think that for the importance of the argument of page size between 9 and 5 days would need some validating information regarding the number of users that this would seriously effect. One idea is perhaps a comment can be placed in the header of the page mentioning the issue so as to allow people to comment if genuine problems are experienced. I would also suggest that a hatnote be placed on this thread to particularly request comment from users that are actually experiencing access problems and that future threads on this topic might contain this prominent content perhaps even in the title. I see no special advantage in equals 7 days (for the sake of a sexy/familiar number) and would equally support 6 or 5 days if these figures would be an advantage for users. Please also note that I had already suggested 8 days above.

On a separate point the page currently uses the setting minthreadstoarchive=2. Can this be set to 1?

Gregkaye ✍♪ 06:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

@Gregkaye: the purpose of the minthreadstoarchive value is to prevent disruption caused by the archival bots' moves clogging the page history and watchlists. Given how busy this page is right now, that probably is not a major concern so reducing the value to 1 is a good idea. VQuakr (talk) 07:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

My worry and the reason I started this discussion, is: this talk page being far over 100k and over 200k (today it is 288k, takes about 10 seconds to open the page) is cumbersome for many every-day-users and less-frequent-users, and that trouble seems avoidable with relatively little disadvantages, by archiving old threads earlier. Today, sections are archived if for 8 days no new posting was added – my proposal and that of PBS is to shorten that to 7 days. Ofcourse that has a possible, or hypothetical, disadvantage, for a user who has only once in seven or ten days the time to come visit here (‘Weekend Contributor’, WC). (P123 sees that disadvantage also now old threads are archived after 8 days.) I don’t mean to say such WC users are unimportant, on the contrary; but I’ve explained several times that that hypothetical disadvantage is relatively small: if thousand visitors in a week time consider a discussion not worth reacting on, the chance is very small that it is still a relevant discussion, and for me that small chance doesn’t weigh up to the continuous discomfort for most of us to have to deal dayly with an excessively long page.
P123 yesterday brought up a new argument: users have to be well informed about previous discussions on this page before they comment in a running discussion, therefore the talk page must contain as many old sections as possible. Sorry Mr P123, that is nonsense, excuse me my blunt speech. It is quite usual, and no problem, to restart a discussion that has been held two or six weeks earlier. Conditions may have changed since then. If some new discussant isn’t aware of that older discussant, another colleague can bring it to his attention, that is no hassle but normal Misplaced Pages discussion ethos, usage, and efficient. And ofcourse, apart from that, it is irritating if someone starts a thread about something that is discussed already in a section a bit higher on the page: just friendly say to him that the discussion is already running in that other section. (It is doubtful if that user would have acted otherwise if the page hadn’t contained 37 sections but 70.)
We should strive towards pages under 110k if possible without great disadvantage, that is simply a technical necessity on Internet, which is also why we have made it our own guideline. --Corriebertus (talk) 07:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Issuing of Passports

The Islamic State seems to be issuing passports over the last month or so in order give itself an air of legitimacy.

Perhaps it should be mentioned somewhere in the article. TRAJAN 117 (talk) 23:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• TRAJAN 117 I got caught out by a false news story just recently and this may be similar. According to pictures from UK "RS"ish, the Daily Mail, the passports have the writing: "islamic state of al khilaf". A limited number of references so far have called this wording into question. Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• TRAJAN 117 This is untrue . The IS doesn't even accept the concept of nations or borders. Gazkthul (talk) 04:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

From what I understand they don't believe a muslim shouldn't need a passport to travel to another country in the caliphate. On a related note I've heard they are pressing their own license plates.~Technophant (talk) 02:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

If the sources are unclear on this matter then I say it shouldn't be mentioned. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 06:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

No worries, just thought I would ask :) TRAJAN 117 (talk) 13:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Israel should be added to the opponents' list

According to Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel is ready to fight ISIL in any way it's is asked to. He didn't want to tell more, but presumably is due to the fact that Arab countries are part of the Coalition. This is the same stance Israel had on the Gulf War. Also, according to Israeli officials, Israel is ready to militarily help Jordan fend off ISIL militants. And also, Israel is providing the Coalition with intelligence on ISIL.

Sources:

http://mfa.gov.il/MFA/PressRoom/2014/Pages/PM-Netanyahu-on-Face-the-Nation-5-Oct-2014.aspx http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/08/mideast-islamicstate-israel-idUSL5N0R93CH20140908 http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/04/us-iraq-security-jordan-israel-idUSKBN0F91FR20140704

So I think Israel is clearly an opponent, and as such it should be on the opponents' list, specifically on the "other state opponents" section. I have added the flag and the sources. Felino123 (talk) 13:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• Felino123 is there any reason for adding three citations to Israel's opposition? Many nations are added to the list with no citation or perhaps just one. Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• Yes. I added three citations because I could not find a citation which stated all the info, as happened with other nations such as Spain. I thought it was better to quote all the info. If you can find a source with all the info (I couldn't) I'd be grateful if you updated it. Thank you. Felino123 (talk) 17:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Felino123, I think that you are working according to a misunderstanding of citations and their purpose in Misplaced Pages. You can make further checks but from what I've seen WP:CITE doesn't go beyond stating: "Misplaced Pages's Verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations". See also content of WP:WHYCITE further down the page. Citations are used to attest to the verifiability of information on the page. Which of the citations do you think gives the clearest attestation? Misplaced Pages is not a directory. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

• I think I haven't misunderstood the citations purpose. There are also three citations to United States opposition, just to name am example. I don't know which one gives the clearest atteststion. If I knew, then I would have removed one or two. What do you think? Felino123 (talk) 20:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Felino123 The single piece of information presented is a single word, "Israel" within the context of an article about ISIL. My view is that if ISIL made an issue about any of Israel's questionable practices (such as its internationally illegal West bank settlements or any other of its many arguably controversial issues) then certainly we can and should write content so as to highlight any and all of the relevant issues. However, as it is we have three citations to verify a single word of content text. The involvement of Iran (an Islamic state that has joined in with the support of an arguably jihadic type defence against the arguably wayward ISIL sect) is arguably far more notable than the somewhat more predictable involvement of Israel. In essence Iran has joined the same side of a military struggle as the United States. The placement of three citations on Israel simply to say that it is involved is uncalled for and unjustified. Can you cite any WP guideline to support this type of use? Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Felino123 You attempt to justify your unnecessary triple citation of Israel's (non-military) opposition with the statement, "There are also three citations to United States opposition, just to name am example." You will have seen that the US is the sole nation that has been given three citations while there are ~20 genuine opponent nations that are given no actual citation at all. Your actions on this talk page and in the article push for a minimisation of the presentation of Islamic criticism of ISIL while seemingly wanting to hype up a presentation of your alleged Israeli opposition. Can what brings you to push both of these issues? See Legacypac's comment below. Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

We only include countries as opponents who actually take military action, supply weapons or humanitarian aid. We don't include words only. I'm not aware of Israel doing anything beyond talking against ISIL. Legacypac (talk) 17:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

This section is about actions, not intentions. What is Felino's motive in pushing for this? --P123ct1 (talk) 09:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Good question. Felino123? Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:08, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• I added Israel because it's providing important intelligence support and says it will fight ISIL on the ground if they reach Jordan. I think that makes Israel an opponent. Before there was a list of conditions below the opponents' list, but there is not anymore. So I may have committed a mistake. If I have, and there is a consensus, then let's remove Israel; I don't care if it's on the list or not. My only intention was to improve this article. I'm not minimisating criticism by Muslims, I just don't want ANY particular criticism on the lead. I am not the one pushing my subjective POV aggressively. Stop defaming me. Felino123 (talk) 13:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• What the hell are you talking about "defaming" you. I presented a factual list of your edits which demonstrate that, while all other editors are editing to add criticism into the lead, you are the one person continually reverting their edits and I asked you a question regarding the way you were presenting a controversial topic in a very visually prominent way.

Felino123, the question regarding your motivation not only remains unanswered and must remain in context. Your repeated baseline argument stated in The word "jihad", criticism and disruption "The Lead is not for stating any criticism from any source". None of your statements have been retracted. When I pushed POV, which I still contest is in tune with the POV of a large section of Islam, I indicated my motivation as being against "feeding radicalism" and gave my clear statement that "A further radicalisation of Islam that results from the false endorsement of murderers as being "jihadists" will result in a perpetuation of needless death." This is an example of openness related to motivation. You want to remove Islamic and, at preference, other criticism of ISIL from the lead and also attempt to unnecessarily highlight the involvement of Israel in relation to a conflict in which it is not engaged. Why?

Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• You may not want any criticism in the Lead, but a Lead is supposed to summarise an article, and a strong feature is the "Criticisms" section which needs to be summarised. This has been said more than once recently and it seems you are ignoring it. --P123ct1 (talk) 15:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
• I am not the only one who opposes to put criticism on the lead. But as I said before, if criticism is on the lead, then it should be general and not partial or paricular. Felino123 (talk) 15:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I drafted the wording limiting the opponents list based on consensus. If someone removed that, shame on them, and it should be replaced. Intelligence support should not qualify a country as an opponent for purposes of our list. Intelligence support is hard to verify by its nature, and we could add maybe dozens of countries to the list because of routine intelligence sharing. Willingness to fight does not equal fighting. If ISIL moved into any other country (say Egypt or Cyprus to pick a near neighbor) that country would fight them. If Israel tied future intervention to an attack on Jordan, that is weird because Jordan is already fighting in the air and Israel is not a guarantor of Jordanian sovereignty. Would Jordan even what their help? Legacypac (talk) 02:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• Legacypac The final paragraph of the section still contains the long standing wording:

Note: The opponents list is restricted to: (a) States and non-State actors with military operations past, present or pending against ISIL in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon; (b) States directly supplying weapons to ground forces fighting ISIL; (c) transnational organizations coordinating or supporting such States.

Felino123 can you please remove inclusion of Israel from the list. Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• Removed! Felino123 (talk) 09:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

That was the wording I was talking about. It used to be in the infobox, now in the text. Very good Legacypac (talk) 16:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Coordinating the width of Infobox country

Code within infobox country reads:

|capital               =], Syria <ref>{{cite news|publisher=]|url=http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/security/2014/06/syria-iraq-isis-invasions-strength.html|title=ISIS on offense in Iraq|date=10 June 2014|accessdate=11 June 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.businessinsider.com/how-did-isis-kidnap-james-foley-2014-8|title=One Big Question Surrounds The Murder Of US Journalist James Foley By ISIS|work=Business Insider|last=Kelley|first=Michael B.|date=20 August 2014|accessdate=20 August 2014|quote="... the de facto ISIS capital of Raqqa, Syria ..."}}</ref>
|latd=35|latm=57|lats=|latNS=N
|longd=39|longm=1|longs=|longEW=E
|Anthem="Ummati Qad Laha Fajrun"

and something has made the width of the box increase.

it now contains the text:

Capital Ar-Raqqah, Syria 35°57′N 39°1′E

Going back in page history it appears that the infobox has long looked like this but this is not so.

Any ideas?

Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a site-wide problem with geographical coordinates; see this discussion. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 15:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

TY, Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

• I think we should add the Islamic State's anthem name to to the box, but it should be added with a citation with a source that proves this is their main anthem and not just one of their many jihadist nasheeds. EDIT: What about this source? I think it is ok. Felino123 (talk) 14:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think their anthem should go into the infobox. It calls into question WP's attitude to the group. It doesn't look serious. It is almost like saying which side of the road vehicles drive on in Iraq, which believe it or not was once in this infobox. --P123ct1 (talk) 17:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Minor edit request

Please link the "US-led military operations" nations, to their respective Misplaced Pages pages.

They're also technically coalition forces...

--JT2958 (talk) 16:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Propose scrapping timeline from main article

It already has an article of its own and perhaps we just need a link in history. I recently gave the section the title "Timeline (latest events)" but it still takes three lines in the TOC with the two subsections of months. Current page size is 205,088 bytes. Gregkaye ✍♪ 18:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand why some of the timeline is duplicated in this article and have said so before. I support removing it and leaving a link to the timeline article along with some suitable wording. --P123ct1 (talk) 20:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, a link to the timeline page should be sufficient. Gazkthul (talk) 22:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done this has been a long running issue previously proposed with no opposition yet not actioned. Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:19, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye: Where is the link to the timeline article? --P123ct1 (talk) 19:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 It comes first thing in the see also template in history and near by there is the history infobox which also has a timeline link. i've also added a link into the main "see also" section at the bottom of the page. Gregkaye ✍♪ 19:46, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye: In the infobox it is tiny! It will easily be missed by readers. (Btw, the link at the top of that infobox is not working.) I think there needs to be a link at the end of the "History" section as well, to indicate to readers there is more on the current situation in the Timeline article. Also, readers who may have been coming here to read the timeline will be puzzled why the link to the Timeline article which used to be here has suddenly disappeared. --P123ct1 (talk) 20:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, I am not sure that one day since proposing this and just two editors agreeing to the removal of the timeline was enough to go ahead and delete it, which is a major step for this article. --P123ct1 (talk) 20:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Would anyone prefer the "Timeline (latest events)", as I have called it, to be restored? This can easily be done and further comment either way is welcome. I am also not so certain about my "this has been a long running issue" statement. Thanks P123ct1 for the provision of extra links. Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2014

Undo edit by user that removed the Recent History section. 140.153.68.94 (talk) 18:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Not sure how far back that is. Can you provide a version of this recent history section that you want restored? It is likely the information was just reorganized Cannolis (talk) 19:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

To interpret the IP's request for Cannolis, the IP wants the timeline section to be restored to this article. It has just been removed as it duplicated some of the Timeline of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant events article. Links to this article have been provided in the "History" section. --P123ct1 (talk) 22:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

'See related discussion.....' addings undesirable

Someone has changed and lengthened a lot of titles of discussion sections, with: 'See related....'. That is undesirable. Firstly, it makes the Table of Contents very hard and tiresome to read. Secondly and perhaps more importantly: it is totally up to discussants IN a section to refer to other sections, old or new, if they wish to do so, and they can be considered totally capable to do so. If people actually discussing an issue see no reason to refer to older/other discussions, 'outsiders' have no business and no right whatsoever to interfere and bother them with wisenose-references to other discussions. Leave off. Stop this 'shit' and please remove it. --Corriebertus (talk) 08:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Reducing Islamic criticism and highlighting the involvement of Israel

• Revision as of 22:49, 19 October 2014 Felino123 removes whole of second paragraph of the lead complete with its 7 footnotes
• Revision as of 12:10, 20 October 2014 Jason from nyc adds: "Muslims have criticized ISIL’s actions, authority, and theological interpretations." stating, "The lead should summarize "prominent controversies" per WP:LEAD"
• Revision as of 06:47, 21 October 2014 Gregkaye adds "" - efn|Islamic criticism of ISIL has included comment by Sunni scholars that sacrifices of ISIL are "not Jihad at all."< ref name=OpenLetToAlBagh / >.
• Revision as of 12:10, 21 October 2014 Felino123 reverts edits of Jason from nyc and Gregkaye
• Revision as of 16:48, 21 October 2014 Jack Pepa adds: "More than 120 Islamic scholars have indicated ISIS to be Khawarij" to beginning of last para of lead and provides two citations.
• Revision as of 01:07, 22 October 2014 P123ct1 adds: "" - efn|Islamic criticism of ISIL has included comment by Sunni scholars that sacrifices of ISIL are "not Jihad at all."< ref name=OpenLetToAlBagh / >.
• Revision as of 09:55, 24 October 2014 Felino123 reverts edits of Jack Pepa and P123ct1
• Revision as of 08:34, 25 October 2014 P123ct1 adds: "Muslims have criticized ISIL’s actions, authority and theological interpretations." to last para of lead
• Revision as of 08:45, 25 October 2014 P123ct1 adds: "" - efn|Islamic criticism of ISIL has included comment by Sunni scholars that sacrifices of ISIL are "not Jihad at all."< ref name=OpenLetToAlBagh / > and states: "Restored efn footnote (please see Talk page for reasons)".
• Revision as of 15:03, 25 October 2014 Comitus qualifies to: "Some Muslims ..."
• Revision as of 23:44, 25 October 2014 Thegreatmuka amends qualification to: "Many Muslims ..." and states: "Changed "some" to "many" in order to avoid interpretation that "most Muslims do not criticize.""
• Revision as of 13:50, 26 October 2014 Felino123 reverts P123ct1 and removes reference to "Muslims" from lead. ALSO ADDS: a three times cited reference to Israel in opposition. This is despite the fact that Israel's only actual involvement has been the provision of information and that the many of entries of nations that have actual physical involvement are uncited and, in total, there are more participants mentioned than there are citation refs added.
• Revision as of 13:50, 26 October 2014 Felino123 reverted P123ct1 and removed reference to Muslims from lead
• Revision as of 16:25, 26 October 2014 Gregkaye edits and states in notes: "is a Sunni, extremist, unrecognized state and self-proclaimed jihadist caliphate in Iraq and Syria in the Middle East as per talk page" THIS WAS A NEW SUGGESTION OF EDIT
• Revision as of 08:54, 27 October 2014 Felino123 reverts Gregkaye and, for the first time, states "Reverting a disruption"

Compare and contrast!
Please also pay attention to the Israel in opposition issue
Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• Gregkaye, why are you against me? It seems you're obsessed with me. I am not against you or anyone. I am not the one pushing my POV aggressively against the consensus, that's you. You reported me, and the admin took no action against me because he found I had not violated any rule. So because the admin took no action, now you defame me here and manipulate the edits I made in good faith acting in the best interest of this Wiki. I will never edit anything against the consensus. Most things I reverted were your edits against the consensus, and I explained what I did and why. I am new on Misplaced Pages, so I might have commited mistakes. I am really sorry for that. Or you didn't commit any mistake when you were new here? Please let's reach a consensus, stop attacking me and let's get along. And about Israel: I added all the info I thought it was necessary to justify adding Israel to the opponents' list. Some countries have two citations and the US has three. What's wrong with three citations on Israel? Is there any rule prohibiting three citations on this? Felino123 (talk) 11:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
• I am sorry, but I have had the impression you were edit-warring as well. My impression seems confirmed by that list. Being new to Misplaced Pages as you have protested before isn't really an excuse. You say you will never edit against consensus, but many of your edits have plainly been made in the face of opposition, as you well knew, which is almost as bad. All this can be avoided if you bring edits to the Talk page first for discussion and agreement, and I think that should apply to all editors now on this contentious Lead. WP editing is a collaborative effort. The Israel edit was strange. That section only lists opponents who have actually provided support, not just talked about it. --P123ct1 (talk) 12:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I have altered the section header "Keep headings neutral" (see WP:TALKNEW) and collapsed part of the conversation (see WP:TPYES). -- PBS (talk) 14:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• PBS, I have reverted your collapse. It borders on censorship. For over a week now Felino123 has had his skewed text on display at: The word "jihad", criticism and disruption arguing that criticism of ISIL should be removed from the lead with the use of the blatantly misrepresentative statement: "Me and most users (with one exception) have made it clear." This is complete nonscence as is proven above and after this mirepresentation has been displayed for this long period of time it is only fair that facts relating to the actual situation can be presented. In all this time I have done my very best to assume good faith. I have bent over backwards to present an olive branch. I have held out hope of moderation. Nothing has been forthcoming. Gregkaye ✍♪ 22:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I have admitted I have committed mistakes, as I am new so I didn't know the rules well. And I am really sorry for that. I can assure you I will never edit against the consensus again. Israel is providing intelligence support and says it's ready to fight on the ground in the case ISIL militants get to Jordan. So I think that makes Israel an opponent. Below the opponents list there were the conditions countries should fullfil in order to be on the list, but they are not anymore. Felino123 (talk) 12:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Felino123, I am not against you but am certainly against what you have been doing and the extent to which you have been doing it. As you know, through all this, you conducted a clear 1RR violation. You have placed an extremely biased and misrepresentative text at The word "jihad", criticism and disruption. You are not answering questions at #Israel should be added to the opponents' list. You give every impression of being a competent editor. You certainly know how to present your arguments and belittle your opposition. Your edits show great ability in enacting multiple simultaneous edits. However, the effect of your edits is to remove distance ISIL from Islamic criticism while simultaneously highlighting the involvement of Israel. The result of this will remove the well documented Islamic calls for moderation and have an effect towards that of offering a red rag to a bull. All I have done is presented a list. You have disregarded both the edit comments of previous editors and even the fact that all other editors were making contributions in the opposite direction than you. Your first edit was to slash a great section of text from the article that had been developed by I a significant number of editors over a significant period of time. Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Glad to know you're not against me, but it seems otherwise. The admin took no action because, as he said, it was not clear if I violated any rule and it seems that I was right on the edge. I have answered the questions on #Israel should be added to the opponents' list, and I have also highlighted opposition by other countries such as Spain and Italy on this page and the military intervention pages. Thank you for the compliments, but I am not as good as you say. I'm just trying to improve this article, but I have committed mistakes (I am sorry). In fact, I spend half an hour on the multiple edits, because I'm learning how Misplaced Pages works. Knowing how to present arguments has nothing to do with being competent or not. As I said before, I am not trying to downplay criticism of ISIL by Muslims; in fact, it should be clearly noted. I just don't want ANY particular criticism on the lead, but I'm willing to make concessions. You're defaming me without any evidence. The text you're talking about was rejected by a consensus, and now we are trying to reach a consensus on criticism on the lead. Please don't distort this. Felino123 (talk) 14:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Felino123, What I have done is I have taken you to AN/I after you made a clear breach of 1RR making two reverts in under 24 hours, I have highlighted your editing practice in which other editors were consistently adding content of criticism into the lead with only you editing in the other direction and I have supplied resisted correction to your inclusion of Israel in opposition. It was the wrong edit performed in the wrong way. If you edit in more conventional ways then there will be nothing against you. Gregkaye ✍♪ 23:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Index of topics

see above #Talk page too long (318,000)

@P123ct1 you have expressed a desire to have an index of topics. This is not something to be done by hand (it is too much work), there are two options available (see Help:Archiving a talk page#Archive indexing):

Change the archiving bot to User:ClueBot III (see User:ClueBot III#index) and for examples see here, and an example from that list: Talk:DOS and Talk:DOS/Archive index -- I am not sure if it is still active.

Or to add User:Legobot but it reports that is not active for this function at the moment. I will set up the template request anyway so that if it becomes active an index will be generated in /Archive index. -- PBS (talk) 12:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

PBS: I have seen the examples, but wouldn't it be simpler just to have the current and latest archive's TOCs side by side at the beginning? That would make searching easier and then the number of days could be reduced to 7 or even less without any problem, I would have thought. --P123ct1 (talk) 13:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Using Cluebots archive index feature would help, but it wouldn't retroactively index previously archived threads. The only way to do that would be copy/paste ALL old threads into the talk page right before it makes it's automated pass (or manually trigger a sweep somehow). Lots of work, but lots of work to make a manual index also. ~Technophant (talk) 02:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Three months moratorium on page moves

Should the moratorium on page moves, as described at the top of this talk page, remain in place until 7 January 2015 (the full three months) or should it be ended when this RfC is closed? -- PBS (talk) 13:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

So that this RfC does not degenerate into a proxy page move discussion, please restrict the discussion as much a possible to the specific question. -- PBS (talk) 13:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• Strong support – This was a good move by PBS, and perfectly within his authority as an uninvolved administrator under WP:GS/SCW&ISIL. Usage right now is all over the place, and each version of the various names for this group/state/entity has its pros and cons. Per WP:TITLECHANGES, there should be no changes to the title of this article, except for a very good reason supported by our title criteria. As it is now, like I said, none of the options available are particularly better or worse than this one, at present, in terms of our title criteria. The successive move discussions over the past couples months have shown no appetite for change amongst the majority of editors. What's more, WP:UCN is not our only criteria. There are others, such as WP:CONCISE, WP:PRECISE, and WP:NDESC, and these should not be overridden by a recentism-based interpretation of WP:UCN. There is no justifiable reason to continue discussing the matter of the title of this article until we have a little more historical distance, until usage becomes crystal clear. RGloucester — ☎ 18:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
• End it when this RfC is closed Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

A moratorium should not exist to fossilize articles, especially articles on subjects that change from week to week, and which are important enough to be written about in thousands of new sources each week. Nor should it continue to be there just to give editors an easy time. If there is a strong enough argument for change that is properly presented then the name will (and should) move, if there is not, then it will stay as it is. Those editors that can't stand the "disruptive" heat of discussion should stay out of the kitchen. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• 'Strong Support - for maintaining the moratorium on page moves. Check the list of failed page moves at the top of the page before commenting here please. The constant failed attempts for new names is highly disruptive. Pretty much everything has been proposed either at the top of a RM or in the body of a RM and no other name has succeeded in attracting broad support. That PBS was pushed into bringing this here for comment because an editor wants to battle titles again is sad. Legacypac (talk) 02:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I thought this matter was resolved already? I'm not sure why PBS has started this RFC.~Technophant (talk) 02:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
• Strong support for maintaining the moratorium on page move discussion. Discussing a new title name is pointless until name usage in the media settles down, which I don't think will be for quite a long time. --P123ct1 (talk) 08:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment No opinion, I strongly support the use of current title and yet I think that democratic process favours the view that ideas can, at intervals, be contested. I don't care one way or the other but thought this an important point to mention. Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I have also added an additional anchor for the use of #Requested Moves in addition to #Moratorium as ways of linking to the related content in the header and have adjusted the title to read similarly to the first link. Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose This amounts to a ruling by fiat. PBS made a suggestion that no move request take place until next year, this was not only not supported, but move request were started up following this suggestion, thus WP:Consensus was against him. Rather than accept consenus, he changes his "suggestion" into a rule by fiat. Please note, this is the first post I've ever made here, so I have no dogs in this fight, however, I strongly disagree with this ruling by fiat measure. No admin should ever be able to just simply "make up a rule" then ban someone for not following this made up rule, but that's just what's happened here. Flat oppose, do the right thing and drop the ban. (BTW - the indidual that's DBanned cannot participate in this RFC, so that also doesn't exactly sound like acting in good faith either.) KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 16:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

He has been granted that authority by the community. See WP:GS/SCW&ISIL. RGloucester — ☎ 18:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Logos (See also #Prose instead of flags?)