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)

Use of "Islamic State" at least in the infobox

I disagree with this revert by Legacypac of my edit changing the infobox header to the actual name. Yes, the title of the article has been discussed many times, but I only see a few mentions of the actual infobox header when I search it, and I disagree that it makes Misplaced Pages look "foolish" and all that other nonsense. The name presented in an infobox does not need to reflect the article's title, and I do not see why some people think otherwise. Just as many country articles use short names for titles and actual names in infoboxes, I don't see why we shouldn't use long names in the title with the short, self-given name in the infobox. Maybe there were some discussions specifically about the infobox title, and I managed to overlook them somehow, and if so, some links would help, but I still don't get the reasoning here. Dustin (talk) 00:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a tricky one. In comparison the parallel article at ar:الدولة_الإسلامية_في_العراق_والشام has an article text that starts with the equivalent wording to "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" and an inforbox text that starts with the equivalent wording of "Islamic State". The English article has this the opposite way around. I have said all that I can say on actual request move possibilities. In current form the article also makes consistent use of the abbreviation ISIL. There are objections to the use of "Islamic" as in the "not in my name campaign". A shortening of the name makes the "Islamic" reference less specific while the actual reference still clearly remains. Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree. The infobox name should be the official name. It's not the same has the title name. For example, the Muslim Brotherhood uses the offical name in the infobox. So does many countries, rather than using the common name, which is rather ambiguous in this case. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 23:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Dustin (talk). I have not seen you in the discussions so guess you may not be aware, but we have debated changes to the article name to death. At least 5 attempts to change the article to "Islamic State" have failed in the last several months, plus debates on related articles trying to use Islamic State. Renaming the group in the infobox just does an end run around the discussed to death title. See the various discussions on why Islamic State is an inappropriate name as well. This is also why the lead clearly qualifies the "self declared Islamic State". Please do not change the name in the infobox. Legacypac (talk) 10:10, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Consistency in regard to the lead is also in question. I suggest using:

• The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL /ˈaɪsəl/) also translated as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS /ˈaɪsɪs/; Template:Lang-ar ad-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fīl-ʻIraq wa ash-Shām), also known by the Arabic acronym Daʿesh (داعش), and self-described as the Islamic State (IS; Template:Lang-ar ad-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah),...

This edit (minus references) presents the article name at the beginning of the text; adds the conjunctive link "also translated as" in place of "or" between the "ISIL" and "ISIS" names and discards the bulky "which previously called itself" text prior to "ISIL". "The self-declared" is swapped with "and self-described as" proceeding "Islamic State". Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Bingo! I think that is the best suggested wording for the first sentence in the Lead we have ever had, Gregkaye. I support it. --P123ct1 (talk) 00:30, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

We have a winner! I love it. I bet it lasts 12 hours. Legacypac (talk) 06:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

In the name of further consistency between to the lead I suggest editing the infobox "native name" entry to :

الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام (Arabic)
ad-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fil-ʻIrāq wa ash-Shām
(self-described as the "Islamic State")

Even if the "ad-Daw.." line is placed in small it won't fit onto one line. Writing "(self-described as the "Islamic State")" in small fits within the span quite comfortably.
Gregkaye ✍♪ 20:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• Proposal - use names that are contextually appropriate:

1. When referring to the group after 29 June 2014 use (the) Islamic State (sparingly shortened to IS).
2. When referring to the group between 8 April 2013 and 29 June 2014 use Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).
3. When referring to the group between 12 October 2006 and 8 April 2013 use Islamic State of Iraq (ISI).
4. When referring to the group with an indefinite time period or through multiple time periods use Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). Example: "Throughout ISIL's history...."
5. When referring to the group before ISI use the name of corresponding article title.

I tried to change the name in the section Islamic State (2014–present) it was reverted here with a rather stern edit summary. This doesn't need to be a battleground. I don't think that readers will be confused by this naming strategy. There's actually times where using ISIL is confusing. We don't use the acronym ISIL in the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#ISI section, so why are we using it in the IS section? ~Technophant (talk) 13:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

If you want to use "Islamic State" or "IS" in the article you might as well initiate a RM, but be careful - it may be seen as disruptive editing. The edit reverted was a whole string of instances of changing ISIL (which matches the title) to Islamic State, which matches a title that has failed five times here. Legacypac (talk) 17:05, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

No I'm not suggesting an RM. I support a moratorium for against further RM's until the end of the year. Legacypac repeated posting of the "Requested moves to date" (which is in the top of the page) appears to be disruptive. The small number of editors that do not wish to use "Islamic State" are overly involved emotionally in my opinion. Those who support it are just trying to follow the guidelines of being encyclopedic and using the correct name in the correct context. The case against RM isn't just the name, there's technical issues involved with it as well (ie. existing article Islamic state. There's many articles that do not use the article title as a consistent name in the article. See Melek Taus and Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn are examples that come to mind.~Technophant (talk) 17:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Many editors have participated in the discussions - not a small number. The name debate was decided based on policy, not emotion, so stop assuming bad faith please. I fail to see why anyone wants to keep pushing for "Islamic State" here. As User:PBS and others said, it is disruptive. And I reposted the RM history in on the two different pages where this editor is pursuing the same exact discussion simultaneously. That is forum shopping. The latest is the group is calling themselves the State. Will we call them the State too? Legacypac (talk) 17:51, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac you are conflating two things, the RM and usage of "Islamic State" in the article. Technophant is talking about the latter. Where did PBS "and others" say it is disruptive to want to use "Islamic State" in the article? You mean disruptive to keep proposing RMs. The ISIS to ISIL discussion and consensus had nothing to do with "Islamic State", btw. I can't see any bad faith or forum shopping going on, just an attempt to rationalise the use of "Islamic State" in appropriate parts in the article, which makes sense to me. --P123ct1 (talk) 21:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• procedural comment also relating to terminologies used'- Technophant, This discussion started in relation to the title placed in the first infobox to which I presented related info on the parallel arabic Misplaced Pages and its use of first word of lead and title in info box. When it seemed to me that this topic had been aired I then followed it up with a suggestion, not introduced with a bold title or some such, that covered the parallel topic of the first words of the lead.

Your discussion, relating to mid article content, could have begun elsewhere or with acknowledgement of the suggestion made above.

I am regularly involved in RM discussions and can report that more editors have contributed to the ISIL related RM discussions than to many others. Many of the contributions here have been based on ethical arguments (both ways) related to the situation. Significant content has been related to value judgements related to the importance and relevance of sources. Who has the most important say? The rebranding of the group as the "Islamic State" is arguably an issue that has considerable direct affect on the Islamic world. It is also of relevance to surrounding populations at risk of losing liberty or life as a result of the groups interpretation of Islam and on various ground forces whose troops may lose their lives while trying to address the situation. The international community also has a say. These are not merely emotional considerations. Gregkaye ✍♪ 21:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye. While this discussion isn't about renaming the article (and per my proposal the current title is most appropriate) there is something in WP:TITLECHANGES that is relevant to picking and using proper names: "In discussing the appropriate title of an article, remember that the choice of title is not dependent on whether a name is "right" in a moral or political sense." I'm well aware that the UK government and others refuse to use or recognize the name "Islamic State" to refer to the group for their own political, ethical, or moral reasons. However, Misplaced Pages is not censored and these considerations should not become part of our reasoning for what name to use in infoboxes or subsections. ~Technophant (talk) 05:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

There have been extensive discussions about which words we use in both the title and the content. What is the point of titling the article Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (not Islamic State) if we then ignore the ISIL decision and use Islamic State in the infobox, lead and 100+ times elsewhere in the article? How is that not disruptive and against the previous decisions on the title and content? I must be missing something here. Legacypac (talk) 22:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Similar discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:American-led_intervention_in_Syria#RfC_-_Name_of_ISIS.2FISIL.2FIS where Technophant made the same proposal as above, which I suggested could be consodered forum shopping. Legacypac (talk) 22:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

To be fair Legacypac the discussion about using ISIL rather than ISIS did not involve "Islamic State". It wasn't even mentioned in the discussion, I think, or only tangentially. The consensus reached was to move from ISIS to ISIL in the article and nothing more. Also, there were no decisions on the title, that was the whole point of the RM moratorium. (Unless you mean the decision about "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" way back.) --P123ct1 (talk) 00:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Anyway, getting back to the main topic, using Islamic State in the infobox. The first infobox (country) is almost exclusively about the Islamic State in its current state so Islamic State is the name that is most appropriate for first infobox. The second infobox (war faction) is about the group historically, so per my proposal ISIL should be used. ~Technophant (talk) 05:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

As you know it is about the group that is widely known by the terms ISIS and Islamic State in the media and which uses a name that causes a widespread offence. This is not to say that the name should not have relevance in the infobox but just that there are legitimate options.

Re: Technophant's additional proposal I don't have any direct personal objections but think it important to consider how names are presented.

Its also worth noting the actual usage:

• a search on ISIS got to "Page 67 of 669 results" in G.news for the last week
• a search on ISIL got to "Page 61 of 606 results" in G.news for the last week
• a search on "Islamic State" got to "Page 52 of 515 results" in G.news for the last week

ISIS has long been the most widely used term and this is still true in most recent news. I was surprised at the high level of results for ISIL. Islamic State is used. It is an optional terminology disliked by many primarily on the basis that they are not the Islamic State.

The proposal is basically that the names "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" and "ISIL" should be used relating to time periods 8 April 2013 to 29 June 2014 and when no period of time is defined and that time specific terminologies be used elsewhere. The main contentious period relates to the latest renaming. In response there have been some news agencies like reuters that seem to have determinedly pushed a rarely qualified use of: Islamic State. On other occasions when sources use: Islamic State, it can be presented terminologies such as: the so called Islamic State, the self-declared Islamic State etc. or in quotation marks.

In summary: the term Islamic State is used in the media and yet it is disliked by the people that the group most effects. Gregkaye ✍♪ 06:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

"Islamic State" has repeatedly been rejected as the title here. If we are not going to use it for the title, why are we even discussing its use in the article? Where is the compelling evidence to modify how Misplaced Pages terms the group? Is it an ideological issue where the editor supports ISIL? Is it an attempt to rebattle the name? If it is just a "I like that name better" than please consider the time this debate is wasting, the fact no country in the world recognizes the Islamic State name, the fact the name is confusing and generic, and that people are dying right now because these terrorists insist on being called the "Islamic State" - a position that some editors here are fighting along side the terrorists for. Legacypac (talk) 07:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The reason why this discussion is separate from Requested Move discussions is because it's like comparing apples to oranges. The reasons for non-consensus in the other RM's varied from technical reasons (ie. conflict with Islamic state and other redirects), to recentism, to scope and other issues. Essentially this is the invalid Misplaced Pages:Other stuff exists argument. The results of requested moves should not be used to decide other matters such as this issue. There's also the reason given that "no country in the world recognizes the Islamic State name" but that's not proven. I'm requesting that Legacypac please come up with another valid reason not to use the name and get off the soapbox and quit using battleground tactics. Repeated duplicate objections are disrupting the talk page.~Technophant (talk) 13:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

@Gregkaye- NPR radio uses the phrase "the so-called Islamic State" in its news reports. That's a possible compromise from using quotations but not should not be overused.~Technophant (talk) 13:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Technophant, I appreciate and respect that you have stuck with this. My view is that whatever takes legitimate human concerns into consideration and that works is fine. While Messrs Cameron, Obama and their friends seem to tread very carefully to make no reference to Islamic State whatsoever, many Muslims will start with some kind of "so-called", "self-declared" or "self-proclaimed" reference which may be continued or repeated but then may present Islamic State either in or out of quotes. They may also use words like group and the like as well and my view is that quotes would be best used.

I think that I have previously been more zealous than needed in removing Islamic State references. The article previously used ISIS throughout and after the change was made to ISIL I took carte blanche. I still think that consistent use in terminologies is an advantage where possible but this should be balanced with other needs. I think that as long as recognition is reasonably given that the term Islamic State is not universally accepted then various presentations (in my view) are fine. I'm still not keen on IS personally speaking that is. Many publications have used both Islamic State and either "ISIL" or "ISIS" and the extra two letters in the acronym aren't that exorbitant. The article makes a strong statement by presenting ISIL related terminologies early on. In the context of the practice of publishers like Reuters, this is relatively extreme. Also well done NPR. Gregkaye ✍♪ 19:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Gregkaye's reasoning here on using the name "Islamic State" in the article. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

For guidence see this discussion closed by Technophant #An_RM_to_ISIS.3F_.28moves_now_prohibited.29 We need to follow the title. What is the point of setting the title and than using the rejected terminology in the article? Legacypac (talk) 19:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree about rejected terminology but it is still possible to talk about Hitler and reference the word Führer with no suggestion of him having relevance as leader. A lot will depend on presentation. Gregkaye ✍♪ 21:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

LOLOL Godwin's law! ~Technophant (talk) 23:30, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Technophant, as a justified personal attack: you are honestly being pretty sick/ out of touch in bringing "laugh out loud" terminology into play. No insult is meant to Baghdadi in comparison to Hitler and, if anything, the insult would work the other way around. The current situation according to amnesty international is ethnic cleansing at a historic scale. Just because Caucasians (of which I'm one) aren't centrally involved does not make it better. People are dying. There is nothing here to laugh about. Gregkaye ✍♪ 06:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

@Gregkaye I didn't mean that to be my only comment - I was working on a longer reply but didn't get around to it. I have a personal history with Godwin to see his stupid law come in to play cracked me up. I'll strike the comment and apologize for being insensitive and violating notaforum. I didn't understand how your comparison to the relationship of the terms "Hitler and reference the word Führer" was relevant but I think I see your point now. @Legacypac, you've made your point. Saying the same thing over and over in different words is disrupting the flow of this discussion. Please knock it off. ~Technophant (talk) 09:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

There's a similar naming dispute at Kobani. Some of the cited policies are WP:OFFICIALNAME, WP:COMMONNAME, and WP:UCN. This isn't an article naming dispute (right?) but there's some lessons to be learned by reading the talk page.~Technophant (talk) 11:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Whether it be included in or out of a more extensive content my view on your comment remain. Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• Proposed new arrangement of infoboxes - I made a series of diffs that made some bold changes to the position of the infoboxes, putting {{infobox war faction}} at the top of the page and added the #Second map position to it and "floated" {{TOC right}}. Then I moved {{infobox country}} to ISIL#Islamic State (2014–present) and changed the header to "The Islamic State" because that's what the section and infobox is about. This is a significant redesign to the look of the page and I hope it's a positive one. Please, please, do not revert these changes until there's been sufficient time to allow multiple editors review the new changes and discuss them here. I hope y'all are having a good weekend. Cheers! :-) ~Technophant (talk) 06:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Much of the following text was moved from #Second map position when once I saw that this was the more relevant thread location. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Its a big but positive change with knock on effects. Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of File:Syria and Iraq 2014-onward War map.png and key from original position
Is this now duplication? Would deletion help? The map is now in a very locatable position.
Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye The use of maps is now being discussed at the animated gif thread so let's not bring it up here. What did you mean by "knock on effects" above?~Technophant (talk) 18:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Position and content of Infobox country

The positioning of the box can be taken to be extremely suggestive of a transition point of ISIL becoming a country

To me the four potential categories of time references that could be considered:

• Achievement of autonomy in a situation that has not, at any particular time, been removed by outside influences. (The Principality of Sealand has done this which, in this case, was achieved with a small territory with, as it happens, zero land acquisition).
• The declaration of autonomy as might be commemorated by an Independence day.
• The declaration of the formation of a state, "country, nation, land, sovereign state, nation state, kingdom, empire, republic, confederation, federation, body politic, commonwealth, power, world power, superpower, polity, domain, territory; fatherland, motherland; realm" (synonyms of state) or other.
• A date of recognition by other states (not achieved)

Contents within the infobox have origins over a range of time frames. The flag, the coat of arms and the motto all have all been in use for unstated lengths of time. A capital that has been under the groups control for an unstated length of time is presented. It gives an establishment date as an Islamic state that does not concur with its date of the group's rebranding as the "Islamic State". The box presents a status of "unrecognised state".

As the first parallel that came to mind I did a search so as to ask ["when did the united states become a country". Results given related to the date of independence and one date of recognition.

I also dispute the unqualified use of Islamic State in the title box. No other state recognises the group by this name so I suggest a move of the box to an earlier time frame and a renaming of the topic.

Earlier on this talk page, and in the context of reference to the use of:
"Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" I suggested the use of:
الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام (Arabic)
ad-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fil-ʻIrāq wa ash-Shām
(self-described as the "Islamic State")

(In "infobox country: Even if the "ad-Daw.." line is placed in small it won't fit onto one line. Writing "(self-described as the "Islamic State")").

I suggest that something similar, either with or without the transliterated text, be used consistently in both infoboxes. Obviously possible text sizes will be dependent on the possibilities made available within each infobox.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Content of Infobox warring faction

I had previously removed the ISIL flag from the bottom of the infobox on the basis of repetition and that a flag as a last item looked odd. Now with the infobox coming into pole position and with the underpinning of the TOC maybe flag and if pos the coat of arms might be added back.

again suggest opening similar to:
"Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant"
الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام (Arabic)
ad-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fil-ʻIrāq wa ash-Shām
(self-described as the "Islamic State").

Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Legacypac (talk) 10:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

And  Done here Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Caliphate as territory or power structure or both?

Following reference from the Independent (UK newspaper) the text at Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Islamic State (2014–present) reads:

On 29 June 2014, ISIL ... began to refer to itself as the "Islamic State", declaring the territory under its control a new caliphate

https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=(ISIS+OR+ISIL+OR+%22Islamic+State%22)+AND+caliphate+AND+(government+OR+territory+OR+land+OR+system)

I would have thought that "Islamic state" serves more as a reference to territory (and everything there in) while caliphate may refers more to the governmental/command structure. A part from the Independent headline I have yet to see an anchor point of caliphate to government/ territory or other term. Any thoughts?

Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

ISIL or "Islamic State" is a self-declared Caliphate (a geopolitical entity), a body with governmental system with control over a territory.GreyShark (dibra) 15:59, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

TY GreyShark, I have edited the text to:

• "On 29 June 2014, ISIL removed "Iraq and the Levant" from its name and began to refer to itself as the "Islamic State", simultaneously giving itself the governmental status of caliphate and naming Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi as caliph."

This chooses different wording from content in the independent but I think it to be more accurate. Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Moved the footnote away from "simultaneously ... status of caliphate" as it does not reflect that statement. WP needs to reflect sources, not introduce "improved" versions of sources. --P123ct1 (talk) 08:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposals for a heading editing and cross referencing practice on this talk page

PBS has commented above concerning the potential problem of the large number of headings on this talk page and of problems in judging consensus if issues are raised simultaneously in more than one occasion. I suggest that the majority of this problem relates to navigation. I suggest that, at the very least, editors should be at liberty to change headings on any threads that they start and that other editors should be able to add notes under headings perhaps in Small text with signature to suggest title changes. Alternatively perhaps bold title changes could be made especially with the addition of explanatory suffixes such as: (present consensus reached) or (enacted) and similar. When a new discussion opens on a similar theme a previous discussion, in some cases a note may be added at the end of one discussion so as to direct editors to the other. Cross referencing notes might also be added under headings. In the most part I guess a lot of this is common sense but I thought it worth a mention. Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• @P123ct1: "Editors open threads for topics when there are already ongoing discussions about them."

Again I think sometimes the headings may be at least part of the problem. There was at least one occasion where a thread was started with an NPOV heading. My response, probably wrong, was to start another thread on much the same topic just below. In a case like this a proposal followed by an edit of a heading would have worked just as well.

(I also think that sub headings may be less of a problem than new threads. The topic will be kept in one place and in some cases the use of sub heads will assist in the clarification of subtopics).

In other cases where new topics are started I would suggest that editors be bold and cut thread content and paste it into a more relevant location. The redundant heading could be left, perhaps being altered with a suitable explanation and a note with any additional explanation could be left with the signature below. Once relevant editors had "picked up the thread", the new and redundant title could be deleted. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

It is a very difficult problem, isn't it, and you are right Gregkaye, it is about navigation. What about encouraging editors to put in brackets beside their new section headings/subheadings which broad category/categories they belong to, in CAPITAL letters? For example, ("ISLAMIC STATE" NAME) or (LEAD WORDING) or (CALIPHATE) or (LEAD INFOBOX), etc. Or encouraging any editor to put in these broad-bracket categories later (maybe several, if several topics are covered), if editors have not put them in? (Complicated cross-referencing and cut-and-pasting will just lead to more confusion, I think.) At least that way, when scanning Talk page discussion to find what has been said before on a particular topic, the topic will jump out and quickly lead to what is being looked for. Or is there is a flaw there? --P123ct1 (talk) 12:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

+1 to P123ct1's comments. Also, just because there's a lot of discussion at the moment doesn't mean that this always will be true. As some of the lingering issues get resolved I suspect that other related pages may become more active while the content in this article will become (and has become) more stable. In other words, we're having growing pains, however that's not a reason to bypass consensus and limit discussion.~Technophant (talk) 14:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

You are very optimistic! I think this article will remain unstable for some time yet. There are quite a few major unresolved issues, and there is a core group of edits that are constantly being challenged, as they have been for months. --P123ct1 (talk) 16:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I think and hope that things will be on a general trend to settling but probably with blips along the way. Back on topic, yep, cross refs prob won't help much. Clarifying titles and shifting contents to prevent the same discussion occurring in multiple locations will. Gregkaye ✍♪ 20:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, P123ct1, I did not reply to your suggestions re heading text. I'm more than open, if that is the right word, to an advocation of a bracketed format. Caps could also be good. As a starter I think it is important to encourage the use of less threads with clear general titles. To this end I have boldly added a note at the top of the page (just beneath the "Requested moves to date" colapsable box) to say:

"NOTE: This talk page has a history of high levels of activity. Please make reasonable checks to see whether additional content can be added to existing threads and please make new section titles as general as may be practically helpful."

I am more than happy for this text to be amended or removed but also thought that we might build on something like this. A similar text could even be converted into a title of its own collapsible box which might contain any further brief guidelines/suggestions. From what I've done which direction should we take? The general feeling is that more order is needed - what level of standardization should be advocated? Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The note is a very good idea, and the more prominent the better. Anything to bring more discipline to the Talk page. Try the note and if that doesn't work, a collapsible box with more guidelines. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I think there should be some leeway to move comments made in a new duplicate section to an older discussion that is more or less the same topic as long as you notify the user on their talk page or edit summary what was done and why. One person could say it's illegal refactoring, however if done properly should be viewed as a beneficial type of moderating. Also P123ct1 has made comments about not liking === subheadings within threads but it's not uncommon or inappropriate from my experience. ~Technophant (talk) 11:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I have put the hatnote above the TOC in boldface, to make it stand out and have a better chance of getting editors' attention. I hope this is acceptable. --P123ct1 (talk) 14:21, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The notice has been ignored. Felino has opened a new section on a much reworked topic. This long thread has been a waste of time. --P123ct1 (talk) 13:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• Technophant Agreed and, as there is a clear hatnote request that editors check for similar threads, I don't think that editors will complain about moved text. My earlier suggestion was: "In other cases where new topics are started I would suggest that editors be bold and cut thread content and paste it into a more relevant location. The redundant heading could be left, perhaps being altered with a suitable explanation and a note with any additional explanation could be left with the signature below. Once relevant editors had "picked up the thread", the new and redundant title could be deleted." With the hatnote there should be less new topics generated and the rest may be just details. (Some bracketed comments on headings have been added). Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Probably the best thing to do is take the new redundant section, change the == level to === level and tack it onto the end of the sister thread. That way no text is lost, and # wlinks aren't broken. It's the "least harm" method of doing this. Prob. no need to notify the OP outside edit summary because they can look in the TOC or Ctrl-F and find their post. ~Technophant (talk) 17:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

If an editor who creates a new section, or uses unusual indentation, has his or her contribution altered and (s)h reverts the change, unless the changes were made by an uninvolved administrator, then no editor is to revert the revert (See Refactoring). The last thing that is needed is an edit war over the content of talk pages. -- PBS (talk) 21:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I think editors moving around Talk comment would be a recipe for disaster. It could easily lead to (a) muddles and confusion and (b) as PBS says disputes between the original editor and whoever does the moving. I also think it would be unreasonable to expect an uninvolved admin to oversee this, but maybe PBS disagrees. --P123ct1 (talk) 04:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

All of the "refactoring" proposals mentioned above fall under Non-contentious cleanup and Restructuring which are allowed as per WP:REFACTOR. There's no need to restrict these changes to "uninvolved admins" as long as they are done with care, per guidelines, and per consensus agreement. ~Technophant (talk) 05:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Technophant I think you are Wiki-lawyering. There is a strong tradition that if an editor objects to an edit of their talk page contributions by another editor then the edit is reverted see for example the guidance at the start of WP:TPOC. It has nothing to do with consensus, but is a simple device to avoid edit wars on talk pages and fairness—because it is too easy for members of a local consensus to "override community consensus on a wider scale". If an editor is behaving in a way that other editors consider disruptive then there are the usual channels available to deal with such editors and those do not involve modifying that editor's edits over the objections of that editor. Editors who edit war changes to other editors contributions to a talk page over the objections of the editor are likely to find themselves on the wrong side of an ANI. I think one only has to consider what you would think if someone, with whom you are debating an issue in the article, insisted on altering one of your own contributions to a talk page, to see that you would probably object strongly, and for that reason the general community consensus is do not edit other people's contributions to a talk page over their objections. -- PBS (talk) 10:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

@PBS: Can you please provide a list of uninvolved admins who are willing to moderate Syria/ISIL pages?~Technophant (talk) 05:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no need to, that is what WP:AN is for, but I doubt that there will be many volunteers as moderating this page has all the appearance and appeal of pushing a rock up a hill. My simple solution of using 7 days to do the job automatically has generated a section of 3,300+ words of about 20k. Why would an uninvolved administrator want to take time every day to adjust the page sections if each change has the potential of generating this sort of discussion?

There is nothing in the talk page guideline or refactoring that says that the proposals discussed here for rearranging the page are forbidden, just that when a dispute over that refactoring occurs then revert the change, or by extension if other editors think that changes to the format (restructuring) are undesirable then stop making such changes. -- PBS (talk) 10:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

PBS Since I started working on this page in June I've put in anywhere from 2 hours to 12+ hours a week curating, researching, and discussing this topic. Before August there were zero (none) user problems, edit wars, or consensus problems. I've very much enjoyed being a part of this project and have had good relations with other editors. Your heavy-handed approach has created resentments among several established editors here including myself. If you dislike moderating this article so much I would suggest you go find some other project to contribute to. Like you said, if we need help we can go to AN. ~Technophant (talk) 19:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I can vouch for that: before August there were no edit wars, user problems or consensus problems. The working atmosphere on this page has transformed completely and I believe it has driven some editors away. --P123ct1 (talk) 18:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The sole (involved) admin that had been active in this page hasn't edited here for a while. P123ct1 and I have been hesitant to go to ANI with user problems. One user that was problematic here had a RFC/U started and that editor has since stopped editing. I prefer to deal with things in a collaborative way. While some editor here could be called "POV pushers" they are also mostly constructive editors, so WP:CBANS are a last resort for dealing with intractable problems. Content disputes that can't be resolved by consensus should go to Dispute Resolution so they don't fester here as endless debates.~Technophant (talk) 23:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. No-one here deserves that. I think failure to reach consensus is mostly our faults, for letting discussion drag on getting nowhere. Perhaps there should be a more concerted effort to reach consensus after long debate, instead of letting stalemate set in. It could be done by "vote", as with the ISIS to ISIL discussion, which seemed to work well (although I think a couple of editors mistakenly thought "Islamic State" was part of that discussion). There was a clear decision and everyone knew where they stood. Only when that doesn't work would outside dispute resolution (opinion from uninvolved editors/admins) be needed, and I can't see that happening except in possibly one or two areas. --P123ct1 (talk) 00:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes getting outside opinions (like through RfC) isn't ideal because the general public isn't as knowledgeable on the topic as those who edit here regularly. Dispute Resolution is different. I believe it's a type of arbitration where all sides put forth their arguments and an mediator sorts them out and offers a resolution.~Technophant (talk) 07:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

(That RFC/U was never concluded, btw - the editor was not forced to stop editing.) --P123ct1 (talk) 14:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I've requested an admin close. There's a consensus for User:Worldedixor to be topic banned from Syrian Civil War/ISIL broadly construed (indef) due to his lack of cooperation.~Technophant (talk) 20:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@PBS - Please ask this vindictive person, who drove me away from editing Misplaced Pages, one question: "Local" consensus by who? The (very) small number of people who actually drove me away from editing this article? I have not edited Misplaced Pages for over a month, and ALL my previous edits to the "article" were supported by reliable sources without violating policy not once. I also fixed problems that no one else knew how to fix. Anyway, let him enjoy his life behind a computer screen. I will not be sucked into this matter once again... Now, they're doing the same to Gregkaye, a good editor. I am no longer interested in editing Misplaced Pages at all!... Worldedixor (talk) 22:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

That is a biased statement, I'm afraid. --P123ct1 (talk) 13:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Worldedixor not casting judgement on any specifics of your case but at this point your editing skills with or without relation to your arabic proficiency would be very welcome here and I have seen P123ct1 express similar views. Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Prose instead of flags?

See later discussion: Logos

Should the Opposition section of the article be presented in prose rather than a bunch of flags? I've already changed the "Other non-state opponents" subsection so it is a paragraph. David O. Johnson (talk) 23:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

It could, however the current column format is more compact. I made a series of edits that reformatted the columns so they take up less space. I think they should stay as is. Further information about the opposition can be added as prose.~Technophant (talk) 04:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks. David O. Johnson (talk) 05:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The question doesn't have to be "flags vs. prose"; it could be "does this section need flags at all". Flags are not necessary for bulleted lists and my position is that per WP:ICONDECORATION (which is referenced by MOS:FLAG), we do not need them here. It's especially distracting in this case since some entries have flags and others do not. I do not see how they are useful here. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 16:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I personally think that the flags add value. I used to work in psychometric testing and one of the differences that was demonstrated between people is that some people absorb information better from visual inputs and others from verbal. A reader can scan the page without reading and absorb that the nations that are involved. At a glance the list is just a bunch of words. With the flags it clearly becomes a list of nations. There is an instant visual clue regarding where the list of nations or groups starts and stops. Also, if a "reader" is looking for a nation and knows the visual appearance of the flag, that reader is given a choice as to whether to look for the name or the flag. Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

That is interesting. For this very good reason I think the flags should stay. There is a lot of information to take in in this section. --P123ct1 (talk) 15:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

History of names, take away (template etc. discussion)

I made this:

Its something that I thought might be of use in: List of wars and battles involving the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant .... and then I got to wonder!!

Can it be used in other articles?

Could it form the basis of a template?

Are there other templates that could be beneficially made?

Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Nice - I suggest adding "also translated as Islamic State in Iraq and al Sham or Syria. Legacypac (talk) 02:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Doh, Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I have lightly edited this template (for consistency), so the wording here will not be quite the same as it is now. --P123ct1 (talk) 09:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The word "jihad", criticism and disruption

See earliest discussion: their actions are "not jihad at all, but rather, warmongering and criminality"

See previous discussion: Logical Order in Lead

• HAT: in this opener Felino123 unjustly presents that there are no supporters of criticism being added to the lead other than me. This is very far from the truth. Editing practices are displayed elsewhere that demonstrate that several editors have been consistently attempting to replace valid criticisms into the lead only to be consistently reverted by this one editor. The following misrepresentative text has been on display uncontested for over a week now. I have bent over backwards to present an olive branch in which I also presented the option of correcting misrepresentations. It is now fair to set the record straight. Gregkaye ✍♪ 23:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
• ANSWER: Gregkaye, I was wrong when I said that most editors didn't support criticism on the lead. I have already told you I am sorry. As everyone can clearly see, I'm willing to reach a consensus and I'm willing to agree with criticism on the lead in order to reach this much needed consensus. Let's end this pointless dispute and stop fanning the flames. I want to get along with you and everyone. Felino123 (talk) 00:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: Many editors, as well as not being willing to just wipe out other people's edits, would have seen content, such as is presented below, was with error and retracted. They may have also done so when the olive branch was offered. It was your rightful responsibility to have added corrective hatnote here. That should not have been difficult to understand? Gregkaye ✍♪ 00:57, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The criticism of IS should be on the criticism section. Is that difficult to understand? Me and most users (with one exception) have made it clear.

So the "Muslims have criticized ISIL’s actions, authority and theological interpretations." has no place on the Lead.

By Muslims? Ok, which Muslims? Islam and Muslims are not a monolithic bloc. Some agree with IS, many don't. IS has also been criticized by Christians, Jews, Buddhists, atheists, etc. Do we state it on the Lead, too?

Criticism of IS by Muslims is clearly stated on the criticism section, along with all other criticisms, and where ALL criticism should be (the section exists for that!)

I have removed it from the Lead. Let's keep this article clean and arranged. The Lead is not for stating any criticism from any source.

And about the usage of the word "jihad", there is a lot of debate between Muslims -and non-Muslims- and Muslim clerics and scholars about the meaning of this word. So that what IS is doing "is not jihad" is a subjective personal opinion and not a fact. Most sources use this word to describe IS' actions, and it's the word IS itself uses, along with its supporters and other Muslims.

There have already been long and strong discussions about the usage of this word on this article, and the conclusion was that the usage of this word on this article is not incorect at all.

So this word should not be removed, as a user is doing again and again, and there shouldn't be small notes along with this word on the Lead reading that some argue IS is not a jihadi group.

Disruption can't go on. This user has been warned several times, and he keeps disrupting the article. I think something should be done.

This is an encyclopedic article, not propaganda or an opinion piece. Misplaced Pages is not a platform for expressing personal opinions. This article should be objective, clean and arranged.

Felino123 (talk) 12:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• Current criticisms in the lead include: "The United Nations and Amnesty International have accused the group of grave human rights abuses and Amnesty International has found it guilty of ethnic cleansing on a "historic scale"." Do you want these critical comments to be cleaned out as well? If anything the Islamic criticisms are of more relevance than anything that organisations like the UN have to say. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear this, I believe, is the edit in question. Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• That's not criticism or opinion, but human rights reports by international organizations. Don't you know the difference? Really? So according to you the opinion of an imam has more value than the FACTS stated by the UN and Amnesty on their human rights reports? After saying this, don't expect us to believe that you're editing in good faith and objectively. This is no more than your bizarre, subjective personal opinion. I won't buy your distortions and manipulations. No one will. Felino123 (talk) 14:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Felino123: Please remember WP:CIVIL and WP:PA. Editors on this page are strong-minded, but we don't resort to that kind of talk here. --P123ct1 (talk) 18:57, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• NOTICE: Gregkaye (talk · contribs · logs) has repeatedly reverted or reinserted edits that violated NPOV and talk page consensus. The is an open discussion on AN/I. If you want to participate in this discussion please go to the discussion at the discussion at this link and please refrain from discussion here. It is against WP:talk page guidelines.~Technophant (talk) 00:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Technophant, You have just present a conclusion regarding a matter and have even done so prior your presentation of the link to the related discussion. You have rightly indicate that your comments along with the canvassing comment by Felino123 are against WP:talk page guidelines.

On what grounds do you say that editors should "refrain from discussion here"?

Gregkaye ✍♪ 05:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

It is imperative that criticisms are included in the lead. They are a big part of the topic. Legacypac (talk) 02:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is, but only in summary form, without footnotes, and not giving individual examples of criticism. There is a difference. --P123ct1 (talk) 13:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

In a perfect world, but anything critical that goes in the lead that is not footnoted to death gets challenged and deleted. Legacypac (talk) 08:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• Footnotes should not be put in the Lead just to appease editors. This article is for Wikpedia readers. They can find the footnotes for statements in Lead elsewhere in the article. That is the normal practice in Misplaced Pages. It is also normal practice in Wikpedia to put the country terrorist designations near the beginning of the Lead and to call groups like this "jihadist". But I can't see why it is objectionable to put in the small footlet that keeps being removed which links "jihadist" to the "Criticism" section where that word is questioned. It is an unobtrusive way of calling attention to the fact that there is this debate about whether the word is an accurate descriptor, and the word is still there in the text to comply with RS usage which WP has to reflect. --P123ct1 (talk) 19:20, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

But every word can be objected by someone. "Islam," "Sunni," "caliphate," etc. are challenged by adherents who abhor ISIL. Every religion has disputes about language with different branches taking different views. We can't give selective disclaimers to appease every faction. The word is use in a restricted sense and we have a Wikilink to lead the reader to an article on that restrictive sense. The Wikilink is enough. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:26, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) True, except that in this article the terms "jihadist" and "caliphate" are more disputed than most in connection with this group, aren't they? Perhaps there should be a similar footnote for "caliphate" in the Lead. --P123ct1 (talk) 14:53, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• site:http://www.aljazeera.com/ (ISIL OR ISIS OR Daesh OR "Islamic State") AND "jihadist"

Al-Jazeera make fairly consistent use of "self-declared jihadist" and "self-proclaimed jihadist".

Sunni Media - ISIS Its NOT Jihad | Sheikh Monawwar Ateeq

Minhaj-ul-Quran, Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri, Jihad, The perception and the reality

Islamic Supreme Council of America, Jihad: A Misunderstood Concept from Islam - What Jihad is, and is not

take the time to consider the content!

Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:47, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• The unobtrusive footnote definitely works but alternate wording could read:

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

this makes efficient use of the Al-Jazeera qualification which is already applied to "caliphate".

Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye, a jihadist caliphate? Is there such a phrase and thing? Jason from nyc (talk) 16:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Jihadist is an adjective, caliphate a noun. ISIL describe themselves in terms of jihad and they have declared themselves caliphate. English grammar works with adjectives preceding nouns. The phrase is fine. Caliphate, to my understanding, is meant to be widely supported by Islam if it is to have legitimacy and jihad is, at most, related to defence. The phrase works. That may be as far as it goes. The phrase might alternatively read:

...is a Sunni, extremist, unrecognized state, self-declared as jihadist and caliphate, in Iraq and Syria in the Middle East. Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• Gregkaye, we have already had a discussion about this. So stop pushing your subjective, personal POV. They are jihadists, according to most sources, and the word jihad will not be removed. The same about caliphate. Felino123 (talk) 16:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

We know your views. Give other editors a chance to weigh in on the proposed "footlet" solution. Gregkaye is trying to offer alternatives to removing "jihadist" and qualifying "caliphate". --P123ct1 (talk) 20:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

An editor has made an important edit and the edit summary and diff for it are invisible. I have reverted it. In the "Criticism" section, some of the words in the quotation from the Islamic scholars' letter of criticism – namely "not jihad at all" – were cut out. On what grounds? I simply can't understand why "not jihad at all" was excised. (I can think of only one reason, a determination that Gregkaye's point on "jihadist" should not be made anywhere in the article, which seems unreasonable; this is an appropriate place for it to be made.) Could the responsible editor explain, please? --P123ct1 (talk) 10:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• P123ct1 It was removed by Felino123 in his continued undisclosed POV push Gregkaye ✍♪ 21:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Felino123: You owe it to editors to explain your bizarre edit. Why were those words removed? I set up the "Criticism" section specifically for, guess what, criticisms. --P123ct1 (talk) 21:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• It was removed days ago by mistake. I was editing the criticism section trying to improve it, then I thought it was fine as it is and forgot to put that part again. Of course "not jihad at all" should be on the criticism section, and it should not be removed. I am really sorry for my mistake. It was not my intention to hide anything as was wrongly claimed above. I am not an expert on Misplaced Pages, I am new here. And Gregkaye, please don't defame me, I am not the one pushing my POV aggressively. Felino123 (talk) 21:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • @defame, I have directly presented verifiable facts and asked legitimate questions. I am not the one wiping out other editors contributions. You seem remarkably adept at multi change edits as is demonstrated by your editing pattern shown at Reducing Islamic criticism and highlighting the involvement of Israel. The very fact that you even considered removing this key part of the text raises serious questions. Gregkaye ✍♪ 00:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC) edited
• Guys, don't you think this should be moved to criticism section?: "Sunni critics, including Salafi and jihadist muftis such as Adnan al-Aroor and Abu Basir al-Tartusi, say that ISIL and related terrorist groups are not Sunnis, but modern-day Khawarij—Muslims who have stepped outside the mainstream of Islam—serving an imperial anti-Islamic agenda. Other critics of ISIL's brand of Sunni Islam include Salafists who previously publicly supported jihadist groups such as al-Qaeda, for example the Saudi government official Saleh Al-Fawzan, known for his extremist views, who claims that ISIL is a creation of "Zionists, Crusaders and Safavids", and the Jordanian-Palestinian writer Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi, the former spiritual mentor to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was released from prison in Jordan in June 2014 and accused ISIL for driving a wedge between Muslims." This is on the section "Ideology and beliefs", but this is no more than criticism. So I think it should be moved to the criticism section. What do you think? Felino123 (talk) 22:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
• I think it really belongs in the "ideology and beliefs" section where it is. There is a special link for "Khawarij" in "Criticisms", which when you click on it leads directly to that passage you quote from "Ideology and beliefs" and I think that is probably enough. Btw, as you are new here Felino123 and many of your edits touch subjects that have been much debated and disputed before you came, often at great length and for weeks, I think it is best to suggest your edits on the Talk page first, rather than editing straight away, and I think that should apply to everyone from now on. Nothing was resolved before the AN/I on words like "jihadist", etc and I think it is better to actively drive to determine consensus now, so that some proper progress can be made in developing this article. At the moment it is stuck in a mire of disagreement and this can't go on. --P123ct1 (talk) 23:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
• There is now another link in the first para of the "Criticism" section, which leads directly to criticisms in the "Ideology and beliefs" section. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 09:35, 31 October 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 ✍♪

Should we add this line to the lead

See previous discussion: 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)

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)

Issuing of Passports

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

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

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

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

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

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

Israel should be added to the opponents' list

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

Sources:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Coordinating the width of Infobox country

Code within infobox country reads:

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

and something has made the width of the box increase.

it now contains the text:

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

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

Any ideas?

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

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

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

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

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

• 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)

Minor edit request

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

They're also technically coalition forces...

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

Propose scrapping timeline from main article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

Index of topics

See earliest discussion: Archive 14#Talk page too long

See previous discussion: Talk page too long (318,000)

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

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

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

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

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

RfC: Three months moratorium on page moves

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)

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)

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)

Badoush Prison

In case a page on the massacre of Badoush prison inmates will be written in the future, I would like to make aware of this Human Rights Watch report on the massacre: http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/10/30/iraq-isis-executed-hundreds-prison-inmates. --93.65.4.84 (talk) 23:20, 30 October 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)

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 discussion: 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)

_______________________________________

• 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)
• 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 are 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)

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)

History of the 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)

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)

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 from 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)

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. Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.

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)

• 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