Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:00, 26 November 2014

Template:Pbneutral

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

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

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

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

Template:Syrian Civil War sanctions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Should we add this line to the lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• "Self appointed jihadist"? Ahem... It's jihadist, according to many reliable sources, including Misplaced Pages. 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)

• Well many Sunni are saying ISIL is not Sunni and the 5 Arab states attacking with the US in Syria are all Sunni led Sunni majority.

With the reorg bringing Criticisms under one Level 1 heading, about 25-30% of the article is Criticism and we need to reflect that in the lead properly. Legacypac (talk) 20:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

Supporting evidence:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

]

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

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

New suggestion:

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

Comment:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_______________________________________

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

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

or, in a longer version,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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 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)

Thank-you for that. I'd consider that to be an excellent NPOV form of words. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Pinging @HammerFilmFan: @Jason from nyc: @KazekageTR: @Legacypac: as editors that have not contributed for a while regarding a compromise suggestion of footnote text which was proposed a couple of days ago without objection by Gazkthul.

The suggested footnote text which I think is encyclopedic reads:

• "Jihadism has become an ideological descriptor in the English speaking world and no religious sanction is implied in it's use throughout this article."

That's basically all and I'd appreciate any further comment regarding support for this or not. All the same, here's some responses to above content.

HammerFilmFan has previously fairly stated, "Wiki goes by what the Reliable Sources state. The vast majority describe (rightfully) ISIS as a terrorist jihadist movement".

An issue is raised here about value laden labels. Misplaced Pages doesn't use its own voice to describe groups as "terrorist" and, explanation given from about half way through the thread now titled Jihadism as a value laden label, the word jihadist is quite value laden as well.

Jason from nyc informatively says, "We never say ISIL is practicing Islam and that their jihadism is part of Islam’s tradition of jihad." The trouble as I see it is that, from the beginning of the article we have a group that calls itself "Islamic ..." and we then call them "jihadist". ISIL's claim as "Islamic" is to some extent countered by the criticism content in the article. Without even quoting a name we use Misplaced Pages's voice to call them "jihadist" and I think that the suggested wording can give excellent qualification to this.

Legacypac has gone to the extent of recently editing the text to decribe a "self-identified jihadist group". The unobtrusive footnote would also meet similar needs.

kazekagetr helpfully informs that in Turkey, scholars are aruing about on the '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.

I think that it is right to recognise that there is debate going on. I also think that the use of the footnote would be one way to mirror this. The democracy point is also important. If in a country the word democracy adopted very different meanings, I think that a comment on that difference would be in order.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 21:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• What does that mean? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 00:11, 22 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)

Which is why the reorg grouped most of the criticism together Legacypac (talk) 05:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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. -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"

What does "ISIL sympathiser controlled" mean? That will baffle the uniformed Misplaced Pages 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)

I'd like to suggest reconsidering the inclusion of the Derna area in the main infobox map. This is based on some more specific information now being published about the Dema takeover being orchestrated directly from Baghdadi and his inner circle. This isn't a terribly strong opinion, but I think it's worth another look.

Gregkaye makes two good points about why this is currently excluded from the main map of control. (1): outsiders pledging allegiance from afar does not make them real, integral members of the group. And (2): the practical people in charge need to be effectively in the ISIL chain of command.

Re (1): upwards of 300 of the core ISIL militants now controlling Derna are bona fide Islamic State fighters who have been serving with the group this year during its rapid expansion and debut as a "real state".

The sources say the Derna branch of ISIS counts 800 fighters and operates half a dozen camps on the outskirts of the town, as well as larger facilities in the nearby Green Mountains, where fighters from across North Africa are being trained.

It has been bolstered by the return to Libya from Syria and Iraq of up to 300 Libyan jihadists who were part of ISIS' al Battar Brigade -- deployed at first in Deir Ezzor in Syria and then Mosul in Iraq.

CNN

Re (2): it now appears that the two main figures orchestrating the takeover were not Libyan militants who decided to get leverage or attention by pledging allegiance to ISIL. They are actually an Iraqi and a Saudi who are integral ISIL officials.

Two months ago ISIS leader Baghdadi helped orchestrate the take-over of Derna by dispatching one of his senior aides, Abu Nabil al Anbari, an Iraqi ISIS veteran who had spent time with Baghdadi, in a U.S. detention facility in Iraq, according to Benotman.

Helped by Abu al-Baraa el-Azdi, a Saudi preacher who has become Derna's top religious judge, al Anbari's efforts have borne fruit. 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.

CNN

AdamColligan (talk) 01:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

That CNN account does seem to imply a high level of involvement of Baghdadi and his lieutenants, much more than I would have assumed. I still think it will be tricky to show on the map, especially if the Libyan branch starts gaining more territory beyond Derna. Gazkthul (talk) 02:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

calls them The Islamic State in Libya (ISIL). Perfect for our chosen name! Not so perfect for the people there. This article has detailed background worth reading " A new Islamic State commander now leads the city, identified as Mohammed Abdullah, a little-known Yemeni militant sent from Syria and known as Abu al-Baraa al-Azdi, according to several local activists and a former militant from Derna. A number of leading Islamic State militants came to the city from Iraq and Syria this year and over a few months united most of Derna's multiple but long-divided extremist factions behind them. They paved the way by killing any rivals, including militants, according to local activists, former city council members and a former militant interviewed by The Associated Press." Legacypac (talk) 03:36, 21 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 , 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

I've added some more info to the section on the groups attempts to stockpile gold, silver and copper. I also reduced the size of the info keeping in mind the length of this article. Gazkthul (talk) 04:13, 21 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?

Misplaced Pages 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)

Had to remove two words, "most" and "legislative" from the text, as they are not in any of these citations. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 22:56, 20 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)

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)

Good article mentioning Mao, Stalin and Lenin - three of the few guys in history to outkill Bagdadi, but then they are all dead and Bagdadi is not just yet so he might catch them yet. These 3 also used killings as tool to gain control, they just lacked social media. We can't just sit in the west and say the propaganda is not working on us. Seeing 18 solders get their heads chopped off is highly effective propaganda that tells the Syrian to not resist ISIL. cruelly effective propaganda machine, said retired Marine Gen. John Allen "In this sense it is undeniable that ISIL propaganda has been extremely effective – mainly in drawing attention to its existence and causes" and we could go on. Legacypac (talk) 02:13, 21 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) 12:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

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)

You can confirm statement 1. with Google Earth - as a note on the maps says (or recently said). Lots of empty desert. 2. read http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/08/the-many-ways-to-map-the-islamic-state/379196/. Legacypac (talk) 01:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

1. Google Earth does not show ISIL control, so what you say is irrelevant to this map. 2. I read it, and it does not provide information that confirms ISIL control of the uninhabited swathes of land in question. Your inability to provide a reliable source with a map similar to the map in question speaks volumes.--158.222.143.13 (talk) 03:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

First IP - It's not my map and I don't have to defend it. I answered your question in good faith but you attack me saying I'm doing OR and you make inappropriate generalizations based on your Lack of any Research. I suggest starting with this BBC map which is very much like our maps and the very first result for me seaching "map of isis controlled area" Legacypac (talk) 20:56, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

You don't have to defend it, and I don't understand why you are defending it. You wrote in good faith, no doubt, but you did not answer my question, you referred me to Google Earth as proof that the area is uninhabited, which I did not deny. I did not say you were doing OR, I said that the map is OR. The BBC map specifies "Areas ISIS claims to have presence or control" -- so this is (a) not BBC's position but ISIS claim, and (b) presence or control, not just control.--158.222.143.13 (talk) 01:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Our maps are not based on ISIL claims per se but on collected reports from all sides of who controls what. Legacypac (talk) 05:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Fine. Show a map with those places that are reportedly controlled. This maps shows huge swathes of land for which no report of control exists, and it is OR to assume that they are controlled by ISIL.--158.222.143.13 (talk) 06:22, 24 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 . 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)

(transferred here from a later section)

Based on the Bagdadi Speech, declarations by the groups, the change of names of the groups, and raising the flag in Libya, the RS confirm that the groups in Syria and Sinai both merged into ISIL and control territory. Some of this has been reflected in the article and infobox, but reverted without discussion. Can the editors who do not agree that these groups have not been absorbed and that ISIL does not control territory in Egypt and Libya please provide recent RS here for their edits? Legacypac (talk) 01:33, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't disagree they have been absorbed, I do think that if further groups pledge allegiance and more provinces are announced, it's going to become quite a mess to incorporate. Gazkthul (talk) 04:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Have you read and the CNN piece quoted Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#Reports_ISIL_controls_small_amount_of_Libyan_territory

Yes of course, that's why I agree they have been adsorbed... Gazkthul (talk)

sorry I misread your point. Legacypac (talk) 06:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

All updated and a new article created to cover this section. ISIL territorial claims Legacypac (talk) 19:52, 21 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/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)

I had to do this again... Legacypac (talk) 19:24, 21 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)

• It has now reached 209.5K, just five days later. I don't think editors are serious about wanting to reduce the article's size. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 10:16, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

And the talk page is now 305,357 bytes but when a couple editors try to do some housekeeping... one editor assumes bad faith and reverts it all. Trying to do my part to section stuff into other articles because that it the only way we are going to keep this manageable. Legacypac (talk) 10:38, 22 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

5. I shifted out detailed info on Beheadings and (Again) trimmed Alleged Turkish Support text that is already in the sub articles - the article has not been this short since yesterday! seriously we need to be willing to further break this article up. Finance section next? Legacypac (talk) 19:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

6. Combined Goals and Territory controlled sections due to overlapping content and shifted detailed content to ISIL territorial claims Legacypac (talk) 21:21, 21 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)

(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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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/search/?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 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 Misplaced Pages 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/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 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)

RfC of whether Turkey should be listed under opposition

=>Nov 23: Events on the ground have rendered this RfC unnecessary. According to and other sources the Iraqi Kurds and Turkey officials both confirm that Turkey has special forces in Iraq training for the last 3 weeks. That makes Turkey a full participant based on our criteria. The articles are updated. Someone should close this discussion to clean up the talk page. Étienne Dolet can you withdraw your RfC? Legacypac (talk) 20:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Votes

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  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  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  01:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Philosopher (talk · contribs) I don't think the Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages align itself to that sort of POV as well? Mugabe says he's a democratic president, but does that mean the Misplaced Pages community should instill such a consensus? Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages has done in the past in similar circumstances. No need to re-invent the wheel, after all. – Philosopher  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 Misplaced Pages 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  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)

• Legacypac, you're right, but the list is restricted to states carrying out military operations in and/or over Iraq and Syria and states suplying weapons to ground forces opposing ISIL. Turkey may be doing a great humanitarian job, but I can't find any reason to keep Turkey on the opponents' list. Felino123 (talk) 18:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you and am ok with removing Turkey. Turkey has been dealt with as a separate section on the Intervention articles. We also have a Turkey section as the first section under the Support. I just restored the "Alleged" modifier because Turkey is clearly not in the same class as groups pledging allegiance or opening supporting ISIL. In fact, I'm going to move Turkey to the bottom of the supporter section. Legacypac (talk) 20:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, looks like we have a consensus here. I will remove Turkey from the list if there are no objections within 24 hours. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:31, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Turkey HAS been supplying aid to the FSA which is fighting ISIL and Assad all along. They are in NATO and are not a ISIL supporter. Put them in the Military Aid group, rather then delete completely. Legacypac (talk) 03:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Population

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

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

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

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

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

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: 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  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 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  03:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Disputed edits (resolved)

"Fastfingers666" heading changed to reduce prominence. 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".

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.

Removing material from lead: detailed rationale

Collapse of previous thread

I do not agree with collapsing this thread. It gives a bad impression. It looks like censorship and could be seen as justifying the claim made by the outside editor concerned that there is indeed a clique of editors on this page that will resist outsiders contributing to it. Not all the edits made by this editor were bad and gave some food for thought in some instances, IMO. Particularly concerning is that it is not possible to call up this thread from the TOC. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 18:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I was just trying to shorten this beast of a talk page. The editor was not blocked because he said he was no longer going to edit this page. Since the thread is largely about that editor's actions, it should be hidden as a courtesy to them, just like the previous thread was concerning the same editor's actions. Legacypac (talk) 20:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Mon oeil. I cannot see how it is a courtesy. More of an embarrassment for some editors, IMO. Did you or someone else collapse the first thread concerning Signedzzz? You have collapsed the thread on "Diktats". What was the reason for singling that one out? It is far shorter than many. The way to shorten the Talk page is to archive, not collapse threads.. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 21:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye collapsed the other zzz thread - I am just following his lead. Someone also collapsed the currency thread. I collapsed Diktats because the discussion was concluded and the word stands. Let the bot archive in time - collapsing leaves the info here for now in case anyone wants to comment on the threads before they are archived for inactivity. If someone does want to reopen the discussion they can uncollapse easily. I am already enjoying an improvement in the ability to scroll and find stuff due to the collapses. However, if you spend too much space debating housekeeping the benefits of housekeeping will be canceled out. Legacypac (talk) 21:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

In other words, your housekeeping efforts must not be questioned by another editor. Got it. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 22:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I never said that, but I do not like untrue motive ascribed to my good faith efforts to keep this talk page functional. Legacypac (talk) 00:17, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Your collapsing looked selective. Most threads uncollapsed now, per PBS Talk page, "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant", for the sake of transparency on the Talk page. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 09:07, 22 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)
• I think "with many Islamic communities describing the group as not representing Islam" as suggested by Gregkaye is an acceptable expansion on "notably within the Islamic community" (which says practically nothing). It is still only a summary, and it doesn't add any new information. Otherwise I agree with you, adding more about Muslim criticism in the Lead is unacceptable for the reasons you give. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 11:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
• P123ct1, what about "and notably by many Islamic communities"? It's obvious that if they criticize ISIL is due to the fact that ISIL doesn't represent Islam or Muslims. I think that phrase is too particular and gives extra info. I think my phrase summarizes criticism better. Felino123 (talk) 02:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
• Yes its obvious. Its also obvious that there has been a great outpouring of condemnation. There are some things that need saying and this content needs to be fairly represented. The UN quotes the Muslim community. This is the content that comes first. Gregkaye ✍♪ 22:05, 23 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 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. ] 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)

• If there are no objections I will go ahead with the category changes mentioned. Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:36, 20 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 Misplaced Pages. The new wording is a great improvement. Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
• In another bold edit, I have moved the criticisms para up and joined it to the terrorist designation part to make one large paragraph. Editors can debate how the information in that para is ordered. Of course, I can and will revert my edit if editors do not agree with it, as I don't want to edit against consensus. I agree that the new "status" description is much better. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 11:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
• I think that puting criticism on the first paragraph, before any info about ISIS (just a very litle intro) is a mess. It gives a very bad impression to the reader and it's not arranged. So I suggest to put criticism where it was (at the end of the lead) and to join the intro to the terrorist designations in order to get a large paragraph. Terrorist designations may be on the first lines, but criticism don't. There's no consensus, P123ct1, so I think you should revert your edit. Felino123 (talk) 18:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
• I invited other editors to comment, Felino123, you are the only one to comment so far, so there is no consensus yet. Have I missed something? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 18:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
• The article has been well written in an extremely coherent style through the able and thoughtful contributions of many editors. It starts as many equally coherent news articles have been presented. The article first identifies a highly criticised group, responsible for ethnic cleansing and disowned by much of their own religion. From this point most news pieces will then fill in the details from there. As discussed it would be wrong to split up the criticism section of the lead and there was general support for placing information on terrorist designation in the first paragraph. It would be a mess to split up the critical content. Gregkaye ✍♪ 19:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
• Copy-editing this article has become an uphill battle recently. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 23:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
• I think criticism and Amnesty and UN reports should be at the end of the lead. And terrorist designations on a first, long paragraph along with the intro. I have edited it the way I think it's ok, as you did. I think we should not separate the beheading incidents and UN and Amnesty reports about ISIL's violations of human rights. I don't like the phrase "with many Islamic communities describing the group as not representing Islam". I think it's too particular. I don't think its necessary. It's obvious that if Muslim communities are criticizing ISIL is due to the fact that they don't regard ISIL as representative, so I think that phrase is extra info. Felino123 (talk) 02:27, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
• I think that the current edit is far from OK and extremely dangerous. See Google: game AND "play a terrorist". The most relevant criticism of a group that calls itself "Islamic State..." is criticism from the Islamic community. Many prominent members of the Islamic community including many Grand Mufti's have condemned the group in a whole variety of ways. The UN quotes the Muslim's not the other way round and, within the religious community, there can be comparatively little concern as to what the outside world thinks. It makes no sense to mention terrorist at the beginning of the lead (within what would be considered to be the voice of outsiders) and not also present other valid content on criticism at the same point. P123ct1 previously made this edit in line with above discussion which now needs to be restored. Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
• Gregkaye, terror designations are not criticism, but legal/official designations by governments. What makes no sense is to put criticism at the beginning of the lead, before everything, before even knowing anything about ISIL. Criticism is not the most important thing about ISIL. Actually it gives a very bad impression to the reader to see that; it's unarranged and gives the impression that the article is a mess, and it doesn't invite to read more. I don't think there's anything wrong with putting terror designations at the begining. In fact, I support it. But we can make a deal in order to reach consensus: I don't think criticism should be at the beginning of the lead, and you don't think terror designations should be at the beginning. So I suggest to put both criticism and terror designations at the end, as it was before and we all agreed. There was no need to change it. Want do you think, P123ct1? Felino123 (talk) 22:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
• An official terrorist designation is one of the highest most official criticisms the a government can give. When the UN, EU and major and smaller countries are saying they are terrorists - that is a big part of the story. Legacypac (talk) 03:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
• Felino123 I changed my mind and prefer the paragraph to be at the top. This is what I suggested and how I originally edited the text to read:

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

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

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

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

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

So my suggestion is:

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

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

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

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

Ordering of sentences in this paragraph

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

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

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

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

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

• Yes, I agree with you Felino123, I think the order should be terrorist designation, UN/Amnesty criticism, Muslim criticism. Can we do the same thing again here to see what the consensus is? You and I are for this order, Gregkaye is against (he wants Muslim criticism first, then UN/Amnesty, then terrorist designaton). What do you think, Legacypac? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 14:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Have slightly adjusted Gregkaye's Muslim "judgment" wording and altered "guilty" of ethnic cleansing, as that word is not used in Amnesty's report at all. (Their report is cited in the "Human rights abuses" subsection.) I think everything may be evened out now. Is my rewording of those sentences acceptable? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 18:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
• I don't think "accuse" is too strong, but I think we can choose another "weaker" word. What about "stated" or "reported"? If the source says "accuse", then we should keep this word, but if anyone can find an alternative valid source that doesn't use this word, then we can change it. "Judged" is too strong. And about the Islamic criticism, it was "good" (although I didn't agree very much) as it was before and the consensus agreed. I have changed the order of this paragraph, as it seems most users agree with puting terror designations first, then human rights reports and then criticism. I have also removed the word "judging" to a previous version as there was no consensus for that edit. Also, there are silent links from both criticism and Islamic crticism. Are both necessary? They lead to almost the same section. So I think only one is needed. Felino123 (talk) 22:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
• Felino123, do you know what consensus means? There is no consensus yet, either on the wording for the Muslim criticism, or on the order of the sentences in that paragraph. Because there is no consensus yet, your edits have to be considered disruptive, I'm afraid. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 22:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
• P123ct1, I tought I could change it because those edits were made with no consensus, either. I am sorry, I have reverted them, so problem solved. Felino123 (talk) 03:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

1RR

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)

Mondolkiri1: 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)

Beheading incident article name

The article currently named 2014 ISIL beheading incidents is currently in the RM process. Optional names include:

2014 ISIL beheadings,

2014 Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant beheadings,

2014 Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant beheading incidents

or the original.

link

Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Lead addition

• Is the last paragraph in the Lead on this really needed? Isn't a reference in the "See also" section enough? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 13:02, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

an out of context religious view might say: "Everything is permissible--but not everything is beneficial". Beheading incidents are indisputably something that the group are widely known for and this reference is not otherwise in the lead. Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Is Islamic extremist are Khawarij?

Should we use the word Khawarij to define Islamic extremist as it is used by Islamic scholars to describe them? Swaywoof (talk) 15:48, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

• No, as Islam is not a monolithic bloc and not all scholars think like that. We should be neutral. Also, we discussed about adding this word and the consensus said no. However, this is clearly pointed out on both the ideology and criticism sections. Felino123 (talk) 16:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Swaywoof I notice that you have newly started editing today. Welcome to Misplaced Pages. As any experienced editor will be able to tell you we do not use Misplaced Pages's voice when making claims but add all notable content in the context of quotation. Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Khawarij is a word mentioned in Hadith to define Islamic Extremist in the 7th century.

Narrated Yusair bin 'Amr: I asked Sahl bin Hunaif, "Did you hear the Prophet saying anything about Al-Khawarij?" He said, "I heard him saying while pointing his hand towards Iraq. "There will appear in it (i.e, Iraq) some people who will recite the Quran but it will not go beyond their throats, and they will go out from (leave) Islam as an arrow darts through the game's body.' "

This is clear example that Khawarij are Islamic extremists. Swaywoof (talk) 18:02, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Timeline keeping

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Footnote appeal

alt. title: (sorry) toe the line

We here announce the ISIL article "Footnote appeal"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed Move of Ansar Bait al-Maqdis => ISIL in Sinai_ISIL_in_Sinai-2014-11-22T08:16:00.000Z">

See Talk:Ansar Bait al-Maqdis to discuss.Legacypac (talk) 15:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC)_ISIL_in_Sinai"> _ISIL_in_Sinai">

• Another option would be to create new content on a topic related to ISIL's influence in Sinai should that content prove to be notable and leave the content on the now fractured and apparently disbanded Ansar Bait al-Maqdis as historical. I think that we should be here to reflect on events with reference being made to terminologies in notable usage. Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:16, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

• Legacypac In the case of this group I think it would be a mistake to change the name and it may make more sense to start a new article. A significant section of the group remain loyal to al-Qaeda and presumably retain the previous organisational name. I have edited the article into a state where it can be viewed as a group from which a large contingent has split. There still is an option to take the Ansar Bait al-Maqdis article and make this a base for new 'SIL centric article but that would probably need to be a consensus decision. Personally I think that several of the articles of groups who have sworn allegiance to 'SIL may need review. I think that splits should be given consideration. Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I just read 20+ articles on this topic and concluded that there has been a movement toward ISIL by ABM and an effort to influence ABM by ISIL for months. Both are looking for benefits from the tie up. I am not convinced that there is much of a Nile version of ABM or that there is really a split in ABM over the pledge to ISIL. That said, a new article for a new stage is an appropriate way to go. Legacypac (talk) 21:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Article Maps

Two maps were removed with this edit claiming they are original research and pointing to this discussion which was not linked to from this talk page. I consider the removal of long standing very useful maps to be a problem. They should be restored immediately by Onefireuser and left until a broader consensus is reached with editors who are working on the article. Legacypac (talk) 21:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Maps been restored. Please unsure proper sourcing. --Onefireuser (talk) 22:23, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggested Trimming of Infobox Info & New Infobox

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

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

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

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

Article Section Reorg - from 14 top level headings to 6

What it was) vs What it is now 1 History

1.1 Names

1.2 Foundation of the group (1999–2006)

1.3 As Islamic State of Iraq (2006–2013)

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

1.4.1 Syrian Civil War

1.5 As Islamic State (2014–present)

1.6 Timeline of recent events

1.7 November 2014

2 Criticism

2.1 Islamic criticism

2.2 Criticism for use of the name "Islamic State"

2.3 Other international criticism

2.4 Human rights abuses

2.4.1 War crimes accusations and findings

2.4.2 Religious and minority group persecution

2.4.3 Treatment of civilians

2.4.4 Sexual violence and slavery allegations

2.4.5 Attacks on members of the press

2.5 Designation as a terrorist organization

3 Countries and groups at war with ISIL

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

3.2 Multinational coalition opposition

3.3 Other state opponents

3.4 Transnational organizations

3.5 Other non-State opponents

4 Group characteristics and structure

4.1 Ideology and beliefs

4.2 Goals and territorial claims

4.3 Leadership and governance

4.3.1 Diktats, influences and pressures

4.4 Propaganda and social media

4.4.1 Beheadings

4.5 Finances

4.6 Military and arms

4.6.1 Foreign fighters in Iraq and Syria

4.6.2 Conventional weapons

4.6.3 Non-conventional weapons

5 Supporters

5.1 Statements of support

5.2 Turkey (Allegations of Support)

6 Analysis

6.1 Conspiracy theories in the Arab world

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Compare to an article on the polar opposite Red Cross

1. History of Movement,
2. Activities, including

2.1 Organization of the Movement

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

2.3 Activities and organization

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

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

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

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

Current: 2 Criticism (as now organized)

2.1 Islamic criticism

2.2 Criticism for use of the name "Islamic State"

2.3 Other international criticism

2.4 Human rights abuses

2.4.1 War crimes accusations and findings

2.4.2 Religious and minority group persecution

2.4.3 Treatment of civilians

2.4.4 Sexual violence and slavery allegations

2.4.5 Attacks on members of the press

2.5 Designation as a terrorist organization

Proposed: 2 Criticism

2.1 Human rights abuses

2.1.1 War crimes accusations and findings

2.2.2 Religious and minority group persecution

2.3.3 Treatment of civilians

2.4.4 Sexual violence and slavery allegations

2.5.5 Attacks on members of the press

2.2 Islamic criticism

2.3 Criticism for use of the name "Islamic State"

2.4 Other international criticism

2.5 Designation as a terrorist organization

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

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

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

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

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

reintroduction of material twice reverting my edits

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

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

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

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

Names and History Subsections

Suggestion: In the lead we summarize the history and name changes in paragraphs 3-5, then in the new "History" Level 2 Section we have a Names Level 3 section which gives an abbreviated history followed by Level 3 sections organized chronologically matching each name change. The reader has to slog through the names and history three times in various levels of detail before they get to much else. Maybe we could consolidate the Level 3 Names section into the related History sections (as in the lead) cutting quite a bit of duplication without removing any real information? Any objections? Legacypac (talk) 21:16, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes! I am going to put on the gramophone record again: I still maintain that the listing of names in that very short subsection (8K and only one screen) is an ideal way for readers to get a handle on all the different names, and on the concept that although the group was established in 1999, it is still essentially the same group. Both those things can be more readily grasped from "Names" than from reading the "History" section, where that information if incorporated there would be diffused out. Readers need that reference, as all the names (8) are quite muddling at first glance. We are used to it, but imagine you are new reader who knows very little or nothing of the group's history. The names are a nightmare, so a brief run-through I think is a good idea. I think it would be far better to delete the repetition in the Lead, although perhaps not even that – maybe the early history of the group part of the Lead could be condensed down even further. I will see if I can do that. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 21:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

A=Names Names B=Foundation of the group (1999–2006)

A: The group was founded in 1999 by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi under the name Jamāʻat al-Tawḥīd wa-al-Jihād, "The Organization of Monotheism and Jihad" (JTJ)

and

B: Following the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq, the Jordanian Salafi Jihadist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his militant group Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad, founded in 1999, achieved notoriety in the early stages of the Iraq insurgency, by not only carrying out attacks on coalition forces but conducting suicide attacks on civilian targets and beheading hostages.

A: In October 2004, al-Zarqawi swore loyalty to Osama bin Laden and changed the group's name to Tanẓīm Qāʻidat al-Jihād fī Bilād al-Rāfidayn, "The Organization of Jihad's Base in Mesopotamia", commonly known as Al-Qaeda in Iraq. (AQI). Although the group has never called itself Al-Qaeda in Iraq, this has been its informal name over the years.

and

B: Al-Zarqawi's group grew in strength and attracted more fighters, and in October 2004 it officially pledged allegiance to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network, changing its name to Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn (تنظيم قاعدة الجهاد في بلاد الرافدين, "Organization of Jihad's Base in Mesopotamia"), also known as Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI). Attacks by the group on civilians, the Iraqi Government and security forces continued to increase over the next two years—see list of major resistance attacks in Iraq. In a letter to al-Zarqawi in July 2005, al-Qaeda's deputy leader Ayman al-Zawahiri outlined a four-stage plan to expand the Iraq War, which included expelling US forces from Iraq, establishing an Islamic authority, as caliphate, spreading the conflict to Iraq's secular neighbors, and engaging in the Arab–Israeli conflict.

In the past the names section had far more detail and each name was bold itaics so it jumped out as you read. That would help. Legacypac talk) 22:45, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not clear what you are suggesting here. I am responsible for paring down the detail in "Names" some time ago, as it repeated the "History" section (as it then was); I wanted to get it down to being mainly about the names. I have condensed the Lead history part further just now. I tried the bold italics, but was reverted by an editor later who quoted MoS which says no bolding for anything apart from in the Lead and in headings in the text, so I then put underlinings instead. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 23:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

• Legacypac Preamble: While I think that there is a definitely an issue to be debated here I am a little annoyed at the way that you have presented it. Did you review much of previous discussions one reference to which I added in the "See also" hatnote above? In context of past discussion I think P123ct1 fairly mentions gramophone recording. (Sorry to single out this issue for comment as there have been many 'SIL/Syrian War threads started that have not placed arguments/debates in context).

Parallel question: this relates to the relevance of the placement of the Template:History of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant at this point. The template provides reference to the sequence of content within the article while providing links to content outside the article - but it's pretty.

This all having been said I continue to be open to the possibility of change. At the top of Timeline of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant events#2014 events I added an in section index. I'd suggest, that if the names sub-section were assimilated into the history content, then a similar set up could be added as an in section index to the major names. I would be interested in views of other editors but I'd suggest that an "Index to history" might provide an alternate method of introducing content. Given the widely encompassing title of the first subsection of history, "Foundation of the group ...", I agree that some kind of introduction to names is needed. I also think that a brief index of names might meet much of that need. Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:45, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes I think I've read everything on the talk page over the last several months and have been quite involved in the growth of the page. I'm just making a suggestion about how we might shorten the article by removing duplicated info - that is my only point. I'm not going to combine these two sections myself as there are other areas I'd prefer to focus on. Maybe someone will run with my suggestion or maybe not.Legacypac (talk) 10:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• My gramophone comment was not meant to be critical; it is just that I have made this point so many times in different places over recent months! An index of names as suggested by Gregkaye could perhaps incorporate the rest of the text in "Names", e.g.

1. Jamaat ........................ The group originated as Jamaat ... set up by Al-Zarqawi ....
2. Tanzim ........................ In October 2004 ....
3. Mujahideen Shura Council ...................In 2006, AQI merged ....

and so on. That would be clearer. The history part of it could perhaps be condensed even further, and I think some history would need to go in there, just to explain the names. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 10:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Great. I've created what I have called an "Outline of history" at the beginning of Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#History. "Index of history" or something else would work similarly. I guess is someone want to take on the project of moving names content into the History content then the door is open. (or not) Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)]

If anyone is thinking of actually incorporating the names content into "History", please will they first look at my first comment in this thread. I didn't create that "Names" section, but I found it extremely useful when I first came to this article, for the reasons I outlined there. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 16:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

(my misunderstanding) I guess that this discussion may well have a way to go yet. Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I find it repetitive but am not going to push the point - there are other ways to shorten the article that will have a larger effect. Legacypac (talk) 21:02, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Lead section

• "aims to bring Muslim-inhabited regions of the world under its control, (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-02/could-an-isis-caliphate-ever-govern-the-muslim-world/5559806%7C) beginning with the Levant region, which approximately covers Syria, Jordan, Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Cyprus, and part of southern Turkey. (http://blogs.wsj.com/briefly/2014/06/12/islamic-state-of-iraq-and-al-sham-the-short-answer/)
• Not in source. zzz (talk) 21:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

zzz Its a good point that we either need a citation for this or to make a correction. I certainly got this impression from watching videos regarding becoming a caliphate and my understanding is that this is the intention of a worldwide caliphate. also when I saw a picture of 'SIL's proposed coins, one side featured a map of the world. Gregkaye ✍♪ 22:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

"or to make a correction": I would go further. Since nothing is generally agreed about 'aims' this should be deleted. zzz (talk) 22:58, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome back zzz. What is not in the sources exactly? Have you read the paragraph you pulled this from and all the sources attached as well as the wikilinked Levant article? Also this article http://english.al-akhbar.com/node/20378 Legacypac (talk) 22:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

What is not agreed about aims exactly? Legacypac (talk) 03:49, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Or, to put it another way, what is universally agreed? zzz (talk) 04:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Still not making a specific suggestion or backing up the request to delete with RS. I we should delete well source material just because one editor personally disagrees with the facts, we might as well delete all of Misplaced Pages. Legacypac (talk) 04:44, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not you define this as 'trivia', there's still no need for it in the lead, anyway. zzz (talk) 06:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you say specifically why not, zzz? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 11:20, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

zzz There are a few relevant quotes in the citations. One reads: "In the same vein, a leader in ISIS’ rival al-Nusra Front said,... “By declaring the caliphate, they are forcing all groups in the Islamic world to be with ISIS in everything,.." There was also the video released featuring a young Australian 'SIL extremist who was surrounded by a large contingent of militants in which the Australian said things like, "we will see the black flag above Buckingham Palace." If Misplaced Pages had an article on a fictional antagonist or villain or fictional crime group that had intentions of something such as world domination then I would hope that such an intention should be given due and relevant prominence in content. My first response after another brief look through the content of the citations was to move the last citations and add a citations needed tag to the mentioned text. I withdrew the tag in light of the content in the article Worldwide caliphate. The intentions of the group are relevantly indicated in connection to the caliphate claims that 'SIL are reported to have made. Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:08, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The text now used is completely consistent with many RS and what ISIL has declared by their own words. This is not our opinion - it is actually Baghdadi's view. But asside from the news, here is one scholarly think tank source dealing with the Ramadan speech - it is extemely clear what ISIL wants/has declared and anyone can google more examples:

The new speech is most notable for being forthright about Baghdadi's message on the global nature of the Islamic State's struggle. Baghdadi touched on issues regarding the persecution of Muslims in Burma and the Philippines as well as the French restrictions on the wearing of the veil, and he responded to accusations that the Islamic State engages in 'irhab .

Ominously, Baghdadi concluded his speech with aspirations for the Islamic State's conquest of "Rome" and the whole world. Such emphasis on the transnational nature of the Islamic State's project corroborates Baghdadi's projection of himself as the caliph and sole representative of Islamic rule on earth to whom all Muslims must pledge allegiance.

While these explicit proclamations, however, may come across as new in the Islamic State's messaging, the reality is that emphasis on worldwide ambitions has actually been a part of the group's propaganda since at least last summer ... This approach aims to have locals first become accustomed to the norms of Shari'a law, with ambitions for a global Caliphate not expressed openly except in unofficial videos primarily put out by members of Jabhat al-Nusra's foreign contingent.

In the flames of war video the narrator says We fight to rule the entire world with Allah’s revelation.

It is getting tiresome dealing with an editor who makes the same points ] and and over and in edits that had to be reverted but does not seem to read any sources or supply any sources for anyone else to read to substantiate his unusual point if view. Supporters of ISIL will say they are building a worldwide caliphate while Opponents will mock the very idea and point out how dangerous they are, but I can't see in value in denying that ISIL seeks global domination and pushing the point at Misplaced Pages.

If the latest 200k troop estimate is correct, ISIL has approx the 25th largest active military force in the world. That is more men under arms then the UK, Germany, Israel, Afghanistan, Italy, Libya, Spain and dozens of other nations have. So as stupid as the claim might be, when made by a guy with a bigger badder army then almost every army in the world says he wants to rule the entire world and have religious authority over all muslims, its worth mentioning as part of one sentence early in the group's wikipedia article. Legacypac (talk) 11:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not necessary to guess at their aims in the lead, it's WP:UNDUE, bearing in mind that it's hearsay. Anything that is unsourced should be removed. zzz (talk) 14:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted the edit undertaken in line with the above comment as another attempt to go against consensus. Hundreds of media reports of recorded ISIL statements about their aims are not hearsay. Legacypac (talk) 18:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• No consensus (see this page). NOT IN SOURCE, UNDUE etc. Zzz (talk) 00:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Infoboxes and Lead

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

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

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

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

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

Moratorium on a name change

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

iraqi insurgency map

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

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

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

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