Misplaced Pages

I've taken User:Gregkaye to AN/I for possible 1RR violation and disruptive editing. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive editing on ISIL by User:Gregkaye.~Technophant (talk) 19:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

NOTE: the above link text contains rhetorical repetition of reference to AN/I, "disruptive editing" and "Gregkaye" and that this all comes before the reader even gets to the content of the thread concerned.

(See Pages that link to "Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents" for a range of comparative links).

I consider this among a range of questionable behaviours of an editor who made no actual contribution to this discussion. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I've struck the improper description.~Technophant (talk) 00:00, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Recent article: Military wing of ISIL

Military wing of ISIL looks to have been possibly split from this article. Just directing knowledgeable editors to make sure it's in line with WP policies and existing articles.--Animalparty-- (talk) 21:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• "Military wing of ISIL" gets "2 results"

(ISIL OR ISIS OR Daesh OR "Islamic State") AND "military wing" gets results that generally refer to the military wings of groups that are in conflict with ISIL.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 05:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

It does look like a split, but i'm not aware of any discussion about doing this. It also comes close to Misplaced Pages:ORIGINALRESEARCH in drawing a distinction between the military wing and the rest of the group. Gazkthul (talk) 05:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I also don't see a "military wing" as the whole organization is a military operation including occupying forces and the media wing (Psyops). The content, however, is good and could be expanded. Maybe a better article name? "ISIL operations"? Legacypac (talk) 08:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Ping @Greyshark09: @LightandDark2000: Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I think that a big question is whether the article should be kept or deleted. In the meanwhile I suggest a stopgap title Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, military. Military wing may imply a defined structure perhaps with a hierachy that is distinct from other areas of authority. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

If we want to keep it then perhaps:

• Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, military capability? Military capability of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant? ISIL, military capability? Military capability of ISIL? (ISIL OR ISIS OR Daesh OR "Islamic State") AND "military capability". See Military capability
• Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, military capacity? Military capacity of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant? ISIL, military capacity? Military capacity of ISIL? (ISIL OR ISIS OR Daesh OR "Islamic State") AND "military capacity"

All the searches really say is that these terms are used in connection with ISIL but not saying whether the capabilities / capacities are for or against them.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Reference: Usage of terminologies

• "ISIL militants" OR "ISIS militants" OR "Islamic State militants" gets "About 80,700 results" in news
• "ISIL fighters" OR "ISIS fighters" OR "Islamic State fighters" gets "About 51,800 results" in news
• "ISIL extremists" OR "ISIS extremists" OR "Islamic State extremists" gets "About 20,700 results" in news
• "ISIL terrorists" OR "ISIS terrorists" OR "Islamic State terrorists" gets "About 12,600 results" in news
• "ISIL jihadists" OR "ISIS jihadists" OR "Islamic State jihadists" gets "About 7,150 results" in news
• "ISIL military" OR "ISIS military" OR "Islamic State military" gets "About 1,580 results" in news

• "anti-ISIL military" OR "anti-ISIS military" OR "anti-Islamic State military" gets "About 159 results" in news

• "ISIL troops" OR "ISIS troops" OR "Islamic State troops" gets "About 498 results" in news
• "ISIL operations" OR "ISIS operations" OR "Islamic State operations" gets "About 471 results" in news

• "anti-ISIL operations" OR "anti-ISIS operations" OR "anti-Islamic State operations" gets "About 127 results" in news

• "ISIL soldiers" OR "ISIS soldiers" OR "Islamic State soldiers" gets "About 487 results" in news
• "ISIL militia" OR "ISIS militia" OR "Islamic State militia" gets "About 362 results" in news
• "ISIL ground troops" OR "ISIS ground troops" OR "Islamic State ground troops" gets "4 results" in news
• "ISIL armed forces" OR "ISIS armed forces" OR "Islamic State armed forces" gets "2 results" in news

Please place any additional terms that you would like to have searched here or below, sign if you want to, all terms welcome:

Gregkaye 08:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The military wing can't really split from the owners using it. Maybe a rename to "ISIL's military" or "Military of ISIL" would suffice. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 22:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Not wanting to close the discussion but  Done. Change as suggested performed manually but this doesn't mean that another title can't be chosen. Gregkaye ✍♪ 18:58, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Not a very useful name

I may have found one use of "Military of Isil". One reason we have WP:COMMONNAME is to have article titles that people might actually search for. This seems one of the least likely names. I'm not even sure it was a good idea to create it. Nice piccies but that's not a good reason. Dougweller (talk) 15:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller I agree. As stated above "I think that a big question is whether the article should be kept or deleted". The other problem is the confusion of designations WP:BEGIN, begins: If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence". In the current state of the article The title reads: Military of ISIL; the lead begins: The Military of the Islamic State and the head section of the infobox presents: Islamic State Army. I edited to the use of consistent wording but was reverted. Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm really just keeping a watching brief on these articles, I cannot divert more time to them and in any case have a new unrelated Misplaced Pages project in mind which may take a lot of time. Dougweller (talk) 16:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Recent: Portal:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

Is this something that should be developed or deleted?

@Atifabbasi8: Gregkaye ✍♪

• Well it was nominated for deletion by Safiel, it was developed from this to this in the ensuing time period and editors who do not seem to have otherwise made contribution to Misplaced Pages:Miscellany_for_deletion opposed its deletion.

The portal is developed with such features as a completely blacked out and politically loaded map of the Middle-East region. Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:20, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Should we add this line to the lead

See previous discussion: Archive 14#Should "Criticism should on the criticism section, not on the Lead"?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Misplaced Pages has rules like this, MOS and several others that are followed. There are ways that Misplaced Pages does things. Can we also remember Misplaced Pages's principles in WP:CONSENSUS. Its the method used to achieve Misplaced Pages's goals. Gregkaye ✍♪ 00:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
• It is now five for (six if Supersaiyen's view counts as "for") and three against (or two as Felino seems prepared to agree to a mention of Muslims). This looks like consensus to include wording on Muslims in the last Lead paragraph. Is "by non-Muslims and within the Muslim community" finally acceptable? (See last comment from Jason of nyc.) -P123ct1 (talk) 10:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
• I agree, let's put "by non-Muslims and within the Muslim community" on the last paragraph. Gregkaye has just put particular cases of criticism by Muslisms on the lead and before terror organization designations on the same paragraph. Has anyone agreed with this? We are discussing criticism on the lead here and now and we are reaching a consensus here. I have put criticism on the lead the way we all agree. Felino123 (talk) 11:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
• Felino123: Thanks. I think your edit wording reflects the majority view here, and thanks for being prepared to modify your early views in the interests of reaching consensus! P123ct1 (talk) 13:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Felino123 In cases where I have seen editor's add criticism from within Islamic communities they have put it first. Criticism within Islamic communities especially from within the same sects of Islam is, by definition, notable. If you are going to comment on me please ping me. Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:24, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• P123ct1 While I consider the reapplication of the removed mention of Islamic criticism to be a welcome step in the right direction, I still don't think that the present wording is representative. It presents Muslim and other criticism on the same level even though in many countries non-Muslim criticism may may be nothing new. It may simply be a repetition by local press outlets of previously compiled criticisms by International press agencies which can be staffed by people across all communities. A specification of criticism in the press or media certainly relation to criticism of ISIL's actions may be relevant. I don't know of any notable criticism of the authority and theological interpretations of ISIL that hasn't come from Muslim groups. People in various communities around the world do not define themselves as "non-Muslims" and I question the use of "non-Muslims" especially before "Muslims" are mentioned. Never-the-less I see no evidence that non-Muslim groups around the world have notably voiced criticism. The passionate criticism has come from the Muslim communities. Beyond governmental criticism this has been the independent criticism that has been most of note.

I suggest the use or development of a text such as: "ISIL’s actions, authority and theological interpretations have been widely criticized around the world within both Muslim and other communities."

Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• Maybe other editors will comment. Too much time is being spent on word hair-splitting and the military section (which an editor has now suggested scrapping as there is already a large article on the 2014 military intervention) and not enough on cataloguing ISIL's human rights abuses and how they are governing their "caliphate", which is far more important, in my opinion. It is like looking at a monster and its outrageous behavior and worrying about what that monster should be called. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 10:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• What do editors think about Gregkaye's wording? Nothing is final yet. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 18:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• Mohammed al-Bukhari: There was no consensus to add the part about Khawarij to that paragraph. Please bring your edit to this thread for editors to consider it and read here what editors have said about the wording of the paragraph. Please also see my very first comment here, that "Khawarij" stated barely like that will mean nothing to most readers. Also, this is a summary para, so individual criticisms can't be singled out. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 21:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC) ~ P123ct1 (talk) 18:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
• I think it's great now. "Within both Islamic and other communities" doesn't sound well. The current phrase reflects the consensus reached by all editors, and there's no need to change it. Criticism from Muslims is important, and it's already noted on the lead and the criticism section. I have removed the "Khawarij" phrase as there has been no consensus, but opposition to it, and it's clearly pointed out on the criticism section, not to mention it's a non-English word that means nothing to the average reader. Felino123 (talk) 10:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Felino123 you have made it clear through both word and action that you want a general removal of criticism. I don't see how you can regard this as great. The suggestion has been added above: "Maybe other editors will comment". Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • No, Gregkaye, Felino did say in the thread above that he was prepared to make a concession and have some words of criticism in the Lead. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 16:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
• My suggested wording is: "ISIL’s actions, authority and theological interpretations have been widely criticized around the world within both Muslim and other communities." I don't know any person who isn't a Muslim who defines themself as a non-Muslim. Beyond criticisms made by government officials (which are made with a context of national populations which may have Muslim components) the most notable criticisms have come from Muslims. Further more, when consideration is given to the size of Muslim populations in in comparison to the size of other populations combined, it is clear that the Muslim populations have been remarkably outspoken. Islamic criticisms have included video condemnations and theological theses. Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
• I have changed the wording to "... around the world and notably within the Muslim community". I have done this on the WP:BRD principle (bold-revert-discuss), partly to get editors to reach a definite conclusion on this. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 14:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• P123ct1, TY. I've just had a look at the section on Criticisms. It starts with 23 words on the UN and Amnesty (which seems surprisingly short) and this is in a ~480 word section of text which almost entirely composed of Islamic related criticism. The presentation of "by non-Muslims and within the Muslim community" on the last paragraph is a gross misrepresentation of the actual situation for this reason and for others previously stated. As: Criticism Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:22, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
• Gregkaye: Much of the first para in "Criticism" (i.e. related to the UN and Amnesty) is dealt with in "Human rights abuses", so can't be repeated here. (Perhaps there should be anchor link from it to that section.) The Muslim criticism of the group is mportant enough to merit "notably" in the last Lead sentence, IMO. ~ 13:41, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk page too long (318,000)

See previous discussion: Archive 14#Talk page too long

See later discussion: Index of topics

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

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

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

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

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

I did the maths on the 20th:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggest: the archiving of sections such as:

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

4 Lede could use some trimming 4.1 Suggest trimming nation names

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

9 Syria army still free (resolved)

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

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

13 Discrepancy

15 Official website external link and accurate flag

16 placing Terrorism,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Corriebertus says it is quite usual, and no problem, to restart a discussion that has been held two or six weeks earlier. It is a very big problem! It can mean going round in circles over the same points and endless repetition of arguments that have been made before, because there are newer editors on board who don't know what has gone on before and edit and people just say, "Oh, we've talked about this ad nauseam before. What do you think you are doing?" Much time can be wasted. In the past week or so there has been a lot of this on the Talk page. If it was easier to even just glance at previous linked discussion a lot of this could be avoided, and if well signposted that discussion doesn't have to be on the current Talk page and bloat it. --P123ct1 (talk) 21:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Coordinating the width of Infobox country

Code within infobox country reads:

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

and something has made the width of the box increase.

it now contains the text:

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

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

Any ideas?

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

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

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

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

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

• The link is suspect. It links to two youtube videos whose user accounts have been terminated. Also the article needs to have a balance of materials reflective of all realities. Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Propose scrapping timeline from main article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I set up the Timeline to show only the most recent events by using transclusion and onlyinclude tags to define which parts are to be included. It was discussed originally at /Archive_10#Timeline_and_History_sections and later at /Archive_11#Revamping_and_reduction_of_timeline. It is presumably requested to be restored in request below. I would like to have no more than two months included because it gives readers a look at recent events from the main page and also when the edit tags are clicked on it automatically opens and edit box in the newer sections of the timeline page instead of this page. I support keeping it at the bottom of the page. It helps keep the content fresh and up-to-dtae and makes for easier management of the timeline page when the newer additions are visible here. ~Technophant (talk) 08:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

It sounds as if the timeline has been restored to help editors rather than readers. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 11:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm also hoping that it is also what the readers want as well. I added the {{Merge section to}} as a way of drawing more reader input into this. I'm seeing that the article is pretty much written, and while there's a lot of discussion-it's mostly on minor matters like wording and formatting. By adding an excerpt of the timeline I'm using a webmaster trick of adding dynamic content into what is becoming a static/stable article. I would hope that readers would enjoy not just reading this article once, but would also like to regularly check back to see "what's new". and without this "dynamic content" it would essentially be the same article with a few well-discussed additions.~Technophant (talk) 05:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

It's pointless repetition that also divides history content to separate ends of the article. I see no advantage in this. Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Gregkaye. I cannot believe that Technophant thinks the article is almost written. The dispute over "jihadist" is still not over, there is much more to write up in the "Human rights and abuse" section (see Talk #37 Life in ISIL-controlled Ar-Raqqah and Talk #40 ISIL's practice of massacre and slaughter to be presented prominently in the lead), something about Management of Savagery, in perhaps the "Governance" section, and who knows what major news will break about ISIL that needs to go in the main article rather than just the Timeline article? There is also discussion going on about how to adjust the organization of the article and whether or not to the scrap the military section (see Talk #34). ~ P123ct1 (talk) 15:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the article is "done", but the amount of major changes is slowing down and all significant issues have some coverage. I got the User:Dr pda/prosesize tool working suggested in WP:Article size. While the total amount of wikicode is 207kB, the amount of "readable prose size" (text only) is only 56kB (9183 words) . If you use the tool you will see which parts are counted in yellow, which doesn't include infoboxes, the transcluded Timeline, or the list of names (lists aren't counted). All in all the article is just about "right-sized" and has room to grow. We've split several sections out, and it was a wise move to split the Timeline, however think that making the Timeline a complete "orphan" will hurt both this article and the Timeline.~Technophant (talk) 18:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support scraping the timeline section in the ISIL article, having a link from the history section. We don't need 2 sections for history and timeline in the main article and the timeline article is including all the minor events for that purpose.GreyShark (dibra) 18:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support Greyshark says it good. I've just this to add (as others also have said): this main article gets much too long. It is now 208k, it took me almost 20 seconds to load the page. --Corriebertus (talk) 19:56, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
• Probably all the flags and logos in the military sections slow things down, Corriebertus. It has been suggested this part should be scrapped. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 23:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Corriebertus If you look above, the readable prose size is 56kB, however that estimate is low. I would say per WP:Article size >60kB = Probably should be divided (WP:SPLIT). There's been a proposal to start a separate article for Human Rights abuses.~Technophant (talk) 04:54, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I've run some load tests with Chrome developer tools. I get an average load time logged out of 2.5 seconds, logged in 20 seconds. My internet bandwidth (wireless WIMAX) is 6Mbits. The flag images from 130B to almost 1,000B each. The part that takes so long is the 13 second wait time of the 173kB gzipped wiki html text. When logged out the wait time is .113 seconds. Receiving time is about .8 seconds on both. I think when you are logged in you are bypassing server caching. Long story short, I don't think we should worry about the flag images. See Misplaced Pages:Don't worry about performance~Technophant (talk) 09:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose scrapping the timeline. I have changed my mind as I am persuaded by the arguments put forward by Technophant for retaining at least some of the timeline in this article. I support keeping 14 days of the timeline in it. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 10:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Possible alternate option

• Technophant, How possible is it to set the timeline loading into the ISIL article on a single month basis or even on, say, a regular number of days - perhaps 14. I saw that your original idea was to have 30 days of timeline displayed and I am wondering whether, instead of displaying ~30 - ~60 days displayed we could have something like 0 - ~ 30 days.

What's on my mind is an idea to shunt notable members into its own section and to place this type of smaller timeline as a last sub-section of history. I guess that, on a monthly basis, this might mean that on the first few hours or days of the month the timeline may have no information in it but it would still be placed in a sensible position to act as a link to the timeline article. Would it be possible to display a set number of days such as 7 or 14. My personal view is that the main value is to give readers a taste to help them decide whether to access the main article. What do you think? Gregkaye ✍♪ 21:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye: Quite possible and  Done. I've moved the onlyinclude tag down and now there's around 15 days. Moving the tag is done manually, and in case of a Zombie apocalypse it would nice to figure out an automated way of doing it. I can agree to take on the responsibility for maintaining it and looking into using a bot to maintain it. If such a method can be devised it could be reused on other similar pages. There's even a chance that there's simple method to do this so I don't have to re-invent the wheel. I view this page compositing as innovative, and if there's support to allow it to remain I do think it's going to be appreciated. Side note: in the last 2 weeks on the timeline the editors there have used only bare links for citations. Needs some clean up and user-education. ~Technophant (talk) 04:54, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Ping: P123ct1, Gazkthul, Technophant, GreyShark, Corriebertus

Following a near unanimous view that repetition of timeline content at a previous location in the article was inappropriate Technophant has cut down content to 15 days I made a temporary move of content into the history section. I also amended the headings format of the timeline article to ensure that an, at this time, unnecessary "November 2014" heading was not included in the main article TOC. Other editors may disagree but I thought this was superfluous. I was then unsure of advantage both regard to flow of section titles and in that the article content on criticism would be further moved down the page. Maybe other editors can weigh in on potential positioning issues. Technophant's amendments will have cut an average of 2/3's of the length of the content but it is still all repetition. If people tuned into news of ISIL they would see information of events in the most recent few days and, if a repetition were agreed, then an equivalent number of days, if that could be agreed, could be a possible bench mark. This would allow people to see most recent events and decide whether to jump to the longer article. Then again it might be regarded that they could make this choice based on the basic link. Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:51, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it repetition per se, the material is visible (WP:transcluded) on this article (page compositing) but the actually timeline material is on the Timeline page and must be edited there. Back when I started editing in June, timeline edits were added on a daily basis. With this system it still happens, but goes on a separate page. I think there's a rough consensus to keep this system. Any more input onto how many entries or days worth of entries should be visible?~Technophant (talk) 20:10, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Propose move of Timeline of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant events → Timeline of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant related events

I think that this safeguard should be added to ensure that any accounting of relevant history will be presented as a two sided story. Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:51, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

@Gregkaye: (ping page creator @Ericl:) - I think that's a sensible move proposal. To be official it needs to be placed on the Timeline talk page.~Technophant (talk) 20:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I've no problem with that as the title now in use wasn't mine.Ericl (talk) 20:26, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

That sounds good. Discussion now started also quoting content presented here and found via the astonishingly repetitious link: Talk:Timeline of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant events#Propose move of Timeline of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant events → Timeline of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant related events. Time after time... Possible additions to the article may be warranted. Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Please remember WP:CIVIL on this Talk page. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 12:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Corriebertus, that was P123ct1's idea, the owner of this page. 172.56.31.134 (talk) 04:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

All headings cleaned up now. If encouraging editors to drive towards consensus rather than discuss topics endlessly getting nowhere is ownership, I plead guilty to ownership it. I don't see it that way. I can guess who the IP is. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 21:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Reducing Islamic criticism and highlighting the involvement of Israel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is no record of this on the AN/I site. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 12:11, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 It was taken to WP:3RRN. The case was dismissed, no action taken .~Technophant (talk) 09:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Technophant To be clear the case, which in this situation I am glad you were able to find, is marked Result: No action. This result was reached in context of your uncharacteristically glowing endorsement of the case but not in the context of the history of editing presented above of which you are now aware. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:46, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Three months moratorium on page moves

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 list: Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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

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

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

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

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

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

KoshVorlon Please see WP:NPA Amongst everything else you contradict yourself: "ruling by fiat ... suggestion". PBS has done nothing disruptive here and, arguably, I know a little on the subject of minimal disruption. Its fine to call things into question. I certainly don't agree with everything with admin here but Misplaced Pages really isn't the entity with the dictatorship issues, at least not on this page. 18:57, 2 November 2014 edited Gregkaye ✍♪ 21:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Neither PBS, nor any admin, has the power to institute a 3 month moratorium on proposing name changes here. But he didn't do that. Instead he proposed a 3 month moratorium (which anyone can do), and through this RfC is asking for community consensus to do it (which does have that authority). GraniteSand should not be banned for violating a moratorium that has not yet been agreed to by the community, but GraniteSand did violate WP:CCC "proposing to change a recent consensus can be disruptive." Had he waited a "reasonable" amount of time, that would have been fine, but he didn't. This RfC will create the authority for a moratorium (if there is consensus), there is nothing improper about what PBS did. --Obsidi (talk) 00:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support - Although Daʿish is becoming more of a general term, there should be no problem with the current. Noteswork (talk) 06:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support - Although just plain "ISIS" would do, too. HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support moratorium - As it was, the previous RMs were simply repeating the same arguments over and over again, which was disruptive. That said, if significant, new information comes to light... information that was not discussed in any of the previous RMs... it would be appropriate for the admin who imposed the moratorium to lift it. Blueboar (talk) 14:43, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Gregkaye Although I disagree, I can see consensus is totally against me, so, I'll say no more. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 21:32, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

KoshVorlon, and I was "no opinion". Gregkaye ✍♪ 21:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

KoshVorlon, Tiptoethrutheminefield supports you. 172.56.40.44 (talk) 22:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• Partial Support I had the idea of starting a moratorium while on a wikibreak. When I came back I found that PBS had already suggested it. I seconded it and closed the discussion after one week with the expiration date of end of year (December 31, 2014). PBS later came by and without asking changed it to January 7th. I know, what difference does a week make? I think it should be changed back, so that while most Wikipedians are on holiday/vacation a well-thought out move proposal can be started and discussed on New Years Day. If it's kept at Jan 7th then most people will be going back to work or school and a chance to "start anew" will be lost.~Technophant (talk) 09:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

  As I said in the edit history "If there has to be a date on the Moratorium then make it precisely three months to the day, as many editors are away on holiday during the Christmas period." 12:38, 18 October 2014. It is the mirror image of your "Rationale: the weekend contributor. I'm not one, but concessions need to made for the Wikipedian who only has time to contribute on their days off, and that day may not be same from week to week." Some may think that on holiday there is nothing better than to snuggle up next to a warm computer, but for mny editors visiting family or friends over Christmas, or skiing in Europe and North America, or on the beach in Australia or New Zealand (Down Under its the summer holidays), they have limited access to computers and even less desire to edit Misplaced Pages. So given that some editors seem to want a specific date, the 7th of Jan is the day after the 12 days of Christmas and exactly thee months after the start of the Moratorium and seems like as good a day for ending it. -- PBS (talk) 11:22, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Related notification
I have placed a note on the talk pages of parallel articles in other languages with text~:

"Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

I hope its OK writing something here in English. In parallel to your own decision making process, various arguments regarding naming have been presented regarding the name used for the English article en:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and its initial description. If of interest, a long standing listing of related discussions can be found at #Moratorium on Requested Moves. Gregkaye ✍♪ Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)"

Many of the articles now use the equivalent of "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" and, as far as I can remember, this represents a general move back from unqualified use of "Islamic State". (In many cases article content can be quite interesting. Texts are frequently of shorter length and the summaries can be quite pithy). Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Logos

See previous discussion: Prose instead of flags?

While I think the flags are a good idea, for reasons given by Gregkaye in the linked discussion, I think all the logos in the "Opposition" and "Support" sections are a bad idea, as they distract from the information. I think the "Support" section in particular should be a simple list. --P123ct1 (talk) 08:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment I personally find this topic to be of great interest but don't have strong opinion. I normally approve of general use of visual ques but in this case with a range of typically monochromatic and irregularly shaped symbols I don't see much if any advantage in use. Here is a link to a current version of "Support" with flags --- and here is a link to a temporarily produced version of "Support" with flags removed.

In the #Prose instead of flags? discussion (opened by David O. Johnson), Orange Suede Sofa quoted "WP:ICONDECORATION (which is referenced by MOS:FLAG)" which argues for removal. (However, to be fair, I also think that a significant proportions of MOS can be unnecessarily prescriptive). Since this time of the last discussion entries have been consistently afforded with their inconsistently shaped emblems. Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye, can you do an example of "Opposition" with just the logos removed? --P123ct1 (talk) 09:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

What do editors think about the simple list format for the "Supporters" section in Gregkaye's example above? What do they think of this version for the "Opposition" part, which has all the indented logos/flags removed? There is a lot information there, and I think the logos/flags in the article's current version are distracting and make it difficult to take that information in. --P123ct1 (talk) 19:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• I really like both versions, but I don't really see advantage on using the logos. They are "nice", but the version with no logos seems cleaner. Felino123 (talk) 00:36, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
• Might I suggest a more radical change? The article, 2014 military intervention against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, has a full list of the opposition with flags. Might we just have a single sentence and a "see main" to direct the reader to that article? This is really part of the military intervention which is a whole topic in and of itself. Perhaps this has been discussed before in which case my apologies. It's hard to keep up with you guys/gals. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
• Sounds like a brilliant idea. I didn't even know that article existed! Perhaps "Military and arms" could be transferred to the Military of ISIL article as well, where it doesn't duplicate it. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 21:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
• Maybe that has merit, but only for the Non-Syrian, Non-Iraqi opponents since they are not included in the Intervention article Legacypac (talk) 23:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
• I've just reduced sizes of secondary flags to a standard and I think its a fair big better. Gregkaye ✍♪ 22:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 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.

Please, add the first book on the islamic state :

Oliver Hanne and Thomas Flichy de La Neuville, The islamic state, anatomy of the New Caliphate, Bernard Giovanangeli editions, 2014

http://www.amazon.fr/L-Etat-Islamique-Hanne-Olivier/dp/2758701294

Daménie (talk) 18:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Daménie, can you specify where you want to add it? Supersaiyen312 (talk) 03:25, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Where did you find that book? My search for it resulted in a not-found. If it is not published by a known publisher (as in a vanity press) we can't use it as a reference or a "see also." HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Adding comments to the Talk page

Please would editors add their comments sequentially and not insert them into discussion threads ahead of earlier comments? It is not fair on other editors coming to read the latest in a thread, as they may miss them. This a bad habit that has been growing recently and is making some discussions hard to follow. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 09:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I can try to generally do that in the future however there's traditions and customs in Talk pages. Inserting indented comments after an earlier remark are meant to be a reply to that remark, instead of furthering the main discussion below. I don't think it's reasonable to expect other users to change their habits on that.~Technophant (talk) 10:03, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

My ignorance is showing again. I didn't realize it was acceptable practice in Misplaced Pages. I haven't been here long enough. Apologies. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 22:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Restoration of deleted lead text re criticism

I have restored text that was deleted from the lead here on 19 October without consensus and have restored other text as it existed at that date. The restoration is here.

The text presently includes the word Khawarij which has previously been discussed.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I do not agree with this paragraph being in the Lead. The Lead is supposed to summarise the article, including criticism, but not to specify criticisms like this. This goes against the majority view reached in #Should we add this line to the Lead? and is a return to what was happening before the AN/I. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 11:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for duplication of text which was my error. My thinking was that after an edit war text should be returned to an earlier state from which amendments can then be made. I don't think that a position in which text has been hacked should become the default position. Substantial criticism should remain in the lead especially since the section on criticism appears so far down the article.

The sections of the article are presented as follows.

Lead section

Contents

1 Names

2 History...

3 Designation as a terrorist organization

4 Support...

5 Opposition...

6 Analysis...

7 Ideology and beliefs

8 Goals

9 Territorial claims

10 Governance...

11 Human rights abuses...

12 Criticism...

...

edited (with "edited" note added late, sry)Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The first edit mentioned within this thread cut a large section of long standing text. Any of my edits involving textual changes, or movements of text have been small scale compared to this. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

There are some criticisms in the "Ideology and beliefs" section, higher up. "Criticism" is in a logical place. It cannot be put higher as criticism follows events, described in earlier sections. Criticism put before the subject of criticism is illogical. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 12:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

This is true, thank-you. There is also fairly overt content in Governance and Designation as a terrorist organization obviously presents a clear message> I think rightly so. Given that coverage of ISIL is anything but approving in the vast majority of cases and that critical wording and phraseology are commonly used, it is necessary to have issues proportionately represented in the lead. This is all the more relevant when many of the article's critical contents are typically presented so far down the page. Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I sympathize with Gregkaye's concern. The 1st 5 items are what I call "public facts" and are dry details. It gets interesting when we get to "private facts" such as the (7) ideology and beliefs that drive ISIL, (8) their alleged goals, and our reaction (6,11,12) to their acts and claims. But I don't know of any way out of this. The "who, what, where, when" must come before the "why." Perhaps we could put "(1) Names" in an appendix. We made great strides in moving material to other articles. (edit conflict) Jason from nyc (talk) 13:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree, it is a bad situation. I wouldn't be happy about moving "Names" to an appendix or from its position at the top, though, as the history of this group and its bewildering number of names is hard to grasp for a new reader (I know it was for me) and I think it gives a good run-in to "History". Without knowing something about the names first, I think the reader could be quite confused by "History" and many of the later references. I have cut the "History of Names" section right down already, but would it be an idea to scrap the index of names? Perhaps 2.5 "Notable members" and "Designation as a terrorist organisation" (which used to be nearly the last item) could be moved to the end and perhaps the "Support" and "Opposition" sections could be combined into one big section with "Military and arms", which comes after "Criticisms". ( "Designation as a terrorist organisation" just fleshes out one of the Lead paras, which could perhaps be moved to a higher position in the Lead along with the criticisms Lead para to compensate for relegating the designation infobox to the end; also, the terrorist designation para and criticism para in the Lead moved to a prominent position in the Lead would highlight from the start the criticisms of the group. These paras used to be at the start, and I can't remember now why they were moved down.) The sections I have mentioned are not part of the narrative and mostly are more like the appendix tables you see in other encyclopaedias. I am just trying to think of ways to move up "Criticisms" to a more prominent place, which it deserves, without breaking logical order. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 16:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Moving the criticism to the end of the lead was a result of our discussion (see "Logical Order in Lead" i.e. , see 14 Oct. You have some good ideas about moving the sections that are little more than lists. I know it is hard to read about the topic without a glossary and cast of characters/nations/groups. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:13, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I have moved the "Support" and "Opposition" tables to near the end of the article, as they are not part of the narrative and are more like the appendix tables seen in other encyclopaedias. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 10:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

_____________________________________________

Another bad editing practice (different topic)

I would like to explain/apologise for the timing and placement of some of my recent edits. For various reasons, which were partly due to my own responses, I had felt it difficult to respond to certain situations. Response has been late and has often been out of the continuity order of threads. This is bad editing practice and not an example to be followed.

A further sin in this particular thread was that, when getting an edit conflict note from P123ct1's edit, I simply copied my initially planned edit and, without taking the new edit content into account, stuck with the same text. I hope none of you does the same
Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

My quick 2 cents. Thank you, Gregkaye, for your comment about my proven record of well informed contributions. I have a quick comment on this thread. You're not the first, nor the only one, that has done this. Pot and kettle went up the hill yet black still. At least you admitted it, and at least there is no evidence of your changing the comments of other editors.Worldedixor (talk) 01:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I have amended titles usually with additions for the sake of clarification, altered texts that I thought were inappropriately indented in the context of dialogue and have reverted a collapse related to one of my own texts. That I think is the limit. I mainly make my "confessions" above knowing that the issues mentioned relate to the smooth operation of the page and thought this would be an appropriate vehicle for their mention. I can only comment on your valued and language able contributions in the time I have known you .. and will add comment, need more :) Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

IS Anasheed

An anasheed used by the Islamic State as a form of patriotic/national anthem. Is there any truth to this?

As I've have heard this song in several IS documentaries before. For exarmple TRAJAN 117 (talk) 13:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

:Hi, TRAJAN 117. A quick response. It is not "an anasheed". Anasheed is plural for nasheed meaning chant. Those hypnotic and irritating Muslim chants are well harmonized with beautiful voices a capella, and used by radical Islamists mixing praise to Allah with cryptic messages that relay their evil agenda of terror. They consider them part of their psychological warfare and their management of savagery. Hope this helps. Worldedixor (talk) 00:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I was actually looking for a more neutral answer, but whatever. TRAJAN 117 (talk) 06:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Worldedixor, What is your irritation regarding these "well harmonized with beautiful" vocal chants? You would do well for yourself (add: in a context where its easy to focus on specific words) if you gave clear qualification. You speak Arabic but I'm not sure of your background with Islam. You say that ISIL Nasheeds (anasheed) are "used by radical Islamists mixing praise to Allah with cryptic messages that relay their evil agenda of terror". Can we confirm this? What proportion of ISIL nasheeds and the contents of ISIL nasheeds contain balanced content of Mohammedan etc. teaching and what proportion is driven by other agendas? Thoughts from anyone?

For me I have long had issues with many manifestations of nationalism (and, if there are editors that hold similar sentiments, comment would be appreciated at Template talk:Infobox person#Citizenship). If the ISIL songs are purely patriotic then good for them. If not then relevant issues should be given fair coverage. There can be friendly and well meaning forms of tribalism (bring on the fifth!) but I'm not sure if this applies. Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Loosely related

• Anasheed gets "About 633,000 results" in Google video.
• Nasheed gets "About 5,270,000 results" in Google video.

Unless there are comments to the contrary I will take the article to WP:RM Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

See: Talk:Anasheed#Requested_move Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

To or not to be - adding qualification to Misplaced Pages's endorsement of ISIL as jihadist

See previous discussions: their actions are "not jihad at all, but rather, warmongering and criminality", Logical Order in Lead and The word "jihad", criticism and disruption

like many words the word jihad has developed with a range of meanings. This is all part of the common process of the development of language. What is not so common is when a significant portion of a significant section of society (in this case relating to a large section of the second largest religion in the World) have dispute regarding its meaning.

Supporting evidence:

• Video: Sunni Media - ISIS Its NOT Jihad | Sheikh Monawwar Ateeq
  
• Video sequence of Minhaj-ul-Quran by Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri on the topic Jihad, The perception and the reality
• Islamic Supreme Council of America's ruling on: Jihad: A Misunderstood Concept from Islam - What Jihad is, and is not.

I also mentioned, in my opening post at #their actions are “not jihad at all, but rather, warmongering and criminality”, that Jack Pepa had found the following relevant content: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-is-an-offence-to-islam-says-international-coalition-of-major-islamic-scholars-9756255.html

"More than 120 Sunni imams and academics, including some of the Muslim world’s most respected scholars, signed the 18-page document which outlines 24 separate grounds on which the terror group violates the tenets of Islam...

It also takes Isis to task over its countless acts of brutality and massacres under the guise of jihad, or a holy struggle. While acknowledging to Al-Baghdadi that “you and your fighters are fearless” and ready to die for their cause, the scholars state their actions are “not jihad at all, but rather, warmongering and criminality”."

There are a great many instances in which words enter the English language from other language sources and the length of the word list being counted really depends on how far back you want to look. For instance we can take a look at Misplaced Pages's List of English words of Arabic origin (G-J) and find a large number of non-controversial words such as jar, jasmine or julep. Clearly any of these words can be be used in a wide range of sensible contexts without qualification. There is no one to argue, for instance, that the word jar does not cover such and such a meaning. There is no controversy.

ISIL are engaged in a number of activities that, according to many perspectives, are not jihad: Murder (not jihad, killing Shiite Muslims (never described as jihad), killing Muslims (not jihad) and working to a territorially expansionist agenda (not jihad). From many perspectives the killing of journalists and aide workers is also not jihad.

Many Muslims go as far as to denounce ISIL as un-Islamic.

I don't think that, in the context of this particular term and in light of wide spread assertions of what jihad is not, we cannot speak in Misplaced Pages's voice to give unqualified endorsement of ISIL as being jihadist.

So far I have thought of four possible ways to cover the need for qualification, two of which were apparent before the recent AN/I and two which were developed during that process.

1. Instead of making direct use of the term jihadist, the description Islamic extremist can alternatively be used. A link to the related article contains a variety of information including information on jihad and this would allow readers to come to their own conclusions.
2. Following a statement in Misplaced Pages's voice describing the group to be jihadist a quotation from a group with a different view, such as the "not jihad at all" claim, could be used to indicate that the group's claim to jihad is not uncontested.
3. An unobtrusive footnote could be added after Misplaced Pages's jihadist wording. A footnote of this kind that has been repeatedly added contains the content: efn|Islamic criticism of ISIL has included comment by Sunni scholars that sacrifices of ISIL are "not Jihad at all."< ref name=OpenLetToAlBagh / >. Alternate contents may also result in appropriate qualification. With current wording this would present: "...is a Sunni, extremist, jihadist, self-proclaimed caliphate and unrecognized state in Iraq and Syria in the Middle East.
4. A sequence of wording could be used such as:

...is a Sunni, extremist, unrecognized state and self-proclaimed jihadist caliphate, in Iraq and Syria in the Middle East. or

...is a Sunni, extremist, unrecognized state, self-declared as jihadist and caliphate, in Iraq and Syria in the Middle East."

The "self-declared" and "self-proclaimed" qualifiers are widely and perhaps solely used by Al-Jazeera when describing ISIL as jihadist as is demonstrated through results of the following search: site:http://www.aljazeera.com/ (ISIL OR ISIS OR Daesh OR "Islamic State") AND "jihadist". I think that this would be an appropriate route for Misplaced Pages to take.

I am open to the use of any of the above and, if another editor can think of an alternative means of providing suitable qualification, all ideas are welcome.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:39, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Wiki goes by what the Reliable Sources state. The vast majority describe (rightfully) ISIS as a terrorist jihadist movement.HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

HammerFilmFan I sympathise with the use of terrorist as a descriptor. However there are more objections to the use of jihad/jihadist terminologies in relation to ISIL than there are objections to their description as terrorists. Also it is accepted that the word jihadist should be used. 14:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC) edited Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

]

• Gregkaye has worked hard and constructively on this, and I think we should pay attention to his suggestions for alternative wording. Just looking at the titles of the links you provide in "Supporting evidence" makes it clear that the objection among some Muslims to using "jihadist" to describe ISIL is an important one, and I think it has to be dealt with in this article more fully than it has been. The "Criticism" section is the best place to do that. On your proposals, this is what I think:

1. "Islamic extremist" is not a good alternative. WP has to follow RS and there has already been long discussion about this. The commonly used term for groups like this is "jihadist" and WP cannot criticize common usage but must reflect it.
2. A quotation in the Lead is not appropriate, especially in the first sentence.
3. The small efn footnote/"footlet" is a good solution. The word "jihadist" remains, to comply with RS, with an unobtrustive link to where the subject is dealt with in the article. It not a footnote, but a link, and I cannot see the objection to it which other editors have. (It has been repeatedly reverted by them.) The wording suggested here is the best: "...is a Sunni, extremist, jihadist, self-proclaimed caliphate and unrecognized state in Iraq and Syria in the Middle East."
4. "Self-declared as jihadist" or "self-proclaimed jihadist caliphate" is too clumsy and I am sure the nuances would be completely lost on readers, especially those who are not familiar with ISIL's recent history. Again, best to deal with the objections to the word in "Criticism".
   

New suggestion:

An alternative to the efn would be the linking method used by Gregkaye to link "Khawarij" in "Criticism" to ""Khawarij" in "Ideology and beliefs", and to link the phrase "criticism from other Muslims" in the first para of "Criticism" to the criticism in "Ideology and beliefs". This way "jihadist" could be linked to the first wiki-linked "jihadist" in the article where the reader could read about "jihadist" in WP. Using this method, the word "jihadist" would appear in the Lead without any noticeable qualifier.This seems to be a good option, but it may have flaws.

Comment:

Elaborate use of "self-declared" and "self-proclaimed" in the Lead (as in Gregkaye's alternative sentences, for example), whichever word those terms are attached to, will just confuse readers, IMO.

I hope other editors will not dismiss Gregkaye's proposals out of hand. Particularly compelling is the strength of feeling some in the Muslim community have about ISIL's claim to be jihadists, which seems more powerful than I first thought. It must be dealt with properly in this article, but not in the Lead, which per WP:LEAD has to summarise the main controversies, not detail them. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 12:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think with all the discussion we have had that anyone dismisses Gregkaye's concerns out of hand. The link he just provided, Jihad: A Misunderstood Concept from Islam - What Jihad is, and is not, sums up the objections to Western usage of the term jihad and jihadist. Adherents disagree with each other and with non-members of the religion. That summary is standard and correct if you ask me my POV on the religion. However, we use the term in the sense of the article on jihadism and we Wikilink to that article. But that Western usage is clarified as is the objections of many adherents. I think we make it clear how we use the term from both context and explicit discussion of objections within the article. We have to expect the reader to understand the context. When LBJ launched the War on Poverty I don't remember anyone thinking that that was a call to kill poor people. We have to expect people to understand context. The fact that reliable sources us "jihadist" in the sense of our article on jihadism despite the fact that they fully know how devout mainstream Muslims use the word, make it clear to us that people do understand context. Misplaced Pages's voice is the voice of reliable sources. Where does it stop? "Sunni" means those that follow the ways (the Sunnah) of Mohammad. Do we add a footnote there that ISIL isn't doing that? Add a footnote on the first usage of Islam? The article is long and we can't reproduce the article in the lead or in footnotes to every word. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Jason from nyc I am hoping that you can reconsider your comparisons. When LBJ worked with his legislation it was given the name "War on Poverty". Other parallel examples are: War on Cancer, War on Drugs, War on Gangs, War on Terror and War on Want. Each case relates to a war "on" a topic. At no time are foreign language loan words used. Sometimes the topic subject is very specific. In the case you mention, LBJ's State of the Union address set out some presumably clear parameters. If this address had been entitled war on poverty and then if people then began to claim that they were working to the text while, consciously or not, working to a different agenda, then people would rightly say this is not "War on Poverty", this is something different. They would be helped in doing this in that commonly understood English wording was used. In the case of jihad an Arabic loan word is used in application to an organisation and the response of a great proportion of people within Arabic conversant communities is that they don't consider it to apply.

Certainly the teachings related to jihad can apply to war related concepts but the clear contents relate solely to a war as an exercise in defence. The teachings do not lend themselves to activities like ethnic cleansing.

We can certainly acknowledge reliable sources by including use of the word jihadist. We can also acknowledge other reliable sources by adding an unobtrusive footnote so as to cover other legitimate concerns. Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The problem with “just for defense” is that it isn’t clear what defense requires nor is there agreement among adherents. You bring in other loaded 20th century words like “ethnic cleansing” but this falls on deaf ears within the jihadism movement. Al-Baghdadi is clearly knowledgeable of the “ethnic cleansing” of the Jews of Medina when the men of the last Jewish tribe, Banu Qurayza, were beheaded. This was considered defense I'm told. Now, there’s context and there’s context. Nothing today satisfies all the conditions for the kind of war that is outlined in “Jihad: A misunderstood concept.” Nevertheless different branches of Islam disagree where to draw the line, with renegade groups like ISIL going beyond all reasonable bounds according to our sensibilities. What can we say when the All Pakistan Ulema Council condemns ISIL for “the killing of innocent people” then a few days later says suicide bombing is fine in the case of Afghanistan? It’s not up to us to sort this out but it’s fair to point out that the “jihadist” label is meant in the sense of jihadism, a radical 20th century variant based on extreme interpretations of the tradition and not jihad the more honorable lawful regulated practice. What’s included in each concept is not for us to decide and reliable sources disagree. However, sources overwhelming agree that ISIL is in the jihadism category and not part of the honorable tradition of jihad as it claims. Jason from nyc (talk)

We at no point repeat ISIL’s claim that it is merely waging “jihad.” We use the “-ism” form and its adjetive “-ist”. Of the 75 usages of “jihad” and its variants I see only two usages of “jihad” that indicates that it is ISIL’s view and one that’s part of a quote. Of the 41 variants of “jihadism” and “jihadist,” I see 13 usages in Misplaced Pages’s voice that applies the term to ISIL. Editors reflect the sources and the “-ist/-ism” usage denotes an extreme 20th century movement. It is clearly the single word that gets to the essence of what ISIL is about in the minds of reliable sources. And these sources would be the 1st to say this isn’t the honorable tradition of jihad. I’ve seen the Times argue this over the last decade. Our sources do not claim that jihadism is mainstream Islam or even genuine Islam. Odd that they say ISIL is Wahhabist but fail to say that Wahhamism is not Islam. But that contradiction does not entitle us to make an inference. We never say ISIL is practicing Islam and that their jihadism is part of Islam’s tradition of jihad. Instead we point to criticism that say ISIL is beyond all bounds. I believe we are respectful and accurate of both reliable sources and critics. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:54, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Jason from nyc You rightly say to say that, 'different branches of Islam disagree where to draw the line' but the fact is that most Muslims will have drawn that line long before they have got to the point of considering the practices of renegade groups like ISIL. This is exactly my reasoning for saying that the term needs qualification.

On the other hand I definitely argue that it is 'up to us' to take responsibility for Misplaced Pages content and to consider various sides of an issue without retreating to the use of single simplistic points of view. I totally agree with your statement that, 'What’s included in each concept is not for us to decide' and for this reason we cannot judge on the applicability of the term and we need to provide some form of qualification. When a group like, Al-Jazeera with its finger, presumably, closest to the Islamic pulse consistently describes ISIL as a self-declared or a self-proclaimed jihadist group then questions of usage have to be asked. A use of a footnote even if it linked to a quotation of an Al-Jazeera type word usage, would at least provide some form of balance.

I also appreciate that we are in use of the -ist/-ism adjectival form of the word which is something that any reader can clearly see. The problem is that the natural tendency is to associate the -ist/-ism form of word with root understandings. We think of activists as active, agriculturalists as being involved with agriculture, alarmists as raising alarm, anarchists according to a dictionary defined chaos causing definition of anarchy, the list is goes on. In all this we have a duty to consider the average reader. The average reader will have no background knowledge of any the difference in meaning between the adjectival rendering of the root and its rendering as a noun. Surely we owe it to our readers to let them know that, even though the group is disputably jihadist, this does not mean that they are following jihad. I am open to ideas on potential footnote content but perhaps it could read as something like: "N.B. the terms jihadism and jihad, to some extent, have distinct meanings." Is there any way we can make this work?

Of course a definitively honourable tradition would involve the defence of all people regardless of religion. Jihadism, and especially within its questionable application to ISIL, can be merely interpreted as an extreme extension of existing prejudice.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 18:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Surely this issue has been discussed sufficiently over the last month or two? In truth a much more accurate term to use is Salafi Jihadism, but in any event, other Jihadist groups like Boko Haram and al-Shabaab do the same things that IS does (Slavery, crucifixions, beheadings, massacres), there is nothing unique about what IS is doing, whatever the hysterical media coverage suggests. Gazkthul (talk) 00:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Gazkthul: Thanks for putting some proper perspective on this, much needed. I agree about discussing "jihadist". Unless something new can be said, I think it ought to stop now. This thread was supposed to be about what alternative wording could be used in the first sentence, but it has reverted to more endless theoretical discussion. This simply can't go on. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 08:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• A discussion about this word, again? The consensus agreed to use this word, as most reliable sources describe ISIL as jihadist. No particular religious sources should veto the usage of any word. Of course, the opinion of those clerics should be noted on the criticism section. And it's already noted in a very clear way. Felino123 (talk) 11:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with Felino123.~Technophant (talk) 04:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
• I live in a muslim majority country(Turkey), even here, scholars are aruing about that 'what is jihad' issue. But let me sey it. ISIL states that they are on a 'jihad'. So what we think about or argue about jihad is useless at this point, the thing that matters now is what they do and say what they do. Just like that US and 'democracy' thing. kazekagetr 15:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm going to agree with User:KazekageTR as well. The US is actually a republic, not a democracy. However if I went and changed every reference to "democracy" to "so-called democracy" on every US related article I would get banned. It's not right to have a double-standard here.~Technophant (talk) 04:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

@User:KazekageTR & Technophant I quite agree that the US is a republic and that it is set to run according to democratic principles. For sure there have been contested or questioned election results along the way but surely most people would concede that these are the exception rather than the rule. However, the vast majority of the supporters of democratic ideals worldwide, as far as I can tell, consider the US to be democratic in principle. I do not see any democracy supporting news agency of the size of Al-Jazeera criticising the US with consistent use of a description such as so-called democracy.

In the case of ISIL there is very clearly a huge amount of criticism within a wide section of the Islamic community with regard to the faithfulness of this group to Islam. The critics base their claims on clearly presented scriptural interpretations that they have made available for scrutiny and they have related them to very specific and uncontested actions of the group.

With regard to democracy World history is littered with instances democratically dubious circumstances such as: where there has been only one candidate; where ballots have not been conducted with coercive pressures involved or where "results" have been very clearly against the assessed will of the people. Systems that habitually allow these things to happen are not democracies. Again there is additional confusion with relation to jihadism as it is a foreign loan word with an highly charged and greatly misunderstood religious meaning and heritage. I see little comparison between the two situations. Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Take a look at this article from democratic Iranian FARS News. It says that while one pundit claims that the US is a "liberal democracy" is starts by saying "if one assumes that liberal democracy truly exists". While FARS News has been declared to be unreliable and biased concerning Western affairs, Al-Jazeera can not be considered to be unbiased concerning Muslim affairs, just like Fox News is considered to be a biased news source concerning US politics. You can't just pick and choose your sources and ignore others.11:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Whoever you are, please be fair in your representation of content. There is no picking and choosing of sources. For the nth time, various sources use the word jihadist in relation to ISIL. The majority of Muslims condemn ISIL not to being representative of Islam, not representative or Islamic, not representative of jihad. This is a simple opportunity to add an unobtrusive footnote in to represent the view of a substantial group of people. I understand your point on Al-Jazeera but it represents a sector of opinion in the Islamic world and it expresses it powerfully. Again, a minority support ISIL, the majority condemn. Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

_______________________________________

• I hope others agree that it is time to determine consensus on this. Do editors wish to retain "jihadist" in the Lead as it stands now, or qualify it in one of the ways suggested by Gregkaye at the start of this discussion or another way? There has been more than enough discussion on the retention of "jihadist", but perhaps not enough about ways of qualifying it. Gazkthul and Felino clearly want to retain it with no qualification. I am not sure about Jason from nyc. I would be prepared to accept a link to where the criticism of "jihadist" is covered in "Criticism", and Gregkaye would like the word qualified in one of the ways he suggests. Please would other editors clearly state here their view on ways they would be prepared to see the word qualified, or if not, state that they want it unqualified, so that consensus can be determined? Legacypac?Technophant? Any others? Please keep to ways of qualifying the word, rather than more arguments for not qualifying it. If anyone objects to my somewhat overbearing attempt to drive things forward, please say so, as I may be going too far. P123ct1 (talk) 14:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
• Proposal to make use of an unobtrusive footnote as presented by: ... jihadist and for this footnote to link to a text such as:

"N.B. the terms jihadism and jihad have developed in the English language with distinct meanings."

or, in a longer version,

"N.B. the terms jihadism and jihad have developed in the English language with distinct meanings. Many sources make direct use of "jihadist" in their descriptions of ISIL. Al-Jazeera use self-declared or self-proclaimed jihadist"

At present I the lead is unbalanced. There is no early reference to the massacres for which ISIL are arguabley most well known and yet there is a reference with use of jihadic terminology that has, according to reliable sources, disputable use.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• Proposal I would like to take a straw poll as to who here would be willing to take this issue to Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation. I've seen this issue drone on and on and I don't see that there's going to be a compromise solution that is going to be satisfactory to all parties. I've looked through some of the archives of issues that were successfully resolved through Mediation and I do see that highly loaded, often politically related issues are the most frequently used. To be successful all parties need to agree to mediation and thereby agree to comply with the resulting decision. Another alternative is RFC, however this issue has too many specialized components that requires in-depth knowledge of the Arab world, language, culture, and history. ~Technophant (talk) 18:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
• I can't figure out what is or is not jihadist - it is a religious claim. I am happy with stating they claim to be waging jihad., they claim to be muslim, claim to have established a caliph. They claim all kinds of crazy stuff that everyone else disputes and we need to reflect that. About the only thing that is not disputed is that they are brutal killers. Legacypac (talk) 21:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• Legacypac: Does that mean you want to leave "jihadist" unqualified in the Lead? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 15:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• Technophant: I think the reason why the discussion is dragging on now has less to do with disagreement, though it is there, than lack of will to come to a consensus decision. Everyone knows what the pro and con arguments are now (I would have thought); the issue now is how, or if, the word "jihadist" should be qualified, not whether it should stay or go from the Lead. If editors could concentrate on this, keeping clearly in mind that consensus must be determined now, we might get somewhere. I would not be happy with outside Wikipedians acting as mediators, as (a) how can editors be sure to put across the pros and cons of the dispute clearly enough (not from a wish to deceive, but summarising them could be tricky), (b) mediators won't read the reams of discussion on this topic in the Talk page and (c) even if they did, could they be trusted to grasp all the arguments properly? I was quite shocked at some of the outside comments in the AN/I, which clearly showed that the arguments had not been properly understood (though I suppose they weren't looking at that so much as at disruption). I may be too optimistic about editors coming to an agreement, or even a majority agreement, but I think it should be tried before asking outside mediators to intervene. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 22:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll admit that I'm at a loss in understanding what core of the disagreement is about. At first it seemed like a minor issue and I didn't pay much attention, however it's impossible not to notice how much this issue has been discussed. To just read this whole thread and all of it's supporting documentation could take me over an hour. To read all the past threads, that's a weekend project. I haven't had any strong feelings either way and haven't weighed in on this issue except in a peripheral way so I'll just give some general advice. Good reasons not to use a term: unclear, vague, confusing, misleading, inaccurate, unencyclopedic. Bad reasons not to use a term: the term offends certain groups of people, organizations (see WP:NOTCENSORED, or feel like it gives ISIL validation or status some don't feel it deserves. I've read Jihad: A Misunderstood Concept from Islam - What Jihad is, and is not in the past and while it was interesting and informative it seemed like an opinion piece, not solid reference material. Using that meaning of the word I'm on a jihad to help maintain the neutrality and civility in this article. I will venture to say that the phrase "jihadist caliphate" is a poor choice of words, quite unclear. ISIL is a jihadist movement among many other jihadist movements and the rest of articles about them don't seem to have a problem using this term.~Technophant (talk) 00:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

As a reply to P123ct1's concerns about the Mediation process, there's only one well qualified and vetted mediator. All sides need to agree to the process and put forth a concise argument, then the Mediator puts forth a suggestion using their knowledge of WP:PAG that best suits WP's encyclopedic purpose. It's not like a RFC where just anybody comes and puts forth an opinion, or like the previous AN/I where unsolicited opinions where injected into the process. It's worth a try if this discussion doesn't come to a decision. ~Technophant (talk) 04:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• I've decided to go ahead and !vote to use it unqualified.~Technophant (talk) 04:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Technophant after your repeated additions, I think you may have just stumbled on a great truth regarding theology. To a very great extent, its opinion. However this is not a reason do disregard the opinions and views of the great majority of Muslims in favour of the comparatively small section, both within and outside Iraq and Syria, who lend endorsement to ISIL.

Interpretation is, to a great extent, about opinions of meanings and, believe me, various groups can have very wide ranging views on the same religious texts. However, as you will have had a chance to see, the most literal interpretations of jihad are in direct contradiction to the actions and intent of ISIL. The POV of the majority of Muslims is that these actions and intent are un-Islamic.

You make reasonable comment that this discussion has been around for some time which must really call into question why, in a relatively very short time after P123ct1 made moves to work towards a conclusion and after I placed a proposal related to potential wording used, you disruptively launched a counter proposal. Normal methods of response to proposal are handicapped by your inappropriate response to something that was never your issue.

Misplaced Pages is here to represent real situations. No valid reason has been presented for not using the footnote. The majority of Muslim's do not view ISIL as being faithful to Islam and this should be fairly presented. The footnote as proposed is encyclopaedic. It is supported by the conclusions of a great portion of Islamic scholarship and is in line with the presentation of the group by reliable sources like Al-Jazeera. We can't ignore the views of the majority of the adherents of the second largest religion in the world. Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with Gregkaye's last paragraph, but instead of a footnote would prefer the word "jihadist" in the Lead to be linked straight to the "Criticism" section, where the dispute over whether ISIL are truly "jihadist" is touched on. I also think that brief mention there in connection with the scholars' letter should be expanded on, because as Gregkaye says this is a very big criticism of the group voiced by many Muslims. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 10:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

•  Done ~ P123ct1 (talk) 10:11, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

• Most reliable sources and all the media describe ISIL as jihadist. Also, the word "jihadist" has its own meaning in English. ISIL and its supporters claim they are carrying out jihad. Other imams say that ISIL is carrying out jihad but that jihad should not be carried out against other Muslims. And others say that what ISIL is doing is not jihad. There is no consensus on Islam about this concept, and it has its own meaning in English as I said before. In fact, I have consulted three or four dictionaries and the definition I got is "(among Muslims) a war or struggle against unbelievers" and very similar definitions. No particular POV or religious source should ban or limit the usage of any word. Gregkaye, the views of anti-ISIL Muslims are not ignored at all; in fact, they are clearly noted on both ideology and criticism sections. Adding footnotes makes no sense, and linking the word jihadist on the lead to the criticism section doesn't make sense, either. Felino123 (talk) 12:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
• I think it is justifiable to add a "silent" link to the "Criticism" section. To see "jihadist" used prominently in the very first sentence of the Lead to describe ISIL will offend many Muslim readers and make them question the neutrality of this article. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopaedia for readers of all faiths and nationalities, after all. I do not see how a "silent" link to the relevant section goes against WP:RS policy. An efn footnote added to "jihadist" with wording that clearly disputes RS usage of the word is a different matter. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 14:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
• What do you mean by "silent" link? Felino123 (talk) 17:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• Felino123: If you search for the phrase "criticism from other Muslims" in "Criticism" and click on the blue link, it takes you to the passage on criticism from other Muslims in "Ideology and beliefs". Similarly, if you click on "Khawarij" in the "Criticism" section, it takes you to "Khawarij" in "Ideology and beliefs". I call it a "silent" link but I think technically it is called an "anchor" link. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 17:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Felino123: WP:TALK#USE plainly states "Explaining why you have a certain opinion helps to demonstrate its validity.." You have been repeatedly asked to account for the reasons behind your actions and arguments on a number of occasions on this page. You have reverted successive additions of criticisms of ISIL from the lead; you have argued for an inclusion of Israel to the article's opponents list and then made this addition by adding a level of citation that far exceeded the average even of nations that were involved in actual physical confrontation and when it was shown that inclusions were unjustified you resisted reduction and removed content on request and when it was then found that "An editor has made an important edit and disguised it in the edit summaries" in that "some of the words in the quotation from the Islamic scholars' letter of criticism – namely "not jihad at all" – were cut out", when that editor, amongst removal of other criticisms, was found to be you you excused it as a slip. Now, however, you are asking, even though the word jihadist is included in the text in a way that satisfies some reliable sources, you resist recognition of other reliable sources who dispute ISIL's faithfulness to Islam. You have previously been asked for your motive for pushing content. I summarised earlier situations: "You want to remove Islamic and, at preference, other criticism of ISIL from the lead and also attempt to unnecessarily highlight the involvement of Israel in relation to a conflict in which it is not engaged" and my question, "Why?" has not been answered. Please explain your motive for the above. Certainly ISIL's makes a claim of jihadism and, in response, the word is included in the text. Please also explain your motive for pushing for the exclusion of a note that would be representative of a significant section of Islamic opinion. P123ct1 has acknowledged, "Gazkthul and Felino clearly want to retain it with no qualification." You have previously made your comments and are repeating. You are, however, not answering. If there is a Conflict of interest, you should say. 14:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC) and edited Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• Why are you attacking me, Gregkaye? I just stated my opinion respectfully. Of course, I committed mistakes as I was new here and didn't know how Misplaced Pages worked. I said sorry for my mistakes, and I answered all the questions. I also reverted my mistakes. So you're clearly lying. Those mistakes from the past have nothing to do with this, nor invalidate my current opinion or contributions. What's your point? Conflict of interest? Not from me, that's for sure. I just want the best for Misplaced Pages and I'm willing to make concessions in order to reach consensus. I have already proven that. You say I resist recognition of other sources who dispute ISIL's faithfulness to Islam. Well, I don't, but you can't deny ISIL is an Islamist group, just like the KKK was Christian and Kach Jewish, although they don't represent most Muslims/Christians/Jews. Of course, this criticism should be noted, and it's already clearly noted on ideology and criticism sections. You pushed your POV aggressively and removed the words "jihad" and "jihadist" in a disruptive way. You violated the rules and were reported for that. Does that mean that you can't give your opinion or contribute now? Of course not. I think you should look at your own first. I have not attacked you nor used your mistakes to shut you up. Felino123 (talk) 17:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Felino123 I don't know how you can say that anything above is an attack or that anything is untrue. I have asked an open question and one that you could answer in any way you liked. I have not viewed it to be balanced to argue and work towards the removal/relegation of criticism and it was a question that needed to be asked. There is no lie and everything I have said is true. I did not come here to compare disruptions and yes I have looked at my own. Seriously I want to get on with editors here but I cannot let that "I have not attacked you" comment pass by. Please take the time to have another look at your content especially with regard to your first posts and even with your last. Gregkaye ✍♪ 18:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye, if you look illustration at WP:TALKNO I would like to point out that you are "Responding to Tone" and going toward "Ad Hominem" in your disagreement with Felino123. Nobody is should be required to explain their opinion, esp. when it is plainly stated. This isn't a court of law, and there is no Legal burden of proof. If there's a burden of proof on anyone it would be yourself as the original poster and main objector. ~Technophant (talk) 10:50, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Technophant, My post makes it clear what I was responding to. It also indicates is that I have not been alone in asking the question. As you know I checked with admin regarding the acceptability of the question which, unlike a variety of things on this talk page, is fine. Proof? The views of the majority of the adherents of the second largest religion in the world. It is a consideration of all reliable sources. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye HAHAHA no mate i was talking about US' mission to 'bring democracy' thing. You know they promised to bring democracy to Mid-East, instead they bring de-stabilization and shitty gov'ts. kazekagetr 14:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Leave as is. We already wikilink jihadist to jihadism where the English-language usage and Muslim objections are explained. Why do we need to link to our own duplicate discussion within this article? You may want to link widely criticized in the last sentence to our criticism section although being a summary one can assume the reader will look for the criticism in the main article. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Jason from nyc because of clear representation being made that ISIL are not representative of jihad. People who come to read an article on ISIL will come to read about the groups activities. How many people will look and see the blue link on jihadist and think I wonder if I should check exactly what that means and whether it is relevantly applied? Not many. By placing a note there is a better chance that people will refer to the many strongly voiced objections. The link has a negligible data cost and adds value. Many Wikipedias state "terrorist" in their leads for instance es:Estado Islámico (organización terrorista) in Spanish. Maybe we could do something like that. However I think most Muslims would prefer the distancing of this organisation from Islam. Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Jason from nyc, the discussion in the article is not a duplicate of the Wiki article. The Wiki article has just one general sentence on the two different sense of "jihadist". The "Criticism" specifies the current Muslim objection to the term, which is more relevant. So I think "jihadist" in the Lead should not be wikilinked, but linked to "Criticism", and that the best place for a blue link to the Wiki article is in "Criticism". ~ P123ct1 (talk) 16:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Comment with only a minority of a minority actually having alternate views on the meaning of "jihadist", the focus of the article should be on the mainstream view. There's a guideline called WP:FRINGE that gives the advice "A Misplaced Pages article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is. Claims must be based upon independent reliable sources. If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight, and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner."~Technophant (talk) 09:42, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

This is quite off topic. The majority of Islam view the so-called Islamic state as radically departing from Islam. These views are widely reported by independent reliable sources. This is fact. No fringe theory is involved. Definitions of jihadism most often relate to the concept of "holy war". Most Muslims regard ISIL as being deviant. There is nothing wrong with presenting any of the footnote or references options mentioned, presenting related facts and letting the reader decide. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:43, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Fringe doesn't mean minority. Wahhabi is a bona fide branch of Islam practiced by a minority of Muslims. We have well-documented that ISIL is Wahhabi and if I remember correctly you added it to the info box for ideology. The overwhelming number of sources considered Wahhabi as a bona fide branch of Islam. The overwhelming number of sources call ISIL jihadist so it is not a fringe theory to do so. They use the word as described in our article on jihadism (not jihad) so our link there is important for the reader's further understanding. The nature of Muslim critique of 20th century movement called jihadism is still developing and we are not the authorities to choose which branches are bona fide. The recent statements by some scholarly authorities is a step in the right direction. Let's hope it continues. But we must reflect verbal usage by the overwhelming number of reliable sources. The battle for rhetoric is out there, not in here. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Jason from nyc I agree that "we are not the authorities to choose which branches are bona fide". We should, however, be representative of information provided in all reliable sources, present representative information and let the reader decide. ISIL have practices that align with Wahhabi practice but this does not change the fact that the majority of Muslims regard them as un-Islamic. The arguments presented can also be applied to the designation "terrorist". This is a term whose use is comparatively uncontested. However, I think that we have stated our positions on these issues often enough. Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad that there's some consensus that Fringe applies here. I've taken the matter to the Fringe theories/Noticeboard and evaluated there by editors with more experience applying the guideline. See WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant as jihadist.~Technophant (talk) 18:51, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Update: the preliminary result from WP:FTN is that WP:Fringe does not apply to this topic.~Technophant (talk) 03:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Technophant can you please clarify what you mean by: "the preliminary result from WP:FTN is that WP:Fringe does not apply to this topic." Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:00, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

People, is this a (relevant) discussion (for this page)? Gregkaye started this section on 1 November, with a very long epistle (776 words), apparently contemplating the different (possible) meanings of the word ‘jihad’. If there is discussion about that/those meaning(s)—what I surely can imagine—it should take place on Talk:Jihad. What is the direct relevance of such (supposed) discussion for the editing of page ‘Islamic State’? This probably too vague discussion here tends to grow longer and longer (it is now already 9 full screens), probably because everyone has his own idea of what this ‘discussion’ is about… this can’t fruitfully lead anywhere. Please stop this (non)discussion, and then restart it, if you desire, in a new section, with a precisely formulated dilemma concerning THIS page, Islamic State. (I urge this, partly because this Talk page tends to get frightfully long by such too vague ‘discussions’…) --Corriebertus (talk) 12:04, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Corriebertus, you need to inform yourself. Please refer to the earlier discussions on this (see head of this thread). The discussion concerning the word "jihadist" in the Lead has been the major discussion point on this Talk page since 8 October (beginning with "their actions are "not jihad at all, but rather, warmongering and criminality"). This particular thread is directly related to it. The dispute here led to an AN/I (no conclusion reached) and it is still going on. The topic is hardly a side-issue for this article, and you will find that the "dilemma" is very precisely formulated higher up in this thread. As for comment on this state of affairs, "no comment". ~ P123ct1 (talk) 14:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

• The discussion on whether to qualify the word "jihadist" in the Lead has been going on for a week, since 3 November. In that time no editors except myself and Gregkaye have expressed any wish to qualify it with a link or footnote. I think this means that editors wish to retain the word unqualified. The next question is whether editors agree with the current wording: "... is a Sunni, extremist, jihadist, unrecognized state ...". Can editors give their views on this, please? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 15:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Life in ISIL-controlled Ar-Raqqah

Can this be used? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 23:22, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Cynical comment: Why not? Surely its just innocent jihad. Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I thought it could go in "Governance" or "Human rights abuses", to show exactly what is going on. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 08:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Reliably Sourced?

(late addition but in topical flow (and it doesn't seem I'm learning)) Cynicism also relates to accuracy of press reporting especially in relation to pixelated photos presented by outlets like the Daily Mail. This case seems fairly well supported as demonstrated to search: (ISIL OR ISIS OR Daesh OR "Islamic State") AND (baby OR toddler) in news to today. Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 I personally find the crucifixion content to be most readily believable. In regard to the, I believe, Kurd supplied image showing a Muslim child kicking at a pixelated area of ground, against reliable sources, I advise caution. Islam has strict rules on health issues on topics such as Halal and I don't think there should be ready acceptance of the idea of a severed head being left on a pavement with a smiling man holding a bare footed child in the air so as to help the child kick a dead, severed head. It would have been very easy for, I believe, the Kurdish (Islamic) source to have found a photo and doctored. ISIL killings that I have seen can involve victims kneeling in front of a grave so that they can fall in when shot and some of the activities seem to be relatively clinical. This is not to say that stories involving the use of heads aren't true but unless evidence becomes really clear I would caution against using Misplaced Pages's voice to state facts.

The topic of the article that I think is more corroborated relates to crucifixion. See: (ISIL OR ISIS OR Daish OR Daesh OR "Islamic State") AND crucifixion in Videos and (ISIL OR ISIS OR Daish OR Daesh OR "Islamic State") AND crucifixion in News. Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking more of the last few paras of the article, about the group trying to record what is happening in Ar-Raqqah, but perhaps that is unreliable information as well. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 14:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

IBTimes is NOT a reliable source and should not be used in this article. They find any flimsy report from any "news source" and repost it without fact-checking. They "broke" the news about al-Baghdadi being a secret agent of the Moussad via a bogus Snowden revelation (see talk archive). I came up with my own Google News search: (isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") crucif*. The only reliable source that mentions crucifixion is the recent mention of the alleged cruficion of a 17-year old boy in Raqqah with photo. Such a photo can easily be staged and I'm going to remain sceptical unless there's significant coverage by non-tabloid sources.~Technophant (talk) 03:26, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Population of ISIS

I Roughly calculated the population of ISIS to be around 204,000-250,000 using information from the internet such as we must know the amount of people that are trapped under ISIS's flags. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weegee12 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Mosul alone contains over 1 million people. Anyway we'd need reliable sources populations estimates rather than original research. Gazkthul (talk) 22:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

History of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant infobox

See previous discussion: Archive 14#Suggest move Template:History of the Islamic State (caliphate) to Template:History of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

The link in the title does not work, and it is not possible to edit this infobox. The name "Al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia" while accurate is just one of the several names for Al-Qaeda in Iraq. It is best to be consistent with the rest of the article and keep to "Al-Qaeda in Iraq". No need to confuse the poor reader. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 08:27, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• Note to edit click on the small E on the bottom right of the sidebar.~Technophant (talk) 03:38, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 I am not sure why it isn't working. There has certainly been disruptive editing by TRAJAN 117 from this to this with a change in title and with result that, when displayed in ISIL#History, the spacing doesn't work. However the link has consistently gone by redirect at History of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Many changes made. Do they all need to be reverted? In the history listing I think we also need to use: self-described as the Islamic State as per main article. Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye: On second thoughts, it should probably be "Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn", not "Al-Qaeda in Iraq", as that is AQI's official name. Putting "Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant" in bold is not necesssary and spoils the layout. The rest looks okay as it is. How can the infobox/template(?) be accessed for editing? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 14:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

At least as far as the template is concerned changes  Done I can't see them on the article yet so maybe there is some type of info saving delay!?

Making the changes is not meant to close discussion tho. P123ct1, I not sure if there is a way to remove the bold effect from the "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" entry. The bold simply indicates link goes to the same page as the link is based. I've also added a little space between the links and the date info. Gregkaye ✍♪ 21:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye: The two links you showed don't have "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" in bold, so it must be possible to revert it. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 21:51, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 I've tried the contrived link ]. Maybe when it loads that could work. I don't know. Gregkaye ✍♪ 21:58, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye: Should this be taken to the Village Pump (Technical) Help Desk for assistance? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 07:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion one way or the other on a change but think that the text is functioning correctly. It reads:

Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad  (1999–2004)

Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn  (2004–06)

Mujahideen Shura Council  (2006)

Islamic State of Iraq  (2006–13)

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant  (2013–14)

Self-described as:  Islamic State  (2014–present)

This template, with its link to the "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" will place that text as bold when placed on the page connected by the link. The text "Islamic State" also relates to this page.

Until seeing it again here I didn't see the confusion and can take it up.

08:36, 3 November 2014 edited Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

A request relating to the issue raised here is now raised at:

Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical)#Causing a within page link to appear as non bold re: template:History of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done as Revision as of 11:14, 3 November 2014 finally :)

The link ] appears as: Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant which functions slightly differently from ] which, while still appearing as: Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, links to a slightly different point at the top of the page.

Now that this link problem has been resolved I've reestablished the link ] which links to that section of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#History. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

What is the point of having this template in the article anyway? As far as I can see the TOC already links to sections which this template links to. The portal it links to has no more information than this article does, it just displays it in a different way ~ P123ct1 (talk) 14:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

That's a question that I raised in the previous thread. I think that the template adds to the user friendliness of the article without adding fresh content. To me that translates to pretty weak support. Gregkaye ✍♪ 22:34, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure why there's an attempt of getting rid of the bold self link. It's the usual desired behaviour when a template has a link to the page it is located on. On pages other than this one it will be rendered as blue link.~Technophant (talk) 03:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I can see how the template might be useful in other articles, but because it duplicates the TOC, I cannot see the purpose of it and think it should go. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 08:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I reduced the title text width and now the sidebar is less than 310px. I've been putting it on relevant pages. There may not be room or need for it here. P123ct1 Have you seen Portal:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant?~Technophant (talk) 03:38, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

• Technophant:Yes, I have - see my comment above. As with this History of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant template for this article, I cannot see the point if it. There is a lot of editorial hyperactivity in this and related articles, IMO, which I think is beginning to be counterproductive for this article in particular. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 08:44, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Technophant the view that the "bold is not necesssary and spoils the layout" in relation to this article has been extensively discussed with the proposal and action to remove the bold only facing your recent objection. Until a different consensus is reached, the template has been reverted to the non-bold version. Gregkaye ✍♪ 06:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye Please see the comments at Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(technical) about using {{No selflink}} or leaving as default. Having the bold link is the behavior the user expects. Having a bluelink to top of the page is undesirable behavior. P123ct1, having a bold self link is the expected behavior, even if you think it doesn't look right this sidebar shouldn't go against convention. I would like to ask all users that have technical questions on this minor technical coding/format issue put to ask thier questions there so volunteers with expertise in technical issues can help. Also, the sidebar/infobox template talk is the preferred place to talk about the template, as it is now used on 9 pages not just here. Further talk about this template here should be limited to its use on this article. ~Technophant (talk) 06:16, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

We are well aware of those issues as per discussion above. Having no bluelink to "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" but having a bluelink or a differently presented link to "Islamic State" when that content is present in the same article is also an undesirable behaviour. It suggests the presence of a separate article that does not exist. Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support removal from this article only. It's quite useful, esp. on List of wars and battles involving the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant where it replaces the awkward history of names.~ (talk) 05:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
• This template is a good substitute for the "Index of names", which has now been removed. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 11:49, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

let's change the title of the article

no need for this section Legacypac (talk) 23:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

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

See notice: Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Moratorium on Requested Moves

See also: Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#RfC: Three months moratorium on page moves

Soldiers of IS call themselves as ad dawlat al islaamiya so we need to change the title. Ad dawlat al islaamiya means "the Islamic State" so why don't we change the article's title? We can use "the" which helps us to distinguish the article from Islamic state. They now do not call themselves as ad dawlat al islaamiyah fil eiraaq wa ash shaam. So we need to change the title. --119.64.240.163 (talk) 14:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but we are going by what the government calls them, not media. Therefore ISIL -- not ISIS or IS. I'm not sure if WP:COMMONNAME applies anymore, but we need to disambiguate the "Islamic State" as a too ambiguous name. I don't exactly agree with it, but unfortunately that's the way it is. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 21:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Let's not. This is the ENGLISH Wiki and we go by the English name referenced in the Sources. HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

ISIL's practice of massacre and slaughter to be presented prominently in the lead

What are ISIL best known for? Which of their actions get them most prominently in the news?

I think it is this. Their methods and practices such as of slaughter, beheadings and crucifixion should all be given due prominence.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 18:24, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree, this should be given much greater prominence in the article. It should be mentioned in the Lead somewhere as well, but where to place it will be tricky. I also think there should be more on it in the "Human rights abuses section". At the moment references to these things are scattered throughout the article, but they need to be brought together in one place. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 21:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely. These are nothing less than evil, brutal thugs - many of which are, according to reliable journalists who've met or watched them, clinically mentally unstable on top of that. Wiki certainly doesn't tread lightly about SS units that operated in eastern Europe, and we shouldn't be shy of the facts just because of some irrational fear of being PC to Muslims. Anyone who reads the facts can separate the jihadist terrorists from peaceful people.HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

We dont need to worry about hurting ISIL's feelings - they celebrate the brutality. Legacypac (talk) 23:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I am quite sure many of the foreign fighters are psychopaths and worse, and were attracted to ISIL because of the opportunity to indulge in extreme violence. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 06:34, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The lead is already too long (IMO) at 7 paragraphs, I don't see how or why we should add more info to the lead that is or should be in the Human Rights Abuses section. Although the media portrays them as simply mindless thugs, the Senior Military/Baa'th Party background of their leadership and the influence of books like Management of Savagery gets much less attention than it should. Gazkthul (talk) 06:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Management of Savagery could perhaps be introduced in "Governance", under a subsection titled "Strategy". Perhaps one line about the extreme violence could be added to the criticism paragraph at the end of the Lead, but no more. It is a major feature and as such has to be covered by the Lead, I think. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 07:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• Exactly! It should be added to the lead. But it should be a short phrase, as the lead is already very long. Felino123 (talk) 11:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
• Management of Savagery shows there is method in their madness. It is so alien to Western thinking that it cannot be seen for what it is, calculated violence - planned by those at the top. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 12:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
• I recently moved some numerical information on troop estimates down into the main article. This is just a few words. Is there an early massacre that we can mention and then say that this set the tone. How else can this be broached? Gregkaye ✍♪ 22:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
• I find it troubling that one of the pillars, Misplaced Pages is written from a neutral point of view, is blatantly being disregarding in this discussion. The first talk header says "Please be neutral when editing this highly sensitive article. It discusses a topic about which people have diverse opinions." The incident in Syria where ISIL allegedly crucified several men has been misattributed to ISIL, see Crucifixion#Syria. Yes, these acts are a defining characteristic of this group and is worthy of being mentioned in the lead, but please try to be more neutral in your discussions.~Technophant (talk) 04:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
• There is a big difference between discussing things in strong POV terms and translating it into NPOV language in the article! I am sure all editors are aware of this. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 09:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • NPOV article content is a pillar and a policy, however the WP:Talk#Use guideline encourages editors to "Stay objective: Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their personal point of view about a controversial issue. They are a forum to discuss how the points of view of reliable sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral." Following the principle of garbage in, garbage out it's hard to see how a biased discussion can lead to unbiased content.~Technophant (talk) 20:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment: I didn't intend to shut this conversation down (by implying WP:NOTFORUM), I just was surprised to see nearly every editor in this thread violating the principals of objective neutrality (WP:NPOV). I had the idea of starting a subpage called /Personal views where established editors can discuss their personal thought processes with relaxed WP:TALKPAGE guidelines. ~Technophant (talk) 15:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Romania is a member of NATO

So I think it shouldn't be on the "Other state opponents" list. Shouldn't Romania be added to the NATO list? Felino123 (talk) 11:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Obama didint enlisted Romania for anti IS task force i believe. kazekagetr 14:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Found this excellent clickable graphic of the different countries contributions - note the graphic combines military action with arms supply (unlike our article) but gives details. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/interactive/2014/10/isil-us-syria-airstrike-coalition-uae-saudi-2014101142731382476.html I don't see Romania involved according to that source. Legacypac (talk) 02:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

What a Lead should be per WP:LEAD

As the Lead is still under discussion, here is what WP:LEAD says about this:

"The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. ...

The lead is the first part of the article most people read, and many only read the lead. ... should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view; it should ideally contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate."

~ P123ct1 (talk) 20:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Does Tunisia really support ISIL?

Because that is what the following sentence in the article implies: "Tunisia has sent 2,400-3,000 foreign fighters to the Islamic State, more than any other nation." It makes it sound like they are actually sent by the Tunisian government, which is obviously not the case.--Michael (talk) 20:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Flag of the Islamic State

First, I'm pleased that User:TRAJAN 117 has taken the initiative and created this article. There's a story behind every flag. There are a few issues however. 1) the article needs more context and sources for verification. 2) there's a proposal to rename the article to Flag of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant on the talk page. Please take some time to contribute if you can. ~Technophant (talk) 05:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I am also pleased that the initiative has been taken to create this article content. The story of the flag on the main page of the ISIL article is that it was added to the page at some time prior to 22 February 2013 as the "Flag of the Islamic State of Iraq" and was further developed at some time prior to 24 February 2014 with a link to the then uncreated namespace Flag of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. I am less pleased that the Flag of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant page was then created as a redirect to an article using the non-consensus name "Islamic State". Given the title of the main article the move is obvious which, if it is to be mentioned on this page, must be mentioned in the context of its creation.

What would be helpful would be, if editors are to create new articles in relation to this main topic, that they supply other editors with notification of new content at some central source such as this. Gregkaye ✍♪ 04:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

It was nominated for deletion (first CSD, then PROD, now AfD) yesterday. Discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Flag of the Islamic State.~Technophant (talk) 02:39, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

While it is good that a bit of extra info was added to WP, that info does not justify a new article on the the same flag. The article should be deleted as a duplication of Black Standard and if kept (which it should not be) should definitely NOT be named "Flag of the Islamic State" against the consensus name ISIL. Legacypac (talk) 21:41, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Introduction relevance

See also #Should we add this line to the lead

Quote: "SIL’s actions, authority and theological interpretations have been widely criticized around the world by non-Muslims and within the Muslim community." Question: how is non-Muslim criticism of the interpretation of Islam in any way relevant? Who within the Muslim community has criticized IS interpretations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.192.65.176 (talk) 10:14, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• Remember you must log in and sign your comments on the talk page. Thank you! It's all on the criticism and ideology sections. Felino123 (talk) 02:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
  • 88.192.65.176 TY Re: 'SIL. It is representative of a widespread view. The criticism that has been substantially has been most notably raised by governments, Muslims and academic scholars of Islam. Until recently the article had content like this which I think far better represents article content as per WP:LEAD. Other edits that that you have not signed deal with less sensitive subjects than this and it may benefit clarity if all editors where possible could sign. Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Section 1: Index of names

Is the index of names really needed? What value does it add to the article? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 17:18, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

No, and none, in my opinion. Gazkthul (talk) 22:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye? I know we worked hard on this! ~ P123ct1 (talk) 09:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Not an issue, at least for me. However, take a look at the section of text following the index as, say, from ISIL#JTJ. To me the following content seems pretty heavy going. My thoughts are, if the rest of the section is to be kept then the index would provide one way to give the article a friendlier intro. Another solution may be to scrap the names section altogether. Can content be woven into the rest of the article?

A third solution might be to move both names and history under the title "History" and convert the current title "History" to something like "Chronology". Perhaps the Template:History of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, if its presentation can be agreed, could then be moved from its current position at the beginning of ISIL#History to the beginning of names.

Otherwise I think something should be done about the dense appearance of history of names.

(On a related topic we can also note that there is current discussion regarding the repetition in this article of timeline content. If there was a place for its perhaps limited inclusion it might be as a subsection of History following names and chronology. Perhaps that discussion can continue in the relevant section). Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:27, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I think the "History of the Islamic State of Iraq and Iran" template is better than the index of names, which I think should be scrapped. To repeat, once again, I think the "History of names" must be retained, as without a glossary of names and skeleton history at the beginning, I think the uniformed reader would be at sea when reading the "History" section and confused when coming across references to the different names, sometimes used interchangeably (Islamic State/IS/ISIL), scattered throughout the article. It neatly gets across the idea that while the group started as far back as 1999, it is in fact still the same group, which metamorphosed over time. That is not as immediately apparent when reading the "History" section on its own. With perhaps a different title, the "History of names" subsection I think would be best incorporated into the "History" section, as the first subsection of it. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 22:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the "Index of names" as it is repeated in the "History of the Islamic State" template nearby and turned the "History of names" into a numbered list, which I think is clearer than the bulleted list. I do not think this list is heavy-going for an encyclopaedia. I hope this edit is acceptable and obviously am open to challenge on it. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 08:59, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Gazkthul, P123ct1 and others I've expand the history section to encompass names and, once again, notable members and have moved the template of history. Now the template is in context perhaps we can properly consider any issues related to the validity of its use. Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:17, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I have also deleted the emblem from this template on the basis that it has no specific relevance to the topic and was unsure whether the use of space was warranted. Thoughts? Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:30, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

While I agree with adding "Names" to "History", it seems somewhat irrational to separate "Military and arms" from "Support" and "Oppositon" by putting "Analysis" between them. I don't think "Analysis" should be so near the end of the article. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 21:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Moved "Analysis" to before "Military and arms" ~ P123ct1 (talk) 09:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Terrorist as a primary descriptor

Designation as a terrorist organisation has been applied, amongst others, by the UN and the EU. This is an organisation that opperates by intimidation and threat through its videos and other media output. It publishes videos of the execution of foreign nationals which are accompanied by threatening narratives. See this on: Isis urges more attacks on Western ‘disbelievers’.

Quote: Abu Mohammed al Adnani urged the group’s supporters: “If you can kill a disbelieving American or European – especially the spiteful and filthy French – or an Australian, or a Canadian, or any other disbeliever from the disbelievers waging war, including the citizens of the countries that entered into a coalition against the Islamic State, then rely upon Allah, and kill him in any manner or way, however it may be,” he said.

“Smash his head with a rock, or slaughter him with a knife, or run him over with your car, or throw him down from a high place, or choke him, or poison him.”

We currently use the term jihadist with no qualification despite the fact that the majority of Muslims condemn ISIL not to being representative of Islam, not representative of Islamic, not representative of jihad. The very use of the word jihadist is also contested.

Reliable sources use "terrorist" and none of these complexities apply. Gregkaye ✍♪ 19:42, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Terrorism is a deeply loaded and pejorative term, the exact opposite of the NPOV that Misplaced Pages uses in their articles.

The Tamil Tigers, Shining Path, Provisional Irish Republican Army, Red Brigades, ETA, HAMAS, Al-Qaeda, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and Boko Haram are all designated terrorist organisations by many governments around the world, however none of the above articles use terrorist as a primary descriptor. Gazkthul (talk) 21:54, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Gazkthul is absolutely right. We had a long discussion on the Talk page some months ago about using the word "terrorist" in the article, and the use of this word in Misplaced Pages's voice to describe ISIL directly flouts WP:NPOV. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 22:04, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Many terms can be pejorative terms if the terms are not well applied. ISIL make extensive use of "violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims" and the word is well applied. (Recent output details crucifixions. Threats and intimidations are incorporated into rhetoric as standard). This page has talked about reliable sources with great consistency. Reliable sources make extensive use of "terrorist" in relation to ISIL and I don't see any content in reliable sources that contests the interpretation of terror. Reliable sources also make extensive use of "jihadism" in relation to ISIL and yet reliable sources even go as far as to present substantial content to question ISIL's very validation within Islam. "Jihadism" is also a deeply loaded and, in relation to word root, incorrectly loaded term and its use results in a misrepresentation of Mohammedan teaching. Content in reliable sources should be evenly, fairly and neutrally represented. Reliable sources indicate that both can be used but, as far as I can see, reliable sources only calls the validity of one of them into question.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 04:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

There are all sorts of problems with using the word terrorism. Plenty of sources refer to Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorists, at the same time they have gotten millions of votes in democratic elections and have been in Government. In the current conflict in Ukraine, both the Pro-Russian and Pro-Ukrainian militias are referred to be the opposing Governments as 'terrorists', but of course they don't use this for their allies. The People's Mujahedin of Iran was a designated terrorist organisation for many years, until an expensive lobbying campaign in the US got them delisted. The Assad Government and it's allies refers to all armed opposition factions in Syria as terrorists, including those that are supported by the United States. This has been discussed countless times throughout the Misplaced Pages project, and to reiterate, is not used for other such groups.

The following is the policy of Reuters journalists, but is worth taking into consideration in relation to WP:NPOV: Reuters does not label or characterise the subjects of news stories. We aim to report objectively their actions, identity and background. We aim for a dispassionate use of language so that individuals, organisations and governments can make their own judgment on the basis of facts. Seek to use more specific terms like “bomber”, or “bombing”, hijacker or hijacking, “attacker” or “attacks”, “gunman” or “gunmen” etc. It is particularly important not to make unattributed use of the words terrorism and terrorist in national and territorial conflicts and to avoid using those terms in indirect speech in such a context. Gazkthul (talk) 05:16, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Rand Paul

After a recent update there is the following after Foreign Support: US Senator Rand Paul has accused the US government of arming ISIL. The US government has been funding ISIL's allies, such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and supporting the terrorist group in Syria, Paul told NBC News's "Meet the Press". "I think one of the reasons why ISIS has been emboldened is because we have been arming their allies. We have been allied with ISIS in Syria", Paul said to CNN.

The first source, Iran's Press TV, says that Paul accused the US government of "arming ISIL", however the second source says "armed their allies in Syria." There are already multiple mentions and sources elsewhere that there is no evidence that the Governments of these countries are actually providing any support. Personally I don't believe this claim belongs in the Foreign Funding section of the article. Gazkthul (talk) 00:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Politicians are not generally reliable sources. (No sarcasm intended.) They might be worth citing as an opinion but I'd hope we'd have at least some indication that they are explicitly referring to their contacts within the government. I'm on record (somewhere in the archives) for removing the analysis of Hillary Clinton (current in the "Analysis" section) and she was Secretary of State. I didn't see evidence that she was referring to her access to sources in the State Department as oppose to posturing for political purposes. Jason from nyc (talk) 01:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I have moved the para on Rand Paul to the "Analysis" section. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 09:18, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I haven't had the opportunity to evaluate Senator Paul's statements, however I agree with Jason from nyc in restoring the analysis of Senator Clinton. Her opinion was insightful and represented an overview that was RS, appropriate, and relevant. Can you please find the diff for its removal?~Technophant (talk) 15:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Name change

See the #Moratorium on Requested Moves

See above the RfC: Three months moratorium on page moves

See archived discussion Archive 13: Proposed move from "ISIS" to "ISIL" in the article text (29 September – 15 October 2014)

See archived discussion Archive 14: Use of "Islamic State" at least in the infobox (14–25 October 2014)

See the Moratorium on Requested Moves see also RfC: Three months moratorium on page moves. The moratorium does not cover the usage within the article. However usage must follow MOS guidelines; and before commenting, to save repeating stale arguments that waste everybody's time, read the archived discussions and, do not to repeat the same arguments unless they are backed up with new reliable third party sources. -- PBS (talk) 21:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have been reviewing all the past discussions in relation to the unusual plethora of names for this organisation, and therefore propose a name change. I am also eager for as many responses as possible, as I hope to also refine my knowledge of this organisation and learn from those who have contributed more on the subject than I have. I welcome any criticism to what I have written below.

• ISIS/IS - These are the only two acronyms in which this group should be referred to by. These are my reasons:

1. ISIS- The official name of the organisation was first ad-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fīl-ʻIraq wa ash-Shām which translates into English as The Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham. It is not Sūriyā and therefore not the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. Secondly, the term used currently 'ISIL' is incorrect. Levant is not an accurate or direct translation for the word Shām. Shām is an Arabic term/name, it's like trying to translate 'Washington' or 'London' into Chinese, the name/pronunciation stays the same no matter what language uses it. I am disappointed to see that many users are citing the fact that just becuase Barrack Obama and the U.S government use the term, then it must be factually correct. The fact is that Misplaced Pages is an independent encyclopedia and not an extension/branch or mouthpiece of the U.S Federal government. I also find it rather awkward when media institutions such as CNN/Fox are using the correct acronym 'ISIS' and the U.S government is using some half-ass one, which is really embarrassing. Thirdly, as this is the English Misplaced Pages, I understand there will be allot of ignorant people who will be saying "**** the arab words, this is 'murica!" and that is a fair observation. So I would then propose that if this is really an issue, that it be the Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria, as that is what Shām does refer to, a great Syria. However, I don't see it as an issue as we refer to al-Qaeda in its full Arab name and don't refer to it as "The Base" which is what it means.
2. IS - This is the current term that the group itself uses al-dawlah al-islamīyah or The Islamic State. This is sensitive, as denoting the group as such, in a way, gives them their legitimacy as being the true followers of Islamic ways and tradition. But it's just a name. This is meant to be an encyclopedia, not some politically correct magazine. We're supposed to go by fact, and this is what the fact is, that their current name is the Islamic State. If people are really hurt by it, then call the article The Islamic State (militant group) or something which denotes them as being a separate entity from mainstream Islam (Whatever that is). I understand that there is a sub-heading Criticisms which decries the usage of the term 'Islamic State'. That's good, it's giving the reader an impression that what this group is doing has meant it has faced questions of legitimacy from Islamic communities across the world, communities that IS claims it represents. But the fact is, it is officially known as the Islamic State.

In summary, I am pretty much saying that Misplaced Pages is not something in which facts should be overturned for the sake of politically correct consideration. This is the only article in which I have seen fact being overruled by personal decisions on the editors part, and the considerations for others put before scholarly truth. That's not the way it should be on an Encyclopedia. StanMan87 (talk) 13:23, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Subsequent comments about the name to use within the article may be made below in this section.

StanMan87 I could not agree more with your para 2. At the moment this article is choking on political correctness, IMO. The name is a fact and should be recorded as such. There are too many "self-described" and "self-proclaimed"s in the article. I specifically set up the "Criticism" section as a catch-all for the many different kinds of criticism levelled at this group, particularly over legitimacy, and I am surprised it is still quite empty. Let the article keep to NPOV and record facts, and deal with the objections to these words in "Criticism". As for the name "ISIL", that isn't regarded as "accurate" by WP, it is one of the names used by Reliable Sources, which WP has to reflect per WP:RS, and it was decided to move from "ISIS" to "ISIL" in the article as it was more consistent with the article's title as it is now. We have a moratorium on discussing title name change, so nothing can be done about changing the title at the moment. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 16:47, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 I think that a balance can be struck between use by primary and secondary sources. English speaking governments do not tend to refer to "Islamic State" and many news organisations, such as the BBC, begin with a phrase like "so called Islamic State" and then continue with "Islamic State" unqualified or with "ISIS" or "ISIL". The news agency reuters has, for whatever reason, chosen to only go to the extent of quoting other peoples qualifications of the group. Just to summarise: legitimate objections to "Islamic State" are both political, ethical and theological. Politically it is not a State, ethically it has no right to gain authority over people by military force and theologically it has no right to claim authority over the rest of Islam especially when the majority of other Muslims consider it as un-Islamic. The Islamic State sub-section of history begins "On 29 June 2014, ISIL ... began to refer to itself as the "Islamic State" and then the text uses "Islamic State" without qualification. I think that this (depending on the extent that this section may develop in the future) presents balanced content. I think that qualification is also of relevance in the Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

coat of arms, seal or emblem?

How should we describe this image and what reference do we have for it?

It is found at File:Seal of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.png which was created by User:Illegitimate Barrister

This file states that it was derived from File:Emblem of Islamic State in Iraq and Sham.jpg which was created by User:Monotheist.

The image is described as: Coat of arms in Infobox:country (the first infobox) and as Seal in Template:History of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

How is this thing best described? Where is it cited?

Gregkaye ✍♪ 18:41, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure on the best terminology for it, but it is a symbol they use frequently, such as sticking it on the side of captured vehicles . Gazkthul (talk) 23:14, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

• Good question... It's the symbol of their "military wing" or the symbol of their "state"? If it's the symbol of their state, I think "coat of arms" is accurate. If it's just the symbol of their "military wing" then "emblem" or "seal" is more accurate. It's labeled as "seal" on most pages it appears, but I think "coat of arms" is the most accurate terminology. Felino123 (talk) 02:30, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Coat of arms, looking at the definition, seems inaccurate to me (possibly about as inappropriate as Crest (heraldry)) and I would suggest the use of emblem, Seal (emblem) or insignia. Misplaced Pages namespaces starting "coat of arms" tend to redirect to "Emblem ..." type articles. Seal is supported by content such as in Commons:Category:State seals of New Mexico. Most specifically it is a Roundel but I think a term should be used that can match with similar Misplaced Pages content.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 03:09, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Emblem is the correct term in the context of Misplaced Pages. See: Category:National emblems. Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:02, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Not a Coat of Arms. There is no "state", just a military operation that occupies territory. Legacypac (talk) 21:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

"Coat of arms" may have originally been used in this article despite of Image file title and contents and the description of a Coat of arms due to personal interpretation. I also think that responsibility needs to be taken of contextualised usage of the image. For instance without reference to the history of the image I think it's place on the history template, which contains information going back to 1999, is unwarranted. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

• Opinion. A seal is a round carved emblem used to press into wax or clay as an official to "seal" a document as official and prevent tampering. On the portal a user described it as "Great Seal of Islamic State" however when I tried to Google it the only results were onwiki. Mos def a seal. ~Technophant (talk) 16:02, 9 November 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