Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:50, 10 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.

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 2010s. 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)

• Comment - I don't see ISIL in List of sovereign states in the 2010s. I haven't read the page history, but there may be an edit war. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:33, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - Including ISIL in a list does not mean that we have to alter the border of Iraq or Syria if we acknowledge boundary disputes, but the general point is valid. Usually the boundaries are those that are recognized by most of the world's nations, and ISIL is not recognized. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:33, 7 December 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)

Markewilliams what definition of state are you using? Please see Sovereign state. Also List of active rebel groups#Groups which control territory. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye In the Sovereign state article you referred me to, there are several definitions for what constitutes a state, including this definition: "A similar opinion about 'the conditions on which an entity constitutes a state' is expressed by the European Economic Community Opinions of the Badinter Arbitration Committee, which found that a state was defined by having a territory, a population, and a political authority.". I choose the definition with the most NPOV and the least political agenda.Markewilliams (talk) 14:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Markewilliams The text from which that reference is taken, here. This document, according to the title "The Opinions of the Badinter Arbitration Committee", expressed the full view that: "1) The Committee considers: ... b) that the state is commonly defined as a community which consists of a territory and a population subject to an organized political authority; that such a state is characterized by sovereignty;

The article on Sovereignty presents that: The current notion of state sovereignty contains four aspects consisting of territory, population, authority and recognition. This group has no international recognition. It is not a state. You have not chosen a definition at all.

WP:NPOV states that: "All encyclopedic content on Misplaced Pages must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". This must be followed.

Please also see: List of sovereign states by date of formation for chronologically presented examples of legitimate additions to this list. There are ways in which things are done. Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Support as per nominator. - SantiLak (talk) 23:16, 2 December 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", "desperate" 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)

Gregkaye you just posted a pile of mumblings without any relevant argument as if i didn't just showed you in the previous comment how the POV of the media about how to call them can't be count as RS cause the way they choose to call them has nothing to do with FACTS, and instead of reacting to what i said you just say what you said before just as a long and pointless speech full of accusations and links that actualy describe your desperate rhetoric of making comments that looks like they say something but in fact are empty of any real argument and even barely related to the comment you are responding to.

show me how you think that the way some news network and random online pages choose to call some group can be count as "Reliable Source" for any kind of FACT or comback to the argument about the terms for being a state and finaly tell me your mysterious reasons for why you think the islamic state failed "in any level" for meeting the terms for being a state, and of course don't just throw empty claims again.

if you can't do one of those things you should simply quite from this argument instead of posting more empty speeches that barely have anything to do with the subject or to anything i just said before.--Wheels of steel0 (talk) 18:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Wheels of steel0 @ "full of accusations" - cite them! What do you disagree with and why? I am more than happy to talk about "some news network" but usually on condition that the news network concerned fitted into the more reliable side of WP:RS. I wouldn't trust "random online pages" at least not without researching. I tend to be one of the more cynical editors here Gregkaye ✍♪ 18:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye "cite them" like for saying that i am doing "weasel wording" and "wall of text" which are both done only by you her with your pointless speeches and desperate rhetoric. your accusations are ridiculous with their irony and only used by you for derailing this discussion cause you ran out of arguments. and again, it doesn't matter if you call those news network "reliable" cause the whole "reliable" concept is for FACTS and not for the way they choose to call some group, i hope you can notice the different between telling about something that happened or happening and between using different names for some group. your desperate rhetoric of using the names some news networks use as "sources" for anything isn't just desperate and wrong but also hypocrisy cause in a previous debate on the islamic state matter you just said her that wikipedia should ignore the news networks when they call the islamic state "jihadist" and stop calling them jihadistic on this article, why that wasn't "reliable sources"?...

your desperate rhetoric isn't doing good for you so it is about time that you come with some real arguments and adopt reasonable way of backing up your claims or quite from this argument.--Wheels of steel0 (talk) 02:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Wheels of steel0 For WP:weasel words see your statement: many actual real-life examples the term state is not about any kind of "recognition". For WP:walloftext look above. For WP:Rhetoric look at your own repetitions. You have now additionally made a fallacious accusation that I said that: wikipedia should ignore the news networks. You need to strike your libellous attack.

My argument is simple and it is found here: (isil or isis or daesh or "islamic state") AND "a state". Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye i gave you real life examples for states without recognition and that have been called "unrecognized states" so what you couldn't understand her exactly? don't you notice the relation to the subject we are talking about or you just throw blindly accusations cause you ran out of arguments?. i repeat my self cause of your desperate attempts of avoiding real argument and finaly give some kind of argument to support your claim. but instead of showing arguments you are using the WP:walloftext you talked about, giving me a link to some google search with web pages and news articles about the islamic state names that barely talk about their being of state and only mention some letters from a muslim group who asked david cameron not to acknowledge the islamic state nor as "islamic" or "state". you call that an argument? or you just hoped that i wouldn't read the articles in that search?, seems your WP:walloftext startegy of derailing this discussion just failed.

i am still waiting for real and written argument about how the islamic state isn't a state or an argument about why should we adopt the POV of some news networks. don't bother to comment without any of this cause your desperate WP:weasel words and WP:walloftext startegies of avoiding from providing real argument remain obvious and futile no matter how much you will try to blame me in what you are doing.--Wheels of steel0 (talk) 16:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Wheels of steel0 I have not seen that you have given me anything. Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Wheels of steel0, Please read, Sovereign state. The article begins, "A state is a nonphysical juridical entity of the international legal system.." There is nothing in connection with this group that has a favourable fit with international law. They are an outlawed group. Misplaced Pages is here to accurately report content. We go by realities. Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye "part of international legal system"? read about international law if you don't realy know about what it is, you also need to read the article you just mentioned and the terms of the international law i talked about on earlier comments, the article just mentioned the terms of the international law at the beginning but you ignored them in order to make an excuse for another pointless comment.

and i didn't even mentioned the fact that the term state is mostly matter of fact and not of recognition, there is no meaning for the term "outlawed" for being a state, and there is no meaning for the international law itself for being a state, states can follow some UN resolutions or completely ignore them but they are still states. the international law have a defenition for a state but it doesn't mean that being a state is something that needs authorization of the UN like some professional certification. you don't know how to manage a debate and only repeat on your failed and only argument: "nobody recognize them as state"(the bottom line of most of your comments if we ignore all your WP:walloftext) without any reaction to my argument(about the "recognition" thing) and even ignore crucial parts of what you claim to read.

comback with a real argument or just stop posting pointless comments--Wheels of steel0 (talk) 12:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Positioning of "Terrorist designation" infobox

See also Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/Archive_22#Bold change of para order in Lead

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)

• Would editors please be careful when they use the word "consensus"? Gregkaye is right, there was no consensus at this point. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 12:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Felino123, Az, for the second time, strike your unwarranted content.

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)

historically all terrorism was government on civilians, but today nearly all governments have stopped terrorism, leaving non-state actors as the only ones currently engaged in terrorism. So yes, a group can commit terrorism in an area it controls - from one airplane to a whole region. Legacypac (talk) 18:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

al-Bagdadi on terrorism I think he is being sarcastic actually..., so if you flip it, all the terrorism against muslims he cites around the world is matched by his on terrorism in Iraq and Syria. Legacypac (talk) 00:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye: Can we get back to the main point, a definition of "terrorism" for the purpose of this article? This is important as it will influence where the terrorism designation infobox eventually goes. I am resuming this because of something you said in the #"Declaration of an Islamic State and reactions" and criticism" thread. I said, "Gregkaye: Why do you think "Analysis" and "Designation as a terrorist organization" naturally go together?" and you replied, "They are clearly a horrendous terrorist organisation but with facets more monstrous still. If I were to judge what the group were guilty of I would place human rights abuse and war crimes at the top of the list terrorism somewhere after that. The analysis text acknowledges the terrorism and also highlights bigger issues." In light of that answer, I really think you need to define what you mean by "terrorism" when referring to ISIL.

Forgive me, but it does seem to me from that answer that you not only want to separate ISIL's terrorism from its human rights abuses and war crimes, but think it is a lesser characteristic that should somehow be downplayed. Public crucifixions, beheading and placing the heads on spikes with the bodies below them to terrorise the locals in Ar-Raqqah, holding hostages and saying they will die unless the US/UK stops bombing are all acts of terrorism, and such acts of terrorism really cannot be separated from their human rights abuses and war crimes, as this article demonstrates:

1. "There have been many reports of the group's use of death threats, torture and mutilation to compel conversion to Islam, and the killing of clerics who refuse to pledge allegiance to the Islamic State."
2. "The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights warned of war crimes being committed in the Iraqi war zone, and disclosed one UN report of ISIL militants murdering Iraqi Army soldiers and 17 civilians in a single street in Mosul."
3. "After ISIL released photographs of its fighters shooting scores of young men, the United Nations declared that cold-blooded "executions" by militants in northern Iraq almost certainly amounted to war crimes."
4. Quote from the UN: " seeks to subjugate civilians under its control and dominate every aspect of their lives through terror, indoctrination ...".
5. "On 29 May, ISIL raided a village in Syria and at least 15 civilians were killed, including, according to Human Rights Watch, at least six children."
6. "On 1 June, a 102-year-old man was killed along with his whole family in a village in Hama province."
7. "ISIL uses beheadings to intimidate local populations and has released a series of propaganda videos aimed at Western countries. They also engage in public and mass executions, sometimes forcing prisoners to dig their own graves before shooting lines of prisoners and pushing them in."

You must have a very special definition of "terrorism" if you believe all those ongoing human rights abuses and war crimes are not acts of terrorism, if you believe the three things are separable, and if you believe that terrorism is no longer an important defining characteristic of ISIL. Sorry to pin you down, but How can you square this circle? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 15:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Well it could be that I have been pinned? I will let you decide.

A potentially useful article that I found is Definitions of terrorism. Early definitions include: "League of Nations... late 1930s, ... defined "acts of terrorism" as "criminal acts directed against a State and intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons or a group of persons or the general public". Article 2 included as terrorist acts, if they were directed against another state and if they constituted acts of terrorism within the meaning of the definition contained in article 1."

Later definitions include: "...2004, United Nations Security Council Resolution 1566 condemned terrorist acts as: "criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or taking of hostages, with the purpose to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act, which constitute offences within the scope of and as defined in the international conventions and protocols relating to terrorism, are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature,""

All I can say is that terrorism has had, as far as I have been aware, specific meanings related to entry into areas mainly populated with non members of a group so as to cause damage amongst other groups of people. Do you want to list every streetside interrogation in Al-Racca and Mosul under one of Misplaced Pages's lists of Terrorist incidents, every slitting of a throat...? This question is asked seriously, do we rewrite history to describe the Mongols and similar groups as terrorists.

If I may can I try some pinning of my own. Earlier I commented on the addition to the designation content of a quote from the article on terrorism and this was roundly rejected. Why? We are not here to push views but to present balanced information. If Daesh, I'll try that name for variety, are to be prominently defined as terrorist then I think that there should be clear notice given on definitions.

When 9/11 happened most everyone described this incident as a terrorist attack. Car bombs infront of embassies have also been regularly described as terrorist attacks. As far as I have gathered. I haven't seen sources describing every beheading in similar terms. Gregkaye ✍♪ 23:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

• Gregkaye Thanks. Back to the question at the beginning of thread: where should the terrorist designations go? I think they should be placed higher up in the article (for reasons given). Felino123, Legacypac, Axx2 think that as well, Gregkaye disagrees. So the consensus is I think is now to move it higher up in the article. I do not think the infobox needs to be accompanied by a qualification of the word "terrorist" either. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 09:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 as per the question as to whether, I think those acts listed are acts of terrorism, or that "terrorist" is still an important defining characteristic of ISIL" I would ask, which acts listed? and that it depends on the definition of "terrorist" being used. We don't have a full picture of the actions of this group or the manner in which they are dispensed. Yes I think that terrorism is an "important defining characteristic of ISIL". However, I do not think that it is a primarily important defining characteristic of the group and, from my perspective, I am yet to see a convincing argument against this view. As far as I can see their motive is, first and foremost, to wipe out opposition. I think that a lack of provision of a clearly presented definition of either or both terms terrorist and terrorism is unencyclopaedic. Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks again. That is really what I was asking. The acts listed are those listed in my previous comment and question, sorry. Are there any wiki articles on terrorist groups that have a definition of "terrorist" and "terrorism" in them? I hope this isn't going to turn into a semantic saga like "jihadist", though I admit I am guilty of encouraging it. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 12:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 TY, articles with relevant content include Terrorism, Definitions of terrorism, wikt:terrorist and wikt:terrorism. I'd either suggest a quote as previously presented or a link to the wiktionary articles and making some of the wording into a link to either article. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:20, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• Gregkaye: Like an efn footnote, you mean. I cannot see any objection to that. I think it would be best attached to "terrorist" in the wording underneath the terrorist designation infobox rather than anywhere else. It seems the most appropriate place. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 13:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

An efn link would be something. My suggestion had been to either add a quote definition directly into the text to give a brief account of definitions or terrorism (this is something I had previously added) or for a link to the wiktionary articles to be added coupled with making some of the wording into a direct link to either article. An efn link would also be a positive. The text from the article terrorism that I had used is "Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts that are intended to create fear (terror)" This is good encyclopaedic content. Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• Gregkaye: The problem with the last definition (creating terror) is that it would only fit with ISIL's current and recent activities. At the time when the group was AQI and ISI it was a different kind of terrorism, more like "terrorism" as it is generally understood today (car bombing, suicide bombing, etc.). The definition would have to cover terrorism by the group generally, from c, 2003 until now. As for a standalone definition in this article, I don't think editors would wear it. A link would be better, IMO. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 19:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Whatever, happens, happens. At least there is a lot of content here that is fully encyclopaedic. If war crimes are to be redefined as terrorism with nothing but a footnote to give clarification, so be it. To an extent it is fair. The British government uses its terrorist legislation to stop radicals travelling to Iraq. Definitions are getting mixed up. Gregkaye ✍♪ 19:30, 4 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 read 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. Encyclopaedias and newspapers are as different as chalk and cheese. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 16:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
• P123ct1 Taking a look at Category:Media technology and Category:New media we find the Internet. As far as I have always considered it, Misplaced Pages is an outlet of information within the context of that media. The database concerned is very large. I have always considered the related information to be let out. I have not argued the point that "jihadist" can be presented in the in the article as per RS and I thank you for the support you have given in the proposal for adding an encyclopaedic qualifying note raising awareness of the difference in the meanings of words. The terms "jihadist" and "jihad" have very different base meanings. I didn't not mention newspapers. High quality documentaries were more the thing that I had in mind. I am happy to speak more about the chalk and would be interested to see if there is a president in Misplaced Pages's guidelines to back the proposals. Proposal have been raised to effectively split content and commentary and to drop the criticism section down the article. I don't see a valid justification for the first proposal and asked about motive regarding the second. Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
• The thread seems to be changing into criticisms in general now, not just criticisms about the declaration of the Islamic State. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 20:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
• Gregkaye: I should not have used the word "newspaper" or criticised your "outlet"; it was an ill-thought through comment. I think you should pursue your idea of a link from "jihadist" showing how the word has two entirely different meanings now, and a simple link to the wiki article is not enough as that has just one vague sentence describing (if that is what it can be called) the difference. To talk about the "chalk", an encyclopaedia article gives the facts about a subject first and foremost, commentary is secondary. That is what I meant by an encyclopaedia not being like a "newspaper", which is full of commentary and opinion. In my opinion, as an encyclopaedia article, facts should be kept separate from commentary and precede it. Criticism, which is commentary, should come after facts. "Goals, territorial claims and resources" are facts about the group, and I do not think the section on criticisms - commentary - should come before it. To have "Criticisms" between facts above it in the TOC and facts below it is messy. "Criticisms" and "Analysis" are both commentary, so those sections should be grouped together. (Although I can see why the "Military of ISIL" is classed as a resource, I think it might be better to keep all military aspects together, in perhaps three sections. I find those sections quite confusing - and that may be my fault - mainly because of the headings. Why not keep it simple and have three sections, "Military resources", "Support" and "Opposition"?) The designations as a terrorist organization are not criticisms but official facts (with criticism implied obviously) and are a part of the group's history, so should either be incorporated in "History" or follow it as the next block of facts. On criticisms, I now agree with Felino123, after being half-persuaded otherwise, that criticisms (except those in the Lead, because the Lead is a summary of the article) should be kept in one place. I do not think criticism of the name and of "caliphate" interpolated in "History" is appropriate, as that mingles commentary with fact. To spread criticisms here and there - and particularly to have "Criticisms" before "Goals", when one of the main criticisms is about group's caliphate ambition! - is messy, IMO. I can see that where to put "Finances" and "Propaganda and social media" is a problem, as although they are facts, there is nothing about them in the criticisms (commentary) section, and the same with the military sections. Perhaps those ?five sections exceptionally could follow "Criticisms" and "Analysis", as it would be illogical to separate criticisms and analysis (commentary) so far away from the things criticised and commented upon. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 20:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
• P123ct1 In that case I would suggest reformatting section 2 as "Group goals, structure and characteristics" with the first subsection of that section being "Goals and territorial claims ambitions". Section 3 can perhaps remain as "Criticism" or "Criticism and judgement" / "Judgement and criticism" or something like that so as to incorporate the Designation content. Either that or the designations section can split off but I don't see an advantage or warrant for this. Section 4 perhaps can perhaps labelled "Resources" to keep things simple. My two main issues here are that appropriate definitions of terrorist can be encyclopaedically presented and that the criticisms sections should fairly come before admin contents like resources. The criticisms of "Islamic State" and "caliphate" can perhaps go in after "theological objections" which makes some sense to me. I know that Legacypac has put a lot of work into this and should comment. Gregkaye ✍♪ 21:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
• Gregkaye: I think naming section 2 "Group goals, structure and characteristics" with section 2.1 being "Goals and territorial claims" is a good idea, but having criticisms of "Islamic State" and "caliphate" as a part of that section 1 would be more logical than putting it after "theological objections", since the criticisms are more about the fact of the Islamic State and caliphate than the idea of those things, which is how they appear in the "Ideology and beliefs" part. I still think those criticisms/commentaries should go in "Criticisms" where they were originally, though. The "Criticisms" are now quite high up in the TOC at section 3, and I agree they should come before a section on "Resources", because the none of the criticisms are about the resources. If the "Resources" section has in it "Propaganda", "Finances" and "Military of ISIL", I think "Military of ISIL" should come last, as that would lead naturally into the two sections on "Opposition" and "Support", keeping all the military stuff together. As I said, I think "Criticisms" and "Analysis" should be grouped together (but as separate sections) as they are in essence both commentary sections. So that would be: "History", "Group goals, structure and characteristics" (your new section 2), "Criticisms", "Analysis", "Resources", "Support", "Opposition". That would seem to make sense, would incorporate your improvements, and follow what I basically recommended in my comment just before yours. Comments, Legacypac? Revision as of 22:30, 2 December 2014 P123ct1

Good plan Gregkaye. Legacypac (talk) 23:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't have strong views on the positioning of criticisms of "Islamic State" and "caliphate" and think that each option has its strengths. I still think that the declaration of "Islamic State" and "caliphate" are theologically loaded issues but other arguments have relevance as well. In which section is propaganda best placed? With a moving up of the territorial claims section there is still the issue of the repetition of the territorial claims map in the infobox. It has improved usage now that the maps are closer together but it's still a repetition. If the Analysis section is to be moved should it remain containing the conspiracies theories section. I would leave that as an wikt:and finally news (outlet ) styled item. It effectively adds a potential Plot twist but not with the certain notability of content of the criticisms section. In this case I would lay out the article:

• Lead; History; Group goals, structure and characteristics; Criticism; Analysis and designation as a terrorist organisation; Resources; Support; Opposition; Conspiracy theories in the Arab world.

I think that the Analysis and designation as a terrorist organisation contents can naturally go together and I think that this gives good context for the group's description as terrorist. Again, please read ISIL#Analysis. A wikt:terrorist content is not centrally relevant to a war criminal group. Sections could also be bunched together as either, " Criticism, analysis and designation as a terrorist organisation" or "Analysis, designation as a terrorist organisation, criticism". Fiercely worded and critical papers from the UN speak of the "armed group" not the "terrorist group". Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

• Gregkaye: Why do you think "Analysis" and "Designation as a terrorist organization" naturally go together? Is it because you analyse that "terrorist" is not a descriptor that fits the group any longer? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 11:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
• P123ct1 They are clearly a horrendous terrorist organisation but with facets more monstrous still. If I were to judge what the group were guilty of I would place human rights abuse and war crimes at the top of the list terrorism somewhere after that. The analysis text acknowledges the terrorism and also highlights bigger issues. It keeps things in context with related content. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
• Gregkaye: I have reorganised some sections along the lines of what we discussed above, endorsed by Legacypac, giving the new headings you suggested for section 2. I have also moved "Military of ISIL" in "Resources" to the bottom as the next section is military. Some adjustments may be needed, but I think the arrangement of sections is as we agreed. I have already moved "Analysis" up to below "Criticism" as these are both commentary sections. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 23:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
• I would suggest turning "Human rights/war crimes" into a section of its own now, as section 2 is very large. What do you think? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 23:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
• P123ct1 yes, my guess is that, now that the main heading starts with "Group goals.." instead of "Group characteristics.." or whatever it was, the "Human rights/war crimes" content may not seem to fit so well. Gregkaye ✍♪ 23:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced opinion in lead section

"aims to bring Muslim-inhabited regions of the world under its control": still no sources for this "heavily sourced" statement, after I attempted to discuss the problem, so it will have to go. This article is not supposed to be a platform for one editor's personal opinion. I suggest someone else removes the statement, today, since I have just been reverted by the apparent WP:OWNer of this article (who claims that the removal of his opinion constitutes a "non-good faith edit"). zzz (talk) 19:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• that edit can also be viewed here. Related discussion on this is found at Archive 20#Lead section. Ping @Legacypac:. Gregkaye ✍♪ 19:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Was just drafting this when Gregkaye beat me to posting. Various editor have spent a lot of time discussing this exact issue with zzz in multiple long threads. No one else agrees with zzz and he has never brought a source to counter all the sources that say what the article says http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/08/economist-explains-19. When zzz edit warred over it he escaped a block by promising not to edit this article anymore - a promise again broken. After the last round of debate zzz started the other editors determined that zzz had probably not read the article since the article contains several sections supporting the words yet again deleted from the lead. Also since zzz just deleted 3 references while claiming the information is unsourced, it is hard to take him seriously.

See discussion Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant/Archive_18#Disruptive_Edits_-_result_User_blocked_for_48_hours_under_Community_Sanctions here which resulted in a 48 hour block as well as the thread Greg pointed to and the long collapsed discussion Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant/Archive_20#Removing_material_from_lead:_detailed_rationale here.

Your choice Signedzzz - you want to continue to delete the same content over and over or you going to stop?

Legacypac (talk) 19:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• Just read your source, the Economist. Unfortunately, it says nothing like "aims to bring Muslim-inhabited regions of the world under its control". The closest I can find is

  "And the problem is not just for Syria, Iraq and its neighbours. With thousands of foreign fighters from across the world who may return home as radicalised rebels, many countries are at risk."

Which is not even close (is this some kind of joke??? Whatever.) The best way I can see to improve the encyclopedia, right now, is to continue to remove this unsourced opinion - since there is a point-blank refusal to justify it. As for the personal abuse and the other lies and bullshit, I'm not interested, thanks. zzz (talk) 22:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• My experience of deleting nonsense in this article is that eventually, it stays out. zzz (talk) 22:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Apparently the second sentence of the Economist article "... it declared a caliphate, claiming to speak for the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims." means nothing. By your own admission you plan to edit war. Not helpful. Legacypac (talk) 22:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• Can you substantiate that, zzz? I don't remember seeing your name in the "View history" pages until recently. Are you referring to deletions you made recently? I hope you realize your attitude to editors here doesn't exactly help your case. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 22:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
• You succeeded in making a small handful of simple copy-eds (shortening a few phrases and sentences), and most of your excisions were restored. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 23:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Back at edit warring board for round three Legacypac (talk) 23:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@P123ct1 Would you like to point out where my "attitude to editors" has been unhelpful? Or is it simply a case of my failing to agree with every phrase in "your" article (unsupported by references)? And why is it so important to you to state that I have made only "a small handful of simple copy-eds" to "your" article? zzz (talk) 03:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

zzz, I've made my own comments on this unhelpfulness on the report. Your timely edit relating to the #"Pair of armed anti-American insurgents from northern Iraq" picture is, in my view, helpful. Please recognise any relevant edit warring and any other relevant issues. We have lost able editors in the past. Reassurances count for a lot more when it comes to proceedings here than defences. Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

You and everyone else is of course welcome to edit here, but you are not welcome to edit war here. If you can't recognize where your discussion is combative or how repeatedly refusing to read sources properly is problematic, there are few alternatives. In many threads you have just insulted all the other editors while presenting no RS evidence that supports your point. Legacypac (talk) 06:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

zzz: WP:CIVIL, WP:PA. Never helps. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 07:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

zzz My concern is that, IMO, in your apparent hack into the article attitude there may be instances in which you Throw out the baby with the bath water or some such. It is fair that material gets questioned but, when most editors are disagreeing with you and you still want to push for an edit, I would say that it is you that has the WP:OWN attitude. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Small change: I have changed C to "aims to bring Muslim-inhabited regions across the world under its control". I think that the first may be suggestive of all areas visited by any Muslim tourist or similar but who is to say for certain that even those areas are safe. 'SIL attacked Sinjar and that was a predominantly Yazidi town. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I cannot see where the new citation just added, an article from The Week, support this phrase "aims to bring Muslim-inhabited regions across the world under its control". ~ P123ct1 (talk) 15:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

zzz: You asked, "And why is it so important to you to state that I have made only "a small handful of simple copy-eds" to "your" article?" You had said, "My experience of deleting nonsense in this article is that eventually, it stays out", which was a half-truth. I corrected it. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 16:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The newest source http://theweek.com/article/index/267920/abu-bakr-al-baghdadi-the-man-who-would-be-caliph says: "Al-Baghdadi has the megalomaniacal aim of restoring the long-expired caliphate, the original Muslim kingdom that existed under the successors of the Prophet Mohammed and at one point extended from modern-day Spain to Central Asia. "Caliph," or khalifa, means "successor" in Arabic, and by taking the title, al-Baghdadi has declared himself the chief imam and political and military leader of all Muslims. The last caliphate ended with the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in World War I, and establishing a state to be the home of the faithful has been the dream of Islamic fundamentalists for more than half a century. Al-Baghdadi claims to trace his lineage to the Prophet Mohammed's Quraysh tribe, and his nom de guerre recalls the first caliph: Abu Bakr, father-in-law and close adviser of Mohammed. In July, he addressed the world's Muslims in a sermon. "I am the wali who presides over you," al-Baghdadi said at the Grand Mosque in Mosul, Iraq. "Obey me as long as I obey God in you." The article says chief imam (religious), political (government) and military (functional control). He also does not seek to rule over non-muslims, he tells his followers to kill them. Legacypac (talk) 17:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The Lead wording is specifically about territory. There is nothing about territorial control in that source. The most that that can be said is that territorial control is implied in that source. That is the only reason why I hesitated over that citation and tagged it. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 21:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The section you tagged is what they only claim authority over. Actual territorial control is in a different sentence. The claim is so outlandish it is hard to wrap words around or compare it to anything else. Legacypac (talk) 22:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The passage which that citation is attached to is: "... aims to bring Muslim-inhabited regions across the world under its control". That refers to territory. The citation does not refer to territory. That is why I tagged the citation (now removed). ~ P123ct1 (talk) 22:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Meaning I don't think it is close enough. Is there any other citation that would back it up as closely as the worldwide caliphate link? If editors cannot see that this citation does not back up the statement, there is no hope for this article. This blindness is making editors look incompetent and that is putting it politely. I do not necessarily agree with everything Signedzzz says, but on this citation, discussed by him in his ban appeal yesterday (see end of thread), showing why it does not back up the statement, he is absolutely correct. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 11:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I have edited this much disputed passage in the Lead in this way, so that it reflects all the RS citations given for it (including The Week), as I don't think the original wording, "... aims to bring Muslim-inhabited regions across the world under its control", is supported by The Week citation:

"As caliphate it claims religious, political and military authority over all Muslims worldwide. The group's immediate goal is to establish a Sunni Islamic state in Iraq and the Levant region, which approximately covers Syria, Jordan, Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Cyprus, and part of southern Turkey."

This can be reverted when a good source can be found to back up the original wording, so in a way this is a holding operation. ~ P-123 (talk) 19:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

"Pair of armed anti-American insurgents from northern Iraq"

I have a problem with this picture: what does it add to the article? Is there any evidence that the photo is even taken in Iraq? I see no reason to keep it. zzz (talk) 22:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Even after seeing the image a lot I never considered its lack of WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE. The person that added the image also uploaded images of the far east. Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Claim, contrary to the article's claim, that 'SIL's territorial claim may never have been exclaimed

In the article and section: ISIL territorial claims#Specific territorial claims the references given are as follows.

• http://soufangroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/TSG-The-Islamic-State-Nov14.pdf
• http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2014/04/isis-southern-division.php#
• http://www.france24.com/ar/تنظيم-الدولة-الإسلامية-خلافة-إعلان-ولاية-إرهاب/
• http://www.aymennjawad.org/2014/09/islamic-state-euphrates-province-statement

• google search on common map

Regarding that map the longwarjournal reference merely states "A map of the ISIS' administrative areas, including the 16 wilayats, was published earlier this year. The ISIS map was obtained by The Long War Journal." There is nothing that I have seen as yet either stating or limiting "territorial claim". I am wondering how best to present this. What wording should be used? Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

When political entities publish maps showing admin divisions that is often part of how they claim the area. There has been a progression of territorial claims. Legacypac (talk) 17:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

• Legacypac and others. Is there any content in any relatively reliable source to support any of this content? here is a search on the image with results from 01/01/2013. Its a computer generated image. Where did it come from? If this is something that the group published so early where are all the other version. I don't know if there is any reason to believe an original origin for this document. Where is the quote from anyone from controlled territories to back up this claim? Gregkaye ✍♪ 19:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I checked various pages that show that map and they credit it to the Long War Journal, as does this page http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2014/04/isis-southern-division.php but can't find the first place it was published. We don't use that map though, so what is the concern? Legacypac (talk) 19:52, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac The main Daesh page in the infobox states "Territories claimed (2014)". I can't remember, I may have added or consolidated the 2014 reference from some other article content. My search shows the map was in non-RS use from early in 2013. I think that the whole thing may be a fabrication perhaps with an original source, perhaps not but with nothing we can check. I don't see any quotation of a propaganda source. I don't hear of people within the group area quoting the related list of provinces. What real substantiation is there for this account of claims. When the group have operated in Lebanon etc without restraint I also see no meaning in the map. Gregkaye ✍♪ 20:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

LWJ is a RS, and the earlier dates I found for 2013 appear to be blogs with incorrect dates picked up in Google. Not sure how to explain it, but you can fudge or screw up the date on your posts in a blog, or add new material to an old page without changing the page date. None of the pages I checked actually indicate a 2013 publish date for the map when examined in detail. What exactly are you thinking of changing? The list of claimed areas? The map? the infobox? Remember that ISIL does rejects all borders creating a weird situation. Legacypac (talk) 20:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

And how reliable is it on this? LWJ i think added that page this year. Where did they get their information? Why doesn't any other RS quote it? Does it have any relevance? What is the content doing on our pages? Gregkaye ✍♪ 22:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

• Doubt has been cast on whether The Long War Journal is a reliable source. It is also a blog, and WP advises caution when using blogs as sources. ~ P-123 (talk) 23:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Here is the BBC with their own version of the LWJ map http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27838034 scroll to Establishing a caliphate and here is a similar map - scroll to What the Militants Want: A Caliphate Across Syria and Iraq http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/06/12/world/middleeast/the-iraq-isis-conflict-in-maps-photos-and-video.html?_r=0 and the text cites Institute for the Study of War. I think if the NYT and BBC and LWJ and ISW all publish similar maps why should we not reflect that on WP maps? Legacypac (talk) 22:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac Thank you The BBC text reads, "Based on a details posted on Twitter earlier this year, the map below shows 16 "wilayats", or provinces, that IS claims to control, or where it claims to have a presence." On this basis our text should read, "Territories in which ISIL claimed to have had a presence in early 2014." It currently reads, "Territorial claims (2014)" which is misrepresentative of the cited content. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

On a 5-year plan, ISIS is claiming territories on at least 80 countries in the world!

See also: #Claim, contrary to the article's claim, that 'SIL's territorial claim may never have been exclaimed

I mentioned this on ISIL territorial claims. I'm still not to edit in this page, but could someone else add that information? The source is in that article that I edited, and the source is there, but I'm sure that if an eventual better source is needed, I can look myself for it.Charrock (talk) 03:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The problem with the first source is it is a tablod and this source refutes it, however they clearly have designs on a lot more places. Let's look for better sources? Legacypac (talk) 08:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, suggest one, please! Charrock (talk) 08:36, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Charrock I don't know of any reliable source reference to any specific territorial claim made by the group. I suggest, if anything, we return to RS. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Now pay attention 007, according our information, Doctor No has an evil Five Year Master Plan to take over territories on at least 80 countries. Really, does all this BS sound more like something out of a (sub-standard) James Bond film? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.219.74 (talk) 21:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theories in the Arab world"

If Misplaced Pages follows events, then it might consider updating this section to read:

"Given past US attempts to destabilize the Middle East - and bring down the Syrian government - theorists have claimed the US is behind the existence and emboldening of ISIL." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.219.74 (talk) 21:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Don't forget us Brits or the rest of the world. The French, I seem to remember, made first international intervention in Libya. I would support the creation of an article to accurately report on any corroborated US or other abuses so as to deal with relevant issues head on. Relevant blame for situations should be fairly apportioned but "given" in this context is a WP:weasel word. Recently the analysis section began with a content based on a citation that listed a range of causes behind the escalated Sunni-Shia conflict. The single issue presented from this in article text related to US involvements. I edited so as to present a more NPOV representation of content following which the content was swiftly removed. Like any form of prejudice, anti-Americanism should not be tolerated in Misplaced Pages. 89.240.219.74 with your limited edits on Misplaced Pages, please consider using a login for the making of edits and talk page suggestions. Gregkaye ✍♪ 02:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Inaccurate Citation

The section under "Military of ISIL" reads:

"Estimates of the size of ISIL's military vary widely from tens of thousands up to 200,000 fighters, with the latter estimate being the most recent, as of November 2014" citing http://online.wsj.com/articles/jessica-lewis-the-terrorist-army-marching-on-baghdad-1402614950 as a source. However the article itself reads: "According to 2013 estimates, the Iraqi army contains 14 maneuver divisions, roughly 200,000 soldiers in addition to 40,000 federal police and 300,000 local police"(Paragraph 6) The estimate refers to the population of Iraq's army, not the army of ISIL. I don't have editing privileges for this article so I hope someone can correct this.

Thank you @Adeutry: I have always been dubious of the 200,000 figure which was provided by Fuad Hussein, Senior Kurdish figure as per "War with Isis: Islamic militants have army of 200,000, claims senior Kurdish leader" in the Independent. The article quotes a "large pool of potential recruits" but doesn't mention that the job mainly involves killing Muslims or minorities. The article presents the figure as "Kurdish claims". I would be interested to know if there is anything citable to question conflict of interest here. This is an example of Kurd-led influence which can be viewed as a bid for more military intervention from multi-national forces. I think that Misplaced Pages should remain careful regarding potential misinformation. See: territorial claim and state above.

Adeutry, to be a WP:AUTOCONFIRMed user you need to have made 10 edits on Misplaced Pages and I think that this can be on any content. Contributions will be welcome. Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The figure 200,000 Gregkaye is talking about is from The Independent. It is about ISIL, and it is dated November 2014, so this would be the right citation for the text, which says latest estimates (November) are 200,000 for ISIL. But the editor is referring to a different citation altogether, from the WSJ, where the 200,000 figure is for the Iraqi Army, not ISIL. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 14:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• This is the second citation this week that has been found to be inaccurate. The other was the citation for "aims to bring Muslim-inhabited regions across the world under its control" in the Lead. (See #Unsourced opinion in lead section" in which zzz was involved.) A few weeks ago I found in this article a citation that directly contradicted the statement it was supposed to support; I noted this in the edit summary. I have found many inaccuracies and misreporting of citations in the Timeline article. In the ISIS article, since the reorganisation and addition of phrases to original sentences made in an attempt to combine and reduce text, I have found some of these additions not backed up by the original citations that are still attached. How much more of this is hiding in the article? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 11:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• The inaccuracy raised by the editor over the 200,000 figure has a revealing history.

(1) The current version has:

Military of ISIL

Main article: Military of ISIL

Estimates of the size of ISIL's military vary widely from tens of thousands up to 200,000 fighters, with the latter estimate being the most recent, as of November 2014."

The source for 200,000 is Jessica Lewis's article in the Wall Street Journal. (a) as the editor pointed out, this figure is not for ISIL, but worse still (b) that article is dated 14 JUNE, 2014, and it is being quoted for the "most recent" estimate in November. The WSJ article quotes 4,000 for ISIL in Iraq in June, nothing for Syria.

(2) The 13 November version of the page has:

Military and arms

Main article: Military of ISIL

In June 2014, ISIL had at least 4,000 fighters in Iraq, http://online.wsj.com/articles/jessica-lewis-the-terrorist-army-marching-on-baghdad-1402614950 and the CIA estimated in September 2014 that it had 20,000–31,500 fighters in Iraq and Syria.

This time the number is accurate, 4,000 in the Jessica Lewis WSJ citation.

(3) The 17 September version of the page has:

"In June 2014, it had at least 4,000 fighters in its ranks in Iraq."

Same citation from Jessica Lewis, but this time this sentence is in the Lead.

It is very clear what has happened. The text has been moved/changed three times, during the reorganisation of the page (note the different section headings), each time moving over the footnote wholesale without checking that it accurately backs up the statement. When the third time the WSJ is quoted, for the 200,000 ISIL figure, to repeat, not only is it wrong because this is the figure for the Iraqi Army, but the article citation, supposedly put in to support the latest estimates in November, is dated June, six months earlier.

What kind of editing is this? There is no excuse for getting citations wrong/misplaced when an edit adds/reduces/changes text to a different version. This is comparable to editors adding a new edit to a text at random, making nonsense of the line of argument in the text, and this happens a lot. I am beginning to think Signedzzz is right in his assessment of the editing in this article. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 14:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• I have replaced the WSJ citation with The Independent citation. The article is by Patrick Cockburn of The Independent. These are both Reliable Sources, especially Cockburn, and that they have been given this high 200,000 number by a Kurdish source can be relied on, even if the figure itself cannot. ~ P-123 (talk) 18:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. There has been substantial erroneous and skewed content injected at times. It can be important to track down the editors who bring in the errors concerned. It is then advised that editors here should then responsibly follow Misplaced Pages procedure to proportionately and accurately deal with case issues. Gregkaye ✍♪ 19:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

It is almost impossible to find who has made what edits unless it is in the edit summaries. The Wikiblame search tool does not work properly and Hedonil's new tool, which can find who has made a particular edit, is always under maintenance and hasn't worked properly for a long time. But the last thing needed is a witchhunt mentality over this. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 21:27, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

What I do is to copy (Ctrl C) the text concerned, open view history, scroll down to a suitable point and right click on a "prev" link and open in other tab, Crtl F for find, Ctrl V to paste text into the find box and click one of the arrows. Then, depending on the result, I'd scan either up or down the view history list doing the same, going up or down the list, until I find the edit that made the particular change. If the change is large then I will also know that it may be less necessary to check low byte change edits although this is not a reliable gauge. An addition may occur in the same edit as a subtraction.

I also agree with the point about witchhunt. To the extent that I think that there is a possibility of reasoning with an offending editor, I think can be good practice to try to explain things through and try to appeal to an editor's better nature through User talk page discussion. Other editors think it best to file reports at early opportunity to nip offending behaviours in the bud but, either way, a fair and representative case should be presented. Gregkaye ✍♪ 23:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

That sounds complicated. I have sometimes gone to editors' Talk pages about problematic edits and we always manage to sort things out amicably. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 23:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Suspected sock-puppeting always needs nipping in the bud. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 00:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Military and resources

I have changed section "Resources" to "Military and resources" also changing subsection "Military of ISIL" to "Military" and moving this to first item in section before "Propaganda" and "Finances". My thinking is that they are defined as a militia not as a PR or finance group. Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

• I'd also suggest that sections "Countries and groups at war with ISIL" and "Supporters" could go before "Military and resources". I think this presents a "what is happening" to "how it's happening" logical organisational flow. Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Where are we on the status of IS as a state? It would seems that "military" implies that their paramilitary formations are a constituent component of a state, something I'm not sure carries much weight, yet. Hamas' armed component is, for example, referred to as a "military wing". GraniteSand (talk) 08:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. "Military wing of"... terminologies are applied to a variety of political organisations. I used to have a clearer view of the group as primarily having a military focus. However their attentions may get drawn into other involvements especially in cases in which local support is lacking. Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:40, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Religious Ideology (The Black Flags Prophecy - Sequence of Events in Chronological order)

Ideology of formation of caliphate and their support among Muslims and recent Islamic converts (reverts in Islamic sense) are based from Judaism and Christianity in addition to Islamic prophecies.
The Black Flags Prophecy - Sequence of Events:
Ahmad narrated from Abu Hurayrah that he said: "The Messenger of Allah said: "Black banners will come out of Khurasan, and nothing will stop them, until they are raised in Ayliya."
Ayliya' is the ancient Roman name for Bayt al-Maqdis (Jerusalem).
Khurasan refers to the area of present- day Afghanistan and eastern Persia.

Jewish Scripture describing the war and men of war against Zion:

God planning against the corrupt Jerusalem:
This is what the LORD of Heaven's Armies says: "Cut down the trees for battering rams. Build siege ramps against the walls of Jerusalem.
This is the city to be punished, for she is wicked through and through. (Jeremiah 6:6)
Why Allah punishes the Zionists:
Then said the LORD unto me, The end has come upon my people of Israel; I will not again pass by them anymore. (because they had broken God’s covenant and caused corruption in the Earth) "In that day," declares the Sovereign LORD, "the songs in the temple will turn to wailing. Many, many bodies--flung everywhere! Silence!" (Amos 8: 2,3)

This army is described in the Old Testament of the Jewish scripture:
"Behold, a people comes from the north country, (note: North of Israel are Muslim lands which have faced bitter oppression because of Israel)
And a great nation will be raised from the farthest parts of the earth.
They will lay hold of bow and spear,
They are cruel and have no mercy;
Their voice roars like the sea; (when Muslims shout ‘Allahu akbar’ (God is greater) in unison)
And they ride horses
As men of war set in array against you, O daughter of Zion." (Jeremiah 6:22,23.)
"One thousand (zionists) shall flee from the threat of one,
At the threat of five you shall flee,
Till you are left as a pole on top of a mountain
As as a banner on a hill." (Isaiah 5: 26-30)

Blow a trumpet in Zion, And sound an alarm on My holy mountain! Let all the inhabitants of the land tremble, For the day of the LORD is coming; Surely it is near, a day of darkness and gloom, a day of clouds and blackness. Like dawn spreading across the mountains - a large and mighty army comes, such as never was of old nor ever will be in ages to come. (Joel 2: 1-9)

The Army of Black Flags mention in Islamic Prophecy:
"The Messenger of Allah said: "Matters will run their course until you become three armies: an army in Sham (Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Palestine), an army in 'Iraq, and an army in the Yemen." I said: "O Messenger of Allah, choose which one I should join." He said: "You should go to Sham , for it is the best of Allah's lands, and the best of His slaves will be drawn there. And if you refuse, then you should go to the Yemen and drink from its wells. For Allah has guaranteed me that He will look after Sham and its people."

Whose interpretation is this?

The above statement was added to the article by Syed Aamer Shah (Scientist) (talk · contribs). If this is an official ISIL interpretation of the prophecies, they can easily be summarized. If this is Mr. Shah's private interpretation of these prophecies (as are indicated by the parentheses), then it is considered original research and it should be removed. I have done the latter for the time being. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 01:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Religious Interpretation

This interpretation is based on Jewish, Christian and Islamic beliefs (according to their religious books). The names of the books / Chapters and verses is mentioned after the lines (quotations) which are in bold font. This is work done by some researcher in the book, "Black Flags From The East". The author has preferred to remain anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syed Aamer Shah (Scientist) (talk • contribs) 04:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

A book by an anonymous author cannot be used by Misplaced Pages as a source of reliable information. ~ P-123 (talk) 07:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Annonymous Author Issue

The author will surely risk life if he discloses his name and moreever, the book is published and none of its content can be questioned — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syed Aamer Shah (Scientist) (talk • contribs) 11:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

See WP:RS for Misplaced Pages's policy on citing sources. ~ P-123 (talk) 14:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

What happened with isis control in Al-Anbar

Why did ISIS lose control of land in the province, who pushed them back or did they give it up then does iraq still control it? Weegeeislyfe (talk) 06:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 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.

Simply change 158's citation note url to point to the correct source: Incorrect: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/02/us-mideast-crisis-lebanon-baghdadi-dUSKCN0JG0HW20141202 Correct: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/02/us-mideast-crisis-lebanon-baghdadi-idUSKCN0JG0HW20141202 Incerebro (talk) 12:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done ~ P-123 (talk) 18:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Timeline of recent events

See also: Propose scrapping timeline from main article and Timeline keeping

Is this section in a suitable place? I think we'd better move it some where after the Criticism section. By the way, 1.8 November 2014 and 1.9 December 2014 would better be a sub section of Timeline of recent events. Mhhossein (talk) 16:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Mhhossein Issues have been fairly well discussed but without clear decisions being reached. The timeline information is automatically generated in the ISIL document through a process called tranclusion through the use of tags like these: <includeonly></includeonly> being added around relevant bits of text in the timeline article. In the past about 30 days of text were agreed with the result that 30-60 days of text were added to the document but a later view was that 4-7 days worth of text would be aimed for. The month titles are tricky to deal with. They are generated in the timeline document and are transferred and transcluded in. I have previously argued for their removal for the sake of a clean TOC. Another editor kept readding the <includeonly></includeonly> tags around the months which was done for the reason that the transcluded headings bring with them links that permit the editing of the timeline document from the ISIL document. Options now are:

1. To keep things as they are.
2. To remove month references completely.
3. To change take the two previous headings "===Post-June 2014 events===" and "===Timeline of recent events===" and merge them so as to give something like: "===Post-June 2014 events and recent timeline===". This might then be followed by one or two transcluded "===monthly===" titles as at present. (I only thought of this last option thanks to you raising the issue again so thank you for that.)
4. To completely delete timeline info from the ISIL article and just use links to the the Timeline document as has been previously discussed.
5. To move the timeline information back to a later part of the document, perhaps after criticism as you mentioned. It now occurs to me that the section could be moved right down the page to precede the "See also" section. Any such move would allow "==Timeline of recent events==" to be turned into a main (lev 2) heading. This would then mean that the transcluded "===monthly===" headings would be able to follow a normal step across within the context of the TOC.

A decision needs to be made. I don't really care what option is chosen but have long been frustrated that the current situation is a bit of a mess. gregkaye ✍♪ 18:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye: Cleanest solution is no. 5, i.e. just before "See also" – but making sure there is a clear note at the end of the "History" section showing readers where to go for latest events in this article. The amount of days covered seems reasonable. ~ P-123 (talk) 18:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Clean but with a potential price of dividing history content to separate locations. 4 is also clean but loses direct ref to the content. gregkaye ✍♪ 22:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I am sure readers will cope. There is going to be a big will be time gaps between the last entry in "History" and the first entry in the Timeline section however it is done. Anything is better than the current messy headings.~ P-123 (talk) 22:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

@P-123 and Gregkaye: You're welcome, the current state of the section is not nice. I reckon the fifth option is a good choice, too. Mhhossein (talk) 00:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

gregkaye: The font sizes for November and December in the timeline section are different. Can they be made the same? Also, there is no note at the end of the "History" section showing there is a Timeline section at the end of the article. ~ P-123 (talk) 14:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Iraqi culture

Does anyone know what has happened with these issues?

Music of Iraq, Category:Iraqi artists, Category:Iraqi literature, Category:Iraqi culture I guess there will be similar refs for Syria.

gregkaye ✍♪ 21:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

What has happened to the maps?

One of the maps usefully showed the borders of Iraq, Syria and neighbouring countries. Why has this gone? Editors may be familiar with this part of the Middle East, but what about readers who may not be? This article is being written for WP readers, after all. Every map used by the media always shows the different countries clearly marked, why not this article? It seems like common sense to follow their good example. The maps will make no sense to readers who do not know where the Iraq-Syria border is. ~ P-123 (talk) 22:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

@P-123: which map do you mean? A link to that will help our discussion. Mhhossein (talk) 00:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Mhhossein: I could not find it. On 2 November I thanked the editor who put in the borders, but his map does not show up on versions of the page around that date. It was in one of the Lead infoboxes. gregkaye, can you help? It was one of Spesh's maps. ~ P-123 (talk) 01:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

P-123 map edit history is as follows.

• @Spesh531: "update 11/1/2014 labels" 23:02, 1 November 2014
• @RobiH: label contents as already presented in NPOV form under the map were changed and unnecessarily added to the map: "other Syrian rebels" was changed to "Syrian rebel groups", "Syrian government" was changed to "Assad Regime (Syria)", "Iraqi government" was changed to "Iraq/Shia Army" and reference to the Kurds was edited out. There was also an additional ref of "Israel occupied Syria" added which, for once, actually mentions Israel in reference to, IMO, legitimate wrong. Never-the-less I'd suggest that this is content that is most constructively developed elsewhere in Misplaced Pages. 20:37, 4 December 2014
• @Legacypac: "Reverted to version as of 23:02, 1 November 2014 - terrorist friendly labels included, seek consensus before making such changes" 15:24, 5 December 2014
• @Joan301009 "update" 12:49, 6 December 2014

(I'd suggest a use of the format as of edits by Spesh53 and Legacypac). At least this is what I was going to suggest b4 realising that the map is used on a great number of pages where local languages may not even use Latin script. gregkaye ✍♪ 03:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

This is the map I was referring to. (First one in the list above.) Why was it discontinued? What are the terrorist-friendly labels? I asked for the borders to be put in, and then the map suddenly appeared, was there for a while and disappeared, I am not sure when. ~ P-123 (talk) 08:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Why? See Wikidata on parallel articles. The addition of English headings may not be appreciated by many users across the entire encyclopedia. Lables and and timings are covered in comments above. gregkaye ✍♪ 15:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

The RobiH version minimized the Iraq/Syria border and splashed Islamic State across the gray zone. It also highlighted Golan heights bright blue and other problems in the legend. It looks like an ISIL propaganda publication. Legacypac (talk) 16:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac: I don't understand. The RobiH version isn't the one I am talking about. You say the addition of English headings may not be appreciated ... but why cannot one version of the map I linked to be given the English titles and be used just in this article? I am probably being naïve, but why is everything so darned complicated in Misplaced Pages? ~ P-123 (talk) 02:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

gregkaye: Belated thanks for providing that list. ~ P-123 (talk) 02:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Greg said the English headings might be an issue, not me. Each version is saved over the others. Maybe we could save the version we like with English labels as a new file name and use it. Of course anyone could overwrite that file too, but we can police that. The other issue is the map gets updated occasionally, so this article would have to rely on the English version being updated as well as the "no words" version. The no words version has an attached key in many languages. Legacypac (talk) 08:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Good, if that can be achieved without too much difficulty, as readers would be helped greatly if they had a map that clearly shows the borders, IMO. ~ P-123 (talk) 10:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Lead

See also Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/Archive_22#Bold change of para order in Lead

I first moved the designations as terrorist organisation part of the Lead to the top and the consensus was to keep it there. I think I made a mistake in moving the criticisms part of the Lead from the bottom to the top to join it, because the first thing that hits when reading the Lead now is that second para of heavy criticism. How does this square with WP:NPOV? It gives the impression that this article is anti-ISIL from the word go. I think the terrorist designations should stay at the top, but UN and Amnesty criticisms should follow the history section , along with Muslim criticism. ~ P-123 (talk) 23:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

You may move the criticism section, but I suggest you to have an "Ideology and belief" para there. Mhhossein (talk) 00:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Mhhossein: Do you mean a summary para on ideology and beliefs? Where? Isn't this covered in the infobox, under "Ideology"? ~ P-123 (talk) 01:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, a brief explanation as the second or third para. I saw that infobox. I'm suggesting an explanatory text. However it is only a suggestion. Mhhossein (talk) 01:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I have left the terrorist designation sentence at the top as per consensus and moved the UN/Amnesty/Muslim criticism to the bottom, for the above reasons. If this goes against whatever the consensus was please object here. (I think the consensus discussion was about the ordering of the criticisms in that para, not their positioning.) ~ P-123 (talk) 14:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

How does this square with the building of encyclopaedic content. Terrorist is not a primary description of a militia bent on an ethnic cleansing based agenda. Its wrong to mention the terrorist activities and leave ethnic cleansing as a distant after thought. Related criticisms to a departure from the Islamic faith the group claims to profess also has central relevance. gregkaye ✍♪ 15:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I consider the effect of the second para before I changed it to show profound anti-ISIL POV, in that barrage of criticism. That is all I will say on the matter and leave it in the hands of other editors who have been involved in this to sort it out: @Felino123, Legacypac, Azx2, Mhhossein, and Gregkaye:. This was the second para - - before I changed it:

"The United Nations and Amnesty International have accused it 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, with many Islamic communities describing judging the group as not representing Islam. The group 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, and the UAE."

gregkaye: Please remember that the consensus was to have the terrorist designation part at the beginning of the Lead and that you have to comply per WP:CONSENSUS Please do not distract by repeating all the arguments here that you have put before on this. ~ P-123 (talk) 15:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

P-123 Please remember that there was also consensus regarding the inclusion of the three contents of criticism within the second paragraph of the lead. Please also note that the consensus for the inclusion of the "terrorist organization" reference was finalised within the context of other criticisms contents also being moved into the second paragraph. The issues were presented together with you taking a pivotal in the promoting of consensus on both issues. Please note that there is no censorship in Misplaced Pages. Arguments, presented fairly and in relation to their topic, are not distractions. This is new thread covering the same ground as a previously discussed topic. Please do not expect editors to refer to previous contents to reference views presented. GregKaye ✍♪ 17:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

GregKaye: What are the blue links at the top of the discussion for? That means I have gone against consensus. I was not sure. Do you want to take me to AN/I? ~ P-123 (talk) 17:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

If a content is to remain in the early part of the lead it should be that, "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". Something similar on these lines would also do or both contents could remain. They are not primarily a terrorist group. They are a group that has named itself in terms of Islam and which many in Islam regard as unfaithful. The presentation of clear facts should not be considered a distraction. gregkaye ✍♪ 16:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

In the article I have arranged content in the sequence:

• History
• Group goals, structure and characteristics
• Designation as a terrorist organization
• Human rights abuse and war crime findings
• Criticism

Consensus was reached to raise designations above content on criticisms. I do not see the point of splitting it from parallel contents on war crimes etc. gregkaye ✍♪ 16:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@Gregkaye: what do you mean by a 'primarily terrorist'? It is only mentioned that ISIL is designated as terrorist by some organizations nothing more, nothing less. However, I don't think moving the first sentence of this para to the end of lead can help with solving the POV problem (if there exist any). The only way here is to balance the paragraph with the viewpoints of other groups who support it. Mhhossein (talk) 19:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Mhhossein Fair enough, the group has previously been associated with al-Qaeda by the UN and this is now accurately presented in the relevant text. A common conception of terrorist is of a car or suicide bomber or a person who flies planes into buildings. I do not see that this relates to the central allegations concerned and think that there is more relevant content to use. gregkaye ✍♪ 19:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

gregkaye According to the definition presented here, 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. As I said, they are designated as terrorist. what's wrong here? Mhhossein (talk) 19:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Mhhossein Its funny, that was the exact qualifying text that I placed above the table in the "designation" section and editors wanted it removed. Looking at that quote we see that for a terrorist, terror is the defining means to their end. For a militia the main issue is the application of force to achieve goals. The aim is to wipe out enemies, take territories and, in this case, also to wipe out any people within which a potential for rebellion is suspected. 'SIL is a religiously motivated group that, as far as I have heard, are pursuing a clear agenda of purification. The main outcry against this relates to the fact the they kill swathes of population. The main issues in this case are war crimes, ethnic cleansing and extortion. In cases in which an individual is not regarded as a military threat but does not possess an accepted form or level of belief, then that individual will be required to pay in various ways. This is not lottery terrorism as might be related to "attacks". This is systematic persecution. It's not terrorism in any conventional sense. It goes beyond that. I don't see that a reference to terrorism in early isolation as being encyclopaedic. gregkaye ✍♪ 20:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

The group clearly uses terrorism, but they also commit war crimes, human rights abuses etc and there is overlap in these crimes. Legacypac (talk) 08:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac I quite agree and this is where I think a balance of information should properly be presented with united content within the lead.

We should retain perspective that this criticism content constituted, on my browser and screen, five lines within thirty-four lines of text in the lead. Its not much. I certainly don't think that this constitutes a barrage of criticism but, even if it did, I do not think that this would be disproportionate to real world realities. I would not even say that it would be unfair for the "Criticism" section to be renamed "Barrage of criticism". Such a description would accurately present the reality of what the group have received both within the Arab world and internationally.

I agree with the comment connected with the original move of content, "best to keep terrorist designation and criticisms together, not split between top and bottom". At minimum the human rights abuse/ethnic cleansing content should also be presented with justified prominence. Designation as terrorist, while being a serious issue, is still basically name calling and I think that it should be accompanied by a substance based content. There is obviously relevance in Islamic criticism. There is a minimal content on criticism in the lead. In context I don't think that an early outline of criticism that gives way to other content isn't warranted. gregkaye ✍♪ 15:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Polite notice

After months of trying, please note that I will no longer be correcting these name spellings, as whenever misspellings are corrected they are very often altered back, but only here and there, which means there is no consistency, so you may see different spellings of the same name throughout the article at any one time:-

• al-Qaeda ("Al-Qaeda", "al-Qaeda", "Al-Qaida", etc and often "al-Qaeda" at the beginning of a sentence)
• al-Nusra Front ("the al-Nusra Front", "al-Nusra Front", "Al-Nusra Front")
• Al-Qaeda in Iraq ("al-Qaeda in Iraq", "Al-Qaeda in Iraq")
  

~ P-123 (talk) 13:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• 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