Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:20, 2 December 2014

Template:Pbneutral

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Islamic State article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44Auto-archiving period: 7 days

Template:Syrian Civil War sanctions

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Iraq High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IraqWikipedia:WikiProject IraqTemplate:WikiProject IraqIraq High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Middle East This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Middle Eastern military history task force Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Syria High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Arab world Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as High-importance).

:Composing footnotes using the WP cite templates (Summary of WP:FOOTNOTES section 3.1.) Please note that bare URL footnotes – i.e. footnotes that contain only the website http address – are susceptible to link-rot, which means that if the website moves to a new domain with a new URL, the link will be broken and readers will be unable to read the citation. First put the cursor at the point in the edit text where you want the footnote to go, then click "Cite" in the edit strip at the top of the Edit Page, then click "Templates" on the left, and a drop-down menu appears. Choose "cite web" or "cite news" (for articles and websites), "cite book" or "cite journal", click and a box comes up. Fill in the all details of the citation, then click "Preview" and "Show parsed preview" to see it looks right. (To correct anything, correct the box entries, then click the two "Previews" again.) In "cite book" remember to add the page number(s) of the book. Click "Insert" and the citation automatically goes into the edit text. (It may not go in at the exact point where the cursor is if you use Firefox or Chrome.)

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Moratorium on Requested MovesNotice: There is an active moratorium on Requested Moves (page renames) until 7 January 2015. Requested moves to date Rename; 13 August 2013; Islamic State of Iraq and Syria → Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant; Moved Requested Move; 12 June 2014; Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State in Iraq and Syria; not moved to the initial proposal but moved to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant Requested move 2; 29 June 2014; Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → The Islamic State; no consensus Requested move; 31 July 2014; Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State of Iraq and Syria; Procedurally closed Requested move; 8 August 2014; Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State; Not moved. Clear consensus against simply "Islamic State". Move; 20 August 2014; Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State (organization); Quick close (no move) Move request - 6 September 2014;7 September 2014; Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State; Not moved, rough consensus against Requested move 17 September 2014;17 September 2014; Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State (Organisation); No consensus for the move

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Islamic State article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44Auto-archiving period: 7 days

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

Bold change of para order in Lead

I am not sure if this goes against consensus, but I have moved the terrorist designation part to near the beginning of the Lead. To me the Lead looks more balanced this way, but I will happily revert if others disagree. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 16:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 This is absolutely fair. In addition to the designation by the political organisations mentioned RS have also independently described the group as terrorist. The term is used in the context of quotation and has more validity than other of the content of the first paragraph.

I am also looking to place the same information in the "Status" section of the first infobox. In this case the entry could read: "terrorist organization" as designated by the UN, EU and individual nations.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• I think it was good to move the terrorist designations to near the beginning. Well done! Thank you. But I think to put criticism near the beginning along with terrorist designations is messy. We should not mix things that have little to do. It doesn't fit. I think the lead should be arranged. You duplicated the criticism phrase both at the beginning and at the end so I removed one of them. Felino123 (talk) 17:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
• Of far more relevance to the early part of the lead is the Islamic criticism. It is a self declared Islamic State facing a torrent of criticism from its own religion. This is a far more relevant topic in connection to the subject "Islamic State...". Gregkaye ✍♪ 20:29, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
• This is an article for an encyclopaedia and encylopaedias have to speak in a neutral voice. This article must not be allowed to turn into a piece of anti-ISIL propaganda, which with the new suggested labeling/change of emphasis in the Lead it is in danger of becoming. Do editors not care about this any more? The torrent of Muslim criticism is well encapsulated in Gregkaye's proposed new wording for the last Lead paragraph. Any more in the Lead about it, in prominent places, will tip the balance the wrong way. I will go on repeating this ad nauseam for as long as this article's neutrality is challenged, and editors should not confuse neutrality with attempting to whitewash the subject. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 21:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC).

Neutrality includes appropriate weight to views. It would be generous to say ISIL has a million supporters globally, vs the entire rest of the world. Compare to wikipedia's treatment of evolution which is 100% one sided, even though large numbers of people have another opinion. Legacypac (talk) 23:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• It does mean appropriate weight. That is why I moved up the terrorist designation part, instead of hiding it down at the bottom of the Lead, and why I agree that the Muslim criticism should be expanded on in the last Lead para in the way proposed by Gregkaye. I think a mere "notably among the Muslim community" does not give due weight. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 00:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
• P123ct1 All I was saying was that if there was a choice of either having Islamic criticism in early mention related to an organisation calling themselves Islamic state or having UN criticism in early mention related to an organisation calling themselves Islamic state then I would choose the Islamic criticism as of more relevance. It gets to the heart of issues related to the group. The UN quote the Islamic criticism. The Grand Muftis etc. don't quote the UN. The important voices are the ones close by both in distance and in root belief. This is content with even higher priority. Gregkaye ✍♪ 03:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
• No, you also mentioned that you were looking to put "terrorist organisation" under "status" in the infobox with all the countries listed there. The criticisms by the UN, Amnesty and Muslim communiities I think should be kept together, not favouring any one in particular. Perhaps they could go near the beginning, as they were originally, before the history part and after the terrorist designation part. I cannot remember now why they were moved to the end. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 07:29, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
• I quite agree that the criticisms should best go together. What I would say though is that, if one aspect of criticism should be placed in a forward position in relation to a group calling itself the "Islamic state ..." it should be the part that relates to Islamic criticism. I made my other comment about putting a cited reference to "terrorist organization" as the "status" entry at a time when this contained the content Unrecognised state which was also tagged "how" and which is unused in connection to ISIL by anyone but Misplaced Pages. The new wording is a great improvement. Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
• In another bold edit, I have moved the criticisms para up and joined it to the terrorist designation part to make one large paragraph. Editors can debate how the information in that para is ordered. Of course, I can and will revert my edit if editors do not agree with it, as I don't want to edit against consensus. I agree that the new "status" description is much better. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 11:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
• I think that puting criticism on the first paragraph, before any info about ISIS (just a very litle intro) is a mess. It gives a very bad impression to the reader and it's not arranged. So I suggest to put criticism where it was (at the end of the lead) and to join the intro to the terrorist designations in order to get a large paragraph. Terrorist designations may be on the first lines, but criticism don't. There's no consensus, P123ct1, so I think you should revert your edit. Felino123 (talk) 18:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
• I invited other editors to comment, Felino123, you are the only one to comment so far, so there is no consensus yet. Have I missed something? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 18:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
• The article has been well written in an extremely coherent style through the able and thoughtful contributions of many editors. It starts as many equally coherent news articles have been presented. The article first identifies a highly criticised group, responsible for ethnic cleansing and disowned by much of their own religion. From this point most news pieces will then fill in the details from there. As discussed it would be wrong to split up the criticism section of the lead and there was general support for placing information on terrorist designation in the first paragraph. It would be a mess to split up the critical content. Gregkaye ✍♪ 19:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
• Copy-editing this article has become an uphill battle recently. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 23:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
• I think criticism and Amnesty and UN reports should be at the end of the lead. And terrorist designations on a first, long paragraph along with the intro. I have edited it the way I think it's ok, as you did. I think we should not separate the beheading incidents and UN and Amnesty reports about ISIL's violations of human rights. I don't like the phrase "with many Islamic communities describing the group as not representing Islam". I think it's too particular. I don't think its necessary. It's obvious that if Muslim communities are criticizing ISIL is due to the fact that they don't regard ISIL as representative, so I think that phrase is extra info. Felino123 (talk) 02:27, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
• I think that the current edit is far from OK and extremely dangerous. See Google: game AND "play a terrorist". The most relevant criticism of a group that calls itself "Islamic State..." is criticism from the Islamic community. Many prominent members of the Islamic community including many Grand Mufti's have condemned the group in a whole variety of ways. The UN quotes the Muslim's not the other way round and, within the religious community, there can be comparatively little concern as to what the outside world thinks. It makes no sense to mention terrorist at the beginning of the lead (within what would be considered to be the voice of outsiders) and not also present other valid content on criticism at the same point. P123ct1 previously made this edit in line with above discussion which now needs to be restored. Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
• Gregkaye, terror designations are not criticism, but legal/official designations by governments. What makes no sense is to put criticism at the beginning of the lead, before everything, before even knowing anything about ISIL. Criticism is not the most important thing about ISIL. Actually it gives a very bad impression to the reader to see that; it's unarranged and gives the impression that the article is a mess, and it doesn't invite to read more. I don't think there's anything wrong with putting terror designations at the begining. In fact, I support it. But we can make a deal in order to reach consensus: I don't think criticism should be at the beginning of the lead, and you don't think terror designations should be at the beginning. So I suggest to put both criticism and terror designations at the end, as it was before and we all agreed. There was no need to change it. Want do you think, P123ct1? Felino123 (talk) 22:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
• An official terrorist designation is one of the highest most official criticisms the a government can give. When the UN, EU and major and smaller countries are saying they are terrorists - that is a big part of the story. Legacypac (talk) 03:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
• Felino123 I changed my mind and prefer the paragraph to be at the top. This is what I suggested and how I originally edited the text to read:

ISIL has been designated as a terrorist organization by the United Nations, the European Union, the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, Canada, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, the UAE and Israel. The United Nations and Amnesty International have accused the group of grave human rights abuses, and Amnesty International has found it guilty of ethnic cleansing on a "historic scale". The group's actions, authority and theological interpretations have been widely criticized around the world and notably within the Muslim community.

But I think Gregkaye's later adjustment of the wording about Muslim criticism is better, and this version was:

The group's actions have been widely criticized around the world with many Islamic communities describing the group as not representing Islam. The United Nations and Amnesty International have accused ISIL of grave human rights abuses, and Amnesty International has found it guilty of ethnic cleansing on a "historic scale". ISIL has been designated as a terrorist organization by the United Nations, the European Union, the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, Canada, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, the UAE and Israel.

I still think this paragraph, however it is worded, is best as the second paragraph in the Lead. As there is continuing disagreement and perhaps some confusion about what was previously agreed, could the involved editors please repeat here what they think should go where from this paragraph, so that so a consensus can be determined and the constant reverting can stop? It would be helpful if editors could answer the question simply, without repeating their reasons for their choice. I think this is the only way forward to settle this. Felino123, Gregkaye, Legacypac? Anyone else? (I think it is best to stick to bullet points as it makes the thread easier to follow.) ~ P123ct1 (talk) 10:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support P123ct1 action moving of criticism and terrorist designation summary to paragraph 2 position. then the 3 paagaphs covering 15 years of history follow. Legacypac (talk) 10:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
• As Gregkaye seems to want the whole of that paragraph to stay at the top where it is, as I and Legacypac do, I am afraid the consensus goes against you, Felino123, so if you revert again, you will be considered to be edit-warring. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
• I think terror designations may be on the second paragraph, but not Amnesty reports and criticism by Muslim communities'. Criticism by some religious communities and human rights reports have little to do with official designations. I think it's better to put it all at the end of the lead. I suggest to put countries' "criticism" (terror designations) first, then UN and Amnesty reports about human rights and then criticism by Muslim communities. I mean, it's more serious and important official designations by governments. To put criticism by some religious communities before anything, before even knowing that ISIL is commiting human rights abuses and is considered terrorist organization by many countries, is a mess, it's unarranged and gives a very bad impression to the reader. It's not ok to put criticism of actions before even talking about the actions.

So my suggestion is:

"ISIL has been designated as a terrorist organization by the United Nations, the European Union, the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, Canada, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, the UAE and Israel. The United Nations and Amnesty International have accused the group of grave human rights abuses, and Amnesty International has found it guilty of ethnic cleansing on a "historic scale". The group's actions have been widely criticized around the world and notably within the Islamic community/by many Islamic communities." (I think "by many Islamic communities is better").

This paragraph may be the second one of the lead. But terrorist designations and human rights reports should be first for the reasons stated above. Felino123 (talk) 22:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• So you agree concede, do you, Felino123, that those three sentences should be kept together in a paragraph at the top? I think Gregkaye's wording about the Muslim criticism is better, but would prefer the order that you have put the paragraph in: terrorist designation, UN/Amnesty criticism, then Muslim criticism. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 23:34, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

In relation to a group that kills Muslims and which calls itself "Islamic State ...", Islamic criticism should come first also for reasons stated above. To get things in further perspective, the few western lives that have been lost are not more important than the great many Muslim and local minority lives that have been lost. Until recently the article on beheading incidents listed all the westerners first and the unknown number which, depending on the method of death chosen may have been the great many, Iraqi and Syrians were listed last. These are gross examples of POV. We can't take a "God Bless America" attitude in regard to the west. In addition to other lives, other issues, values and authorities are also of relevance. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Ordering of sentences in this paragraph

• P123ct1 I don't agree with puting it together, but if it's kept together, then this is the best way to do it. I think the way it's now is not correct. Terror designations should go first (no last), human rights reports by international organizations then (not first) and criticism on the third place (not in the middle). I mean, you agreed with this, P123ct1. There's no consensus for the current order of this paragraph. It's unarranged and gives a bad impression, you can't separate official designations by governments from official reports by international organizations, and puting criticism in the middle of it all. It seems messy. Gregkaye, I agree we can't take a "God bless America attitude" while editing, but we can't also take a "Allahu Akbar" attitude (for example giving more importance to what an iman says over what UN and international organizations state in official reports, or puting criticism by Muslims before anything). This is a gross example of POV, too. But the thing is that Westerners killed by ISIL have been just a few while Arabs and Kurds have been thousands. Of course that should pointed out, but you can't name thousands of people in Misplaced Pages (there's no list of names, anyway). Felino123 (talk) 13:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Felino123 If you have spent any time reading the Islamic criticism section of the article or if you have followed any portion of the many connected stories in the news then you will recognise the utterly falacious and misrepresentative nature of your "giving more importance to what an iman says" comment. The comments, if we were to add them all in come from, amongst others, many Grand Muftis and significant Muslim associations. The voices represent a great outcry and they are echoed in the words of United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon stated: "As Muslim leaders around the world have said, groups like ISIL – or Da’ish -- have nothing to do with Islam, and they certainly do not represent a state. They should more fittingly be called the "Un-Islamic Non-State"."

Please do not misrepresent content. Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye, you're getting me wrong. I never said or meant that only an imam critiziced ISIL. I meant that governments' designations and official reports by international organizations are much more important from a historic and encyclopedic point of view than what imams, priests or rabbis might say about anything. Felino123 (talk) 15:02, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Felino123 Based on your stated wording, I don't see that I am getting you wrong and I request that you strike or refactor your misrepresentative statement. Different interest groups record history in different ways. The important thing for this article is that it presents a faithful rendition of history. Thinking back I remember that at the of time of the 9/11 attacks there was a great and notable and just outcry of condemnation amongst Muslim communities. There is now, as far as I can see, not a trace of this reference in the Al-Qaeda article. This is not a faithful recording of history and I think it to be revealing regarding an extreme POV bias amongst editors on Misplaced Pages. As your reply was to my comment I have altered its indentation to suit a reply. Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, I agree with you Felino123, I think the order should be terrorist designation, UN/Amnesty criticism, Muslim criticism. Can we do the same thing again here to see what the consensus is? You and I are for this order, Gregkaye is against (he wants Muslim criticism first, then UN/Amnesty, then terrorist designaton). What do you think, Legacypac? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 14:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
• If the WP:LEAD is to reflect article content then this should reflect content that states "By 2014, ISIL was increasingly being viewed as a militia rather than as a terrorist group." Yes they incite terror tactics in their propaganda and yes they do what they can to intimidate their enemies but the group essentially remains a militia, a militia that kills a large proportion of its captives. These captives are most frequently Shia muslims or Sunni's that raise objections to the 'SIL's questionable behaviours.

In "Designation as a terrorist organization" the last nation to be added was Israel on 3rd September and this country, with its three citations, seems to have used the designation "unlawful". The terrorism accusations have significant notability but I think that we should keep them in perspective. Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• For earlier ISIS Talk page discussion on the Israeli designation and details (now archived) see my exchanges with GregKaye on my Talk page in "#23 Hebrew Israel citation/Israel inclusion". ~ P123ct1 (talk) 20:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

.

Wording in lead: with many Islamic communities making various judgments of the group as not representing Islam

header added above in line with new discussion content. Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• Gregkaye has changed what I thought was agreed wording for the Muslim criticism, "with many Muslim communities describing the group as not representing Islam". His wording now has been changed to something much stronger, "with many Islamic communities making various judgments of the group as not representing Islam". I am not sure that it is acceptable to say this in WP's voice; the wording has now lost its neutrality. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 14:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• True. There's no consensus to change it. This "disuption" should be reverted. Felino123 (talk) 15:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• P123ct1 I am just reading a content, “Their savage acts don’t coincide with the name of Islam,” said Sunni cleric Hameed Marouf Hameed, an official with Iraq’s Sunni religious endowment. “They incite hatred, violence and killing and these acts have no place in any real Islamic state.” Please see: wikt:judge. Its not an extreme word. I am in good company to regard this group as un-Islamic. The wording, "with many Islamic communities making various judgments of the group as not representing Islam" is representative of content. Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
• Gregkaye, this is just the opinion of an Iraqi imam that other imams share, not the official Islamic stance, as Islam is not a monolithic bloc. ISIL has imams, too, that support all ISIL is doing. This is just your personal point of view. This article should be neutral, not the loudspeaker of the opinions we like to hear and read. Please don't edit again against the consensus. Felino123 (talk) 15:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
• Again, it is not a matter of whether those facts are right, but the way this part of the sentence is said. To parrot it again, anything said in WP's voice has to be said neutrally, particularly in the Lead.. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 15:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
• Now another consensus has to be sought, on whether Gregkaye's adjustment of the wording is acceptable. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 15:25, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
• Can anyone think of a milder alternative to "judgment"? That may solve it. The statement is general, Felino123, and does not specify any particular group of Muslims. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 16:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
• Have only just spotted that "accused" is too strong and POV in the sentence about the UN/Amnesty criticism, so altered it to "have held responsible for", more neutral as WP should be. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you P123ct1, My main objection was that the Islamic criticism, which tends to be amongst the most strongly worded, was presented proportionately less strongly to other content in the lead. I also think that it would be important to check the Amnasty wording to see how they presented things. Ideas would indeed be welcome. Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• Gregkaye My removal of "accused" has been reverted by Signedzzz. One citation says that the "UN report accuses". ~ P123ct1 (talk) 20:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• Have slightly adjusted Gregkaye's Muslim "judgment" wording and altered "guilty" of ethnic cleansing, as that word is not used in Amnesty's report at all. (Their report is cited in the "Human rights abuses" subsection.) I think everything may be evened out now. Is my rewording of those sentences acceptable? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 18:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
• I don't think "accuse" is too strong, but I think we can choose another "weaker" word. What about "stated" or "reported"? If the source says "accuse", then we should keep this word, but if anyone can find an alternative valid source that doesn't use this word, then we can change it. "Judged" is too strong. And about the Islamic criticism, it was "good" (although I didn't agree very much) as it was before and the consensus agreed. I have changed the order of this paragraph, as it seems most users agree with puting terror designations first, then human rights reports and then criticism. I have also removed the word "judging" to a previous version as there was no consensus for that edit. Also, there are silent links from both criticism and Islamic crticism. Are both necessary? They lead to almost the same section. So I think only one is needed. Felino123 (talk) 22:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
• Felino123, do you know what consensus means? There is no consensus yet, either on the wording for the Muslim criticism, or on the order of the sentences in that paragraph. Because there is no consensus yet, your edits have to be considered disruptive, I'm afraid. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 22:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
• P123ct1, I thought I could change it because those edits were made with no consensus. Those editors just put this wording without asking for any consensus (they asked for it after). So if my edits were worng and disruptive, then the edits of other editors were wrong and disruptive, too. I am sorry, I have reverted my edits, that are not disruptive, so problem solved. Felino123 (talk) 03:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
• I agree with Gregkaye's wording on Muslim criticism, "judging", but agree with the ordering Felino wants, terrorist designation, UN/Amnesty criticism, then Muslim criticism. A consensus of sorts has been reached now, albeit with only three editors wanting to participate in this discussion. Edit it how you will. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 19:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

How about just mirroring the article content order in the corresponding lead paragraph:

2.1 Human rights abuses

2.1.1 War crimes accusations and findings

2.1.2 Religious and minority group persecution

2.1.3 Treatment of civilians

2.1.4 Sexual violence and slavery allegations

2.1.5 Attacks on members of the press

2.2 Islamic criticism

2.3 Criticism for use of the name "Islamic State"

2.4 Other international criticism

2.5 Designation as a terrorist organization

But I'm not too worried about the exact order of the paragraph as long as it covers the article contents.Legacypac (talk) 05:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• In that case I am happy that the current ordering should stay. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 08:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• Legacypac, I really like your suggestion, but I think terrorist designations are very important and should be before Islamic criticism. The order f the paragraph should be terrorist designations/UN and Amnesty criticism/Islamic criticism. It's the most correct and arranger order. Gregkaye, P123ct1, I don't like the word "judging". I think it's too strong. I suggest "claimed" or "stated". It's more neutral and means the same. Felino123 (talk) 05:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
• Felino123: Gregkaye and I agree that "judging" is acceptable, you do not, so I'm afraid the consensus is against you. I think the strength of Muslim criticism has to be reflected in the Lead and that a strong term like "judging" is justified. The Lead is a summary and that term summarises the very strong Muslim criticism in 2.1 "Islamic criticism". ~ P123ct1 (talk) 09:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
• Yes, P123ct1, it should be reflected, but it can be reflected without using so strong terms. You don't need strong terms to summarize anything. And what about the order of the paragraph? I think we have reached consensus to change it to terrorist designations/UN & Amnesty criticism/Islamic criticism. Felino123 (talk) 11:31, 29 November 2014 (UTC)]
• Felino123: Please read! I said I now agreed with the current ordering, UN/AN, Muslim criticism, terrorist designation, which is Gregkaye's - see my comment after Legacypac's above . In other words, I changed my mind, because of what Legacypac said about "mirroring". So again, the consensus is against you. Don't take it badly, this has happened to me before, and it just has to be accepted. Joint decisions by editors, per WP:CONSENSUS, have to override individual editor's views. Not very pleasant, but that is just how it is. If you revert later, you know what will happen! It doesn't mean that you can't challenge these edits later on and ask other editors on the Talk page to give their opinions (without reverting first!), but until then these edits have to stay, I'm afraid. :( ~ P123ct1 (talk) 12:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
• P123ct1, so you agree that this has to be "mirrored", but don't agree with the current ordering per se. Anyway, I get it, and I agree that it should be "mirrored". What if we change the ordering of this article? I don't like it, either. I think terrorist designations are not criticism, as they are official designations by governments. I also don't like other issues about it. I'm not taking this badly, but as you said, it's not pleasant. I won't revert, but I don't like that other users (I don't remember which ones) reverted and changed it and then asked. Friendly greetings. :) Felino123 (talk) 07:44, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Timeline keeping

The decision as to whether to keep the timeline in the article has been a bit "in, out, in, out, and shake it all about" as per recent continuation of discussion at Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/Archive_17#Propose scrapping timeline from main article.

No real consensus was reached but the last definite view expressed was to keep seven days (I'll say ~seven days) of the info in the main article. For reasons that I won't go into I have had to check up on how this works with a query at WP:PUMP. The bit that I understood was that the "transclusion" works when <onlyinclude>...</onlyinclude> tags surround the section of text and unless anyone wants to understand the next bit I suggest that this last bit is the bit we should work with .

The next bit relates to the tech's statement that, "A more versatile way to do this is with ". Does anyone want to look into this? Anyone?

Otherwise what I plan to do is to just look at the timeline once in a while and, when the length stretches to over a week, to move the "<onlyinclude>" tag down to something like a four day timespan. All other editors are welcome to join me in this as are editors that edit the actual timeline document for love of that page.

My personal view is that the section of the timeline presented in the 'SIL article just needs to be long enough to give a taste of the content of the full timeline document so as to also present the most recent headlines. I still don't have a strong opinion as to whether timeline content should be kept in the main article but at least now everyone knows how things stand.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The other thing that should be noted is that the section headings (AKA "months") from the timeline document are also "transcluded" into the ISIL document with the rest of the timeline text. This basically means at the wrong phase of the moon we get two titles in the TOC of the main document for the price of one. A personal thought is that this might be a good time to shorten time length, by something like the fourth of each month, to a corresponding number of days. Its just a thought. Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree - and on a related point, why are there so many events in the main article under other headings. Legacypac (talk) 01:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac An editor who may have been unaware of recent content of the previous backwards and forwards discussion had moved the "<onlyinclude>" tag to the beginning of November. To be fair my edit of the timeline document was not accompanied by suitable explanation. I've now moved the tag back to cover a shorter timeframe. Gregkaye ✍♪ 03:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

You should do what you are proposing - if someone does not like it they can come here to complain. Legacypac (talk) 03:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

There is still a tag on the timeline saying that the content is being considered to be merged into the main timeline document. If noone else does it sooner and if there are no further comments then I will remove the tag when this thread gets archived. Gregkaye ✍♪ 21:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

next issue it was previously agreed to set up a format on the Timeline page so that the month heading would not appear as a second item on the TOC after "Timeline of recent events". This is still what I think looks best, most straightforward and honest. For instance it might get to the last week in November and yet there would still be a heading saying November even though just one week is displayed. A difficulty in not having the title is that editors would actually need to load the timeline document to make edits. I'd still favour losing the extra title. Gregkaye ✍♪ 20:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Footnote appeal

alt. title: (sorry) toe the line

We here announce the ISIL article "Footnote appeal"

Don't let ISIL reference footnotes go naked - for it is written: "bare URL footnotes – i.e. footnotes that contain only the website http address – are susceptible to link-rot,". Oh the horror.

You can play your part in this most worthy campaign. Should you find that an editor has left a footnote in a bare, defenceless and susceptible condition, please gently inform them of this plight.

Supportive links are now provided:
Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#FootnoteDirective or Talk:ISIL#FootnoteDirective will take an editor to relevant content in the banner. Yes footnotes are indeed given worthy mention amongst this content.
Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Footnote 2 or Talk:ISIL#Footnote 2 will take an editor direct to the relevant hatnote above
(Similar access is provided by link: Talk:ISIL#FootnoteHatnote)

These poor destitute URLs are best brought amongst the abundant fields of: Author, Title, Date, Publisher/Work, Agency, Access Date and other accompaniment that may be applicable to the foots individual condition.

Let's keep our feet happy - and thank-you.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 03:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Technical note:
As noted above, bare URL footnotes (with just the hhtp address and nothing else) are susceptible to link-rot. Link-rot happens when a website moves to a new domain. When it moves, it acquires a new http address, so the original link is broken and the reader will not be able to call up the citation. The reason why footnotes formed using the WP cite templates are better is that they have a lot of information in them, so that if the http address does change, that information can be used to retrieve the article from the internet. Broken-link or "dead-link" footnotes are easily repaired by substituting the old URL address with the new one. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 09:29, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

The current count of bare URLs stands at 25 in this article and 14 in the timeline article, the highest it has ever been. The message is not getting through. ~ P123ct1 (talk)

Thanks to the kind editors who rectify these footnotes from time to time. Having gone through 350+ footnotes in ISIL checking for accurate configuration and filling many gaps in them some months ago, I am not well disposed to converting bare URLs. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 21:58, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

== Please recite any (in classical Arabic) verses that might support the ISIS position about Islam and I'd take it into account, in my editions. I've met a lot of Turks and Moroccans, and several Portuguese Muslims (and in the media, eg Maajid Nawaz, Irshad Manji, and some absolutelly pragmatic Portuguese Muslim leaders (Abdool Vakil and Shjeik David (a Jewish name) Munir, etc). The point about Portugal is that, either given to our peripherical position or that during the Moorish rule, we didn't virtually have any discrimination between Jews, Muslims and Christians. And that was what was called here as a caliphate (a Ummayad caliphate). I condemn everything that ISIS is doing against Kurds (in general) Sunnis that don't agree with them, Shias and and Christians. But this is not a religious war for me, since I'm agnostic, I've listened from moderate Muslims like Maakid Nawaz or Irshad Manji (and from my Turkish friends, either ethnic Kurds or etnic Turks). I condemn any for of Islamophobia as I condemn any for of Israeli-apartheid or any form of "Islam" based phobia against other peoples! Amd I've notices that the Kurds, generally condemn it too. I'm for a Kurdish state in Northern Iraq, Western Iran, Southeastern Turkey /thou I had admired a lot Turkey) and in Northeastern Syria. I supporty tolerance most of all, and I've sensed that that is what the Kurds are about! THEY FOUGHT FOR THEMSELVES, NOT AGAINST ANYONE ELSE! And that's what I admire, because Americans always fight against anyone else! I've learnt to have a huge admiration about the Kurds. (video, if you wish: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6i3bM3I9hE ). Those guys are not Muslims, they're pagans, adoring Capliph!

Mondolkiri1 (talk) 22:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• Like Onefireuser I have questioned the validity of the maps. Maps of ISIL's territorial control are not regularly produced in the media but, when this happens, they have not presented as inflated expanse as presented on the Misplaced Pages maps. The second map also seems to present content in a much more balanced way. The second map, for instance, also presents the area controlled by the elected government of Iraq in a strong colour. The maps may also come into question in that they show the Iraqi government as being in control of highly populated areas in which case control is confirmed but they show ISIL as being in control of relatively empty areas in which, I suspect, control might be disputed. I think that the main advantage in the first map is that it shows ISIL's territorial claim and I think that the map has most valid use in the section of the article: Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Goals and territorial claims. If the map is in a way to actually contribute information in the upper section of the article and not just to act as a fluff image then it should be placed next to the map in the War factions box so as to enable compare and contrast so as to add in information on territorial claim. Otherwise the first map serves no purpose here. Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:18, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I've come to agree that the map with more colors is better for the infoboxes. The other one is perfect for the claim territory section as it actually shows what they claim nicely. Legacypac (talk) 18:28, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

@Weegee12: I don't know if you were aware of this discussion but you re-added the map here.

This also relates to content in #Suggested Trimming of Infobox Info, as was split from this thread. Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:11, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

It would be great if we resolve this argument and restore the map soon --Weegeeislyfe (talk) 12:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Weegeeislyfe The repeated map is currently restored, mainly due to new format used but it would be helpful if you actually presented reasons to support your opinions. Gregkaye ✍♪ 06:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Suggested Trimming of Infobox Info & New Infobox

For note of all editors I suggest that some content be removed/transferred from the infoboxes at least to the extent that that their combined length will not exceed the length of the Lead and the TOC. The removal of the map is suggested for reasons presented above. Either alternatively or additionally sections that might be extracted from the infoboxes include "timezone" and "strength." This last section, in the context of my browser, inserts five lines of text with its claims based on sources such as "a kurdish leader." The information also has limited usefulness in isolation from allies and opposition contents which would normally be placed in the infobox. The information is better covered in the context of article text. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:38, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

We use the red map in the article and we really only need the one detailed map between the two infoboxes. Agree - I added the second time zones after someone tagged cite needed but states set time zones, not rebel armies. We are using the country infobox for a non-country which includes some inappropriate parameters. Strength is best explained in Military of ISIL and the same section here since the estimates are so different and moving and now spread across 7 countries. Better to put "See Military of ISIL" after Strength and remove all the estimates from infobox. Legacypac (talk) 12:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The combining of the infoboxes reduced the overall length and eliminated some duplicated info (group name for example). I think the opponents could be nicely boxed in a limited purpose war faction box, since usually opponents are listed in such an infobox but the list was so long it was getting way out of hand. Legacypac (talk) 21:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Well that was a big waste 3 hours of work - LightDark2000 deleted the combined infobox without discussion. Legacypac (talk) 01:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

@LightDark2000: I'm interested, what benefit did you see in reverting to the use of two separate infoboxes? Gregkaye ✍♪

Article Section Reorg - from 14 top level headings to 6

What it was) vs What it is now 1 History

1.1 Names

1.2 Foundation of the group (1999–2006)

1.3 As Islamic State of Iraq (2006–2013)

1.4 As Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (2013–2014)

1.4.1 Syrian Civil War

1.5 As Islamic State (2014–present)

1.6 Timeline of recent events

1.7 November 2014

2 Criticism

2.1 Islamic criticism

2.2 Criticism for use of the name "Islamic State"

2.3 Other international criticism

2.4 Human rights abuses

2.4.1 War crimes accusations and findings

2.4.2 Religious and minority group persecution

2.4.3 Treatment of civilians

2.4.4 Sexual violence and slavery allegations

2.4.5 Attacks on members of the press

2.5 Designation as a terrorist organization

3 Countries and groups at war with ISIL

3.1 Opposition within Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt and Libya

3.2 Multinational coalition opposition

3.3 Other state opponents

3.4 Transnational organizations

3.5 Other non-State opponents

4 Group characteristics and structure

4.1 Ideology and beliefs

4.2 Goals and territorial claims

4.3 Leadership and governance

4.3.1 Diktats, influences and pressures

4.4 Propaganda and social media

4.4.1 Beheadings

4.5 Finances

4.6 Military and arms

4.6.1 Foreign fighters in Iraq and Syria

4.6.2 Conventional weapons

4.6.3 Non-conventional weapons

5 Supporters

5.1 Statements of support

5.2 Turkey (Allegations of Support)

6 Analysis

6.1 Conspiracy theories in the Arab world

The article has grown organically without anyone looking hard at the structure for a long time. There is a method to this madness. These 6 major sections will allow us to bring together and reduce duplicated info to trim this down. For example, we had the leaders listed and linked in two sections (Governance and Leaders) Once reorganized that was obvious and the duplication eliminated with no loss. This is also is a lot more user friendly. Legacypac (talk) 14:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Why did you not bring your planned restructuring to the Talk page first, so editors could agree or not agree to it? This is what happened before when there was a major reorganisation. Much discussion first. This is a major and radical reorganisation, which I believe should have been put to editors first. You may think it is a more user-friendly, but how can you be sure other editors agree? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 15:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Because there was no planned restructuring - this evolved organically from a serious effort to find places to shorten this LONG article with a lot of moving parts. Like a puzzle with no box to compare against, it took 3.5 hours of looking for similarities and out of place info and saying "hey that fits with this". Those efforts resulted in what you see now. Just look at the diffs and time stamps to see the process. Now it is set up for condensing without gutting important info out. The order of the 6 main sections and the order within those sections could still be refined. Legacypac (talk) 17:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I think quite a lot of it will have to be spun out into different articles given the horrific size this one has grown into, but before looking at that and at your restructuring, do you think you could make that TOC into one or two columns? All that information is quite hard to digest and then juggle with in the layout it now has. This is how we did it last time; we put up a straight list and juggled with it. You could skip the "History" part as that is straightforward. It might also be useful to do the same with the old TOC, so comparison is easier. Some of us aren't very good at handling more than one screen at a time! ~ P123ct1 (talk) 19:53, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - it is possible to set it out in a column (I'm hopeless at that in wiki) but why not just look at the article Table of Contents or hit edit on this section to see it laid out in point form. how the TOC looked yesterday. Legacypac (talk) 20:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the most relevant section of Misplaced Pages guidelines on this is WP:BODY. The basic principle is that: "Headings introduce sections and subsections, clarify articles by breaking up text, organize content, and populate the table of contents. Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose." MOS:HEADINGS also indicates that there are four levels of heading available. In its current state the article makes use of three of them, it uses six major ==headings== as detailed above which provide navigation to well over 40 section titles.

I was the editor that proposed the last look at the article structure and, possibly as a result of my introduction, we had a lot of discussion about sequence of content but not a lot about depth. My personal opinion for what it is worth is that the new layout is less bitty than it was before providing an easier navigation than we previously managed to achieve. Content remains the same but I think people will now be able to access it more easily.

Controversial changes in actual content material certainly need to be raised here and I know Legacypac has rightly followed this procedure when proposing #Standard for Naming ISIL in Sinai, Libya etc for example. The concept of consultation as mentioned by P123ct1 is vital in this article and when editors deviate from this they can be rightly held to account. My view is that the current edits are far from destructive. I'm quite annoyed that I didn't think of them myself.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 20:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Have turned the contents into a list, for the benefit of those who find it hard to juggle screens. Can revert if wanted. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 23:27, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Looks great :) Legacypac (talk) 03:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• I think "Group characteristics and structure" needs to come before "Criticism". It is illogical to describe criticisms before describing the things that are being criticised, isn't it? I see an editor has already altered the order putting "Group characteristics and structure" before "Criticism", most likely for that reason. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 12:34, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
• The criticisms material is really the more newsworthy content. It is also the content that deals with situations that are more immediately apparent. In comparison the "Group characteristics and structure" is the content that goes into more depth and as such this should be mentioned later. Criticisms often presents sound bite type contents that build together to produce a good outsiders picture of what's happening. Criticisms deal with things like that they commit war crimes, that they have human rights abuses, they are considered "outsiders" of Islam, that they kill lots of prisoners, that their name as "Islamic State" is widely rejected both by governments and especially within Islam, that they are described as a death cult, that they are mocked, that they are judged to have human rights abuses, that they are judged to be guilty of war crimes, that they persecute minorities - a whole load of minorities, that there have been massacres and that that they killed more than 1,000 civilians in 17 days, that there are sexual violence and slavery allegations, that there are RS stories of women being captured and raped, with women being treated like cattle and subjected to physical and sexual violence, that they are attacks on the press with reports that fighters have been given written direction to kill or capture journalists and that various nations and bodies call them terrorist. This is all prominent and newsworthy stuff. This is the material that should get top billing. People do not need to know the details of such things as the governance structures and finance arrangements to understand the more newsworthy stuff.

In comparison people may not need to be presented so quickly with details such as that of ideology or religious histories. Abuse such as in educational restriction and of mannequins needing to be covered are important details but these are details that are more relevant for later stages of the article. We don't immediately need to know that the judges are Saudi or that "ISIL released 16 notes labeled "Contract of the City", a set of rules aimed at civilians". OK the information on Propaganda and beheadings is worthy note but they are also commented on in criticism. Lastly the reader may not immediately need details on finances and hardware.

The most newsworthy material is the criticisms related content. This should be mentioned first. In comparison we should not start by talking about admin. This is not how RS work. Gregkaye ✍♪ 21:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

It is "not how RS work", but encyclopaedias do not behave like RS, or focus on the "newsworthy", they have a quite different set of priorities. This article should not be turned into the equivalent of a series of media reports; this not what encylopaedias do.

1. Wiki article: "Encyclopaedia": An encyclopedia ... is a type of reference work or compendium holding a comprehensive summary of information ...enyclopedia articles focus on factual information to cover the thing or concept for which the article name stands.
2. Oxford English Dictionary: "Encyclopaedia": A book or set of books giving information on many subjects or on many aspects of one subject ..."

Dull perhaps, and not as exciting as media reports, but this is what a Misplaced Pages article is: first and foremost a factual account of the subject.. Not to mention the point that reading criticism before it is known what the criticism is of is illogical. Readers go to Misplaced Pages primarily to learn about the facts of a subject. Putting "Criticism" first assumes that the reader already knows quite a lot about the facts. A Misplaced Pages article is not a polemic or a series of opinion pieces, its first aim is to deal with the basic facts about the subject. The whole "Criticism" stance of this reorganisation is not neutral, as an encylopaedia article should be and it flouts WP:NPOV, yet again, IMO. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 22:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• Just to clarify, the word "Criticism" suggests an attitude of mind. WP should have no mind of its own, its stance should be neutral. That is what I meant by flouting WP:NPOV, the "neutral point of view" standpoint which WP has to adhere to. Maybe this is just a semantic quibble at this stage, but I suggest the word "Criticism" in any heading should be used with caution. ~ P123ct1 (talk)

P123ct1, MOS:HEADINGS states, "The provisions in § Article titles.. generally apply to section headings as well.." WP:AT presents the basic principle, "The title indicates what the article is about." The word "Criticism" suggests a level of involvement that can range from constructive criticism to more derogatory forms of destructive criticism. No attitude of mind is suggested other than an engagement in analysis. However, when we check the content of the "Criticism" section we find a high content of outright condemnation accompanied with accompanying comment. Even amongst the fatwas and other Islamic documents I have seen little evidence of constructive criticism. There may be contents which in Misplaced Pages terms might be defined as AGF but all contents are consistently strongly worded. As far as I can see a use of the word "Criticism" in this context is very comfortably on the mild side of a NPOV. It doesn't really cover the extensive condemnatory content and yet, in other respects, it still provides a good, reasonably accurate and encyclopaedic coverage of the topic. Your suggestion is fine but any title applied to a title or heading must be representative of content.

I object to your use of an uncited insinuation that content in the article "yet again" flouts NPOV. If article content has flouted NPOV a variety of directions of abuse are equally possible. Gregkaye ✍♪ 18:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I clarified. My point has clearly eluded you. I did not say the content flouts NPOV, I said the stance did. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 19:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Good. The section could use much stronger phrasing in the section header and still be ok.Legacypac (talk) 20:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Please see #"Diktat" in the Talk page, where my argument over titles was basically the same.~ P123ct1 (talk) 21:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes please see: Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/Archive_18#Diktats (now archived since last edit by P123ct1). While people may naturally and fairly express POV in a talk page environment it should be clearly noted that this thread involved what can only be described as POV push for a change in article presentation. In reply to my reference to call a spade a spade, you even claimed "Calling a spade a spade is not what WP does". This is exactly what Misplaced Pages does. See: Spade. We have to give accurately descriptive titles to content for all the guidelines based reasons as presented above. Not doing so would be unencyclopaedic and flout principles of NPOV. I am all for the fair explanation of words and content (and am grateful for your support in this) but all content needs to be presented fairly. That's what Misplaced Pages does. Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I was concerned that "Diktat" and "Criticisms" (as the main heading for the section) were not neutral titles and demonized ISIL from the outset which to me shows POV. Have neutral titles and let the facts speak for themselves, as they do in both sections. The overwhelming impression left by strong titles like this is that WP is very against ISIL, when it should not show any point of view. That is what I meant by POV. There is no watering down of the truth by having a neutral title, as, once again, the facts beneath those titles speak for themselves. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 09:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The sequence as presented by Legacypac above is logical. Section one describes the History of the group and its intermittent expansion across territory. Section two can then fairly give details on the very apparent methods used related to this expansion. Section three can then take a look at the more detailed functional details of the organisation and this section finishes with first financial details and then a run down on military equipment. This serves as a very suitable introduction to sections four and five which cover content on opposition and support. Its a logical sequence for the presentation of information. The sequence of sections two and three is logical. It presents what they do and how they do it. Gregkaye ✍♪ 23:46, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with P123ct1, to me it seems logical to have the groups history, actions, ideology etc. before criticism, which is essentially reactive in that it consists of responses by outside sources to the group. Gazkthul (talk) 00:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

First someone already moved "4 Group characteristics and structure" into Section 2 pushing the other sections down. This is a strange case where the organization is all about the stuff they are being criticised for that section is where most of the hard facts about the group are. The Group Characteristics and Structure is a collection of other material full of speculation and hard to prove stuff because they are so opaque. We could consider relabeling Criticisms as Activities - but I don't see the point.

Compare to an article on the polar opposite Red Cross

1. History of Movement,
2. Activities, including

2.1 Organization of the Movement

2.2 Fundamental Principles of the International Red cross and Red Crescent Movement

2.3 Activities and organization

1. History of the emblems,
2. 1996 hostage crisis allegations (ie criticism)

Legacypac (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Gazkthul The history section does comes first. The groups most notable actions are the ones that are addressed in the criticisms section. They are the actions being criticised. The Criticisms section hardly directly relates to much of the content of ideology, it doesn't relate to goals or leadership and governmental structures, it doesn't overlap with content on issues such as the removal of aspects of curriculum or restrictions on clothing, it has nothing to do with use of a certain flag, packaging and branding, content in criticisms related to beheadings has a stand alone content and the criticisms has nothing to do with details of the groups financial arrangements or even the fact that the group has weapons. The criticisms section is a stand alone section that discusses largely what the group is doing with these weapons and peoples reactions to the related atrocities. As already stated the section on history does come first so that should not be in your argument. The groups most notable actions are directly discussed in criticisms. They are the things being criticised. On the topic of characteristics I am sure that if we asked what are the things that characterise ISIL many people would very regularly comment on the way that they try to go into places and kill people killing prisoners and that they are characterised by many of the many of the prominent issues mentioned in the news. Yours is the push of POV to say that a whole range of administerial details should be presented before more notable aspects of content. Within the context of the new clearer presentation of the TOC it is even more possible than it was in the past for a reader who wants to locate specific content to follow navigation to it. The arguments presented for departing from Legacypac's sequencing, when considered more closely, makes no sense. Gregkaye ✍♪ 05:06, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

History actually details who the group is and many of their major activities, but so does Criticism (as Gregkeye says). It is the most appropriate followup section. I'd suggest a little reordering to get the Human rights abuses closer to the History since they are the main place we detail this activity.

Current: 2 Criticism (as now organized)

2.1 Islamic criticism

2.2 Criticism for use of the name "Islamic State"

2.3 Other international criticism

2.4 Human rights abuses

2.4.1 War crimes accusations and findings

2.4.2 Religious and minority group persecution

2.4.3 Treatment of civilians

2.4.4 Sexual violence and slavery allegations

2.4.5 Attacks on members of the press

2.5 Designation as a terrorist organization

Proposed: 2 Criticism

2.1 Human rights abuses

2.1.1 War crimes accusations and findings

2.2.2 Religious and minority group persecution

2.3.3 Treatment of civilians

2.4.4 Sexual violence and slavery allegations

2.5.5 Attacks on members of the press

2.2 Islamic criticism

2.3 Criticism for use of the name "Islamic State"

2.4 Other international criticism

2.5 Designation as a terrorist organization

Legacypac (talk) 01:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support proposed order for this section, but I still think "Group characteristcs and structure" should come before "Criticisms". ~ P123ct1 (talk) 08:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
• I also agree with the logic of the presentation above as the human rights abuses gives an appropriate run through of the relevant issues involved. I think that it is important to note that, "Religious ... persecution", "Treatment of civilians" and "War crimes accusations" largely relates to the persecution of both Sh'ia Muslims and Sunni Muslims that have opposed 'SIL's extremist line. Everything here relates to the actions of a group that claims authority over Islam and, in this context, Islamic criticism should be the next thing being specifically mentioned.

If we look beyond titles and look at the actual content of the sections "Criticisms" and "Group characteristics and structure" then, for all of the reasons presented above, the content of the criticisms section, title included, should come first. Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac, P123ct1 not wanting to cut off discussion re the above but  Done discussion can continue to see if a revert/adaptation is necessary. Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I am less convinced by the idea that the section "Countries and groups at war with ISIL" should go before the description of 'SIL's "Military and arms" as presented at the end of "Group characteristcs and structure" or that the "Countries and groups at war.." section should be split from the section on "Supporters". I see a logic in this section following "Designation as a terrorist organization" but don't consider this to be sufficient to justify such a move. Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

(moved from a new section started) Current order of sections is not suitable. We'd better put introductory sections (such as Group characteristics and structure) first, then we might have sections such as criticism and etc. I edited based on this idea, but it was reverted every time. Mhhossein (talk) 07:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

In the interest of keeping each topic together on a long talk page Mhhossein I'm moving your comment into the section of the talk page dealing with this topic. Please read this section carefully and then provide your input if you still feel the same. Thanks.Legacypac (talk) 08:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

@Legacypac, P123ct1, Gazkthul, and Gregkaye: I read the above stuff. I believe that it is not logical to have an introductory section such as "Group characteristics and structure" after "Criticism". I'm in favor of moving "Group characteristics and structure" so that it is before "Criticism". In such an encyclopedic article we don't care how newsworthy a section is. Our job is to reflect the facts based on the reliable sources. The readers should get familiar with the group before reading the criticisms about it. Mhhossein (talk) 05:24, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Mhhossein I think that everyone here agrees that it is our job to reflect the facts based on the reliable sources. It is also our job to present actual content in an order that meets readers needs and yes we do take our lead from the most reliable sources. The way reliable sources typically work is to start with basic and prominently noticeable information about a group and then go on to explain the detail. The title "criticism" has also been called into question but this section's content logically comes first. It essentially describes the main things that the group are known for and presents the widespread and well noted condemnation of these actions. The article starts with a long section on the history of the group detailing its actions. The next logical thing to present is international and other responses to these actions. It would make no sense to disrupt this flow with details on things such as structures, finances and logistics. Gregkaye ✍♪ 05:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

@Gregkaye: Of course we don't care how "reliable sources typically work"! This is an encyclopedia, not a reliable source. Recognizing how an encyclopedia works will help the editors edit it correctly. Again I repeat, we don't care how newsworthy a section is!. It is not logical at all. I think we should act based on this procedure: 1-Describe who the group is! 2- Explain other details about this group and say how other people think about ISIS. Mhhossein (talk) 18:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

To use the Red Cross article example, the main stuff they do comes before minor criticism at the end, but here the main stuff isil does is headed criticisms. We don't just say they are terrorists, but we need to show the designations high in the article. Also a lot of the structure stuff below is thinly sourced and speculation, while the human rights abuses are heavily sourced. We used to have 18 headings, including a short Criticism section but now we grouped all the stuff that is related together- if someone has a better heading name make a suggestion. Legacypac (talk) 06:23, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Mhhossein I would imagine that you will be pleased with the new structure of the article. In this the section that covers the most prominent issues of the group, the ones they are mainly criticised for, comes after an newly formatted "Group operations, characteristics and structure" section. The pedantic finance and similar content has been split to rightly appear at a later point in the article. There was no way that the criticisms section was going to appear after that. Gregkaye ✍♪ 18:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

@Gregkaye: Thank you. It is too much better now. Mhhossein (talk) 03:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

reintroduction of material twice reverting my edits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

LightandDark2000 has twice put in material in the Supporters section Once by dropping in material I moved (which I reverted assuming he did not realize where it went and immediately reached out on his talk page) and now by reverting my reversion of his edit. That crosses the 1RR line so I've requested he revert himself and come here to discuss his concerns. As state in my edit summay and his talk page I believe the "Supporters: remove material reinserted in error by LightandDark2000. This info was not deleted earlier, it was moved to and summarized in Section 2.6 Military and arms with details in Military of ISIL)]])" Legacypac (talk) 04:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• I think this is the edit "requested" from above accessed through history. Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The list of groups pledging in can be found here and summarized here so we don't need it here anymore. And if the fighters joined ISIL why would we list them as Supporters. If we are going to list these 5 or 6 groups we should list all the dozens of groups in Iraq and Syria that joined ISIL, sometimes a 1000 at a time. Legacypac (talk) 04:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• Related request, Can editors please check the article to see if information already exists in the article or related content before adding. If you think that content deserves repetition can editors please consider making related proposals on the talk page or otherwise make notification here. Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
• Copy-editing new edits shows that editors usually do not read the surrounding text before making them. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 09:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Infoboxes and Lead

Gregkaye Something that struck me when copy-editing yesterday was that the infoboxes have a lot about the current conflicts that ISIL is involved in, but there is nothing in the Lead about them. Do you not think the Lead should have a few lines about these conflicts? Readers before reading the article may wonder what the infoboxes are talking about when they see nothing in the Lead about it. This is going on the principle that the Lead is meant to summarise the article. There would be room for a few sentences as I cut down the history part of the Lead the other day by a few lines. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 09:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I think you raise a really interesting subject as I don't think that infoboxes are mentioned in WP:LEAD. I see lead contents as working side by side with infoboxes in similar roles. Before Legacypac combined the infoboxes, the content got moved around a lot in the article but now it may hopefully be stable on the page. The content gets prominent mention in the infobox in list form. The third and fourth paragraphs I think gives the list content some context. I am not certain but I think this may be enough. Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I was wrong WP:LEADELEMENTS includes the infobox as part of the lead. I'd also like to add that I think that the amalgamation of information into the single infobox is a great improvement. Repetitious information was getting added into both boxes on a regular basis, the important page link information was non-sensicaly buried at the top of the second infobox and the context of the use of the red splodge map made it little more than a fluff image. I still question the usefulness of this map for reasons mentioned at #Article Maps but the main question here, as I see it, is how to best get the lead and infobox contents to work together.

You guys are very accurately describing exactly why I put over 3 hours into building a more appropriate single infobox using the Geopolitical entity infobox. ISIL has been determined to be a rebel group controlling territory (not a country/nation/state).All similar groups use war faction infobox (which is too limiting here) but which correctly puts the conflict(s) up top just like the new combined box shows. Normally in a less complex conflict we would start the lead with something like "XYZ is a rebel group fighting in the 2014 screwedupcountry Civil War" Given the number of conflicts ISIL is now in, and the prominence of the links to them at the top of the infobox now, I don't currently have an opinion on what to add to the lead if anything.

As for the red map, I don't have strong feelings but once the two maps were presented side by side I noticed that they show IDENTICAL territorial control. In its current use the red map adds the useful info of what they claim - a good indication of where they will fight next. Someone added links to the underlying maps which is fantastic because now any editor can see the detailed process the maps are based on - they are hardly OR as has been often claimed here. Legacypac (talk) 20:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Moratorium on a name change

As you know, there is a moratorium on discussing name changes for this article. I just wanted to ask what will happen once the moratorium ends, and if I am unable to voice my opinion when the time comes. StanMan87 (talk) 12:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

RFC: Lists of countries and territories, List of sovereign states, List of active rebel groups and ISIL

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: History and geography Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Misplaced Pages has Lists of countries and territories and a List of sovereign states with many subsidiary lists including List of sovereign states in the 2010. Someone inserted "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" right between Ireland and Israel on that one list, and no other I could find so far. Since ISIL is accurately listed at List of active rebel groups can we have consensus that the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant is not a sovereign state, country, or sub-national entity and should not be listed as such. This means we will not list ISIL on any of the referenced lists of States and Countries and that we will not refer to ISIL as having characteristics exclusive to real states or subnational entities (a capital, a government, currency, defined borders etc) I believe this is the current state of consensus across Misplaced Pages but outside this ISIL article can not find any discussion on this matter. If you agree write Support. If you disagree, write Oppose and provide RS evidence against the above statement. I believe if we start recognizing ISIL as a state we have to alter the recognition and borders of Iraq and Syria Thank-you for participating. Legacypac (talk) 21:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Not sure this requires an RFC, just a heavier presence of editors on articles like List of sovereign states in the 2010s. The point has been discussed over and over and over in the archives of Talk:List of states with limited recognition and Talk:List of sovereign states, including most notably this long discussion. Consensus that ISIS does not meet the standard is well-established, and there is no reason to change it. Kahastok talk 21:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank-you very much, I just found and read that talk page. We do have a few issues on this page about calling them a State or using State like terminology. Legacypac (talk) 21:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

On lists, inclusion or exclusion is pretty binary and so we have to have clear rules that tell us what belongs and what does not. In this case, (just to make life easier for those not wishing to read our discussion), the rule is that we either need recognition (by a UN member state) or evidence that outside experts believe that it meets the standard of declarative theory of statehood (i.e. our own analyses do not count). Nobody has ever been able to provide evidence of either. On articles, we can be a bit more nuanced - but it would be inaccurate and certainly non-neutral to present ISIS as though it were a state. There is no evidence that it is a state under international law, or that any independent government, lawyer or academic believes it to be such.

My experience is that there are a few people on Misplaced Pages who push for the absolute widest possible definition of "state". Often, they don't discriminate - pushing both the extremely controversial cases and the cases where there is no serious international dispute (the Cook Islands and Niue, which are deliberately ambiguous as to whether their status amounts to sovereignty or not) in equal measure. Some people are so desperate to push these entities that they take speeches by Western politicians and ask if they constitute recognition of ISIS. We need to work against this POV pushing just as we reject all other POV pushing. Kahastok talk 22:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Support as per nom. Gregkaye ✍♪ 18:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose Any group that has taken over land and rules that land is a state. Markewilliams (talk) 19:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

iraqi insurgency map

we need a updated version of the map. Baiji is under government control and an ongoing battle at ramadi is taking place--Arbutus the tree (talk) 01:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

This page does not control the map - which is actually two maps for Syria and Iraq put together. In the infobox under the maps are links to the pages where you can express your opinion or edit the maps yourself. Legacypac (talk) 02:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

the problem is no one ever uses those pages.--Arbutus the tree (talk) 02:59, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe there has been much real estate in Syria or Iraq changing hands since the airstrikes started. ISIL has been bogged down in Kobani and unable to advance in Iraq much because they get bombed when they move and the kurds are holding ground, while there are complaints about the Iraqi Army's ineffectiveness in regaining ground. If you have different info you can update the maps yourself. Legacypac (talk) 09:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Again pinging map editors @Haghal Jagul: @Spesh531: @Kohelet: @Joan301009: @Vectrex: @Mondolkiri1: to raise this in addition to other threads.

Population

After looking at all the towns under isil control's populations i have made a rough calculation that ISIL's population is 612,484 but unfortunately not all the towns populations are logged so their should be more than this. --Weegeeislyfe (talk) 08:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Your estimate is way under reality and appears to cover just part of Syria based on the link. Mosul Iraq and area alone is 1.5 million people. Just before I saw this post I finally found a source - the WSJ - for 8 million people between Iraq and Syria, and added it to the governance section. Legacypac (talk) 11:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I personally think these efforts to be of great value for editor contextualisation and consumption and I personally think that any well researched information, if checked and found to be valid, should be able to be used in content. It can certainly be used to case other claims into doubt but unfortunately Misplaced Pages has a rule on original research and such info can't be directly used. Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I do wonder if the Wall Street Journal # of 8 million is a bit high (no idea how they came up with the number) considering how many millions of refugees are sitting outside the war zone. Extreme example - ISIL controls parts of Kobani with a statistical population of 45-50,000, and 200,000 in the area of Kobani EXCEPT the current civilian population of Kobani is Zero. Legacypac (talk) 20:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Honest mistake, sorry for that. I did not realise that my source did not include iraqi cities, I will fix my calculations soon. --Weegeeislyfe (talk) 08:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

(new section started below-same topic-I brought them together Legacypac (talk) 21:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)))

4,644,780–8,000,000 Honestly? If we do no know the first digit why should we write 5 more digits that are pure fairy tale. This should be 4 million-8 million.95.91.128.159 (talk) 09:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• Agreed. I'd suggest a content such as:

Population

Speculative estimate 4–8 million

The words population and estimate above are fixed. The wording of the previous, area, field reads "estimate only of controlled areas" and I'd suggest that a new potentially brief section on might be created on "Population of controlled areas" and perhaps a section on refugees. Maybe sections such as these could fit in between sections:

4.3 Leadership and governance

4.3.1 Diktats, influences and pressures

4.4 Propaganda and social media

4.4.1 Beheadings

4.5 Finances

Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The lower figure was obtained by adding up all the cities they control off WP maps. That naturally misses all the villages, ignores the fact there are well over a million internal and external refugees and does not deal with the problem of different levels of control, casualties, and that that no consensus is possible. The higher figure comes from the Wall Street Journal - who did not specify how they got it but it is a nice round number, or to how many significant digits. Was it 7,999,350 rounded up or 10 million people minus the refugees? For example, take Kobani pop 45,000 (in the city) or up to 200,000 in the immediate area.... except there are no civilians in Kobani today and ISIL controls only part of the city. So what population does ISIL control in Kobani for statistical purposes? The same problems in estimation exist to different degrees across the conflict area. Difficult problem... no easy answers. Legacypac (talk) 20:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac and others, I suspect that the Wall Street journal figure might be the product of some extremely fanciful NY accounting. As noted, it makes a mockery of the 4,644,780 figure. I don't believe that there are 3.3 million+ other people accounted for in desert villages and new arrivals even before the subtraction of the unknown number of refugees and dead. I'd suggest that the (Sesame, I mean) Wall Street accounting either be deleted or reduced to a footnote where it can be explained as not having been accompanied by a justification. I'd suggest an entry "~4,644,780 (figure not accounting: village populations, arrivals, refugee departures and death)". Alternately all the additional info could be placed in a footnote. Thanks for the explanation. Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:51, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Not for insertion in the article, but as a reasonableness check. Sources often say ISIL controls a 1/3rd of each country. Pop of Iraq 33.42 million + Pop of Syria 22.85 million =56.27 million together X 1/3 = 18.75 million = 2.3 times lower then WSJ's 8 million. They don't control the biggest cities 3.8 million in Baghdad + 1.7 million in Damascus = 5.5 million but they do control Greater Mosul at 1.5 million, various other cities, large rural areas and a whole bunch of desert. Take 4 million(proposed above)/56.27 total= 7.1% and 8/56.27=14.2%. Looking at these numbers and the control maps, and at the number and size of towns they control and "vast swaths of territory" phrase often used in the media, clearly the 1/3 number is based on % of ground not population. Even considering the unevenness of population distribution the WSJ's 8 million or 14.2% of the combined population against 1/3 of the territory looks a lot more accurate than a lower number calculated by adding up the larger population centers, which ignores the large rural village populations. Legacypac (talk) 17:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Controlling what?

The first paragraph of the article describes a "rebel group controlling territory" and, while I think that this is a reasonable description, I thought it might be relevant to raise a "controlling what?" question.

If the areas are anything like Jordan then I would imagine that, from the perspectives of both sides, a lot of the territory is relatively difficult to "control". What there will be is a lot of variously defensible and potentially strategic locations and a variety of populated areas in amongst a whole lot of typically desert wilderness. The maps are useful but I think that the block colours can be deceptive. It can be easy to think of borders in coloured terms perhaps in relation to our conceptions of border crossings etc. It can also be easy to think of wars in terms of Front lines and with conceptions affected by knowledge of historical conflicts such as WWII with its trench warfare.

"..controlling populated and other areas.." might work.

Also pinging the various map editors on this, @Haghal Jagul: @Spesh531: @Kohelet: @Joan301009: @Vectrex: @Mondolkiri1: See also: #Article Maps which was a particular issue on the 'SIL page in its condition before its amalgamation of infoboxes. Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I looked into this in detail because this question keeps coming up. Yes, there are large desert areas with limited population. Between the Euphrates valley and the Karameh Border Crossing there is one highway with one oasis city called Rutba, all in Anbar Province. "Rebel Iraqi tribes" took control of the crossing in June. ISIL controls the approaches in the Euphrates valley, the highway and the oasis city. Two days ago "ISIS controls 80 per cent of the western province of Anbar, whilst the rest is under the control of the army and tribes, Iraq's Minister of Electricity Qassim Al-Fahdawi ".

Look at it this way. If the Russians invaded Alaska and took Anchorage and most of the smaller cities, would you draw a map showing Russia controls just the cities and that the USA controls all the forests and bears between? Territorial Control does not mean a solder on every street or in every village or standing the the middle of the desert- it means the exclusive ability to project authority as required and deny other forces access. Like in Risk you can control territory with just one army token if you have enough forces elsewhere that prevents anyone else from getting into that territory.

We can show ISIL control of the empty area, Govt control (which the quote above denies) or like one map I saw, show the empty area in another color.

1. http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/security/2014/06/jordan-iraq-alert-isis-seizes-border-crossing.html#
2. https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/middle-east/14600-iraqi-minister-isis-controls-80-of-the-anbar-province

Legacypac (talk) 18:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Games, Games - Civilisation might be an arguably more relevant example as it gives differentiation to the value of localities - (but I guess value in this case also includes oil) Gregkaye ✍♪ 18:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2014

This edit request to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Addition of ~12,000 militants who were recruited in Balochistan region of Pakistan under ISIS' military size.

1. http://www.dailysabah.com/asia/2014/11/09/12000-protaliban-tribesmen-allegedly-join-isis-in-pakistan

Kennybmr (talk) 10:16, 27 November 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. — {{U|Technical 13}} 19:09, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Israel did not designate "ISLAMIC STATE או ISLAMIC STATE IN IRAQ AND SYRIA/ALSHAM/LEVEANT או ISIL/ISIS או AQI" as a terrorist organisation

I am no fan of Israeli politics but one thing that seems fairly clear to me is that they can be very clear in what they say. It is also clear that Israel has been listed in the article in error.

Israel, that I have seen, makes declarations about organisations in two significant ways. They can make a declaration of to say that an organisation is an organisation "as a terrorist organisation" (הכרזה כארגון טרור - "as an organisation of terror") and they can make a declaration to say that an organisation is a "Unlawful organization" (התאחדות בלתי מותרת - an "association/united group, not, allowed"). I have gone a bit into the etymology of the terms but regular translation simply relates to declarations of terrorist organisations and declarations of unlawful/illegal organisations and Israel made the second of these declarations in relation to 'SIL.

I found this information by searching on "הכרזה כארגון טרור לפי פקודת מניעת טרור" ("Declaration, as organization, terror, "from mouth", Ordinance, prevention of, Terror") and then by choosing the download the immediately presented link with address shown as: www.mod.gov.il/Defence-and.../teror16.11.xls . This link has the title "רשימת ההכרזות - משרד הביטחון" which translates as: List of, Announcements - Office, Security, (Ministry of Defence).

Israel has ten times issued a "הכרזה כארגון טרור לפי פקודת מניעת טרור" Declaration as a terrorist organization by the Command of preventing terror. I counted ten groups on the list and they included PLO, Fatah, Hamas, Palestine al-muslima, Palestinian relief and development...

Israel has also often issued a "הכרזה על התאחדות בלתי מותרת" Declaration of an unlawful association. I estimate about 100 items and groups include:

3.9.14 דאע"ש או המדינה האסלאמית או המדינה האסלאמית בעיראק ובסוריה או החליפות האסלאמית או אלקאעדה עיראק ISLAMIC STATE או ISLAMIC STATE IN IRAQ AND SYRIA/ALSHAM/LEVEANT או ISIL/ISIS או AQI אלדולה אלאסלאמיה פי עיראק ואלשאם או אלקאעדה פי עיראק الدولة الاسلامية או الدولة الاسلامية في عراق والشام או داﻋﺶ או اﳋلافۃ الاسلامية הכרזה על התאחדות בלתי מותרת לפי תקנות ההגנה (שעת חירום) 1945 שר הביטחון - משה (בוגי) יעלון 03/09/14 Daa"s or Islamic state or an Islamic state in Iraq and Syria or Islamic caliphate or Al-Qaeda or Iraq ISLAMIC STATE ISLAMIC STATE IN IRAQ AND SYRIA / ALSHAM / LEVEANT or ISIL / ISIS or AQI Haldol Alislamiya Iraq and al-Sham according to Al-Qaeda or Iraq الدولة الاسلامية times or الدولة الاسلامية في عراق والشام or داعش or الخلافۃ الاسلامية declaration of an unlawful association under the Defense (Emergency) Regulations, 1945 Defense Minister - Moshe (Bogie) Ya'alon.

The inclusion of the Israel reference in the section "Designation as a terrorist organization" is totally unjustified. Beyond the table the text of the section states "Many world leaders and government spokespeople have called ISIL a terrorist group..." Israel, as far as I can see, has not even done this.

Thank you P123ct1 for removing the reference from the ISIL list. I will add relevant declarations to the article List of designated terrorist organizations. It is important for Israel to be kept accountable for their notable actions. Thank you also for asking me the right questions to help me find Israel's surreptitiously hidden information on this.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 18:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

TY. Gregkaye and I sorted this out on my Talk page, if anyone is interested to see how this was arrived at. The Israeli government document Gregkaye refers to shows that Israel declared ISIL an "unlawful organization" (see no. 350) on 3rd September 2014 (same date as given in two citations originally appended to Israel designation in infobox), while there are other groups in that list that are clearly declared as "terrorist organisations". The Arabic source, one of three originally appended to the infobox designation, was clearly a misreport. P123ct1 (talk) 19:00, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The lesson is don't just trust sources, especially secondary ones. We have been providing misinformation for a long time - as the particular Arabic source concerned continues to do. Gregkaye ✍♪ 20:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Propaganda and perspective

Article content should accurately report on the wholly unjustified inter-Muslim/inter-faith conflict currently occurring in Iraq and Syria. This conflict should be fairly presented as should the relative status levels and backgrounds of any of the groups involved. It is only right that the truth of the nature of this sectarian warfare be clearly presented.

On the other side of this same issue there should not be attempts to highlight western involvements in ways that go beyond the actual realities in Iraq and Syria. In other articles I have seen a rhetorical repetition of the terms American and U.S. in a way that, amongst other things, might well leave us other coalition member states (and the government of Syria etc.) feeling left out. It has been common in various places in various articles to talk of Assad, of al-Maliki and of U.S President Barack Obama as following mention of the U.S.-led coalition and other U.S. related references. While I think that it is fair for all groups that have intervened in the region to be fairly accountable for their actions it often seems that some editors take every turn to place a U.S. centric spin on local issues. I think that the thread above on Israel indicates a gratuitous act by some journalists to indicate a sensationalist involvement of Israel whose headline may have shifted a few more copies of the paper. Closer to home I don't think that a gratuitous emphasis of U.S. involvement should be tolerated. I have attempted to balance this out where I have been able and hope that other editors can also be watchful.

References in articles to local groups are a cause for concern. In the references such as in the timeline article I seen can talk about ISIL and rebel groups. I think that it may even be proposed that 'SIL is about as rebellious a group as it is possible to get. It has rebels against local governments, it has rebelled against and has separated from al-Qaeda and it arguable that the extremity of many of its actions constitute a rebellion against a great many purported authorities of Islam.

Terminologies we might use could include "other rebel groups" or perhaps we could talk of the "ISIL separatists" in comparison to "rebel groups" or rebels. Better still perhaps we can name the other groups and state something on their ideologies. Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment: the article is written in marked American English, which perhaps is indicative of something. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 09:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Don't the other rebel groups generally have their own articles that cover their ideologies? Why muddy up this article with details like that?

Agreed, and I cannot understand why there is now a detailed paragraph at the beginning of "Analysis" on the Sunni-Shia conflict which does not mention ISIL at all. Why should this article report on that, as suggested above, when this article is about ISIL? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 12:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 I would be happy for the whole paragraph to either stay or go. The previous state of that content was to take a quote regarding an Analysis of the complex lead up to the current conflict so as to only include the element that placed the whole blame on the Americans. It was a gross misrepresentation of content. So should it stay or should it go? Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

ISIL uses Sunni-Shite conflict as justification for atrocities, but that is about all we need to say on the topic, maybe wikilinked to the an appropriate article. This is not stated in the article now, but they built a big force by paying better (defections) negotiating friendly mergers, recruiting foreign fighters, and intimidation both of individuals (fight for us or we kill you and family) and groups (public beheadings etc). Legacypac (talk) 17:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Original had: "Analysts have underlined the deliberate inflammation of sectarian conflict between Iraqi Shias and Sunnis during the Iraq War by various Sunni and Shia players as the root cause of ISIL's rise. The post-invasion policies of the international coalition forces have also been cited as a factor, with Fanar Haddad, a research fellow at the National University of Singapore's Middle East Institute, blaming the coalition forces during the Iraq War for "enshrining identity politics as the key marker of Iraqi politics ". No anti-US bias that I can see. Only bias is in the language used, "blaming". That could have been eliminated in this way: "Fanar Haddad, a research fellow at the National University of Singapore's Middle East Institute, for example, viewed the coalition forces during the Iraq War as "enshrining identity politics as the key marker of Iraqi politics"." or some such wording. But as there is no citation for "Analysts have underlined", and that whole para is so badly worded and woolly anyway, probably best to drop it completely. Reading it is like peering through mist, IMO. I don't think there is any need for a substitute like Gregkaye's, as it doesn't mention ISIL. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 17:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC).

"ISIL uses Sunni-Shite conflict as justification for atrocities" is interpretation and just a point of view. That argument could not be used by WP (it would be WP:OR), but it could if someone else had said it. Then it would be a report of an interpretation, and thus not fall foul of WP:NPOV. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Ya of course we would need to source this as it sounds like opinion, but its true. Legacypac (talk) 20:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

As for the Syrian Govt and other Syrian rebels being left out - they have their own Syrian Civil War set of articles for coverage.

Fine, if there are some RSs which say this. But I think even with RSs it would still be opinion. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 20:52, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

back on "propaganda" In the timeline document there was another text example contrasting, "unite several hard-line groups" and "other moderate Syrian Rebel groups". What makes the hard-liners to be hard-liners but the moderates to be rebels? It's difficult to know the politics of each of the many groups out there but, as far as I have been able to understand, it's the hard-liners that have been the groups that have rebelled against the the Syrian and Iraqi regimes. In the articles, however, it is POV to differentiate between the groups. Gregkaye ✍♪ 21:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Related Article nominated for deletion

I found this new article via a link in the ISIL article. 2014 U.S. and allies versus Islamic State hostilities and conflicts. There are a number of issues with this article a deserves a look by other editors - I've AfD'd it. Legacypac (talk) 11:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Reorganisations

See: #Article Section Reorg - from 14 top level headings to 6

1. It was only very recently that the article went through a significant restructure as per link above. At this stage the TOC looked like this.

2. Since then there has been another major revision that brought the TOC to look like this.

3. From this point I made some further reorganisations to produce an article sequence with a TOC that looks like this.

Each edit has its qualities. What do editors think. Gregkeye 16:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Several editors actually reorged the Criticisms section lower, and then right to the very bottom, and others complained about it. That gave me the idea of integrating by topic. So action/policy-response, action-response. Did not get it all polished off yet, but I hope this will lead to more stability and enhanced reader usability. Your changes are in a similar direction and at quick glance, quite good. I'd prefer to get the opponents section more prominent. Normally the enemies are listed prominently in a war faction infobox (and used to be here) but as the list grew out of control. Legacypac (talk) 17:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

the term "Rebel group controlling territory" is fake term made up in order to replace the term "unrecognized state"

the islamic state isn't just a rebel group with a central goal of toppling some regime. they formed a state with government and other infrastracutes like economy, law enforcment, education, agriculture etc and they keep developing them and calls for various experts around the world to join their new state/caliphate.

the term "Rebel group controlling territory" for the islamic state is nothing more than the false preception of them as nothing more than gang of lunatics who all what they doing is to run from city to city and kill the police and anyone who oppose them but it doesn't true, they are replacing the former goverments in many ways from law enforcment to education.

and that POV pushing is just the one part of a series of POV pushing made by people who can't seperate their justified hate for the islamic state from the article about the islamic state despite the fact that the article should be NEUTRAL and mention facts as they are. and as i already showed her there is some people who are simply too eager to attack everything relating to ISIS from their legitimacy of being caliphate and even for being "jihadist" with nothing but demagogy like the OPINION of some individuals and even just realy stupid and hilarious "arguments" like "ISIS is an unrecognized-state, they aren't a state so they can't be a caliphate".

some people edited this article in a realy bad way which harms wikipedia reputation for being neutral. --Wheels of steel0 (talk) 21:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

You will find the term originated List_of_active_rebel_groups#Groups_which_control_territory here where the Article is called List of Active Rebel Groups and the section 1st header "Groups Which Control Territory" =>Rebel group controlling territory term used here. That article says: "This is a list of active rebel groups around the world whose domains may be subnational, transnational or international. A "rebel group" is defined here as a political group seeking change through armed conflict in opposition to an established government or governments." Compare to Sovereign state. I hope the clarification was helpful. Legacypac ([[User talk:Legacypac|ta

Legacypac i saw that article and it has nothing to do with the legitimacy of this term on the islamic state case or in general. on the other hand you should read the article you mentioned about sovereign state, that article showed the international law terms for being a sovereign state:

1.having a permanent population. the islamic state have it.

2.defined territory. the islamic state have it and they aren't the first state who have imperialistic territorial claims.

3.the CAPACITY to enter into relations with other sovereign states. they do have the capacity and there is even claims that they have secret relations with turkey and even an embassy.

4.one government. they have it.

the article even talk about states without recognitions from other states so they obviously fit for being called a 'state'.

it mybe more practical to define some rebel groups who conquer some city or territory as part of an armed battle against some government or group as "rebel group controlling territory" but the islamic state is different in the vast organized efforts in various infrastractures from law enforcment and juridical system to education, agriculture, water, electricity, sewage, post offices(in some areas) and even building new roads and facilities. and ofcourse they are a new state and not just some group trying to topple and replace some government in a specific state, so even the term "rebel group" didn't fit to them from the beginning.

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2014/08/18/iraq_isis_terror_obama_us_intelligence_islamic_state

the statehood of the islamic state is talked in many other articles and mentioned by people who live in their territory. so there is no reason to treat them as "rebel group controlling territory" cause they don't just "control" the the territory they realy govern over the territory and the people in it in the level of at least low level third world country.

and anyway most people will agree that for long time the islamic state is no longer some "rebel group controlling teritory".--Wheels of steel0 (talk) 17:29, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I think we can agree that they fail under "Constitutive theory" as no state recognizes them as a country.

Your list is from the Declarative theory which requires all 4 elements.

1) a defined territory (not stable, shifts daily, requires saying that Iraq and/or Syria's borders have changed, which even Syria's other enemies have never said)

2) a permanent population; (there are no "citizens". They do not have popular support in areas controlled. Refugees all over the place.)

3) a government (they do control local government functions to various degrees, but local government is not national sovereignty. They surely do not exercise the exclusive right to use force anywhere.)

and 4) a capacity to enter into relations with other states, so long as it wasn't achieved by force whether this consists in the employment of arms, in threatening diplomatic representations, or in any other effective coercive measure. (from Article 11 of the Montevideo Convention) (ummm... fail? and the UN designation of ISIL as a terrorist group pretty much precludes diplomatic recognition.)

Legacypac (talk) 00:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC) 18:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac , Gregkaye(i don't know who wrote that comment). don't try to made up new terms and rewrite the international law and known defenition of 'state'.

1. neither do the territory which syria and iraq control is "stable", not that it means anything about the legitimacy of some state if it loses or gain some territory.

2."not popular"? since when a state needs to be "popular"? anyway you need to stop with those claims of "the muslims don't support them" "they are not popular" and all this nonesense of assuming that you know and can generalize about the muslim world as if they all have the same opinion and somekind of authority, after our discussion on that matter we both know that you don't know much about islam and know nothing at all about the people inside the islamic state territory or muslims in general.

3. local goverment is the big part that makes them from some group who conquer territory as part of a militiary campaign against some specific country to a state that govern its territory and people. the "right" according to your POV has nothing to do with her.

4. they can have it by "force" or various other ways according to the will of the other country, the capacity is all what is matter her and not if they succeded or not in having relations and formal recognition of some state.

the constitutive theory isn't the only or main defenition of state so it doesn't matter if the islamic state isn't a state according to this theory which is problematic from its core cause "recognition" is nothing but formal and mostly symbolic act in many cases like the "recognition" of russia in south ossetia and transnistria as "sovereign states" and part of russia in the same time or like the "recognition" of turkey in the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus"(northern cyprus) which is the same case.

countries like that has no real "recognition" from any country so they are called "unrecognized states" and they aren't the only countries in that situation. so as you can see the constitutive theory defenition of a state is ignored most of the time and that why we have the term "unrecognized state". --Wheels of steel0 (talk) 23:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I already noted there are two schools of thought on nationhood - interpretation falls between the two schools.

Wheels of steel0 Can you name any other group in the world that is as rebellious as 'SIL? They have rebelled against the governments of Syria and the democratically elected government of Iraq. They have rebelled against al-Qaeda to whom they previously swore loyalty and from whom they have now been disowned. They have rebelled against a great number of Islamic authorities who have come to the point, in many cases, of calling them un-Islamic. I cannot see that they are anything other than the epitome of a rebel group. Who can you say is worse? Gregkaye ✍♪ 19:24, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

the term "rebel group" is about the cause and goals of the group and not its personal character. the islamic state don't want to replace the current syrian goverment in another "syrian" goverment and do it in iraq. the islamic state want to conquer those countries and destroying them completely. they even forbiden teachers in their schools to mention the words "syria" or "iraq" and the names of other arab states which they see as fake countries and nations. --Wheels of steel0 (talk) 23:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The difficult and uncomfortable truth is that they are probably both. Other language wiki articles on ISIL have two, one for the group as ISIL, one for the group as Islamic state. When is that nettle going to be grasped by the en.wiki article? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 19:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. While I think that the term rebel group is very apt in some circumstances (especially when comparisons are being made to other groups) I agree that it does not give a full or accurate big picture view of what they are about. How about a lead text, "... is a Sunni, extremist, jihadist militant organization controlling territory ..." The link to List of active rebel groups#Groups which control territory can still be attached but perhaps to the words "controlling territory". As far as "status" or "type" in the infobox are concerned I think rebel group gives good description. However, in other situations rebel group does not describe an organisation with slick PR that 'SIL exhibits. The first titles in the governance section might also warrant a revision but no ideas at present. Perhaps a word like promotion could be added to Propaganda and social media. I object to the use of government. This description fails on the basis that 'SIL is not a nation. The infobox should talk of governance not government. They are not a nation and don't have a recognised government. Last time I checked sources did not describe 'SIL as having a government and nor should we. Gregkaye ✍♪ 22:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye the term government has nothing to do with nationality at all. goverment is the administrative system which controll a state, and they are a state as you can see.

the lack of "nationality" as we know it and the idea of being the state of all muslims(kind of islamic nationality) is exactly what made them a caliphate which is also kind of goverment system. many people think that "recognizing" their statehood or being a caliphate is kind of support in them but the fact is that recognition doesn't affect the fact that they are a state and obviously has nothing to do with being a caliphate. they are pan islamic state which is a caliphate. --Wheels of steel0 (talk) 23:49, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

the unrecognized "states" wheels mention are both stable and backed by a great power aka puppet states. A rebel group does not need to recognize the legitimate government, in fact they usually reject the government. I never referenced muslims, this has nothing to do with religion - popular support means the people support (or at least recognize but not necessarily like) the group as the legitimate government. Provision of water, power, courts etc does NOT equal sovereignty-if it did every city and province/state would be its own country. If wheels is here to argue that ISIL is a sovereign nation please provide some actual support and come back here after you successfully amend List_of_sovereign_states. This position has been rejected many times all over Misplaced Pages and there is no reason to change this article to conflict with the rest of the project. No one else here sees that ISIL is a state. Legacypac (talk) 00:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• Wheels of steel0 As far as I see it you are pushing a fairly strong POV. Have you read State. I will readily hear any defence to the contrary but, by my reading, QSIS fails at every level. Please don't say that I "can see" something that doesn't seem to me to fit in with any definition of state. One thing that I found interesting was that the article "Islamic state" does not have a parallel equivalent on Arabic Misplaced Pages. How did this concept originate? Without information to the contrary I think that the most logical answer is to interpret an "Islamic state" as being simply a "state" that is ajectivally described by "Islamic". You need to present evidence of your claim of a concept of a state for all Muslims. This is not how countries and international law works. If say a Czechoslovakian person goes, for instance to Mexico they don't remain in Czechoslovakia. They go to Mexico. They do not remain in the same state. There are only two states most directly involved in the 'SIL story. They are Iraq and Syria and there are a number of rebel/militant, groups/organisations fighting for power in between. Gregkaye ✍♪ 05:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac i didn't gave examples for unrecognized states but examples for "recognition" and how it can't realy determine if some group is a state or not. we can both agree that you don't know how much people like the islamic state in its territory and how much don't like them, but as you can see at yourself many people cooperates with them whether if it is by paying taxes and for other services like water and by using facilities in their control like courthouses and schools and even by complaining to their kind of police about other people.

city may run many similar things but a city isn't indipendent and it is part of a country, that why a city without a larger state which control it is called a city-state and not "rebel group controling territory" or "group of people controling territory".

your demand that i will correct anyother article which made similar mistake with the islamic state is ridiculous. the blind refusal of seeing them as what they are is a mistake that should be corrected on the article about the islamic state before any other article that mention them.

you on the other hand needs to show me how the islamic state doesn't fit to the known defenition of a state instead of trying to made up new defenition with new terms like "popular support" and "the right" to force their rule.

Gregkaye can you show me how you got to the conclusion that the islamic state doesn't fit to those terms? i talked about that with a lot of details so you need to do more than writing your claim without any kind of argument.

the term "islamic state" as a type of country means nothing at all for the legitimacy of the islamic state for being a caliphate or a state so what is your point her exactly?. anyway if we are talking about the arabic wikipedia you should know that the arabic article of the islamic state describing the 'situation' of the islamic state as unrecognized-state as this article did not many time ago.

and what can't you understand in the fact that the islamic state sees itself as the state of all muslims? you talked about nationality and this is the nationality of the islamic state, the same ideology that defines a caliphate and seperate it from countries with none-islamic nationality which force the sharia on the people like iran. so how a person who goes from one country to another has anything to do with the subject her? the islamic state as any other state rule what its rule and the international law have nothing to do with the nationality/ideology of the state itself.--Wheels of steel0 (talk) 12:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Wheels of steel0 Please also do not misrepresent a dictionary defined word such as rebel. This word has a wide range of meanings and it does not help if you make POV assertions regarding one fairly extreme form of its definition. For other views of the term please see search on: "Che Guevara" AND (rebel OR rebellion) and, for instance, content at Star Wars, Rebel Alliance. Throughout history there have been noble rebellions and less noble rebellions. No judgement if meant by the use of the term. It merely constitutes a correct and encyclopaedic description of the situation. This has nothing to do with readers independent judgements of the group and its actions and what they represent.

In your second sentence in you opening statement above you claimed, "they formed a state". I would ask you to look at definitions of state and present reasons based on that content as to why you think that this group fits the related encyclopaedic descriptions. References in reliable sources to reference to the group as being a nation state would also be helpful. The fact is that QSIS, as I am at liberty to describe it, is a rebel group. It has taken control of territory that exists within the border areas of Iraq and Syria. You have claimed that they have formed a "state" but you have not substantiated this claim according to the definitions of the word used.

How a person goes from one country to another has everything to do with the subject. Please read the content of State.Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye it seems you failed to understand that the term "rebel" is not just about the action of the group but also about what they are without being a rebel, while rebels are group(from very small to very big) of people resisting to some authority this term can't be used when the group has formed a functioning state which rule a significant amount of territory.

and for being a state, i ALREADY showed how they fit to the term in THIS discussion, don't try to ignore it:

"

1.having a permanent population. the islamic state have it.

2.defined territory. the islamic state have it and they aren't the first state who have imperialistic territorial claims.

3.the CAPACITY to enter into relations with other sovereign states. they do have the capacity and there is even claims that they have secret relations with turkey and even an embassy.

4.one government. they have it.

the article even talk about states without recognitions from other states so they obviously fit for being called a 'state'.

"

i even commented about the desperate criticism of "legacypac" about it so why you keep talking as if i didn't talked about the terms at all? if you do had some kind of real criticism you were at least talking about the terms and what i said about them ofcourse. and again your ridiculous connection between being a state/government to nationality just show that you simply have inaccurate and false preception of the concept of a state. and it look like you readed the article about state in the same way you "readed" the articles about nation and nationality so don't tell me to read the article about state in your attempt to avoid a real discussion about the terms i talked about and other things from that article which you chose to ignore. --Wheels of steel0 (talk) 16:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Wheels of steel0 With regard to your use of the terms "failed", "desparate" and "ridiculous" please see WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL. If you want people to discuss issues with you can you please treat them with respect. I have given options to respond as above. They have no RS recognition as a state. They have no RS recognition as a government. Sources, that I have seen, do not refer to them in these ways. Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:30, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye referring sources have nothing to do with her cause as you can see in the article about the term state and in many actual real-life examples the term state is not about any kind of "recognition"(especialy not of some american news network and others) but about actual functionality and facts which you deny over and over again, that why the term "unrecognized-state" exist. you indeed failed in giving any real argument to support your claim and your way of avoiding real discussion and only saying your opinion without any kind of arguments or even referring to the arguments i showed her is desperate. you give the POV of some online news site and personal people as an argument for claims that has nothing to do with the POV of those people you use, and you ignore them when they doesn't have the same POV as you like with our discussion about if the islamic state is "jihadistic" and caliphate.

the problem is not just with your claims but with your whole rhetoric. --Wheels of steel0 (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Wheels of steel0 In addition to all the above please read and understand Misplaced Pages:Weasel words with regard to your unsubstantiated statement regarding, "many actual real-life examples the term state". Demonstrate to us all the list of nations that recognise the rebel group QSIS to be a state. Demonstrate a predominance of references in RS. Please don't make unsubstantiated accusations about rhetoric. Again see WP:NPA. I am in no way avoiding the topic of functionality and in no way deny the view of QSIS being an intricately functioning rebel group. This is an irrelevance. Gregkaye ✍♪ 18:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye the term "weasel words" just described the rhetoric you are using now with how you act as if you said anything meaningful about what i said while you are doing nothing instead of having claims without anykind of argument not to mention one that refer to what i just said before. and i already gave you examples for states without recognition that have other names in some media like south ossetia, abkhazia and north cyprus and more, you call it "unsubstantiated"?, don't tell me that you didn't heard about those states cause i mentioned them before in this discussion.

now despite what we know now about unrecognized state and the common terms which don't include any kind of "recognition" you demand some ridiculous demands like "Demonstrate to us all the list of nations that recognise the rebel group QSIS to be a state" and "Demonstrate a predominance of references in RS" despite the fact that we are just talking about how "recognition" have nothing to do with being a state. you even demand "recognition" of news networks as "sources" which only show that you don't know the use of reliable sources, third party sources are used for getting FACTS which the third party sources are likely to know and not the POV of the news network which is obviously not in favor of the islamic state and will keep referring them as a "terror group" instead of a state no matter who will recognize them. this is not the way sources should be used and once again you are using that demagogy for backing your claims while you completly ignore them when you don't agree with them like with how those sources call this group "jihadist".

your rhetoric is desperate and full of demagogy, i don't know if you are just hating this group too much that you have to disagree with everything that these people want to make themselves look like(like with being "jihadistic" and your pointless and presistant opposing for calling them like that) or just realy get things wrong at the beginning but can't backoff from your claims after you made them even when you see that you are wrong. in both cases you need to let go instead of using demagogy and desperate rhetoric.--Wheels of steel0 (talk) 23:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Wheels of steel0 just to give you the heads up. I was not the only editor to be looking at the unsubstantiated "unrecognised state" terminology that the article used to use. Another editor added something like a "how" tag to the term as I was simultaneously thought about the issue. The problem is that (isil or isis or daesh or "islamic state") AND "unrecognised state" gets ZERO results in news. It isn't used. (Now if I had repeated that last sentence as I was tempted to do, just so you know, this would have been an example of rhetoric). The main phrase that I knew to be attested was, (isil or isis or daesh or "islamic state") AND "terrorist organisation" which is a designation that is attested by groups such as the United Nations. Another editor came up with the rebel group terminology which also has the advantage of fitting in with the content of List of active rebel groups.

As I said, "please read and understand WP:Weasel words. Please read WP:WALLOFTEXT. Please read WP:rhetoric. Please stop making unsubstantiated accusations. Thankyou. Gregkaye ✍♪ 01:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

List of Countries controlled by ISIS

It is mentioned that part of India is controlled by ISIS, which is not true. Can anyone remove it?

In the first part of the lead and infobox- will delete that fiction. Legacypac (talk) 18:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

First paragraph places

I was tempted to entitle this: "..and the Levant and, and, and.

The title of the article is "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" and I was wondering about the importance and the notability, at this stage in history, of other place names in the opening paragraph.

This is the text as it currently appears

(Version 1) The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL /ˈaɪsəl/), also translated as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS /ˈaɪsɪs/), also known by the Arabic acronym Daʿish, and self-proclaimed as the Islamic State (IS), is a Sunni, extremist, jihadist rebel group controlling territory in Iraq, Syria, eastern Libya, the Sinai Peninsula of Egypt, parts of Pakistan, and parts of India.

Alternatively I thought it might read:

(Version 2) The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL /ˈaɪsəl/), also translated as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS /ˈaɪsɪs/), also known by the Arabic acronym Daʿish, and self-proclaimed as the Islamic State (IS), is a Sunni, extremist, jihadist rebel group with main controlled territories in Iraq and Syria.

This covers "Iraq and the Levant." In comparison how notable are the other groups and areas? I have not heard much of them in the news.

I'd suggest that a better option for other areas would be to put some clearer refs or links in the infobox. Given the change another option would be to convert the words "controlled territories" into an in page link to the section detailing territories in territorial claims.

A worry of mine is that, given the current state of the article, any editor may come along with any preconception of what content should be added and make major changes to the first paragraph. I think it's safer to limit inclusion here to conjoined areas of territory the group's hierarchy can directly control.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 18:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Support: Best to keep to Iraq and Syria in that sentence and put the rest in the infobox with links. (Especially as it is clear now that the information in the infobox is in fact a part of the Lead, as you showed in the WP link you gave.) ~ P123ct1 (talk) 19:37, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your point - Iraq and Syria=clear control, Libya=pretty clear control Egypt=not so clear control Pakistan and Afghanistan=part of the lawlessness? and India=not that I've read about yet... The current lead also ignores KSA, Yemen, Algeria. So let's use some catch all geographic wording. Look at See MENA as a geographic descriptor too. So I suggest:

(Version 3) The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL /ˈaɪsəl/), also translated as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS /ˈaɪsɪs/), also known by the Arabic acronym Daʿish, and self-proclaimed as the Islamic State (IS), is a Sunni, extremist, jihadist rebel group based in Iraq and Syria where they control significant territory. They also operate in eastern Libya, the Sinai Peninsula of Egypt and other areas of the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia. Legacypac (talk) 21:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

(Version 4) :Legacypac I think the first option keeps things simple but with links to the necessary information. Your option provides a clear cut off at the Iraq and the Levant stage as differentiated from the other groups/areas. How about, instead of "they also operate" having "they also have operations". The relevant groups have sworn loyalty to the group and maybe even to some new non-local leadership members but thes groups are still new additions that ISIL have acquired. Semantics. Gregkaye ✍♪ 22:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Ya, agreed on that wording. I think it is important to diff between the vast swaths in Syria and Iraq and the other situations and this wording allows all kinds of developments even in new countries without modification. Legacypac (talk) 22:29, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• Legacypac It was only just in the thread above that Suriyaan mentioned the inappropriate addition on content on India. My problem here is that interpretations of control are subjective. At times when I have been in activist groups that I joined occupied a number of locations but in our various situations, we only remained in "control" because the full potential might of the British establishment kindly did not choose to "crush" us. To an extent the same principle may apply to any group that took "control" in a country like India. Any editor can come in with good faith and add new content to the first paragraph of the lead and added, or subtracted information may not always represent prevailing views. Gregkaye ✍♪ 06:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

An indian that fought for ISIL was arrested and there has been recent political and media focus on this. Not sure who added India but I'd attribute it to misunderstanding. A few editors actively watch this page and should be able to keep it accurate. Legacypac (talk) 06:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Apparently I misunderstood Gregkeyes changes to my suggestion to be support. For clarity I just inserted (Version 1-4). Now I don't like version 1 because it is quite inaccurate re Pakistan and especially India. Before those countries were inserted (call that Version 0) it was fine in my opinion (and I think I was the last editor to touch it). Version 2 " with main controlled territories in" reads clumsy and suggests there are other areas without being specific. I suspect that editors will want to add Libya etc to that, as I did earlier, so I don't think it will stand for long. While the infobox does get into detail, it is collapsed detail. Could others please articulate their opinions clearly. Legacypac (talk) 07:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Existing text was "... based in Iraq and Syria where it controls territory. It also operates in eastern Libya, the Sinai Peninsula of Egypt". How did the text "and other areas of the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia" get added? Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

That is part of my Version 3, modified by your Version 4 which I pasted in. Some editors keep insisting they control territory in Pakistan, while others are asking for a cite on Egypt. Going with the suggested text should solve both these issues. Legacypac (talk) 02:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• I loke the current wording, so I think we should not change it. Felino123 (talk) 08:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

War crimes accusations and findings: section 2.3 in newly restructured article

How are issuing orders to women on how to dress (2.3.2) and instituting a sharia school curriculum (2.3.2) war crimes? Have they been found to be war crimes? Why has "War crimes accusations and findings", once a subsection of the human rights abuses section, been turned into a main section heading? What is the difference between war crimes and human rights abuses? Where is the distinction made between these in this section? The term "human rights abuses" – the many examples of which have been transferred to the new section from the old "Human rights abuses" section and are now called "war crimes" – is only mentioned once in this new section 2.3, in connection with Libya. The structure of this new section is very muddled. The structure of the original section headed "Human rights abuses" while not ideal was much clearer than this. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 14:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The text right under 2.3 is all about war crimes, acting as a a summary introduction for the subsections. All the subsequent section headers fit into war crimes.The examples picked out are less serious points under Treatment of Civilians, only grouped within that subheading for convenience. Compare Human_rights#Substantive_rights to this list from the War crimes article:

"A War crime is a serious violation of the laws and customs of war (also known as international humanitarian law) giving rise to individual criminal responsibility. Examples of war crimes include:

• murdering, mistreating, or deporting civilian residents of an occupied territory to slave labor camps (including girls into sexual slavery)
• murdering or mistreating prisoners of war or civilian internees
• forcing protected persons to serve in the forces of a hostile power (this area could be covered better - they do that a lot)
• killing hostages
• killing or punishing spies or other persons convicted of war crimes without a fair trial
• wantonly destroying cities, towns, villages, or other objects not warranted by military necessity

The order of the sub-sections almost mirrors the list above: 3.3 War crimes accusations and findings

3.3.1 Religious and minority group persecution

3.3.2 Treatment of civilians

3.3.3 Child soldiers (we should also include forced military service)

3.3.4 Sexual violence and slavery allegations

3.3.5 Attacks on members of the press (who they consider internal and external spies)

3.3.6 Beheadings (we should add other summary executions to this)

3.3.7 Destruction of cultural and religious heritage

Legacypac (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• Are the areas ISIL controls strictly speaking "occupied" territory? Can a rebel group "occupy" territory?
• It would have been useful for editors to have that information when you made those edits, so that they could understand your restructuring. Editors should not have to ask to have your restructuring explained to them. ~ P123ct1 (talk)

Usually States occupy territory, while rebel groups control, but to the locals the effect is the same. It is well established that rebels can commit war crimes, like this gentlemen Joseph Kony. Legacypac (talk) 22:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• While I think that the content on enforcement of clothing styles and the a removal of options of free education can fairly be viewed in the context of "War crimes", I think that, if more descriptive headings can be used with clarity then they should be. In the context of changes that I think were generally helpful, this edit was made to unilaterally remove previously previously heading: "Diktats, influences and pressures". Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The very next edit inserted the whole section, minus he title, under Treatment of civilians - which seemed an appropriate heading as well. Legacypac (talk) 02:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Size of article

According to Technophant, the size of the article is much smaller than thought. These are his stats:

"Document statistics:

• Prose size (including all HTML code): 111 kB
• References (including all HTML code): 24 kB
• Wiki text: 204 kB
• Prose size (text only): 57 kB (9328 words) "readable prose size"
• References (text only): 1760 B

The readable prose size is the "article size", 57kB only."

I cannot answer any questions on this as I am simply passing the information on. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 20:03, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Caliphate constitutional documentation

Does it exist? Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Does it matter? Are there not more pressing things to deal with in this article? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 16:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you suggesting there is a legal basis for any of this? Legacypac (talk) 02:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 Of course it matters.

Legacypac nice choice of words. Legitimacy, by definition, requires legality. I am not suggesting, just asking. Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

When I said does it matter, I meant for the purposes of this article. It may be very difficult to find the answer to this question and I am not sure it needs to be answered for this article. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 07:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Positioning of "Terrorist designation" infobox

I think this subject deserves a Talk page section of its own as it is causing trouble. I moved this infobox from "Criticism" to the beginning of the article after "History", as a new section, which seemed to me logical as this is official information which is a part of ISIL's history. This was my only reason for moving it. Gregkaye does not agree with this and thinks it should remain as the last item in the "Criticism" section, so I have reverted my edit to see what other editors think. What is the opinion of other editors on where this information should go? Felino123? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 16:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• There are groups that have been well and perhaps primarily defined by terrorism. Al-Qaeda is a good example of this to the effect that this group were "designated" as terrorist by 21 nations/intra-national organisations. This is not surprising as al-Qaeda directly carried out several terrorist attacks. ('SIL have been designated terrorist by the UN, EU and 8 nations).

See: Terrorism. The lead of the article states: "Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts that are intended to create fear (terror); are perpetrated for a religious, political, or ideological goal;.."

In comparison, content in the Analysis section of the ISIL article states:

• "By 2014, ISIL was increasingly being viewed as a militia rather than as a terrorist group. As major Iraqi cities fell to ISIL in June 2014, Jessica Lewis, a former US army intelligence officer at the Institute for the Study of War, described ISIL as "not a terrorism problem anymore", but rather "an army on the move in Iraq and Syria, and they are taking terrain."

• That is only opinion. Other commentators may have disagreed about this at that point in time. You cannot use "opinion" to support your view, to be fair. That is like cherry-picking sources to suit a particular point of view.  :) ~ P123ct1 (talk) 18:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

This was, of course, in a time when the group was taking terrain but content about emphasis of activity stands. They are a group that wages war, kills and tortures captives and conducts a range of human rights abuses. All of these actions are performed by a group that claims to be Islamic. The majority of the victims are also people that claim to be Islamic and significant voices within Islam have strongly condemned the group for its many abuses. This goes beyond a level of terrorism that barely exists. The group does not perform ethnic cleansing because it wants to terrorise. It conducts ethnic cleansing because it wants to wipe out opposition. There is a difference and our content should present issues within the context of the relevant importance of the terms. The terrorist issue is not central to the topic. Many more nations have directly joined the fight against this militant group than have described it as terrorist. Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• Gregkaye: You quote the wiki article on Terrorism: "Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts that are intended to create fear (terror); are perpetrated for a religious, political, or ideological goal;.." That is selective. The article goes on to say immediately following that: "and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (e.g., neutral military personnel or civilians)." All three sound like ISIL to me. The article also says that the international community has found it very difficult to define terrorism, and quotes several definitions of the word from scholars and experts. One of them is:

"By distinguishing terrorists from other types of criminals and terrorism from other forms of crime, we come to appreciate that terrorism is :

• ineluctably political in aims and motives
• violent – or, equally important, threatens violence
• designed to have far-reaching psychological repercussions beyond the immediate victim or target
• conducted by an organization with an identifiable chain of command or conspiratorial cell structure (whose members wear no uniform or identifying insignia) and
• perpetrated by a subnational group or non-state entity."

Again, that sounds like ISIL to me. I would say ISIL are easily identifiable as terrorists. Management of Savagery, the so-called terrorist's handbook, specifically recommends terrorist acts as a way to subjugate and weaken the enemy, so that it can then move in and control its territory and population. Exactly what ISIL has been doing. Terrorism is a means to an ends for ISIL.

And when you say, "The group does not perform ethnic cleansing because it wants to terrorise. It conducts ethnic cleansing because it wants to wipe out opposition. There is a difference ...", can you not see that that is only your personal opinion and your judgment, not fact? Who can second-guess how ISIL thinks? One can only look at their actions, not ascribe motives to them, except in the form of opinion given in Reliable Sources, of which Jessica Lewis' is one, and even as mine that ISIL follows the recommendations in Management of Savagery is just another opinion. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 18:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 in a search on terrorist define the synonyms are bomber, arsonist, incendiary; gunman, assassin, desperado; hijacker; revolutionary, radical, guerrilla, urban guerrilla, subversive, anarchist, freedom fighter; rareinsurrectionist, insurrectionary. It doesn't normally relate to unopposed situations wherein the rebel group controls territory. I think that the criminals reference you give would normally have a different context. Gregkaye ✍♪ 18:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye: Not once it controls territory, no, but as the means to achieving and maintaining control of territory, yes. What about the reports of the horrific treatment of the inhabitants of Ar-Raqqah, for example, who do not toe ISIL's line, from public crucifixions onwards? I would say a crucifixion was a terrorist act par excellence; it is meant to instil fear in the enemy, one of the features of terrorism both you and I quoted above. And remember this article has to reflect not just one moment in time, i.e. the immediate present, but the overall pattern of behaviour of ISIL over a period of time, starting c. 2004, which is when these terrorist designations started to be made. Once again, WP is an encyclopaedia, not a collection of news reports from RS sources. It has a different set of priorities from the press, pundits and political commentators who are more concerned with the immediate. (Greg, this is like Question Time, isn't it!) ~ P123ct1 (talk) 19:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 questions, questions . As far as I have been able to find, the term was coined in 1975. In general, whenever the word has been used, my understanding is that the general understanding of the term was of an attack of a limited few on an as large a group as possible. The effect is on bombings, suicide bombings and flying planes into large office blocks. On occasions when the al-Qaeda separatists have had a victory or when they hold dominion over a population. As much as anything the role is of oppressor, persecutor, bully, tormentor, subjugator, git. This is old fashioned unpleasantness. For sure an unhealthy dose of terror is often involved but, as many victims will testify, when there's no hope there can be no fear. The goal of terror is to scare people into making certain political choices. Prisoners have no extent of choice for their captors to be bothered with. The term terrorism is far from being the best descriptor for many of 'SIL's unsavoury activities. Gregkaye ✍♪ 23:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye: As we've said before, this all boils down to semantics, doesn't it? Without an agreed definition of terrorism by the experts, what hope is there for us here?

Anyway, the main question here is: where should the terrorist designations go in this article? Other views? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 23:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

ISIL meets every definition of terrorism, plus the designations too boot. Holding hostages and saying they die unless the US/UK stops bombing = terrorism. Beheading Syrian soldiers and placing their heads in posts to intimiate the locals = terrorism. Car bombs, beheadings, snatching media=all terrorism. The Jessica Lewis quote above is not saying they are not terrorists anymore, rather that they have moved beyond being just a small terror group into being a militia on the move.

I see two possible routes to being labeled a terrorist. There are lots of freedom fighters/rebels/guerrillas etc that have been called terrorists by the government they are fighting (rightly or wrongly). That is more a controversial political label. Then there are groups like AQ, FLQ, IRA and ISIL that are objectively terrorists by any definition of the word. More then any previous objectively terrorist group, ISIL has sought successfully to take territory, becoming also a rebel group, a new breed of terrorist rebel group committing war crimes the world has never seen before. Terrorist designations need to go high up as they are an essential defining characteristic of what ISIL is.Legacypac (talk) 00:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with your changes, P123ct1. Terrorist designations are not criticism, but official designations by governments. It's not 100% clear where terrorist designations should go, but it's clear where they shouldn't. Also, terrorist designations are extremely important, infinitely more important than criticism by imams or individuals. I agree with Legacypac, these designations should go high up as they are essential. They should go before any kind of criticism. The correct order of that paragraph is terrorist designations/UN & Amnesty reports/Islamic criticism (I think Islamic criticism should not be at the second paragraph, but that is not the issue now). Felino123 (talk) 03:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Felino123 Are you aware that when you say "terrorist designations are ... infinitely more important than criticism by imams" you are basically stating that the criticisms of grand muftis in Islam are of no importance at all. You have previously been challenged on the fact that some of the criticisms come from groups and yet you still present "individuals". This seems to me to be a wilful level of misrepresentation. Gregkaye ✍♪ 06:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye, please don't manipulate my words. I have always said that criticism is important, and you know it. But official designations by governments are infinitely more important than opinions, whoever they come from. Official designations determine the policies of governments and opinions are just that, opinions. I don't care if they come from groups or individuals, and I have never been challenged for that. Anyway, groups are formed by individuals, right? "This seems to me to be a wilful level of misrepresentation" > You're wrong. Felino123 (talk) 08:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac when you say terrorists by any definition of the word, what range of definitions are you referring to. We are in effect supporting a redefinition of terms. War crimes and human rights abuse have always been called war crimes and human rights abuse. The word terrorist activities does not stretch this far. If we are to go about 'SIL bashing we should go about it in encyclopaedic ways that do not add danger and irrationality to the situation. Gregkaye ✍♪ 06:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• I have added the text to "Designation as a terrorist organization" : "NOTE: Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts that are intended to create fear (terror)". This text is taken directly from the terrorism article. Terrorism, by standard definition, constitutes some of the groups more peripheral activities and I am sure that editors here understand this. Gregkaye ✍♪ 06:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Peripheral activities? Did you not read what I said? This article has to reflect ISIL as a whole, over time, not just how they are now. This an encyclopaedia article, not a topical newspaper article. You say editors wilfully misrepresent. It seems to me that you wilfully mishear what editors say! ~ P123ct1 (talk) 11:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye, your edit was against the consensus, so please revert it. Ask for a consensus and then edit. I think we don't need that, but maybe a link to the terrorism article. Felino123 (talk) 08:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Felino123, I wanted to express my agreement with your reasoning and note my support for the changes that P123ct1 had made. I also believe that the edit by Gregkaye ignores the consensus. Terrorist designations are more important than criticism by imams or groups of individuals and these designations should be placed high-up in the article, well before discussions of "criticism(s)". Cheers. Azx2 10:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Felino123, what edit are you talking about. Please see WP:NPA and strike your comment. User:Azx2 Please either justify your comment that I "ignore consensus" or strike. Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the added text is necessary either and I believe that terrorism is at the very core of the groups strategy to expand and control. There other activities are peripheral to facilitating the terror strategy.

Everyone has a good idea what terrorism is, though for political purposes the labeling of specific groups or acts may be debated and there are many variations on the definition. I suggest reading Definitions of terrorism where there are dozens of definitions each perfectly covering ISIL. Someone suggested the term was invented in the 1970's but that is not true at all - terror is a latin word that for over 2000 years has meant exactly the same thing. An interesting quote - which works perfectly here "The terror cimbricus was a panic and state of emergency in Rome (Syria and Iraq) in response to the approach of warriors of the Cimbri tribe (ISIL) in 105BC (2014)." and "According to Dr Myra Williamson: "The meaning of “terrorism” has undergone a transformation. According to Dr Myra Williamson: "The meaning of “terrorism” has undergone a transformation. During the reign of terror a regime or system of terrorism was used as an instrument of governance, wielded by a recently established revolutionary state against the enemies of the people. Now the term “terrorism” is commonly used to describe terrorist acts committed by non-state or subnational entities against a state." In areas they have good almost state-like control they use terror to maintain control. In areas they lack control they use terror in the more modern sense.

They are committing war crimes, human rights abuses, terrorism, and a host of other crimes. No point in sugar coating this mess.

Legacypac (talk) 10:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Tactics to expand and control are ancient and fit well under the war crimes banner. Our duty is to present encyclopaedic material that accurately presents content. I'd suggest a wiktionary definition on terrorist|terrorism and a link on "terrorist". However, the making of a connection between terror (broad concept) and terrorist (description that has often been described relating to small groups attempting to terrorise many) is a bit like having a connection between jihadist (typically agressive) and jihad (theologically defensive). At least in one case we should fairly present definitions. The UN have recently produced a report on 'SIL's use of terror but, unless we are to change definitions of words, actual terrorist activity remains something specific. We are not here to sugar coat. We are here to accurately describe and, with this in mind, my edit added accurate factual content. Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

While I still hold that judgements and criticisms from a range of sources and on a range of more relevant issues are of relatively high importance, I have previously only referenced the List of terrorist incidents connected to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant which presented just two incidents. The List of terrorist incidents, 2014 presents 13 incidents. This total still remains small in comparison to other atrocities but is bigger than I had previously thought. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Both those lists are very incomplete. Hostage taking and beheading = terrorist attack but not on that list which is mostly bombs. Legacypac (talk) 11:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

This depends on whether a definition of terrorism extends to atrocities perpetrated within the area of territory controlled by the group. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Notice to editors

I have been in touch with Legacypac who has inadvertently saved an edit onto an earlier version of the article, so some editors may find their edits missing. Unfortunately a straight revert isn't possible, so it means putting the subsequent edits back in one by one, I'm afraid. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 23:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I think I've restored everything correctly except a couple issues in the infobox, where some critical info seems to have been deleted and needs to be studied a little more. Legacypac (talk) 00:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

"Declaration of an Islamic State and reactions" and criticism

I think the content of the subsection Criticism of name "Islamic State" and term "caliphate should be moved to the Islamic criticism section. I think all criticism should be pointed out altogether on one place. If I want to find criticism I want to find it altogether, not spread over the whole aricle so I have to look for it.

So I think we should move this and, if necessary, add more info about this declaration on its section. Felino123 (talk) 08:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

We tried that and editors kept pushing the whole criticism section lower and lower until it hit the very bottom even after conspiracy theories - yet there were strong arguments made that the info in criticisms was central to the story and much more important than some of the (poorly understood) group structure etc. We have not and should not present the declaration without the widespread denunciations right after. Legacypac (talk) 10:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• Legacypac, I think criticism secion should be lower, but not after conspiracy theories! This is not the issue of this topic, so I will probably make a topic about that later. I don't agree with you, as the denunciations are just pure criticism. We may put a link on the declaration section to these kind of criticism in the criticism section, but criticism should be altogether. Now it's unarranged and gives a bad impression. Felino123 (talk) 10:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
• Felino123 please read: WP:YESPOV: Avoid stating opinions as facts... which seems like a good principle in talk pages. As far as I have seen it is rare for any outlet to totally split content and commentary. It is a norm to talk about a subject and then discus it. The article seems to me to be quite logically arranged. I cannot see a valid reason for placing the central contents as mentioned within the criticisms section beneath admin issues such as finance. Felino123, why do you want to relegate this content in the article? Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
• Gregkaye: An encyclopaedia is not an "outlet". Do you want this article to be like a news or media "outlet"? It really seems as if you do. First you denied that this article should reflect Reliable Sources in the "jihadist" debate (two months old and still not over) and now you seem to deny that this article should be encyclopaedic. Enclyopaedias and newspapers are as different as chalk and cheese. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 16:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

ISIS ally in Egypt and killing of US Oil Worker

• See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/01/william-henderson-oil-worker-killed_n_6246202.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.242.65 (talk) 14:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Iraq articles
• High-importance Iraq articles
• WikiProject Iraq articles
• B-Class military history articles
• B-Class Middle Eastern military history articles
• Middle Eastern military history task force articles
• B-Class Syria articles
• High-importance Syria articles
• WikiProject Syria articles
• B-Class Arab world articles
• Mid-importance Arab world articles
• WikiProject Arab world articles
• Unassessed Crime-related articles
• Unknown-importance Crime-related articles
• Unassessed Terrorism articles
• High-importance Terrorism articles
• Terrorism task force articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment