Talk:Islamic State

NOTE 1: 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.

NOTE 2: Please complete citations attached to article content with fields such as Author, Title, URL, Date, Publisher/Work, Agency and Access Date. (See footnotes guide above)

Recent: Portal:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

Is this something that should be developed or deleted?

@Atifabbasi8: Gregkaye ✍♪

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

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

I suspect that the use of the dark map which borders closely on the use of Wahhabi colours may be an example of an extreme and long running POV push in mid east topics. There have always been maps presented in grey and a very Arabic green as illustrated in the globe map presented.

Propose that a cropped map using the more neutral colours of grey and green or just grey be used as per Wikipedias standard colour scheme. I have prepared and uploaded a possible map as the third image now shown and I'm in the process of checking that the licence and loading procedures have been correctly followed. Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Should we add this line to the lead

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

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

• 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 Wikipedia 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 [1], 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)"

• Wikipedia has rules like this, MOS and several others that are followed. There are ways that Wikipedia does things. Can we also remember Wikipedia's principles in WP:CONSENSUS. Its the method used to achieve Wikipedia'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) [Revised comment] ~ P123ct1 (talk) 18:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
• I think it's great now. "Within both Islamic and other communities" doesn't sound well. The current phrase reflects the consensus reached by all editors, and there's no need to change it. Criticism from Muslims is important, and it's already noted on the lead and the criticism section. I have removed the "Khawarij" phrase as there has been no consensus, but opposition to it, and it's clearly pointed out on the criticism section, not to mention it's a non-English word that means nothing to the average reader. Felino123 (talk) 10:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Felino123 you have made it clear through both word and action that you want a general removal of criticism. I don't see how you can regard this as great. The suggestion has been added above: "Maybe other editors will comment". Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • No, Gregkaye, Felino did say in the thread above that he was prepared to make a concession and have some words of criticism in the Lead. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 16:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
• My suggested wording is: "ISIL’s actions, authority and theological interpretations have been widely criticized around the world within both Muslim and other communities." I don't know any person who isn't a Muslim who defines themself as a non-Muslim. Beyond criticisms made by government officials (which are made with a context of national populations which may have Muslim components) the most notable criticisms have come from Muslims. Further more, when consideration is given to the size of Muslim populations in in comparison to the size of other populations combined, it is clear that the Muslim populations have been remarkably outspoken. Islamic criticisms have included video condemnations and theological theses. Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
• I have changed the wording to "... around the world and notably within the Muslim community". I have done this on the WP:BRD principle (bold-revert-discuss), partly to get editors to reach a definite conclusion on this. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 14:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

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

P123ct1 I think that some specific content, such as a reference to major contentions such as the use of the name might also be added. I think that this would also provide an explanation as to why the article uses the ISIL title. Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely agree - these criticisms of the name and actions are way underrepresented in the lead. We should be explaining the choice of title a little in the same summary. Legacypac (talk) 09:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• Second attempt by Mohammed al-Bukhari to add "Khawarij" to the text, this time under a different name "outsiders", but the link is to "Khawarij". (Now reverted.) This is editing against consensus and edit-warring. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 10:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
• Third edit by this editor against the consensus to not include the sentence about Khawarij, this time breaking the 1RR restriction. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 15:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

digression

"Self appointed jihadist"? Ahem... It's jihadist, according to many reliable sources, including Wikipedia. So I think the "self-appointed" should not be there. What's next? "Self-appointed Sunnis" or "Self-apointed Islamic"? I mean, this makes no sense. And the info "Some scholars consider ISIL to be outsiders" is just extra info that is repeated on both the ideology and criticism sections. Felino123 (talk) 22:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Propose scrapping timeline from main article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's pointless repetition that also divides history content to separate ends of the article. I see no advantage in this.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose scrapping the timeline. I have changed my mind as I am persuaded by the arguments put forward by Technophant for retaining at least some of the timeline in this article. I support keeping 14 days of the timeline in it. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 10:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose to scraping the timeline. With everything that's going on out there, and the significance of the events, it's best to keep a record of recent events going back to 2 months, so that readers who want to be up-to-date with the news (especially those who are new to the subject) will have a firm grasp of the recent developments without having to go to another article just to read about it. LightandDark2000 (talk) 23:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

• LightandDark2000: How hard is it to click on the link provided? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 23:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support. This is an article, not a news ticker. I'd like to see a true summary style of timeline events (i.e. generally describing what resources are in the timeline article) and certainly a very prominent link, but the current set-up with "past two months" of news links tagged on the end of this huge article is not defensible. Usually people who cry "recentism" are wrong, but the current two-month ticker is a bona fide case of showcasing recent events regardless of importance. Wnt (talk) 15:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Possible alternate option

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

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

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

Ping: P123ct1, Gazkthul, Technophant, GreyShark, Corriebertus

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

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

Ping: P123ct1, Gazkthul, GreyShark, Corriebertus

I think that, at 15 days, the content can be quite long and propose a reduction to 7 or fewer days. There is also a related disadvantage in current setup. The timeline article is set up with month title sub headings and, when these subheadings as at the beginning of a month coincide with the last 15 days, these headings also appear in the ISIL document. I tried to change the format used in the timeline document but once agreement was reached on a way forward on this talk page, these changes were reverted. Now I think that a minimal sample of timeline content in the article can continue to provide a useful taster to the timeline document but think that 15 days, with its addition of a month title in the TOC for half of the time, is cumbersome. I am also aware that full consensus may not have been reached with regard to the keeping or the scrapping of this content. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye: I support seven days. This article has now reached about 185K without the two-week timeline, and I wonder if this is why handling the article, editing and moving around it and its Edit history page is becoming noticeably slower and more cumbersome. It would be useful to know if Wikipedia readers are finding the same problem just reading the article. Reducing the length of the timeline would help with that problem, as would reducing the size of this article, which is getting too long, IMO. Why is are the Support/Opposition sections being kept, when there is already an article with this information, 2014 military intervention against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant? I think someone said that some of the support/oppose information in this article is not in that article; if so, why can it not be added to it? The flags/icons in these sections must be slowing down moving around in this article, but more to the point, these sections seem repetitious and for this reason perhaps they should be scrapped. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 13:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps if agreed an editor with the know how can go ahead and make the changes otherwise I can check with viliage pump. Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

RfC: Three months moratorium on page moves

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 Wikipedia really isn't the entity with the dictatorship issues, at least not on this page. 18:57, 2 November 2014 edited Gregkaye ✍♪ 21:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

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

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

Edit to check the premature archiving of this RfC. -- PBS (talk) 00:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Support Consensus was reached during the last discussion. Let's not undo it without probable cause. ---Mr. Guye (talk) 00:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

To ^b or not to be - adding qualification to Wikipedia's endorsement of ISIL as jihadist

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

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

Supporting evidence:

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

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

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

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

There are a great many instances in which words enter the English language from other language sources and the length of the word list being counted really depends on how far back you want to look. For instance we can take a look at Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia'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 [b] could be added after Wikipedia'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^[b], 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 Wikipedia 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)

[Above comments inserted out of time sequence]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_______________________________________

• I hope others agree that it is time to determine consensus on this. Do editors wish to retain "jihadist" in the Lead as it stands now, or qualify it in one of the ways suggested by Gregkaye at the start of this discussion or another way? There has been more than enough discussion on the retention of "jihadist", but perhaps not enough about ways of qualifying it. Gazkthul and Felino clearly want to retain it with no qualification. I am not sure about Jason from nyc. I would be prepared to accept a link to where the criticism of "jihadist" is covered in "Criticism", and Gregkaye would like the word qualified in one of the ways he suggests. Please would other editors clearly state here their view on ways they would be prepared to see the word qualified, or if not, state that they want it unqualified, so that consensus can be determined? Legacypac?Technophant? Any others? Please keep to ways of qualifying the word, rather than more arguments for not qualifying it. If anyone objects to my somewhat overbearing attempt to drive things forward, please say so, as I may be going too far. P123ct1 (talk) 14:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
• Proposal to make use of an unobtrusive footnote as presented by: ... jihadist^[b] 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 Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. I've seen this issue drone on and on and I don't see that there's going to be a compromise solution that is going to be satisfactory to all parties. I've looked through some of the archives of issues that were successfully resolved through Mediation and I do see that highly loaded, often politically related issues are the most frequently used. To be successful all parties need to agree to mediation and thereby agree to comply with the resulting decision. Another alternative is RFC, however this issue has too many specialized components that requires in-depth knowledge of the Arab world, language, culture, and history. ~Technophant (talk) 18:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
• I can't figure out what is or is not jihadist - it is a religious claim. I am happy with stating they claim to be waging jihad., they claim to be muslim, claim to have established a caliph. They claim all kinds of crazy stuff that everyone else disputes and we need to reflect that. About the only thing that is not disputed is that they are brutal killers. Legacypac (talk) 21:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As per usual no answer was given. However I stumbled on this thread. The entire derailing fringe content above was negated and yet, true to form, it was not struck. Gregkaye ✍♪ 20:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

• The discussion on whether to qualify the word "jihadist" in the Lead has been going on for a week, since 3 November. In that time no editors except myself and Gregkaye have expressed any wish to qualify it with a link or footnote. Does this mean that editors wish to retain the word unqualified? Are there any more views on this? The discussion is not closed.

Yes, I wish it to be retained unqualified, and from reading this thread it seems the consensus is for the same. Gazkthul (talk) 21:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Despite the question's presentation: Are there any more views on this? this is basically a repetitions of previously raised objection. Despite the statement The discussion is not closed. this seems to be an attempt to close discussion. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• You should know me better than that, Gregkaye. It is not. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 16:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• The word should unqualified, likned to the page Jihadism and without "self-identified" as it's clear the terminology is accurate and it's usef by all reliable sources. The opinion of people who think this is not jihad is on both criticism and ideology sections. There's no reason to repeat it on the lead for the third time or to add "self-identified". Felino123 (talk) 22:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

[text moved to new section, "First sentence of Lead"]

Thanks to P123 for explaining (9 Nov,14:14) to me some ins and outs of this ‘topic/discussion/dispute’. My answer to the original question of 1 Nov(Greg): no, another qualification is not needed, because the word jihadist is already wikilinked to article Jihadism. (A problem with that article ‘Jihadism’ is however that it is full of unfounded (onlogical) (inconsistent) (uncomprehensible) tittle-tattle.) (And a problem with calling ISIS Jihadist is, that it is unsourced.) And to P123: If you want to discuss also (two) “other questions”, please do that in a new section! Otherwise this page turns into a total chaotic muddle! --Corriebertus (talk) 16:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I took out the "cite needed" and changed it to "self-identified jihadist group" in the lead. Maybe we can all agree on that? It is 100% factual and indisputable. Legacypac (talk) 11:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac That would also work. I have restored your edit which was reverted without discussion. The basic suggestion is very unobtrusive and adds clarity. Gregkaye ✍♪ 01:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• There's no consensus to add "self-identified" before "jihadist". It doesn't fit and gives a very bad impression to the reader, not to mention it doesn't make sense. "Jihadist" is an English word of Arabic origin with its own meaning. It's 100% accurate to describe ISIL as "jihadist". Just consult English dictionaries. ALL reliable sources, including all the media, describe ISIL as "jihadist", including Arab news agencies such as Al Arabiya, which describes ISIL as jihadist on all its articles about it. "Self-identified" should not be there. What's next? "Self-identified Sunni" or "Self-identified Islamic"? Please let's be serious. Felino123 (talk) 05:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Felino123, there is no consensus to add self-identified and it is in fact incorrect to do so, as IS does not in fact identify itself with this word. The word is used to describe them by media outlets, politicians, academics etc. Gazkthul (talk) 11:04, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you also for your valuable information on parallel words as demonstrated in the thread below. Please do not be so eager to close the discussion. Freedom of expression exists in the majority of the world and people can contribute at any time they chose. The basic proposal here is that an unobtrusive footnote^[b] be added to the text. This could either link to a text to say something like, "N.B. the terms jihadism and jihad have developed in the English language with distinct meanings" or, as P123ct1 has pointed out, the link could simply connect to the point in the text where "jihad" related content is discussed. The are very simple proposals that both add content and that heed the significant response a large section of the Muslim community that this group does not represent Islam or jihad. They are still open for simple support which I think can be very reasonably given. Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not trying to prevent anyone from contributing. In the interests of compromise I would not object to a footnote with something along the lines of Jihadism has become an ideological descriptor in the English speaking world and no religious sanction is implied in it's use throughout this article. Gazkthul (talk) 21:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NPOV doesn't mean being stupid in editorial policy. For example, the general tone of any article on Nazi atrocities can hardly be "neutral" in the terms you like to see because that would neither faithfully represent the issue, nor reflect what RS's say about it. This group is committing atrocities - crimes against humanity. "NPOV" should not be carried to ridiculous extremes.HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

HammerFilmFan: Have you actually read the "Criticism" and "Human rights abuses" sections? It is full of accounts of atrocities and crimes against humanity. It is perfectly possible to describe these things in WP's voice while still keeping to NPOV, as there. Please look there and see how it is done. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 22:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I was responding to a post, not the section. I have been on Wiki since 2006 - I'm very familiar with "how it is done" - but thanks for your concern.HammerFilmFan (talk) 20:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The thing that is consistently reported by RS is of regular slaughters or of attempted slaughters by ISIL. The general POV presented by RS in these regards it that of Abhorrence. I think that these two issues should be proportionately presented in the lead. Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Following on from the unanimous agreement that additional content should be added I'd like to propose something like the following. The second paragraph contains the text which reads ", but around 2008, its violent methods led to a backlash from Sunni Iraqis ..." I propose that this can read, ". By around 2008, the groups violent methods, including ADDED TEXT, led to a backlash from Sunni Iraqis." I would suggest reference being made to suicide attacks on civilian targets, the widespread killing of prisoners and perhaps other factors as well. Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that the wording now added by Gregkaye is acceptable. Those words were in the Lead for a very long time and were only removed recently by an editor commendably trying to condense the history part of the Lead. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 16:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Terrorist as a primary descriptor

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

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

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

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

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

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

Only when applied by drive-by article vandals and extreme nationalist types - the term can easily and more importantly, correctly, applied by consensus of a vast number of responsible editors on Wiki.HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

The following is the policy of Reuters journalists,[2] but is worth taking into consideration in relation to WP:NPOV: Reuters does not label or characterise the subjects of news stories. We aim to report objectively their actions, identity and background. We aim for a dispassionate use of language so that individuals, organisations and governments can make their own judgment on the basis of facts. Seek to use more specific terms like “bomber”, or “bombing”, hijacker or hijacking, “attacker” or “attacks”, “gunman” or “gunmen” etc. It is particularly important not to make unattributed use of the words terrorism and terrorist in national and territorial conflicts and to avoid using those terms in indirect speech in such a context. Gazkthul (talk) 05:16, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Nah, they are terrorists and should be described as such.HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

HammerFilmFan, spot on. Wikipedia has an internal policy that is in some ways related at WP:QUACK. In relation to sock puppets it says: "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck". If this principle can be applied on the minimal basis of text based edits then how much more can it be applied when faced with the over whelming evidence of slaughter and intimidation as is practised by ISIL. Many RS declare them terrorist and, unlike the case of jihadisms, there are no indication that the description does not apply. Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

This does not address the point that, as stated above, the word terrorist is avoided in Wikipedia articles for other designated terrorist groups like the Tamil Tigers, IRA, ETA etc etc. Also, the term is both pejorative and meaningless, see How the U.S. and five ‘terrorist groups’ are on the same side in war against the Islamic State[3] Gazkthul (talk) 22:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

This does not address the point that RS use the term and that the definition of the term clearly applies to this group. It confounds me that political correctness issues get liberally applied to issues such as this and yet other valid issues are criticised for political correctness elsewhere on the page. Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Despite the above Wikipedia has a clearly presented guide WP:LABEL advising that that "Value-laden labels" that "may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." On this basis it is advised that words such as terrorist not be used.

The issue was raised in a discussion following corrections where an editor had cited a news article that had presented "massacred" yet had used "executed" in the text and it was commented that: "massacred" is a pov word it implies illegality, just as "executed" is a pov word it implies legality.

Gazkthul My main argument remains that similar arguments apply to jihadist. It is a "value-laden label" and, although I think that it may arguably used, I think that certainly in this case its use should be qualified. Guidelines and their governing principles should be evenly applied. I don't think you can have it both ways. Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:18, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Name change

See the #Moratorium on Requested Moves

See above the RfC: Three months moratorium on page moves

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

StanMan87, I couldn't agree more. And the fact that its official name is not used at least in the infobox is political correctness going too far. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 10:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Supersaiyen312: The problem with the infoboxes is that they have to follow the title of the article, but basically I agree with you. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 14:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Not exactly. The title is for the "common name" and the infobox is for the "official name". Many countries articles also reflect this. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 03:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Supersaiyen312: I stand corrected. Can you give examples? Is there some WP guidance on this? ~ P123ct1 (talk)

Of course, there's South Korea, Argentina, Russia, Greece, Syria, France, Italy, Portugal, Burma, and Taiwan, and then there is also FIFA, Boko Haram, the Muslim Brotherhood, or Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. I am not aware of any specific guideline for this, but other articles seem to follow it. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 23:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Jihad By Sex, and prostitution

I came to look for more information on Jihad By Sex, but found nothing.

http://www.aina.org/news/20140621162728.htm

Perhaps such a topic is too unsubstantiated for notability here?

I also saw no mention of condoned "not prostitution" prostitution.

http://shoebat.com/2014/06/23/muslim-terrorists-iraq-issued-decree-ordering-families-send-unmarried-women-participate-jihad-sex/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.4.173.18 (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

User:174.4.173.18 The topic is well-substantiated by multiple reliable sources, however the source you provided looks does not appear to be one (see http://www.aina.org/aboutaina.html). Try searching Google News for better sources.~Technophant (talk) 17:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

There is an article dedicated to it on Sexual jihad. For what it's worth, I consider this claim to be propaganda, as the whole story seems to be based on a Fatwa that no one can reproduce, and the alleged author of which denies ever having made it. Gazkthul (talk) 03:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@Gazkthul and Technophant: According to sources(1, 2, 3 and etc), girls from even European countries move to Syria with the aim of Jihad and helping to remove the tiredness of their brothers! Whether there's a Fatwa or not, the reality shows that such a thing is happening. Mhhossein (talk) 04:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

There is a difference between young women going to Syria/Iraq to marry male members of the group, which is definitely happening and is supported by RS, and the far more lurid tales involving girls essentially prostituting themselves, going with dozens of men etc. Gazkthul (talk) 04:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Digression: I would be interested to see information related to the preservation or abuse of women's rights in 'SIL controlled areas. A recently released video showed a man's daughter being stoned for adultery. There was no accompanying video of the stoning of the male involved. Gregkaye ✍♪ 18:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Reports ISIL controls small amount of Libyan territory

Libya is anarchic at this point, so I'm not sure how notable it is -- but ISIL apparently has taken control of the Libyan town of Derna and installed an "emir" to rule the city. [4] -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

It's the other way around really, a group of Libyan Jihadists in the town of Derna recently pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and his 'caliphate', I am not aware of any meaningful organisational links between them though. Gazkthul (talk) 21:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

OTOH, if it does expand to Libya and other countries, it will make it even more anachronistic to refer to it as ISIL, maybe ISILL instead? Gazkthul (talk) 04:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Neither am I.90.244.85.64 (talk) 23:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed what Gazkthul said. Any expansion to countries as far as Libya would make calling the group as ISIL or ISIS problematic, complicating the issue of what to call them even more. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 04:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Why? this move gets everything on the same page: "Un-Islamic non-State not only in Iraq and only part of the Levant" Legacypac (talk) 21:41, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The infobox says:

"See also: Derna, Libya ISIL sympathiser controlled in the Libyan Civil War[12]"

What does "ISIL sympathiser controlled" mean? That will baffle the uniformed Wikipedia reader. Clearer wording needed here. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 21:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Audio tape from ISIL (Bagdadi?) says "expanding into Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Egypt, Libya and Algeria." however, their new buddies hardly control much territory in these countries. Legacypac (talk) 10:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that this topic warrants a mention in the main text as an ISIL related development but I don't think it warrant's inclusion in the infobox. Anyone can swear allegiance to anyone and yet, unless they are tested by actually having to follow orders in a chain of command, there is no telling how genuine the allegiance really is. Gregkaye ✍♪ 18:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I have added the recent expansion to other countries to the Territorial Claims section. Gazkthul (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Lead references

See also: Caliphate as territory or power structure or both?, "self-declared" caliphate, there is no caliphate ever that wasn't "self-declared" and without muslim opposition exept in muhammad life, Suggest amalgamating second and last para of lead, Self-declared references removed re caliphate, New name.

The Lead, including the infoboxes, has five referencence to "self-":

"self-proclaimed as the Islamic State"

"self-proclaimed caliphate"

"self-proclaimed status as a caliphate"

"self-declared caliphate"

"self-declared caliph"

Is this acceptable? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 12:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

A lot of sources use "so called ..." which is a lot more blunt so I think our wording is quite subtle.

The clear issue here is that many people: governmentally, in the Arabic world, across the press and in interest groups don't recognise the group as either "Islamic State" or as the/a caliphate.

As options perhaps in the third paragraph we could change " In its self-proclaimed status as a caliphate, it claims religious authority over all Muslims worldwide," to simply "It claims religious authority over all Muslims worldwide,".

Perhaps the last ref in the infobox could go from "self-declared caliph" to "declared caliph" which may also make more sense.

"So called ..." may also work in some instances. Many sources use quotation marks as in "Islamic State". There are references in the text and in Template:History of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant that use Islamic State in an unqualified way and which may be acceptable depending on context used. Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

"As a caliphate it claims religious authority over all Muslims worldwide"? "Self-declared caliphate" describes what it really is in the first sentence. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 15:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 The change that I am suggesting mid-way through the lead is: "It proclaimed a worldwide caliphate on 29 June 2014, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi—known by his supporters as Amir al-Mu'minin, Caliph Ibrahim—was named as its caliph, and the group was renamed the Islamic State.[5] In its self-proclaimed status as a caliphate, it claims religious authority over all Muslims worldwide"

In the first infobox I've just done an edit in "establishment" to: "declaration of an Islamic state 13 October 2006" and "declaration of caliphate 29 June 2014" but other versions may also work. I think that the self can be implied. Personally I think either way works but the briefer version seems good. Gregkaye ✍♪ 18:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye: Sorry, I was not clear enough. That was a suggestion. I think "As a caliphate" has to go in first, as "It claims ..." refers to the Islamic State and it isn't the Islamic State claiming religious authority. I will edit it to "As a caliphate it seeks to claim ..." and see what you think. It has already been described at the beginning of the Lead as a "self-declared caliphate". I can revert if you think it looks wrong. The four dates in the infobox as before is better than three; you have dropped the ISIL date when this article is about ISIL! ~ P123ct1 (talk) 19:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

It refers to the Islamic State to which reference has just been made that it proclaimed a worldwide caliphate ...(with) Caliph Ibrahim ... as its caliph. It refers to a group that is very clearly described as making a claim to caliphate and I think that the context could hardly be clearer. By definition there is only meant to be one caliphate at any one time. To speak of "a caliphate" may actually be misleading and the earlier version should have read "self-proclaimed status as caliphate".

In establishment the three notable dates related to development are mentioned. We can also list renamings such as the groups renaming to the article title. This might be useful information for inclusion. A full index might even be gainfully added but I don't see these as issues of establishment. Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The infobox is headed "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" and "Establishment" refers to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, which was established on 8 April 2013. It isn't complicated. How it began and what it became subsequently are secondary. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 16:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 Since about August this year I became one of most regular contributors to various requests raised at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Throughout the intervening time I've witnessed claims made due to renamings and rebrandings of an extremely wide variety of entities. In very few cases has there been any significant re-establishment of content and I see great similarity to the current case. In this current case ISIL expanded and chose a new name for itself in response to change in situation. Beyond that I do not see that there was any change in ethos, strategy or claim or anything else involved. Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Never seen a group go through so many names, but they were established in 1999 period. The rest is maneuvering and optics. Legacypac (talk) 10:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

The group was established in 1999, the form it took as Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant happened in April 2013. I don't understand why everything to do with this group has to be made so complicated. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 14:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

The argument based on objections to the usage of the title "Islamic State" has always been that a "self-described as" type qualification should be applied to at least the first usage of this title in a text. This principle also applies to Template:History of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. This template is used in a variety of contexts including placement in a number of articles including those relating to the history of the group but the qualification has been removed. Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 I think that the first reference to "self-proclaimed caliphate" can go on the basis that the fourth paragraph makes extensive mention of caliphate. This change would also be one way of briefly introducing the issue of Military occupation which is a central issue of the article which largely addresses issues of attempted conquest and occupation. In this case the first paragraph could read:

"The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL /ˈaɪsəl/), also translated as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS /ˈaɪsɪs/; ad-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fīl-ʻIraq wa ash-Shām), also known by the Arabic acronym Daʿish and self-proclaimed as the Islamic State (IS), is a Sunni, extremist, jihadist group, occupying territory in Iraq and Syria as an unrecognized state.

or alternately as:

"The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL /ˈaɪsəl/), also translated as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS /ˈaɪsɪs/; ad-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fīl-ʻIraq wa ash-Shām), also known by the Arabic acronym Daʿish and self-proclaimed as the Islamic State (IS), is a Sunni, extremist, jihadist group, occupying territory in Iraq and Syria.

I think, with the mention of "occupying territory" and with the mention, in the first infobox, of "Status Unrecognised state", that the mention of "unrecognised state" in the first paragraph becomes superfluous.

The text of the fourth paragraph contains the words "caliphate", "Caliph", "caliph" and "caliphate" so as to read:

"...It proclaimed a worldwide caliphate on 29 June 2014, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi—known by his supporters as Amir al-Mu'minin, Caliph Ibrahim—was named its caliph, and the group was renamed the Islamic State. As caliphate it claims religious authority over all Muslims worldwide, and aims to bring most traditionally Muslim-inhabited regions of the world under its legislative control, beginning with the Levant region, which approximately covers Syria, Jordan, Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Cyprus, and part of southern Turkey."

The first paragraph is substantially shortened in both versions, removes the ungainly repetition of self-proclaimed terminology and adds important content on Military occupation.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC

I don't mind these changes. Events are overtaking our lead though. How about adding "Libya and Sinai" to the end of the first paragraph for areas controlled and this:

"...As a self proclaimed worldwide caliphate, it claims religious authority over all Muslims worldwide, and aims to bring most traditionally Muslim-inhabited regions of the world under its legislative control. It has declared Provinces in much of northern Iraq, north and eastern Syria, the Sinai Peninsula in Egypt, eastern Libya, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen and its territorial claims include the Levant region (which approximately covers Syria, Jordan, Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Cyprus, and part of southern Turkey). The group promises to march on Rome and Madrid."

I think the leader name, titles, and exact date is well covered elsewhere. We need to summarize the scope of their religious and territorial claims succinctly here. Legacypac (talk) 18:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye: Why not drop the reference to "caliphate" in the first sentence and leave the sentence as it is? On the wording you suggest, can an unrecognized state be said to "occupy" the territory it controls? I think "occupy" has a strict meaning. This question has come up before and I don't think it was settled. Can you remember that discussion, Legacypac? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 18:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I never saw a discussion about occupy, but we pipe "unrecognized state" to the separatist movements page and list ISIL under List_of_active_rebel_groups#Groups_which_control_territory. military occupation says "Military occupation is effective provisional control of a certain ruling power over a territory which is not under the formal sovereignty of that entity, without the volition of the actual sovereign.[1][2][3][4] The intended temporary nature of occupation, when no claim for permanent sovereignty is made by the occupying entity, distinguishes occupation from annexation" - which does not fit ISIL's situation. I think "control" or even "military control" is a better technical term than occupy. For example: American occupation of Iraq, German occupied France, Allied occupation of Germany - all cases where the occupying sovereign power had military control but did not claim sovereignty. In contrast ISIL both controls and claims sovereignty (over areas controlled and not controlled), but is not a sovereign power. Legacypac (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac,P123ct1, I think that you make a good point on "occupation" particularly in relation to the use of a link to the article on Military occupation which certainly focusses on recognised states in its content so, perhaps, this link should not be used. I still think that the description of occupation might can still be relevant. I used to be part of the protest group Camp for Climate Action lol and we "occupied" loads of stuff. It never happened at a significant scale but it was fun. If the wording were to be used perhaps something should be said relating to significant occupation. When other groups pledge allegiance to Bagdadi they do exactly that. I wouldn't classify this as occupation until there are clear indications that the relationships with ISIL are not just associations of convenience. Gregkaye ✍♪ 18:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

"...that has taken direct control of territories in..."? Gregkaye ✍♪ 19:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I've changed the link away from military occupation (its not that) to "controling" linked to the list of rebel groups (better technical term and link), added "rebel" before group (suggesting not a State) and eliminated the problematic "unrecognized state" term that has caused so much confusion. I note that all of the rebel groups on the linked list control territory and many claim to be a state of some sort. See territorial claims for why I believe we should list Sinai and eastern Libya.

"The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL /ˈaɪsəl/), also translated as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS /ˈaɪsɪs/; ad-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fīl-ʻIraq wa ash-Shām), also known by the Arabic acronym Daʿish and self-proclaimed as the Islamic State (IS), is a Sunni, extremist, jihadist rebel group controlling territory in Iraq, Syria, the Sinai, and eastern Libya."

Legacypac (talk) 19:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure of the notability of the Sinai, and eastern Libya. Genuine nations with dependent territories do not mention them in the first paragraphs of their articles and some of these territories are extremely significant. How about "... directly controlling territory ..." or "that has taken control of territory" Gregkaye ✍♪ 19:14, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't see these areas as dependant, and neither does ISIL, but as declared provinces where they hold territory. In Libya especially they sent operatives to establish control of the city, while in Egypt an existing group merged in (and very significantly has a history of attacking Israel). The articles on the groups and conflicts have already been updated by others to reflect ISIL active in those areas.

Why the extra words of "... directly controlling territory ..." or "that has taken control of territory" ?Legacypac (talk)

I inserted the last version I posted here - will see if it excites anyone (including those who are not following talk closely- or if consensus is reached. Legacypac (talk) 22:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

First sentence of Lead

Do editors agree with the current wording: "... is a Sunni, extremist, jihadist unrecognized state ...". How can a state be jihadist? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 15:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I think there needs to be a separation so it reads something like "a Sunni, extremist, jihadist group and an unrecognized state" Gazkthul (talk) 21:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Gazkthul's wording. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 11:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's better. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:33, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

It is not a state. On a related article I just took out wording that gave ISIL a National Flag and a War flag. We need to be careful not to create a state where there is none.

Obvs. How can an unrecognized state be jihadist? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 21:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (aka Taliban-ruled Afghanistan) perhaps fits that description. Gazkthul (talk) 00:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

To the extent that the word jihadist can be applied, I think that it can be applied in similar ways to other adjectives like communist, democratic and similar. I think that there are definite advantages in Gazkthul's suggestion of "jihadist group" as not everyone in the "territory" proscribes to the groups ideologies and political views. There was a recent discussion where one RS had mistakenly associated caliphate with territory. To the extent to which the word jihadist can be honestly applied then it is best used to directly describe the people that hold "jihadist" views. In ISIL's case, I think, the state is taken as a metaphor for government and, in the same way as you can have a communist government or a communist state I think that jihadist state is acceptable. However jihadist group is more accurate. Gregkaye ✍♪ 06:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

In view of the above comments, I have added "group". ~ P123ct1 (talk) 12:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• Who added the "citacion needed" note to the word jihadist? We had already a discussion about this, the consensus agreed to keep using this word and I think we don't need a citacion for that, as we don't need it for Sunni or extremist. Even Arab news agencies such as Al Arabiya use this word to describe ISIL and describe its militants as "jihadists". I think the note is needless and gives a bad impression. I agree with Gazkthul's phrase, it's perfect. I have never seen the terminology "jihadist state", and ISIL is not even a recognized state, so I agree with Gregkaye that "jihadist group" is more accurate. Felino123 (talk) 14:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
• Felino123: It was Corriebertus, who I don't think was involved in those very long discussions. See. I directed the editor to those discussions at the end of the "To b or not to be" thread, and this appears. IGU. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 15:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Allies/Opponent of IS

The topic of allies and opponents of IS is very contentious. For example, there are copious amounts of articles on the internet which detail the collaboration between Iraqi Ba'ath loyalist groups and the Islamic State in the early stage of the current conflict in Iraq. But now finding more recent material detailing this partnership is harder to come by, and this article released on the 23rd of July by an Iraqi new outlet states that the Ba'ath Party of Iraq has declared war on IS.

What is the consensus on information regarding allies and opponents? Just yesterday, I removed an Iraqi group listed as an opponent, even though the sources did not highlight them as such. StanMan87 (talk) 04:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can tell it depends on location. In some areas IS is fighting alongside other Iraqi insurgents and Baathists and in others (those areas where they are in control) they are persecuting them for not swearing allegiance to Baghdadi Gazkthul (talk) 22:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Gazkthul - pattern is they force groups to fight for them, then turn on the groups once they are in control of an area. In the same vein, CNN sreferring to ISIL tape claiming to be Bagdadi "The voice also says he has good news -- ISIS is expanding into Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Egypt, Libya and Algeria." which implies that the groups we are counting as allies are now part of ISIL. Not convinced we should change the geographic scope of ISIL but we need to be aware of these claims. Legacypac (talk) 10:50, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

ISIL's own Proposed currency - Consensus not to add to Infobox

I have read reports that ISIL is creating its own currency (a gold dinar). The news agencies quote an ISIL's official statement.

Some sources:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2829097/Now-ISIS-wants-introduce-currency-Plans-bring-solid-gold-silver-dinar-coins-announced-Iraqi-mosques.html http://www.vocativ.com/world/isis-2/isis-currency/ http://www.elmundo.es/internacional/2014/11/12/5463b7c322601d85108b4574.html

Should we add this to the article? Felino123 (talk) 14:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Here is another source [5], seems more of an aspiration at this point, but could be mentioned somewhere. Gazkthul (talk) 22:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Any information added in relation to currency should, by definition, represent situations that are current. Currencies mentioned should, by definition, be those actually "in flow". This has not been an area that I've previously been involved but I've noted changes over time. On occasion currency information has appeared in and disappeared from the country infobox and inclusions have previously referred to US, Iraqi and Syrian currencies. I do not know if others have also been mentioned.

Recently P123ct1 removed reference to currency while raising the question, "(→‎top: rmv currency - Is this article a travel brochure for ISIS (or worse)?)"

Legacypac also notified with notification, "(re-add note not to add currency, not capital is de facto per sources)"

I am also dubious about inclusion of a specific currency in a situation where actual progress is limited to the production of prototypes or coins in limted or specialised use. Any information presented should represent actual situations.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

A while back a spoof currency was added and deleted. Recently I deleted the Iraqi and Syrian currencies yet again. The circulation of Iraqi, Syrian Euros, US$ etc in a controlled area or through a group does not make these official currencies and they definitely are not the issuers. Now CNN reporting ISIL announcing a pending Gold/Silver/Copper coin based currency. I love hard money but me thinks they will have a hard time launching an ISIL currency that anyone will accept - or that we should list in the infobox - this is an attempt at nation building though. Legacypac (talk) 10:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I noticed articles but I agree it just isn't a reality. Gold coins can become currency even if IS isn't respected. It has intrinsic value and in times of extreme uncertainty (an understatement for IS) it functions well. This would be a notable contribution to governance if it becomes real. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

This isn't notable as currency. I am an electrician and know something on the general concept. I agree with Legacypac that Gold coins can become currency but also noticed that the groups main symbols are not placed on the coins for the suspected reason that they know that they will be melted down. In comparison, the US, Iraqi and Syrian currencies have established use as well as international pedigree.

Despite this discussion Auric possibly mistakenly added the currency information into the infobox here which was modified by TRAJAN 117 here.

At some point content had also been placed in the article but was developed into I think into a more representative form by Bogdangiusca here. I am also curious that one side of coins consists of a world map and wonder if this raises issues related to territorial claim/suggested influence. Gregkaye ✍♪ 06:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

The NY Times has an article today, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/15/world/middleeast/islamic-state-says-it-plans-to-issue-its-own-currency-.html , it's a plan and it is unlikely to succeed. It has no chance of being used in international trade say the authors. Yet ISIL has surprised us again and again by creating a functioning economy and government. We'll see. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I had no idea this was being discussed here. However after reading the Huffington Post's article [6] on the subject, I see that ISIL plans to start minting it's own currency, making this tentative at best.--Auric talk 14:09, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll consider adding this proposed currency if it gets an ISO 4217 code. Legacypac (talk) 05:05, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

__________________

Notification of related editing at Dinar
This edit change was recently made to the Wikipedia article Dinar. The editor used an IP address login with the IP login being otherwise unused except for this edit but by an editor who had sufficient Wikipedia know how to faultlessly insert a table. The editor concerned choose to use an against consensus designation in the context of an against consensus edit. Whoever you are, seriously, shame on you.

This was an edit that I found while researching the similarly dubious use of Template:Country data Islamic State which I just happened to be doing at this particular time. At the time of this edit it's used as a redirect from over 60 Wikipedia pages.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 18:30, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I see Fastfingers666 has added significant info about a currency that may or may not come into existence. While I personally find this interesting news I don't think we can justify inserting two paragraphs about a hypothetical currency when we have so many real facts and events. I applaud Fastfingers666's enthusiasm but could we hold off until there's something to bank on? Jason from nyc (talk) 20:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm very sorry about that. Based it on info on press release and info released by ISIL. If you do not feel this should be in, feel free to delete. Perhaps add "allegedly", e.g. the alleged new currency. Fastfingers666 (talk) 20:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Fastfingers666 edits to the article's finance section are very good. We just need to keep this proposed currency out of the infobox where it looks all official without proper verbage. Legacypac (talk) 21:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac thank you! I completely agree. Perhaps, when Isil announces minting through twitter and is confirmed be an external source (e.g. how President Obama confirmed the death of Peter Kassig. Fastfingers666 (talk) 21:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Lead: "most traditionally ..."

The Lead says, "As caliphate it claims religious authority over all Muslims worldwide, and aims to bring most traditionally Muslim-inhabited regions of the world under its legislative control ...". Unless there is a footnote in the article to back up "most traditionally Muslim-inhabited regions of the world under its legislative control ...", I think one will be needed here. It is a bold statement, and the citations appended to this sentence don't back it up. I cannot find a citation in this article that would back it up. Have I missed anything?

Wikipedia readers who know the difference between Shia and Sunni Muslims will question "all", in "all Muslims worldwide" if they don't know that ISIL regards Shias as heretics and not Muslims. I think this latter point needs to be explained in the article somewhere and a link provided to it from this Lead statement. One of the citations has "all", but the point I am making isn't elucidated in any of the citations for that sentence..

~ P123ct1 (talk) 16:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I've seen many references that say exactly what the lead says in various words. It is ISIL's stated reason for being. Taking Rom and Madrid even. Legacypac (talk) 10:33, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac: Could you find a citation for "most traditionally Muslim-inhabited regions of the world under its legislative control ..."? It needs backing up, as unlike most of the Lead this isn't referred to again in the article. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 11:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• "It's possible you’ve heard the word “caliphate” in the reporting on ISIS to date. Basically, it’s the idea of an enormous Islamic state that encompasses all Muslims worldwide." http://www.bustle.com/articles/38192-what-does-isis-want-exactly-the-terrorists-stated-goal-has-been-made-clear
• "A caliphate is an Islamic state, headed by a caliph who has governance over all Muslims and promotes Sharia law." "In theory, the decisions of the caliph - also referred to as the Prince of the Faithful - would be binding on all groups across the Muslim world." http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-02/could-an-isis-caliphate-ever-govern-the-muslim-world/5559806
• "In the statement—released in Arabic, English, German, French, and Russian—ISIS claimed that it had fulfilled all the legal requirements for the caliphate and that all existing jihadi groups and indeed all Muslims around the world were religiously obligated to swear loyalty to the new Caliph Ibrahim (using the name provided by ISIS in the course of proving that Baghdadi has the required lineage for the title)." http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/29/isis-risks-everything-to-declare-a-caliphate.html

By definition a caliph governs Muslims worldwide. Basically like saying I'm the Pope and all Catholics worldwide need to follow me and if you disagree you are a heretic we will kill. And the stupidness of ISIL claiming they have established a caliphate when the evidence against that is overwhelming is why these articles should not say caliphate without qualification every time. Legacypac (talk) 11:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Citation now added for "most traditionally Muslim-inhabited regions of the world under its legislative control ...". ~ P123ct1 (talk) 13:05, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is that they seek to eventually bring the whole world under their control (as ridiculous as that may seem), although I'd need to find sources before we update that. Gazkthul (talk) 21:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

That is mostly true - a true caliph commands political authority (but it will likely never control all the land it claims) but its religious authority is defined as covering all the faithful worldwide from the getgo. This is why all the other Islamic states (Iran, Morocco, Pakistan etc) claim to be Islamic states but not caliphs - it would annoy other Islamic states too much if the leader of Pakistan or wherever claimed religious and political authority over other nations. A core part of ISIL belief is that there are no other countries or citizenships anymore (or as soon as they get to the area) and that they are erasing borders. This is the point of the passport burning videos, the reason they highlighted militants of a dozen nationalities with uncovered faces in the recent beheading video and why they took bulldozers to physically remove the Syria-Iraq border.Legacypac (talk) 20:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Diktats

In the heading to s.6.1, "Rulings" has been replaced by "Diktats", to describe ISIL's orders under "Governance". To me "Diktat" is a loaded, pejorative, POV, unencyclopaedic word. (See Diktat). Am I the only one who thinks this word should not be used here? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 17:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• Articles presented in reliable sources speaking of the kinds of contents in that section would hardly speak present a headline: Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#rulings, influences and pressures

They would, for the most part, say something far stronger as reflecting the authoritarian strictures being applied. Consider the content. Educational options are denied, expression is restricted, peoples movements are restricted to homes, people of certain faiths or of alternative brands of Islam are forced to pay if they don't submit to apparent thought control influences and severe punishment is threatened for infringement. People get crucified.

Seriously: What kind of title would be given to this kind of content if it were presented by your average reliable source within the English speaking world? there may be many possibilities of title but something should be written that is representative of the content.

See: #Diktats, influences and pressures 18:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC) edited with "crucified" content, Gregkaye ✍♪ 20:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with everything you say, but that isn't the point. It's the NPOV principle again. ISIL are terrorists, as everyone agrees, but WP can't use that word directly. Same thing here, the language must be moderated if it is in WP's voice. The facts given by WP under those headings, which speak for themselves, are stated neutrally, as befits an encyclopaedia. The heading should be stated neutrally, too. WP isn't a series of opinion pieces, where more trenchant, critical language can be used. What about "Orders", which is far closer to "Diktats" than "Rulings"? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 19:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The governance section has grown in content over time and some time ago I noticed that the section had a change in theme part way through. It starts with information on administrative systems and then goes into information on their extremely prescriptive application of law. The reports on education problems indicate a great deal of resentment and resistance by teachers and parents and, in this context the use of the word diktat is completely accurate and appropriate. The same goes for other situations mentioned. I produced a sub-head title which as far as I remember and I think fairly read: "Diktats, influences and pressures" and, as far as I remember, this title was long standing. I recently saw that the wording had been changed in a way that was less specific and accurate in its description of section content as referenced by the citations. In this context I changed the title back to its original form. I see no problem with the use of the word "dictats" and as this favourite of my personal references shows, I have long thought we should "call a spade a spade". We do no favours in glossing over the truth. However, if we can work out another form of words that gives an equally fair representation of section content that would also be fine. Gregkaye ✍♪ 23:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Calling a spade a spade is not what WP does. If it did it would call ISIL terrorists. WP has to abide by WP:NPOV, but this always falls on deaf ears here, which I think is serious. There is no glossing over the truth. The facts in that section speak for themselves, nothing is suppressed. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 10:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Another issue and one I think that a more pressing issue is that the article frequently describes killings in a legitimising way as executions. Other sources describe murder while the main certainty in each case is that someone has died.

The definition of diktat, in comparison, is clearly more applicable. It is a ruling that goes against the wishes of the people involved and is accurately used and according to reports this is what is happening. A title such as Totalitarian regulation provides a suitable strength of description. Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Diktats is exactly the best word. Agree with Gregkaye's and add that Rulings implies some kind of fair judicial or quasi-judicial process. There is debate over the very existence of the ISIL Sharia Council. Legacypac (talk) 05:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think rulings imply that they are fair, but judicial process does seem accurate due to their rulings being based on their interpretation of Sharia. I am not aware of any debate over the Sharia Council not being real, do you have any sources for this? Gazkthul (talk) 22:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I read that in conjunction with an article that refed this graphic. Gazkthul http://media.vocativ.com/photos/2014/09/Sarah-Cartoon687495687.jpg Legacypac (talk) 02:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

ISIL propaganda

Rather than revert, I will put my question here. In "Propaganda and social media", the text had "ISIL is known for its effective use of propaganda", which seems to me very well supported by the two citations. (I added one from lower down the section.) It has been changed to "ISIL is known for its use of propaganda", an edit I don't understand. Can you explain, Gregkaye? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 22:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 Sure, here is the diff. I gave the commentary "effective not referenced". The citation used uses the word propaganda once and gives an account that a message was got a lot of hits. That certainly demonstrates a large reach but the article itself says nothing about the resultant effect. There are a wide variety of adjectives or adjectival phrases that can be applied to ISIL's propaganda. "Effective" is one option. ISIL is known for a large propaganda output with a variety of contents which have variously involved terror type threats and accounts of beheadings and this output has had a variety of effects. Much of it I think has been misjudged and, for ISIL, has had a very negative effect. Gregkaye ✍♪ 23:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd argue that the effectiveness of the propaganda is unprecedented and that the sources back that up. They have three targets - radicalized male and female muslims who are flocking to them to fight or support the fighters in unprecedented numbers, second groups in Iraq, Syria and other countries swearing allegiance, and third, civilized nations who are terrorised and going to war (exactly what they want). They are very very effective at communicating their intended message and getting the actions they want. Legacypac (talk) 10:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course they are and of course the sources back it up. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 11:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

They have extensive used propaganda techniques and have invested heavily in this output. They have gained positive results for themselves in some ways and negative results in others. Here is an interesting reference to great propagandists in history and I think many of them would be appalled at ISIL's blunders. They wouldn't have advertised their slaughters and, for instance, they would not have killed people who had clearly come with intent to help people. I think it may be sufficient to quantify their propaganda.

An editor's/editors' opinions on this, or anything, should not direct what goes into this article or how it is worded. WP has to follow and reflect sources, not use them to back up editors' opinions and judgments on this or that. All relevant sources in this section say they are good propagandists. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 16:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

True but sources also show that they are good at getting banned. They are also doing things that are clearly not working for them. All the same I concede to the argument on the quoted sources.

As a text how about, "ISIL is known for its extensive and effective use of propaganda which has resulted in both an increase in support and opposition". Reading, hearing or watching ISIL outputs has turned some people towards them and others away. Its not a one way issue. Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

If you can find reliable sources which support "an increase in ... opposition". ~ P123ct1 (talk) 19:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

32 countries going to war or supporting going to war against ISIL enough of an increase in opposition for you? Legacypac (talk) 05:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Propoganda which has caused an increase in opposition. ~ P123ct1 (talk)

Map

As far as I can tell, the map of areas controlled by ISIL is completely original research. It looks nothing like the maps that are stated as sources, or any other map I've seen, for that matter. No map that I've seen shows ISIL to be in control of large contiguous areas in Iraq and Syria, all maps I've seen show them to control certain towns and some roads connecting them.--158.222.143.13 (talk) 13:50, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

There is a talk page for the map where you can discuss this, but please consider these points: 1. The area between the towns and roads is generally uninhabited or lightly inhabited desert that no one may have firm control over in the best of times. If ISIL controls the nearest town, then anyone who looks to that town for commerce or anything else is effectively controlled. 2. An image search for ISIL maps will show plenty of maps like the one we are using. Legacypac (talk) 03:09, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

1. Your reasoning may or may not be true, but either way it is original research unless citing a source that describes the area in question, visually or verbally, in a way similar to the map in this article. 2. An image search for ISIL map will show all sorts of maps from all sort of sources, some of which even depict ISIL as covering half of Africa, West and Central Asia, as well as large parts of Europe. None of the "maximalist" maps is from a reliable source, while maps from major news websites either depict a "minimalist" area of control or describe the area on the map as "controlled or claimed" or something to that effect. It seems tendentious to favor the former over the latter.--158.222.143.13 (talk) 02:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Can we add this important information to the Lead?

Some of the Islamic scholars have declared ISIS to be outsiders. Mohammed al-Bukhari (talk) 15:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Mohammed al-Bukhari, editors have already decided that this information about "Khawarij" should not be added to the Lead. See the discussion "Should we add this to the lead" on this page. Have you read what it says about it? The Lead is supposed to summarise the article, not give details, details are in the body of the article. "Khawarij" is dealt with in two places in the article, "Criticism" and "Ideology and beliefs". ~ P123ct1 (talk) 16:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC).

I didn't add Khawarij to the sentence it says outsiders if you read it carefully, second their is an article for Khawarij in Wikipedia so Khawarij is not so foreign word to English and third it means outsiders. Also there was no consensus in the previous discussions. Mohammed al-Bukhari (talk) 17:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1, it was you that previously asked Mohammed to bring his edit for editors to consider and read. Admittedly this did not happen at the time as originally specified but this does not mean that it cannot happen now. WP:LEAD states, "...the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body,.." Some relevant content to substantiate criticism may be gainfully added to the lead. Maybe "Khawarij" maybe something else. Gregkaye ✍♪ 18:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course this can be raised again, of course I saw that outsiders means Khawarij, of course the Lead will repeat information that is in the body of the article, because the Lead is supposed to be a summary of the article. WP:LEAD:

"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."

As there are only about four lines on Khawarij in the article, it is hardly one of "the most important points" – unless it is expanded on in the article, which of course can be done if that is what is wanted, but from the citations I have read there is hardly any discussion about it. But to repeat, the Lead is not the place to add extra information, it has to summarise. Go on seeking consensus, but I do not agree with adding this to the Lead. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 19:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

As this article is about Islamic State so the opinions of Islamic scholars is notable and important. Secondly the article characterizes ISIS to be Islamic, Jihadist and Sunni which they are not as the opinion of the Islamic scholars shows but you seems to believe it is not which is ridiculous.Mohammed al-Bukhari (talk) 23:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

There is criticism in the article of 'SIL being wayward of Islam. Some groups want to call it un-Islamic. Large portions of the Arab world use Daish and there are reasons for this. Others have commented on associations to Islam using the terms like Non-Islamic and cult. Khawarij is one part of a larger and specifically driven content. One editor is proposing this to be a major point and it has the cohesive advantage of linking to established Wikipedia content. Gregkaye ✍♪ 05:31, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

There were three editors in the "Should we add this to the lead" discussion who were against including a reference to Khawarij in the Lead. My carefully explained points seem to be lost on editors, and not for the first time. Put these Muslim criticisms, which I fully acknowledge, in the "Criticism" section, but not in the Lead as that is not the place for them. Editors may not realize that I was the one who recently expanded on the 120 scholars' criticisms in "Criticism" by including more of their words condemning ISIL in that letter. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 08:33, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• Criticism by Muslims is clearly pointed out on both criticism and ideology sections. That many Muslims are criticizing ISIL is also pointed out on the lead, that should summarise the article, not to include extra information as you're suggesting. Giving individual examples or expanding it is to add extra info, and it's not what the lead should include. The lead is already too long. We already reached consensus on both the Khawarij and criticism on the lead. Felino123 (talk) 00:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

There has also been consensus that the lead is light on critical content. The strongest criticism has come either from Muslims or from scholars that have studied Islam and related religious issues. This is the most obvious type of information that would be most relevant to add and there is a current deficit of this content in comparison to former states of the lead. Gregkaye ✍♪ 19:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Where is this consensus that we need to add more criticism to the lead? I do not see any such thing. Gazkthul (talk) 00:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Gregkaye - not enough criticism in the lead compared to the weight in the article. The multitude of names and history of the names just sucks space and I really wonder if some of that could be split off in another article. Legacypac (talk) 02:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

"Names" takes up 8k of space and is only one screen long. A lot of useful info at minimal cost, IMO. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 22:34, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Map and article treatment of new territorial claims and control and Opponents

Should the map in the infobox be updated to reflect Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi new claims of provinces in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Egypt, Libya and Algeria?

Source: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/politics/2014/11/baghdadi-speech-islamic-state-pledges-of-allegiance.html --WikiU2013 (talk) 00:43, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree, but since this is a fairly recent announcement, I'm not sure how we are going to incorporate this into a new map. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 04:20, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Very informative [7]. Based on this and other sources I think we should expand the opponents list to include the Egyptian Government and territory of operation to include Egypt along with Syria/Iraq/Lebanon. Based on other sources, Libya should be added too. Will make the the changes so people can see what I mean - but open to discussion Legacypac (talk) 07:55, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Personally I wouldn't rush things, no harm waiting for some more sources and see how things play out.

Not to harp on things, bit it does make the consensus name look ridiculous. "Why is there a group in Libya called the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant?" "Well, they actually changed their name months ago to symbolise their intention to extend beyond those 2 countries, but we'll keep using the old name anyway" Gazkthul (talk) 08:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Short version - "Islamic State" is a male bovine waste name. No need to change it. The article deals with their names and ambition quite well. Legacypac (talk) 16:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't really understand, the current article is named Islamic State too, it simply adds a geographical criteria that is now outdated. Gazkthul (talk) 19:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

No-HUGE difference. Go get educated then on what Islamic State means in this context. We are not going to debate this any more. See Moretorium on requested moves at the top. Legacypac (talk) 02:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Shortening the article: homework for us all

As said by several people, and probably felt by even more (and perhaps also contradicted by others…): the article ‘Islamic State’ is too long: some 213k today. (This excessive length was the prime reason why we had to discuss, above, ‘scrapping timeline from main article’.) For example Technophant wrote there, about that length problem, on 6 November,04:54: “…There's been a proposal to start a separate article for Human Rights abuses…”
My impression is that many of our 15 sections are rather long. In some cases they may be shortened by making use of a subarticle: ‘Human rights abuses’ is perhaps a good example for that. Also in some cases,I think that the text can be slimmed down even without using a subarticle, just be throwing out off-topic stuff, or rewriting more concisely. I exhort all of us, if we can spare some time, to shorten one, or several, of the sections. And advise all others, to give each other a fair chance at shortening, not immediately grimly reverting such an effort if such effort was made with good intentions and need only some further fine tuning. Corriebertus (talk) 14:07, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree, I am going to be trying to shorten some of the repetitive and extraneous info on this page, hopefully it isn't reverted if people disagree with it. Gazkthul (talk) 00:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

There is very little repetitive info here. Discuss and get consensus first and there will be no problem.

I think a better plan is to divide off sections into other detailed articles. Therefore I propose:

1. Trim https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#Military_and_arms down to a couple sentences since it has its own article and most of the verbage is here. (DONE)

Agreed ~ P123ct1 (talk) 11:52, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

2. Create Finances of ISIL and move this article length section over, leaving max 1 paragraph here.

Oppose - readers will be interested in this. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 11:52, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

3. Create Notable ISIL members and move the list there. Leave only first 5 names and a See Notable ISIL members link. This cuts all the junior guys and dead guys out of the main article leaving the leader, 2 deputies, spokesman and top general. (DONE)

Agreed ~ P123ct1 (talk) 11:52, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

4. Moved the Support-Turkey(Alleged) section leaving link to the Turkey-ISIL article and a couple summary sentences. (DONE)

Agreed ~ P123ct1 (talk) 11:52, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Anyone want to comment? Legacypac (talk) 02:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

If anything is being split it should be Criticism of ISIL, since it's basically paragraphs of "ISIL has been criticised by A, ISIL has been criticised by B, ISIL has been criticised by C", it seems ripe for summary/split to me. The Military and especially Finances sections have interesting information in an academic sense. Gazkthul (talk) 02:51, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed - Finance section is excellent and will make a great standalone article. Legacypac (talk) 03:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• As it stands now, the article is 180.5K (without the timeline which is 26K). This is after Legacypac's trimming mentioned above. The article should be no more than 100K according to WP:SIZE here. I don't agree with removing the "Names" subsection (8.5K) as readers will need some sort of guide to the many different names which are quite confusing, and it gets across the idea that this group though formed in 1999 is still essentially the same group, which is less easy to grasp from reading the "History" section on its own; however, the description in "Names" could be pared down. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 11:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• International condemnation of this group is one of its major characteristics and simply cannot be ignored by this article. The "Criticism" section should therefore not be split off into an article of its own, IMO (it is too short for that anyway, I would have thought). ~ P123ct1 (talk) 14:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• WP:SIZE has a section, no need for haste, that says some articles need to be longer. There are so many important dimensions that are worth mentioning in the main article on ISIL. However, we might want to reconsider the French Wikipedia model where ISIL, the group, and IS, the de facto state, have separate articles. Details like governance, finance, and perhaps others could be detailed in the IS article. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive Edits - result User blocked for 48 hours under Community Sanctions

Can someone archive this section? Legacypac (talk) 01:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Not before the 48-hour block on this editor has elapsed, please; there may be more reverting. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 13:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Good call - editor made substantially the same changes just off the block. reported at Ani again Legacypac (talk) 07:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

collapse of content first under the heading title "Can you please revert your edit" Gregkaye ✍♪ 06:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC). Please uncollapse as preferred/necessary.

Can you please revert your edit (Moved from my talk page) You recently made changes to the article Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant in this edit. I was notified of the situation by a fellow editor who correctly noted that the content had been decided on by the careful seeking of consensus as you will see through reference at Talk:ISIL. Please can you revert the edit. Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC) I think my edit improves the article immensely, so I can't revert the edit. I explained the reasons in the edit summary. Sometimes editors get too attached to excess verbiage, and it requires someone else who hasn't been involved in its production to see what needs to go. The lead is clearly too long, and I identified the bits that just aren't worthwhile. I can only suggest you seek another opinion from another fresh pair of eyes. I believe the article is much better with the edit - I'm either right or wrong, I guess! If you want to add back the supposed "claims and aims" (According to who? when? depending on what? who thinks/believes any of this? etc) in the lead, and then finish with "The group's actions, authority and theological interpretations have been widely criticized around the world and notably within the Muslim community." (Why would you think that anyone needs to read that, exactly? What information does that impart? Etc...) then I suggest you think of a reason for doing so. (Better than "that's what *we* decided")! zzz (talk) 16:37, 16 November 2014 (UTC) That info seems like it's from reliable sources. I find it to be relevant. I think it was inappropriate to remove it without seeking consensus. Myopia123 (talk) 18:49, 16 November 2014 (UTC) We should have also made a joint decision regarding the removal of this long standing content that editors had previously discussed at length. I would have reverted myself but for the 1RR rule. Gregkaye ✍♪ 19:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC) The reasons for removing it, as stated in the edit summary and also repeated at length above, have nothing to do with reliability of sources, or "relevance" (whatever that is supposed to mean). "Long-standing" isn't a reason to keep substandard material. As I said, if there's a good reason to replace the material go ahead. "It was there before" isn't a reason, nor is "it was inappropriate to remove it" (it wasn't) zzz (talk) 19:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC) I find the information you removed both relevant and interesting and you cannot claim to be an authority to decide what a readership wants or needs. Gregkaye has been nice enough to ask you to revert your own edit and is clearly trying to avoid an edit war. For the purposes of an encyclopedia, the information should be restored. Myopia123 (talk) 19:47, 16 November 2014 (UTC) If it's "both relevant and interesting" that's a reason to include it in the article. I haven't deleted anything in the article. zzz (talk) 19:52, 16 November 2014 (UTC) Oh lord have mercy. How benevolent of you. Myopia123 (talk) 19:59, 16 November 2014 (UTC) That's about as relevant as your other comments, I suppose. Yes, some of us are actually WP:HERE to build an encyclopedia. zzz (talk) 20:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC) I see you started editing in Wikipedia in June 2014, unless you have opened a new account. I don't know how familiar you are with WP guidance and policy, but the obvious ones that apply here are WP:CONSENSUS, WP:LEAD and WP:CIVIL. Per the first, you will need to persuade editors your judgment is right, per the second, the words you removed summarise parts of the article, and the relevance of the third I don't think needs explaining. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 20:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC) __________________ Notification of associated editing by an under used IP I was not the only one to add edits onto Signedzzz's talk page. An editor knowledgeable in a related subject praised the removal of a large slab of text while using an IP address that only made these related edits. The editor failed to log on both times. No reflection is meant regarding the recipient concerned. I think that there are elements of dishonesty and of lack of directness working at some level in this subject area that I am beginning not to like. Gregkaye ✍♪ 20:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC) Quoting policies and making personal attacks doesn't avoid the fact that my edit improved the article, for the reasons I've explained. zzz (talk) 20:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC) And yet, three editors have disagreed with you. You are failing to convince anyone, therefore failing to create consensus. The only reason I'm not reverting your edit is that I have a funny feeling it's going to turn into an edit war. Myopia123 (talk) 20:25, 16 November 2014 (UTC) And I'm sorry but I must have missed the time when you were made the supreme decider of what constitutes an "improvement" on a wikipedia article. I was under the impression it was Wikipedia policies and guidelines which dictated that but please correct me if I'm wrong. Myopia123 (talk) 20:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC) I have reverted the edit in question. zzz will need create consensus before he takes any further action. Myopia123 (talk) 20:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC) There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of "consensus" here. The consensus to revert an edit should be based on the best way to improve the article, not simply as a means for preservation of whatever was there before. zzz (talk) 20:49, 16 November 2014 (UTC) You have not obtained consensus for the original removal of content by you. So far, you are the only person harping on about how you've improved the article when three other editors have disagreed. Since you have taken unilateral action once again, I am refraining from a revert because it will then constitute an edit war. However, your latest revert is a violation of WP:CONSENSUS Myopia123 (talk) 21:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC) Signedzzz, how does commenting about a deceitful use of sock puppets equate to a personal attack. The use of sock puppets makes things very non personal. I don't do attack. Gregkaye ✍♪ 21:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC) I reverted Signedzzz's second removal of the carefully drafted material. I also take issue with this edit which effetively sanitizes ISIL's actions https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant&diff=prev&oldid=634129583 Then there is an edit that removes various names they don't like. What is the motivation behind these bias edits? Legacypac (talk) 21:47, 16 November 2014 (UTC) I see a HUGE diff between "ISIL considers the term "Dāʻish" derogatory and reportedly punishes with flogging those who use it in ISIL-controlled areas." and "ISIL reportedly considers the term "Dāʻish" offensive" and it is not "editorializing" This should be reverted. Legacypac (talk) 22:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC) It's the very definition of editorialising. One example of several I have attempted to remove, only to be met with personal abuse. Therefore, the "essay-like" tag is fully justified. zzz (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC) The statement concerning the penalty imposed for the use of the term was completely sourced at the reference given and is significant to the reader's understanding of how seriously the use of term is regarded by ISIS. It is therefore not editorializing. Dwpaul Talk 23:05, 16 November 2014 (UTC) Personal attacks Since there is clearly a determination to revert changes and resort to personal abuse, while refusing to address any issues raised, I can see why other editors have left this article in the state it's in. Hopefully other editors will consider cleaning up this article. zzz (talk) 22:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC) User:Signedzzz, you removed material that was added after a lot of debate and once consensus was reached, an editor asked you to revert those changes. You removed it saying you thought your changes were better. Multiple editors disagreed, I reverted it and you reverted that. Another editor then reverted your edit so things are back to square one. In the entire process, you provided no sources, references or any other material except to say that it was your opinion that your changes made the article better and to simple disagree with any points that were raised. Everyone tried to reason with you. If my sarcasm offended you, then I apologise. But I guarantee you this, no editor on wikipedia would be able to push such unilateral action through. So it's not about just you - Myopia123 (talk) 22:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC) (Edit conflict) Your reverts went against consensus, simple as that. The reason for some of your edits is hard to understand, as Legacypac has noted. One has to question the motive behind them. A number of these are not normal "cleaning-up" edits. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 22:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC) Your two removals of heavily discussed material borders on edit warring. I agree with what they said - and I request you self revert the two edits I pointed out at the end of the last section. Legacypac (talk) 22:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC) Uninvolved editors, note that while repeatedly refusing to address any of the reasons given for changes to the article, editors "owning" the article immediately resort to personal abuse in order to maintain it exactly as it is. zzz (talk) 22:33, 16 November 2014 (UTC) zzz go offered no reasons except your personal opinion. Tagging one of the top edited and trafficed articles on Wikipedia as essay like is very odd. Legacypac (talk) 22:41, 16 November 2014 (UTC) Ok, User:Signedzzz. So indulge me for a moment and state the reasons once more. Please and thank you - Myopia123 (talk) 22:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC) Yeah, i'm reading through your earlier comments and I don't see any reasons that you claim to have stated. This is what I do see: If you want to add back the supposed "claims and aims" (According to who? when? depending on what? who thinks/believes any of this? etc) in the lead, and then finish with "The group's actions, authority and theological interpretations have been widely criticized around the world and notably within the Muslim community." (Why would you think that anyone needs to read that, exactly? What information does that impart? Etc...) then I suggest you think of a reason for doing so. (Better than "that's what *we* decided")! That content is there through consensus. You removed it and once again, there was consensus that it should stay. If you want to interpret that as what *we* decided, then you do your thing. Myopia123 (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2014 (UTC) See report for Edit Warring here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Signedzzz_reported_by_User:Legacypac_.28Result:_.29 Legacypac (talk) 00:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC) also accessed here Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC) Template:Essay-like "Claims and aims" have been unjustifiably listed in lead without context let alone the WP:UNDUE issue. What's more, they have been selectively quoted according to editor's choice. To quote from the guidelines of when to use the "essay-like" template, This template should be used when the article contains the editor's own personal, emotional comments on the subject. Use it when the article does not necessarily represent a blatant opinion or opinion piece, but is still overly judgmental (declares something to be morally right or wrong) in tone. "The group's actions, authority and theological interpretations have been widely criticized around the world and notably within the Muslim community." This could not possibly be a clearer example of "the editor's own personal, emotional comments on the subject" and "overly judgmental (declares something to be morally right or wrong) in tone." There is no other reason for it to be there in the lead of the article. zzz (talk) 23:11, 16 November 2014 (UTC) Have you read the article? Anyone who had would have clearly seen that the sentence beginning "The group's actions ..." is a summary, as per WP:LEAD, of what is said in "Criticism" and "Ideology and beliefs", and is not the POV that you think it is. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 23:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC) "ISIL considers the term "Dāʻish" derogatory and reportedly punishes with flogging those who use it in ISIL-controlled areas" - How does this impart more encyclopedic information than my edit, "finds the term offensive"? Another clear, blatant example. zzz (talk) 23:17, 16 November 2014 (UTC) I find some of your arguments here "offensive". If I decide to flog you for it, I think you would find that rather more significant than the fact of my having been offended. That statement accurately reflected what the source said, and your dilution of it borders on misrepresentation. Dwpaul Talk 23:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC) It is sanitizing, which is very POV pushing. We have or had another quote from Mosel saying ISIL will cut out your tongue for speaking the ISIL name. "They don't like it" is meaningless and misses the whole point. Legacypac (talk) 00:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC) As far as "Claims and Aims" goes, I disagree with you completely. It belongs in the lead and as mentioned multiple times, it went through it's own debate and was added after consensus. If you would like to reopen the debate and argue your points, it might even be removed. But it will happen through consensus. The second point is not an example of POV language. A clear example of POV language would be saying something like "Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi is a bastard." The sentence that you have quoted is a fact(they have been criticised). If someone was to say "Myopia called Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi a bastard", that would be a fact and not a personal opinion. Hence, the sentence you have quoted satisfies WP:NPOV - Myopia123 (talk) 23:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC) The same logic applies to your second quote. It is stating a fact - Myopia123 (talk) 23:20, 16 November 2014 (UTC) More personal abuse, and, no surprise, still an WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT approach to the points raised. Repeatedly. zzz (talk) 23:29, 16 November 2014 (UTC) What part exactly was personal abuse? - Myopia123 (talk) 23:31, 16 November 2014 (UTC) And as far as WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT goes, did you read this part: Do not confuse "hearing" with "agreeing with": The community's rejection of your idea is not proof that they have failed to hear you. Stop writing, listen, and consider what the other editors are telling you. Make a strong effort to see their side of the debate, and work on finding points of agreement. - Myopia123 (talk) 23:33, 16 November 2014 (UTC) Signedzz, I'm sympathetic to where you're coming from, I think the article has been filled with way too much unencyclopaedic criticism and POV pushing ever since this group hit the headlines in mid 2014 and we received an influx of new editors, but the way you are going about this is confrontational and probably won't lead to anywhere constructive. Gazkthul (talk) 00:51, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Jihadism as a value laden label

See also: To b or not to be - adding qualification to Wikipedia's endorsement of ISIL as jihadist

A heading was inserted above as: "Jihad - the struggle over terms continues". I changed it to: "Jihadism as a value laden label" and have and have repeated the final comment from previous content so as to provide context (this is also important with regard to keeping archived content legible.

• Signedzz, I'm sympathetic to where you're coming from, I think the article has been filled with way too much unencyclopaedic criticism and POV pushing ever since this group hit the headlines in mid 2014 and we received an influx of new editors, but the way you are going about this is confrontational and probably won't lead to anywhere constructive. Gazkthul (talk) 00:51, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• Gazkthul Please do not make vague and uncited accusations that permit no response. Please read encyclopedia and WP:NPOV. 'SIL are one of the most criticised groups that there has ever been. In this context it is perfectly fair, right and balanced that the article has a representative content of related material both in the content and in the lead. Please also make your own editorial pushes in even ways. I think you fairly argue against the word terrorist in the lead which fits in with the principle WP:LABEL that Value-laden labels... are best avoided. However, as at 21:36, 10 November, you make repeated objection even to the adding of a unobtrusive footnote to the work jihadist despite it also being a Value-laden label. I am however pleased that you criticise the confrontational nature of the editors contributions. I would also be pleased if you gave similar criticism to sock puppetries, derailments, misrepresentations, against consensus usages of terminologies and false accusations as are evident on this discussion page and on associated pages. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Jihadist isn't a value laden label, it is a neutral term used in academia, the media, and by politicians; both in Western Countries and non-western countries, it is no more value laden than the term Islamist.

I don't understand what your last sentence means or what you are asking me to do. Gazkthul (talk) 12:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course "jihadist" is a "value laden label". It is associated with the religious doctrine of jihad. In effect its associated to the supposedly holy values of a supposedly almighty god and, for those that believe, it's pretty well impossible to get any more value laden than that. In this article the word is applied to 'SIL an organisation that is widely and rightly regarded as being utterly unrepresentative of Islam. Further more the group's claim to both jihad and jihadism are questioned. You reject one value laden label and yet propose unqualified support, in Wikipedia's voice, to another.

There's no shortage of other things that could be mentioned regarding my first and last points but, one issue at time. Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

No, it's simply a term used to describe any militant group that claims to be waging jihad. A Google search returns 9,140,000 results. It is also by President Obama, for example here [8] at 0:24, who is waging a war against them and is unlikely to be associating them with the "..holy values of a ...almighty god" Gazkthul (talk) 20:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I think here you get to the nub of the matter. There are very few people who would actually associate ISIL's many abuses with the "..holy values of a ...almighty god". And this also represents the problem. The extremist elements that condone the groups multitude of abuses do. Most people, and that includes most Muslims, think that there is nothing holy about this war. At the other extreme ISIL place great value both in their false claim to jihad and similarly to their value laden designation as jihadist. Jihadist is a value laden term and yet the whole thing is a sham. Yes the word jihadist has adopted a new meaning and, to this effect, it has slipped moorings from its roots in jihad. A responsible encyclopaedia would notify the reader of this fact. Gregkaye ✍♪ 22:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

That is supposedly what the wikilink for "jihadist" in the Lead is for, but the Wiki article on this has only four lines on the two meanings of jihad, so not really enough. Perhaps this could be dealt with in a short para in "Criticism", building on that one line of quote on jihad from the scholars' letter. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 22:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with some of what you are saying, but I don't see any evidence that ISIL value .."their value laden designation as jihadist". I have read English translations of their propaganda and I have never seen them use this word, they use terms like Mujahideen, which seems to be closer to what you are talking about when you say Jihadist, that is a non-NPOV value-laden term that places it's recipient in a positive light. Gazkthul (talk) 22:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your observations but they merely confirm the presence of value laden labels. It's as you say that Mujahideen or jihadist, are essentially the same thing. Either way we come to the same crunch. If we are to accept the definition of Mujahideen as "people doing jihad", it doesn't apply. The definition of jihad from the Quran is of defence. The contradiction between the core meanings of the words and their application here is stark. Readers should be given the chance to see the difference. Gregkaye ✍♪ 23:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Yup Mujahideen is translated as "people doing jihad" so Mujahideen=jihadist. So an we go with the non-islamic non-state non-jihadist false-caliph marauding band of guys with guns, and tanks and knives?

I think we're talking past each other, but the two words aren't the same thing. Mujahideen is an Arabic term that they use, and dates back to the earliest days of Islam. Jihadist is an English neologism that was coined in the West as a way of describing various insurgent and terrorist groups active around the world motivated by the same ideology.

Or putting it a different way, Jihadist is a term used largely by it's opponents, including people currently bombing them from 20,000 feet. Gazkthul (talk) 00:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect - how did a "word from Arabic jihād, literally ‘effort,’ expressing, in Muslim thought, struggle on behalf of God and Islam." become something coined by the West? Can you cite that statement? try this artile http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1603178.stm Legacypac (talk) 01:12, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, well adding ist to the end of a word to signify ideology is a common technique in the west ie: Socialist, Communist, Fascist, Anarchist, Islamist. According to the Middle East Forum in 2003 [9]

"French academics have put the term into academic circulation as "jihadist-Salafism." The qualifier of Salafism—an historical reference to the precursor of these movements—will inevitably be stripped away in popular usage. "Jihadist-Salafism" is defined by Gilles Kepel, Jihad: The Trail of Political Islam (Harvard: Harvard University Press, 2002), pp. 219-22; and Guilain Deneoux, "The Forgotten Swamp: Navigating Political Islam," Middle East Policy, June 2002, pp. 69-71."

"...the use of jihadism was largely confined to the Indian and Pakistani media. But the terror attacks in the United States, the war in Afghanistan, and the battle against al-Qa'ida, have facilitated the term's migration to the West. At present, jihadism is used to refer to the most violent persons and movements in contemporary Islam, including al-Qa'ida" Gazkthul (talk) 03:10, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Gazkthul You say that, "Jihadist is a term used largely by it's opponents", which would be yet another reason to consider it as a "value laden label". The truth is that various governments have policies not to use this terminology and for good reason. Like Mujahideen it is a "value laden label". You argue against the use of one value laden label and you repeatedly argue for the unqualified use of another. I don't think that these are balanced positions to take. Coalition forces aim for military targets from 20,000 feet. 'SIL extremists directly kill prisoners whose only crime was to be born in the "wrong" location. Its not jihad and I don't think that we should unnecessarily present a false connection. Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Isil as a redirect to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

I have created this proposal at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_November_17#Isil

Gregkaye ✍♪ 22:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

RfC of whether Turkey should be listed under opposition

Although government of Turkey proclaims that it opposes ISIS on an official level, the academic world appears to dismiss such a notion altogether. In light of the recent report by the Huffington Post, it's becoming increasingly accepted by the academic community that Turkey may not only be actively neutral towards ISIS, but be supporting it outright. Turkey is currently listed as part of the opposition, albeit a "(limited/pending)" kind of opposition. I have currently found no evidence pointing to any incident wherein which Turkey has military engaged against ISIS. Turkey has gone so far as to disallow America's use of their own airbase in Incirlik. With that said, since Wikipedia abides by the standards and opinions the academic world sets, rather than such official policy that may not be in line with the facts on the ground or by the academic community, I propose removing Turkey from the list found under Multinational coalition opposition. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

RfC question

Why was this listed as an RfC? Has there been previous discussion of this that failed to reach concensus? Is there some other reason that outside eyes are needed to make this decision? – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 00:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Philosopher (talk · contribs) That's a legitimate question. I believe the current consensus is what the article states already. Turkey was listed under the opposition for several months now. So I was hoping to see what the community thinks before making an edit that may be considered a bit too WP:BOLD. It's an article that gets 30,000 views daily and I thought removing sourced information unilaterally may not be such a wise idea. I'm sure there are people that may be against my proposal, so I'd like to hear what they have to say and if there are any other opinions they'd like to suggest. And as far as I can see, there's been no discussion in the talk page regarding this topic that has been regularly discussed in news outlets throughout the world. Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I've broken up the following into a few different threads of discussion that occur to me immediately - feel free to add more if needed. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 01:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Official status v. actual or unofficial behavior

For those prior conflicts where official declarations have conflicted with actual or unofficial behavior, how have the articles handled the situation? Do we go with the official declaration (in which case this is an easy answer to the discussion) or do we go with the actual actions or, as I suspect may be the case, represent both? – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 01:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Philosopher (talk · contribs) I don't think the Wikipedia community should abide by what Prime Minister Recep Tayip Erdogan or the Turkish government officially states. The official policy can always be misleading, hence the reason why we're having this discussion. The Turkish government also denies the Armenian Genocide, should we have Wikipedia align itself to that sort of POV as well? Mugabe says he's a democratic president, but does that mean the Wikipedia community should instill such a consensus? Wikipedia is guided by the academic community. The academic community gives no definite opinion towards Turkey actively opposing ISIS. In fact, it's quite the opposite. The academic WP:WEIGHT is seemingly skeptical, if not outright against, the notion that Turkey is actively fighting against ISIS. But besides that point, I believe that as Wikipedia users, we have the power to create our own WP:CONSENSUS considering that it be in line with WP:RS requirements. With that said, I find no reliable source that supports Turkey's official stance. I don't see anything wrong in removing Turkey from the list of opposition because it simply means that Turkey neither supports nor confronts the ISIS. Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:42, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I think you missed my point. The discussion of what Turkey has done is entirely irrelevant to my question - my question was about what Wikipedia has done in the past in similar circumstances. No need to re-invent the wheel, after all. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 02:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Philosopher (talk · contribs) Oh, sorry about that, I do see your point. My response was just a general observation and not towards your comment per se. Although I do think it's a good idea to provide a detailed roundup of how your question relates to Turkey's situation. As for your initial inquiry, I think the Armenian Genocide example is relevant here. The official policy of the Turkish government is flat-out denial. However, the Wikipedia community has adopted a consensus that considers the Armenian Genocide as a fact in itself. I think that's not very different than what we have here. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• The opponents list is restricted to: (a) States and non-State actors with military operations past, present or pending against ISIL in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt and Libya; (b) States directly supplying weapons to ground forces fighting ISIL

- Is Turkey carrying out any military operation against ISIL, has carried out any military operation or has announced it will carry out any military operation?

No.

- Is Turkey directly supplying weapons to ground forces fighting ISIL?

I don't think so.

I found no reason to keep Turkey on the Military operations in or over Iraq and/or Syria (US-led) list.

If they are supplying weapons to ground forces fighting ISIL, then we should move them to the list of states suplying weapons to ground forces. If not, then we should remove it. It's clear that it should not be on the military operations list. Felino123 (talk) 17:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Felino123 (talk · contribs) I agree. I can say that the evidence showing Turkey supplying weapons to ISIS is much greater than the evidence (or lack thereof?) to their opposition or to the supply of weapons to that opposition. The Huffington Post link I gave provides a good academic assessment of the facts and weighs it in favor of Turkey turning a blind-eye supporting ISIS or better yet, actively supports them. Some examples as outlined by the Huffington Post report:

An ISIS commander told The Washington Post on August 12, 2014: "Most of the fighters who joined us in the beginning of the war came via Turkey, and so did our equipment and supplies.

According to CHP Vice President Bulent Tezcan, three trucks were stopped in Adana for inspection on January 19, 2014. The trucks were loaded with weapons in Esenboga Airport in Ankara. The drivers drove the trucks to the border, where a MIT agent was supposed to take over and drive the trucks to Syria to deliver materials to ISIS and groups in Syria. This happened many times. When the trucks were stopped, MIT agents tried to keep the inspectors from looking inside the crates. The inspectors found rockets, arms, and ammunitions.

A senior Egyptian official indicated on October 9, 2014 that Turkish intelligence is passing satellite imagery and other data to ISIS.

CNN Turk reported on July 29, 2014 that in the heart of Istanbul, places like Duzce and Adapazari, have become gathering spots for terrorists. There are religious orders where ISIS militants are trained. Some of these training videos are posted on the Turkish ISIS propaganda website takvahaber.net. According to CNN Turk, Turkish security forces could have stopped these developments if they had wanted to.

These are just a few examples. I think it's safe to conclude that Turkey is not only turning that blind-eye, but actively/covertly supporting ISIS. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Turkey's actions

Placeholder header so discussion of this subject, if any, doesn't get muddled in with my question above. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 01:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I recall Turkey got added when their Parliament voted to authorize action and no resistance from editors. They had tanks on the border too. Before that there was general resistance to inclusion. However, they are still negotiating over what to do with Assad months later and have failed to engage which creates the problem of what to do with them here. This graphic is very instructive showing Humanitarian Aid only. Of course they have a lot of refugees in Turkey too. It is not accurate to say Turkey is not supportive of the US-led efforts, just what form the support takes. Legacypac (talk) 01:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Population

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

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

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

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

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

No nation recognises the group by the name "Islamic State"

Currently the section 9.1 "Islamic State", criticism of use of this name reads No nation recognises the group by the name "Islamic State", owing to the far-reaching political and religious authority which that name implies. The United Nations Security Council, the United States, Canada, Turkey, Australia, Russia, the United Kingdom and other countries generally call the group "ISIL"

However Australia does seem to recognise the group by that name in their terrorist designation[10]: The first listing of this group for proscription purposes was under the Arabic name it formerly used, Tanzim Qa'idat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn, in 2005. It has also been listed as al-Qa'ida in Iraq and as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). On 29 June 2014, the group proclaimed an Islamic caliphate in areas it controls and changed its name to Dawla al-Islamiya, or the Islamic State. This statement has been prepared to support its continued listing under this new name. Gazkthul (talk) 21:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. This is exactly why I put a "verification needed" tag on "No nation", but this was reverted. To say "No nation" boldly unqualified is misleading, IMO. Best to say "Many nations" until it is proved conclusively that "No nation" is correct. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 21:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Canada also used Islamic State on its terrorist list, but this misses the point that no nation recognizes (linked to diplomatic recognition. Legacypac (talk) 22:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac, can you spell out the diplomatic recognition point here? (I am not necessarily disputing it, just think the point needs clarifying.) ~ P123ct1 (talk) 00:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I suspect that he was pointing out that the first sentence's phrasing implies a second subject - that "recognition" of a group implies endorsement of that group's existence as a state. The point of the paragraph - how the countries identify the organization - is clear, but perhaps the word "recognizes" should be changed to "identifies" in that sentence. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 01:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

diplomatic recognition is a statehood concept - no recognition = not a state (generally). In this unusual case countries also refuse to talk about ISIL using the name "Islamic State". A single use by Australia in a legal designation of a terrorist organization does not change govt policy. Remember how in Sept to the UN General Assembly Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott said "To use this term [Islamic State] is to dignify a death cult; a death cult that, in declaring itself a caliphate, has declared war on the world". I doubt Abbott has changed his mind on that. In the interest of making this even clearer I've changed the sentence, splitting it into two. No nation recognises the group as a sovereign state. Many object to using the name "Islamic State" owing to the far-reaching political and religious authority which that name implies. However I still believe that NO nation either diplomatically recognizes or uses the words "Islamic State" when dealing with ISIL (except now in a very narrow legal sense like Australia and Canada have when designating the group as a terrorist network). Legacypac (talk) 03:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

That is probably a better phrasing. The issues of recognition and naming may be related, but they are separate issues. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 03:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. This wording is much clearer. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 10:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Disputed edits (resolved)

Heading changed from original. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

This editor has made massive reverts and changes throughout the article – -5734 – under the Edit Summary "m fixed spelling error".

Resolving problem on Revision History page

This edit is timed 21:58 on the 18th. According to their userpage, the editor has been editing in Wikipedia since 16 September 2014. Is this a sock-puppet or a vandal? I have reverted the edit. (Signedzzz's 48-hour ban expires at 1:36 on the 18th, but there may be no connection.) ~ P123ct1 (talk) 22:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC) Seems more like an accidental restore to an earlier version to me (though does not show that way) as the reverts don't go in a particular direction. Good revert. Legacypac (talk) 22:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC) The editor could have saved onto an earlier version – the version where they made their previous edit – but I cannot follow through all the diffs to see if this is correct. [Redacted] ~ P123ct1 (talk) 23:12, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The editor has confirmed it was a mistake. (See their Talk page.) ~ P123ct1 (talk) 13:52, 19 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.

---

Addition of WP:SIZE Template

I feel that it is appropriate to add this tag to the article at this time. I'm asking because I don't want to get bitten. Any objections? - Myopia123 (talk) 23:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes - I object - That tag is good for alerting passing editor of an issue on a low traffic article. Very high public traffic - that tag does not help the reader at all. This very high traffic talk page has multiple discussions about trying to shorten. So the template does not alert editors to anything new and does nothing for the reader. Legacypac (talk) 23:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The tag is not needed for the reasons Legacypac has given. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 23:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, for the record anyway, my opinion is that this article is getting waaaay too long and certain sections probably deserve their own article at this point. -Myopia123 (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

As Legacypac says, this is being discussed and one idea is to do just that, spin off parts of it into separate articles. There seems to be general agreement among editors so far that the article is indeed way too long. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 00:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

We all agree - please put your suggestions in the lasted discussion about solutionsLegacypac (talk) 00:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

It isn't just words either, some parts have been removed to other articles already, some editors are working on condensing the remaining text, the length of the timeline has been reduced and some want to reduce it further. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 00:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Removing unencyclopaedic material from lead: detailed rationale

• "Original aim" is according to US intelligence: this needs to be stated. It's controversial to treat US intelligence as a fool-proof RS.

No, it is according to AQI themselves. Legacypac (talk) 06:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Then the source is wrong. A different source should be used, clearly. zzz (talk) 07:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Have you read the history section that this summarizes? Legacypac (talk) 08:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry if we don't take your word for it but you are the one who has to prove the source is wrong. - Myopia123 (talk) 18:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• Sunni majority (areas of Syria) is not in the reference, and highly debatable

Clearly they focus on Sunni majority areas - they are a Sunni group. A basic understanding of the conflict confirms this as fact. Legacypac (talk) 06:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Again, why does the source not back you up? ("Focus on" isn't there; you'd still need a source) zzz (talk) 07:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what the source closest to that long standing, easily verifiable statement says. [11] Legacypac (talk) 08:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• "The group's chief spokesman declared the "restoration of the caliphate"" (new version). This is exactly what happened, according to the source. It used to say "It then proclaimed a worldwide caliphate" which is no doubt intended to mean the same thing, but it is much less clear, and questionable grammatically (awkward/incorrect use of the verb "proclaim"), and also the phrase "worldwide caliphate" was not used, so it is best to just wikilink it if it is used here.

Nonsense and a change to heavily discussed consensus wording.Legacypac (talk) 06:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Yet again, the source disagrees with you. zzz (talk) 07:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

See the article, stop looking at just one source. Sources get deleted in the lead all the time-some editors would love no sources in the lead. Legacypac (talk) 08:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

What you apparently don't understand is, if a source refutes what is said, it doesn't matter if other sources don't refute it - it's still wrong to state it categorically - especially in the lead. zzz (talk) 08:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• "aims to bring most traditionally Muslim-inhabited regions of the world under its legislative control". This is a strangely specifically worded claim, eg:
  • why "most" - not all?
  • why "legislative"?
  • In fact, different sources will give very different versions of the phrase (or no version). Removed as controversial/misleading and inaccurate.

More nonsense and a deletion of carefully negotiated wording summarizing the article contents.Legacypac (talk) 06:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Accuracy should not be sacrificed just in order to summarise the article better. It shouldn't need to be, in any case. zzz (talk) 07:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

No accuracy is achieved by allowing deletion of any reference to the groups worldwide aspiration. See below where there is discussion of tightening the sentence but not deleting it. Legacypac (talk) 08:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• "The group was designated as a terrorist organization in 2004 by the United Nations, the European Union and the United States, and several other states eventually followed suit." This summarises the section of the article: previously it listed all the countries. I think lists should be avoided - that is what the section in the article is for.

Appearently WP custom is to list out the designations in order. Legacypac (talk) 06:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• "The United Nations and many others have accused the group of human rights abuses; Amnesty International has accused it of ethnic cleansing on a "historic scale"." (New version)
• "The United Nations and Amnesty International have accused the group of grave human rights abuses, and Amnesty International has found it guilty of ethnic cleansing on a "historic scale". The group's actions, authority and theological interpretations have been widely criticized around the world and notably within the Muslim community." (old version).
  • "UN and AI have accused the group": this gives the impression that other NGOs, or whoever else, haven't done the same.

It does not give any such ridiculous impression about other NGOs - just says which bodies said what. Legacypac (talk) 06:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Ridiculous? I stand by it. It's definitely a bit ambiguous - which isn't ideal. zzz (talk) 07:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• • "theological interpretations" - It is obvious that any particular "theological interpretation" is going to be widely criticised. This is not covered by a section of the article, so the statement is not summarising anything, making it extremely difficult, and unnecessary, to make a worthwhile statement. The article doesn't discuss their theological interpretations.

Yes the article covers their beliefs extensively, and mainstream reaction and condemnation. Legacypac (talk) 06:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Not "theological interpretations," though. zzz (talk) 07:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Beliefs = "theological interpretations" especially since ISIL's take on Islam is widely rejected by other muslims.Legacypac (talk) 08:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• • "The group's authority was widely criticised" - unclear what "the group's authority" is

ISIL's... Legacypac (talk) 06:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

...authority? I'm not sure what is meant by this. zzz (talk) 08:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

the sentence uses English while trying to reduce saying ISIL every fifth word.Legacypac (talk) 08:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• • "notably within the Muslim community" - obviously, a purely subjective, unencyclopaedic, judgement of notability

untrue, and a reversion of heavily discussed wording. Makes it look like the editor never looked at the talk page.Legacypac (talk) 06:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

It was discussed, yes, but that doesn't change the fact: it's still subjective opinion, just more than one person's. zzz (talk) 07:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

That is your opinion about a verified fact. Legacypac (talk) 08:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• I also removed al-Baghdadi's "also known as" name (not a crucial point for the lead section, imo).

no comment Legacypac (talk) 06:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I think clearing out all the vague, unnecessary or misleading statements - some of which shouldn't be in the article at all, let alone in the lead - makes the rest much clearer. zzz (talk) 03:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

This view is clearly against the concensus of the dozens of editors actively editing this high traffic article. Legacypac (talk) 06:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I just reverted these changes to the Lead. Original Diff which include the changes (and more) this editor [edit warred over] against consensus. That behavior lead to a 48 hour block that just expired, and this gutting of the lead is their first edit after the block. So it seems nothing was learned. I've add comments indented point by point but note and refer editors to Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#Can_you_please_revert_your_edit long discussion There may be some merit to parts of these changes, but on balance they are not good, and if they are any good they need to be discussed first. I will be seeking additional sanctions now. Legacypac (talk) 06:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• The proposals seem broadly sensible.

Clarification may be necessary that they are a Sunni group in Sunni majority areas. They are following clear policies of discrimination and persecution against other elements in the population and this may be rightly highlighted.

I think we should be careful regarding presentation of any declaration of caliphate which should remain in the context of the overwhelming voice of Muslim speakers that the group don't represent Islam.

I seems good to change "aims to bring most traditionally Muslim-inhabited regions of the world under its legislative control" to "aims to bring traditionally Muslim-inhabited regions of the world under its control" and I would like to see if there are any objections to this. At first sight this seems to be a worthy clarification while giving the text a shorter and more pithy content.

I would use: "The group has been designated as a terrorist organization by the United Nations, the European Union, and several individual nations". The nations did not follow the European Union. The UK "proscribed" them as terrorist before anyone else.

Agree with "The United Nations and many others have accused the group of human rights abuses; Amnesty International has accused it of ethnic cleansing on a "historic scale"."

I agree that "notably within the Muslim community" is non-specific in that it presents no reference to the substantial specific criticism of Muslims that the group does not represent Islam.

These suggestions generally seem to present positive contributions to the article. Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The reason for the roll back was mainly deletion of text that was already rejected as inappropriate deletions. There are some good ideas here as I said.

I also agree to changing "aims to bring most traditionally Muslim-inhabited regions of the world under its legislative control" to "aims to bring traditionally Muslim-inhabited regions of the world under its control" as it is more concise and reflects political and religious power.

I tried a similar sentence on the terrorist designation country list a while back it was quickly rejected. The rational is we always list the countries out. I don't know if that is true. Legacypac (talk) 07:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree "the Muslim community" would be fine if it actually said anything about said community. Here's the actual page with the paragraphs [12]. It's always possible I went a bit too far, of course, but those last 2 paras definitely needed some tidying up. zzz (talk) 08:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

When criticizing the Lead, the Lead has to be looked at in the context of the whole article, of which it is a summary. I get the impression this editor hasn't read the article. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 10:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac, regarding your statement about this. My thinking is that as a group with no legitimate claim to its land ISIL cannot have a capital. I am also looking to put a terrorism reference in "Status" in the first infobox. As I just mentioned to P123.. Tthere is no citable designation of ISIL being an "Unrecognised state" as per news (isil or isis or daesh or "islamic state") and "unrecognised state" or any kind of state. They are a group as has been very well described as "controlling territory". Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Correct - not a state so can't have a capital. It has a Headquarters. As a passport stamp collector and geography enthusiast I know a LOT about these things. The most authoritative list of what are unique countries, quasi-countries, autonomous regions and dependant territories is http://mosttraveledpeople.com/ The list is assembled from UN lists etc and then members vote on any additions and deletion at the world changes. Syria is just Syria. Iraq and Iraqi Kurdistan (because its autonomous) are listed as the divisions of Iraqi. Plenty of stable non-countries like Somaliland are listed. Legacypac (talk) 22:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

---

Motion: User:Signedzzz should read the article in it's entirety, going through each source in detail before proposing any more changes. What do other editors think? - Myopia123 (talk) 18:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

A good editor would have done that naturally. A good editor would know that a Lead summarises an article. I am astounded this wasn't done. He has made many bloomers from not doing that first. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 20:37, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll support that motion. Few editors would gut the lead without even an edit or any evidence of understanding a long article. Legacypac (talk) 22:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion for last paragraph

Please take a look at Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Criticism. Most of the criticism is from the Muslim community and most of that is critical of the groups faithfulness to Islam.

I propose that the last paragraph of the lead can read:

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

The above thread covers topics related to: The organisational and governmental designation as "terrorist" and Amnasty's findings of guilt.

This thread proposes that a common theme of criticism from within Islam should similarly be presented in the lead.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with "The group's actions, have been widely criticized around the world with many Islamic communities describing the group as not representing Islam", as "notably within the Islamic community" is too vague. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 09:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• The designations as a terror organization are on the first paragraph and criticism is on the last one on the lead. To put criticism on the first paragraph would be a mess. I mean, criticism is important and I think it may be on the lead, but never on the first(s) paragraphs. Let's keep this article arranged. This group doesn't represent Islam, of course, nor do those communities, as Islam is not a monolithic bloc. I think the current phrase is perfect as it summarizes criticism very well. The current phrase implicitly make clear that ISIL doesn't represent Islam. If they did, then there would be no criticism from Muslims. The suggested phrase doesn't sound well and it adds extra info. The current phrase and a link to the criticism section on "widely criticized" is more than enough. Felino123 (talk) 17:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
• In this case I think the implicit should be made explicit. This is a major criticism and it needs spelling out. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 20:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Felino123 Islamic responses to a group calling itself Islamic state are of far more relevance than UN responses to a group calling itself the Islamic state. The UN are not dealing with a nation or a state. Its a rebel group in pretty near to the middle of the middle-east that has taken control of territory. Ban Ki-Moon made a major point of quoting the Islamic criticism. He stated: "As Muslim leaders around the world have said, groups like ISIL – or Da’ish -- have nothing to do with Islam, and they certainly do not represent a state. They should more fittingly be called the "Un-Islamic Non-State"." It all comes down to a middle-eastern problem. These are the kind of things that should be sorted out internally. The local voices are the important ones such as those of all the Grand Muftis should be heeded. These references also need to be added to the article. Again, please take a look at the section on criticism. These are voices of neighbouring states and of people who object to the name of their religion getting associated with the repetitive war crimes of this group. This is the more important issue. Gregkaye ✍♪ 04:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
• What do you mean when you say clerics' opinions are more important than the UN's? When talking about religion, maybe. But just that. We are not arguing about religion, anyway, but about a terrorist group. That's not even Ban's opinion, and he's not a Muslim cleric. He just diplomatically quoted others. ISIL has to do with Islam, as it's a radical Islamist group, just like KKK or the Westboro Baptist Chruch (WBC) have to do with Christianity, or Kach and Kahanism with Judaism. Altought ISIL, KKK, WBC and Kach are minority groups, they have to do with the religion they claim to represent. You're quoting opinions, but these opinions have no more value than other opinions as Islam is not a monolothic bloc. I mean that we must be neutral and we should not choose the opinions we like and give more relevance than other opinions we don't like so much. These opinions are noted in a very clear way in both the ideology and criticism sections. We don't need to repeat them three times on this article. It is on the lead, specifically quoting Muslims in a notable way (I even oppossed to add criticism to the lead) with a link the the criticism itself. The lead should summarize an article, not to add extra info. If we add particular examples as you're suggesting then that would be adding unnecessary and repeated info. I think the lead is great as it is now. It is already very long and we can't be quoting particular cases. Felino123 (talk) 05:00, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Standard for Naming ISIL in Sinai, Libya etc

One way to keep the size of the main article down while covering ISIL activity in areas outside Iraq and Syria is to proactively create articles for other areas. Even more then the differing opponents in Iraq , Syria and Lebanon, the situation in other countries is quite different.

Libya: There is enough researched news stories reporting on ISIL's setup in Libya to put a good article together [13][14][15][16] but I'm not aware of one. ISIL claims Barqa province (refering to eastern Libya "Last week a new pan-Libyan group calling itself "Mujahideen of Libya" declared allegiance to Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, claiming it was sub-divided into three provinces: Barqa, Tripoli, and Fezzan (southwest Libya). The ISIS leader responded by calling all supporters in Libya to join what he called the newest administrative region of the Islamic caliphate." Also "ISIL Tripoli" claimed responsibility for a car bombing in the capital.

Egypt: Ansar_Bait_al-Maqdis already exists and is begging for a new name.

Algeria: Jund_al-Khilafah also begging for a new name.

I was going to suggest "Wilayah+Geographic Name" but this has serious problems. It is too generic to be used alone because Algebra is already divided into 48 Wilayah, Iraq uses the term somewhat, and Wihayah is used in other areas ISIL may set up shop like Tunisia, Oman, Sudan, Afghanistan, and Morocco. Second these "provinces" are not real provinces like ISIL is not a real state. Calling versions of ISIL by legitimate sounding governing entities - "Walaya Algeria" = "Province of Algeria" - makes no sense since they don't control the country, even if that is what ISIL calls their regional organization. Finally Walayah is not an English word, has variate spellings, and is not really what readers will search for.Finally that naming convention does not link the articles clearly to the mother group which sees these groups as part of themselves and no longer existing under the old names.

So instead I suggest a very simple naming convention that is very user friendly. I suggest the ISIL acronym as it stands without naming Iraq and the Levant, which these areas are outside of.

Proposal Requested Move - Ansar Bait al-Maqdis => ISIL in Sinai (they seem to be not dealing with the rest of Egypt for now) Requested Move - Jund_al-Khilafah => ISIL in Algeria Create - ISIL in Libya and if warranted, ISIL in Saudi Arabia, ISIL in Yemen

In each page we write "The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant in COUNTRY is a... organized as "Wilayah ISIL ASSIGNED NAME" or the "Province of ASSIGNED NAME." The group does/does not control territory blah blah blah.

Thoughts? Support? Other ideas? Legacypac (talk) 11:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I think we should wait to see what these groups name themselves. I do a lot of work with requested moves and it seems that even if a group "self-describes" itself (to use a phrase we are familiar with) by a new name, this is still not necessarily readily accepted until the name comes into public recognition. At the moment Ansar_Bait_al-Maqdis and Jund_al-Khilafah are known by those names.

At present we have a category: Category:Organizations affiliated with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. In line with what you are saying I'd suggest we change this to Category:Organizations with declared allegiance to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and possibly create a new category Category:Organizations associated with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant as a mop up category.

The word "allegiance", I think, can be put to good use in many of these situations. I don't know how much further we can go than that. We can't state for certain that these groups are actually assimilated into ISIL. All we can definitely do is report on evidence that they have pledged allegiance.

As a parallel, when genuine nations have what get called dependent territories, those territories are still not automatically assumed to be a part of the particular sovereign state to which they are attached and in some cases the sovereign state has no direct control over the dependency. The ISIL hierarchy certainly do not have direct control over their affiliates other than by instruction. The group concerned can then, at any point, choose to follow the instruction or not.

Perhaps we can adapt a section of "Allies" to groups declaring allegiance to ISIL. Any article naming suggestion needs to follow WP:AT Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2014/11/islamic_state_leader_1.php discribes very well the actual situation. Note the nullification wording that the loyal groups are following. Legacypac (talk) 17:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• Legacypac, in "Egypt" it says the group changed "its" name to Sinai Province. What is "it"? The text wording needs clarifying, I think. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 20:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Can't figure out where you are referring to P123ct1. Ansar Bait al-Maqdis is the group now calling themselves ISIL's Sinai Province.

In the ISIL world view, as laid out in territorial claims section, is they declared Priovinces in Iraq, then Syria, now 5 other places. Outside of that there are group that support like Boka Haram and in southeast asia. ISIL considers the whole Middle East and North Africa to be it's natural territory, so they do not see eastern Libya as a dependant territory. This is less a colonization process to create dependant territories but much like the United States America or Canada setting up new States or Provinces) as they grew. Legacypac (talk) 21:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, Legacypac, secton 6.5. So I wasn't misreading it, the group really do call themselves "Sinai Province"? It seemed strange that a group should call itself a province, though no different from ISIL calling itself a state, I suppose. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 22:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

It's a similar story with the Caucasus Emirate in Russia, which divides it's wings with names like Vilayat Nokhchicho, meaning "Chechnya Province". Gazkthul (talk) 23:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

This announced expansion was only made a few days ago, we should wait for a WP:COMMONNAME to emerge before renaming groups. Gazkthul (talk) 21:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes "Sinai Province" in English "Wilayah Sinai" in Arabic. [[17]] however Egypt, not surprisingly, already has North_Sinai_Governorate and South Sinai Governorate (Wilayah or Muhafazah) so it is problematic to follow the declared name, we have to attach ISIL to qualify it. Legacypac (talk) 22:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Bold change of para order in Lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

• It does mean appropriate weight. That is why I moved up the terrorist designation part, instead of hiding it down at the bottom of the Lead, and why I agree that the Muslim criticism should be expanded on in the last Lead para in the way proposed by Gregkaye. I think a mere "notably among the Muslim community" does not give due weight. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 00:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
• P123ct1 All I was saying was that if there was a choice of either having Islamic criticism in early mention related to an organisation calling themselves Islamic state or having UN criticism in early mention related to an organisation calling themselves Islamic state then I would choose the Islamic criticism as of more relevance. It gets to the heart of issues related to the group. The UN quote the Islamic criticism. The Grand Muftis etc. don't quote the UN. The important voices are the ones close by both in distance and in root belief. This is content with even higher priority. Gregkaye ✍♪ 03:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
• No, you also mentioned that you were looking to put "terrorist organisation" under "status" in the infobox with all the countries listed there. The criticisms by the UN, Amnesty and Muslim communiities I think should be kept together, not favouring any one in particular. Perhaps they could go near the beginning, as they were originally, before the history part and after the terrorist designation part. I cannot remember now why they were moved to the end. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 07:29, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
• I quite agree that the criticisms should best go together. What I would say though is that, if one aspect of criticism should be placed in a forward position in relation to a group calling itself the "Islamic state ..." it should be the part that relates to Islamic criticism. I made my other comment about putting a cited reference to "terrorist organization" as the "status" entry at a time when this contained the content Unrecognised state which was also tagged "how" and which is unused in connection to ISIL by anyone but Wikipedia. The new wording is a great improvement. Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
• In another bold edit, I have moved the criticisms para up and joined it to the terrorist designation part to make one large paragraph. Editors can debate how the information in that para is ordered. Of course, I can and will revert my edit if editors do not agree with it, as I don't want to edit against consensus. I agree that the new "status" description is much better. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 11:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

1RR

Content more relevant for user talk pages

Mohammed al-Bukhari, you violated the one-revert rule, duplicated info on the lead, so disrupted the article. When I reverted your disruption, you reverted my correction and put your disruption again. Please correct your disruption. Thank you. Felino123 (talk) 17:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC) Felino123: Thanks for correcting my error; I don't know how I did that. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 18:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC) I am sorry, I thought you duplicated the info. It was Mohammed al-Bukhari who did violating the one-revert rule. My apologies, P123ct1. Felino123 (talk) 18:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC) Yes, I've just seen that! That's okay. Mohammed al-Bukhari has only just been warned today (a few hours ago) after being taken to the Edit-Warring Noticeboard for two 1RR infractions on this page and editing against consensus. This has not stopped. Now there is one more 1RR infraction, two more edits against consensus and more edit-warring. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 18:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC) Unless there is reason to report to editors that content changes have been made to the article, notifications such as above have no place on an article talk page. This is personal communication on an otherwise already overloaded page. Gregkaye ✍♪ 04:59, 20 November 2014 (UTC) Clashes between editors that have been a major disruptive feature until recently have no place on the Talk page and should be kept to editors' Talk pages. Who split off part of this thread and gave it a 1RR heading? That wasn't a good idea, IMO. Can it be reverted? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 07:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Since, more or less, I've been invited to write here...

Given that my previous edits about war had to do with Eastern Ukraine, I'm still not completely awary about how this article has been developed, but at least I'm glad I may edit an article concerning to which any reasonable person has a position against a determined group, unlike in Eastern Ukraine (there are reasonable and unreasonable ppl on both sides there). But any suggestion about what I might start to write about, it might be useful, as well as for other new editors about ISIS. Thanks a lot for reading.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 05:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome. You will find many topics concerning this group are being discussed on the Talk page and you can join in and edit or give your views on any of them. If there is an aspect that concerns you particularly about ISIL that has not been discussed, you can raise it under a new heading, in the way you have done now. But please remember that the Talk page is for discussing ways to improve the article, it isn't a forum for discussing the subject generally. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 08:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC)