Talk:Islamic State

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

An RM to ISIS? (moves now prohibited)

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.

---

title change from "An RM to ISIS?" Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:11, 16 October 2014 (UTC) Obviously it would just be a request which could then be debated but I thought it best to check provisional views. Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:07, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

No. Please stop. There is no need to be constantly debating the title. Leave it well alone. We've had enough move requests already. RGloucester — ☎ 17:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

See my comment when making the last RM close. I suggested that there is a moratorium on requested moves for 3 months (until the new year). There comes a point where continual debate over the name of an article becomes DISRUPTIVE and I think that now there have seven requests this year with four requests in the last two months, and many other sections taken up with discussions about the name, that point has been reached. It becomes disruptive when editors time is taken up in endless debates over the name, when the limited time that editors have can better be spent improving this and other articles. Consensus can change, but it is unlikely to change in such a short period, so wait until after the new year then if an editor thinks that usage in reliable sources justifies a request then make one. In the mean time If I think that editors are being disruptive over this issue then I will take administrative action under the general sanctions that apply to this page. -- PBS (talk) 18:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I was one of the ones making an RM request, but now ( and before reading the above the suggestion) I do think there needs to be a 60+ day moratorium on move requests. WP:TITLECHANGES says "If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed." One good reason not to change it is because all previous attempts have not gained consensus. This moratorium should only apply to article renaming, not uses of names in the article itself.~Technophant (talk) 03:55, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Usually the name used in an article title is used within an article (because the MOS favours consistency). In this case there has been a recent discussion held "#Proposed move from "ISIS" to "ISIL" in the article text" over whether to use "ISIS" to "ISIL" within the article. I suggest that you add your view to that section. -- PBS (talk) 13:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

PBS I never ever saw that conversation. I was archived prematurely so I restored it to the talk page. I don't disagree with the change of the acronym from ISIS to ISIL. I added my views the more recent thread #Use of "Islamic State" at least in the infobox. ~Technophant (talk) 14:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Here's what I suggest for this moratorium. A sticky notice should be put below the header. If somebody brings up a RM it should be archived and the nominator notified on their talk page. No need to punish anybody unless there's repeated violations.~Technophant (talk) 17:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

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

I'm not sure if it would be beneficial for this thread to be archived. Just saying :) Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Lede could use some trimming

The discussion of its history alone is as long as some ledes. --BoogaLouie (talk) 01:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

An editor just inserted this in the last paragraph of the lead, with a source behind a paywall. I'd like to see some quantitative data to back up this claim. I think that we have found a variety of terms used in the English media.

"As of mid-September 2014, many of the most prominent English-language news media groups, including the BBC, New York Times, The Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, Reuters, and the Associated Press used the name the "Islamic State", while others stuck with ISIS and ISIL."

Legacypac (talk) 04:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The Lead is becoming rather long. I am wondering if the last para on names really belongs in the Lead; perhaps it should be added to "History of names". It won't lose prominence, as this is the first section of the article. I don't think the extra edit is needed at all. --P123ct1 (talk) 07:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

If we could keep it to a sentence it should stay in the lead, but some editors dont like it, add to it, insist on more detail etc. I try to think of the uninvolved reader looking for info. Does the reader care about the 25 names the group has used over 15 years and the sequence? Likely not, and therefore there is too much in the lead about it. Many readers have got to be wondering why CNN, the POTUS and their morning paper dont call ISIL the same thing, and might turn to WP for the answer. They should not need to read through long lists of arabic names and history that frankly few car about to find out why the variety of current names used.Legacypac (talk) 08:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Any subject like this simply has to deal with the history, and the variety of names is very much part of it in this instance. I don't think we can assume what readers might be interested in. However, I agree that the history paras of the Lead could be condensed considerably. I will see if I can do it and put it on the Talk page for agreement. I don't see how readers would have to plough through all the "History of names" subsection, if the current name controversy was clearly marked in it. Readers don't read everything and they can skim and skip the earlier parts. Perhaps as you say there should at least be a sentence or two about it in the Lead, but no more than that. What do you think about moving the names business away from "Criticism of the "Islamic State"" and into the "Names" section? It would give it the prominence it deserves if was at the beginning of the article. --P123ct1 (talk) 09:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes we need history which includes the names, just brainstorming a way to be more concise. Moving it into Names might be ok, but as a reader the heading "Criticism of the "Islamic State"" jumps out as interesting, while a detailed history of group names (do they have Obsessive Compulsive Disorder over the group name?) seems tedious to read. Legacypac (talk) 09:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

If it does go into the "Criticism of the "Islamic State"", I think it will need highlighting. Perhaps under its own subsection? Readers don't have to read what they don't want to read, and believe it or not, the "Names" section has already been pared down! (I did it some weeks ago.) From the beginning I found the "Names" section very useful, for getting a grip on ISIL's history, for at each stage of its development it has had a name change. --P123ct1 (talk) 11:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac: I see that last para in the Lead has been summarily removed, in mid-discussion about what to do about it! --P123ct1 (talk) 11:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I have cut down the history paras as much as possible to reduce the size of the Lead. There is a limit to how much can be cut out, as the Lead is supposed to be a summary of the article. --P123ct1 (talk) 13:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I saw that too - with an edit summary that it duplicated material in the body. With that logic why do we need anything in the lead exactly. Legacypac (talk) 05:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The 2nd and 3rd paragraph of the lead could be combined with the final paragraph to read:

The group's original aim was to establish an Islamic state in the Sunni-majority regions of Iraq, and following ISIL's involvement in the Syrian Civil War this expanded to include controlling Sunni-majority areas of Syria. A caliphate was proclaimed on 29 June 2014, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi—now known as Amir al-Mu'minin Caliph Ibrahim—was named as its caliph, and the group was renamed the Islamic State. As caliphate it claims religious authority over all Muslims. Muslims around the world widely reject its claims and condemn its actions. The group has been described by the United Nations and the media as a terrorist group, and has been designated as a foreign terrorist organization by the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, Israel, Turkey, Indonesia, and Saudi Arabia. The United Nations and Amnesty International have accused the group of grave human rights abuses.

The blue text is the original last paragraph. The black sums up the Islamic criticism in the body of the article. The green is the 3rd paragraph summing up worldwide criticism in general. This could trim the lead substantially and leave the full exposition to the body of the article. Jason from nyc (talk) 18:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The blue text differs substantially from the second paragraph and seems of similar length. It read: "In its self-proclaimed status as a caliphate, it claims religious authority over all Muslims worldwide, and aims to bring most Muslim-inhabited regions of the world under its political control, beginning with the region of the Levant which approximately covers Syria, Jordan, Israel/Palestine, Lebanon, Cyprus, and part of southern Turkey."

To what extent are ISIL acting as a liberation army? A lack of mention of other governments but just of Sunni majorities may be taken to indicate that this is their role. Also, in the west when we speak of majorities and minorities we do so within the general understanding of equal rights and equal opportunities for all. This won't be the case under Baghdadi's regime. Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:16, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I put one too many sentence is blue (now fixed). The two sentences "As caliphate it claims religious authority over all Muslims. Muslims around the world widely reject its claims and condemn its actions." was meant to replace "In its self-proclaimed status as a caliphate, it claims religious authority over all Muslims worldwide, and aims to bring most Muslim-inhabited regions of the world under its political control, beginning with the region of the Levant which approximately covers Syria, Jordan, Israel/Palestine, Lebanon, Cyprus, and part of southern Turkey." The last paragraph already mentioned "a caliphate was proclaimed" so that means we can leave out the duplicate "As self-proclaimed status as a caliphate" in the second paragraph that I suggest be removed. The last paragraph mentions "aim was to establish an Islamic state in the Sunni-majority regions of Iraq, and following ISIL's involvement in the Syrian Civil War this expanded to include controlling Sunni-majority areas of Syria" which covers some of "aims to bring most Muslim-inhabited regions of the world under its political control, beginning with the region of the Levant which approximately covers Syria, Jordan, Israel/Palestine, Lebanon, Cyprus, and part of southern Turkey." This seems to condense and remove repetitions. Perhaps we can avoid duplication in the lead in another way. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I removed the Arabic script from the intro here with the edit summary (removed Arabic script from intro. It's included or available elsewhere and makes the intro hard to read.~Technophant (talk) 20:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Suggest trimming nation names

text reads:
The group has been designated as a terrorist organization by the United Nations, the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, Israel, Turkey, Indonesia, and Saudi Arabia.

Suggest:
The group has been designated as a terrorist organization by the United Nations and by various nations.

that last link could be composed various nations.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

No. That is a step too far. In all terror groups articles in Wikipedia, the custom is to name all the countries in that sentence in the Lead. --P123ct1 (talk) 09:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

their actions are “not jihad at all, but rather, warmongering and criminality” (See also #Logical Order in Lead and #The word "jihad", criticism and disruption)

(Pinging: Gazkthul, Jack Pepa, Jason from nyc, Legacypac, P123ct1, Rothorpe, Wheels of steel0, re: current time responses - late additions. Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

TY Jack Pepa for finding the texts. Also at: 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”."

Conclusion, which was always clear: We cannot speak in Wikipedia's voice and describe ISIL as Jihadist. The media honestly don't know what they are talking about IMHO and will use which ever buzzwords that they think will sell most papers. Gregkaye ✍♪ 19:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye, I think you are missing the point, Wikipedia doesn't have a voice on this or any other issue, it simply uses what WP:RS use. If or when that usage changes, we will also change. Until that time, we will continue to use Jihadist. BTW, this term is hardly confined to Islamic State, there are literally hundreds of armed groups that are referred to with this term, so I am not sure why you are singling this out. Gazkthul (talk) 22:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

[above comment inserted out of sequence]

Gazkthul, I personally think that various terms used in various "WP:RS" with little or no justification. Please note that they also use other subjectively applied terms including: murderous, criminal, illegal etc. which are far less contested. Do we apply these too? Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

[as was this]

This is blatant POV-pushing. Not only that, the removal of "jihadist" from the opening has been made without the consensus of editors. I would imagine most of those scholars would deny that al-Qaeda and all its offshoots were jihadists as well, yet that is the WP:COMMONNAME for groups of this kind. Objections of this sort belong in the "Criticism of the "Islamic State"" section, not in the Lead. The whole reason for having a criticisms section, which I opened, was to deal with this sort of thing and the criticism of ISIL from all quarters that are coming onstream fast now. What do other editors think? The last para in the Lead on the name was also removed, in the middle of Talk page discussion about what to do with this para. Editors should not unilaterally make major edits to the Lead without first putting it to other editors first. --P123ct1 (talk) 20:00, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Its the POV of the Islamic world. The Islamic imans are the most relevant reliable sources regarding issues to do with Islam. The text that I removed from the end of the lead had been duplicated in the criticisms section. I had also placed its contents in chronological order but don't have much of an opinion as to the location of the text. It should go one place or the other. There had been talk on removal of text from the lead but I have no objection to it being moved back. Gregkaye ✍♪ 20:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is, but WP has to abide by WP:NPOV. How many times does this simple principle have to be repeated to editors before the message gets through? Calling it the "POV of the Islamic world" and thinking that justifies the edit shows how far you are from understanding WP:NPOV, in my opinion. You also don't seem to realise what a Lead is. It is a summary of the article, and as such is bound to repeat the main article to some extent. A short form of words for the last Lead para was being devised when you made your edit, as I don't doubt you were aware. --P123ct1 (talk) 20:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

It is totally fine to accurately reflect any statement that ISIL may make regarding their claims to any thing of relevance. We cannot say they are "jihadist". That is POV. We can only report on the facts. Gregkaye ✍♪ 20:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

you could talk about "facts" if the term "jihad" wasn't just some vague notion from a religious book. the article about "jihad" also state that "Muslims and scholars do not all agree on its definition". so enough with those atempts to seperate them from other jihadists and other islamic caliphates who killed and conquered in the name of islam. do you justify other organisations like al-qaeda and taliban? or caliphates who killed and colonized so many people?. --Wheels of steel0 (talk) 23:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

[above comment inserted out of sequence]

Those "facts" you refer to are opinions. Can you really not see that? And who is to judge what is "of relevance" in that sentence? Not Wikipedia. NPOV again. I have had my final say. --P123ct1 (talk) 21:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

you talk like the islamic state and the org's that swore allegiance to them(like the taliban) doesn't have imams and other muslims scholars in their ranks which well exceeds the number of 120 which itself cannot be called "the POV of the islamic world". al baghdadi is a muslim scholar himself with a PhD in islamic studies. --Wheels of steel0 (talk) 23:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The current version, that says they are just Sunni albeit militant, it is the worse of all possibilities. Jihadist is widely used. Whether they are correctly jihadist or bogus is not something we should address. We're not determining the real Islam let alone if they have authority to wage jihad in the sense of a "lessor jihad." This is how the vast majority of sources categorize them. Legitimacy is another issue. We'll have the same issue with Sunni. Are they accepted as valid practitioners of Sunni Islam? Should we delete Sunni? Criminals? They make the laws in their state. We're left with nothing but "bad guys" and that doesn't make for encyclopedia copy. Jihadist is the most descriptive term but one might want a qualifier like extremist. This puts them on the spectrum of jihadist types that leaves open whether they are off the charts and not genuine jihadists at all. Jason from nyc (talk) 00:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Our article on Jihadism says "Generally the term jihadism denotes Sunni Islamist armed struggle." We can drop Sunni and just used jihadist as it can be taken for granted that it is Sunni. As it is Islamist it isn't Islam per se so no qualification is needed. I now suggest it "is a jihadist organization and unrecognized state ..." should be sufficient. Comments? Jason from nyc (talk) 00:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Jason from nyc Again this denotes the misuse / misunderstanding of the term. Other Muslims are not restricted from adopting jihadist actions both according to relevant content as denoted in Islamic texts or according to the murdering, Muslim slaughtering, and territory grabbing (non-jihadist) groups to which the terminology is applied today. Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

As a well educated Canadian with a deep interest in history and politics I did not know that all jihadism is Sunni. ISIL constantly says they are waging jihad - I can pick that word out when they use arabic too. The West calls their activities jihad too. Legacypac (talk) 03:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but the context is 20th-21st century political/military struggles in the Middle East where we are referring to the Salafist revival supplanting Arab nationalist regimes with government implementing Sharia law. The word jihadist in this contexts refers to a specific current that uses force to bring this change about. It's sufficient for the lead as the reader knows this specific usage of the word jihadist for this context. Criticism and contrasts belong in the body of the article. Jason from nyc (talk) 03:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• Wheels of steel0, ISIL have been known to kill imans that don't agree with them. In addition to quantity we also need to consider quality and veracity of sources.

The first link I came to at www.buzzfeed.com states that "ISIS Now Has Up To 31,000 Fighters — More Than Many Nations’ Armies". So first, with this number of fighters, how many imams does it have? Second, what are their credentials? Third, what are their freedoms of expression?

The news article quoted refers to "120 Sunni imams and academics, including some of the Muslim world’s most respected scholars" who have stated that ISIL's actions are “not jihad at all.” Various condemnations have gone before and I don't doubt that more will follow.

In regard to impartiality we can note that one of the signatories is an imam from Iceland for goodness sake. There is no reason here for bias. ISIL's claims of jihad and can be reported as can the views of the prominent Islamic scholars mentioned. Note, no-one rejects the idea that ISIL are extreme and this is a different issue.

The "Islamic State" have described themselves to be jihadist. I don't see that this view has been supported either by other Islamic sources or by any actual state. The press, for whom I have lost further respect during this conflict, continue to use a variety of buzzwords in various situations. The institution of the press is staffed by people who will hack people's phones for stories and who will chase people to their deaths in hope of pictures. We have long been able to rely on them for their fairly consistent approach. We can't choose a use of words simply because unqualified people choose to use them.

In comparison to the Nazis, Isil's policy of capture and execution may have been conducted at a smaller scale but at a higher rate of murder than the Nazis had ever achieved. They kill or, as far as I have seen, they capture and kill and I don't fancy the chances of any male non Sunni muslim in this situation. ISIL also face female fighters and, although not shown in the slaughter videos, I suspect that many of them will have gone a similar way.

If a similar group to the Nazis had, for instance, claimed that they were "Crusaders", the most that we could say was that they "claimed to be Crusaders". That's all we could do in Wikipedia's voice. In no circumstances would we state that they "were Crusaders". This would be POV. Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The Nazis never went as far as to make statements like: "If you can kill a disbelieving American or European – especially the spiteful and filthy French – or an Australian, or a Canadian, or any other disbeliever from the disbelievers waging war, including the citizens of the countries that entered into a coalition against the Islamic State, then rely upon Allah, and kill him in any manner or way however it may be. Smash his head with a rock, or slaughter him with a knife, or run him over with your car, or throw him down from a high place, or choke him, or poison him." Abu Mohammad al-Adnani. What kind of f****d up religious view is this? Does any religion accept this? I have not heard anyone object to accusations of extremism. As far as extremes go my comparison to Nazism are more than justified. I'm still interested to know a comparison to the term "genocide" but applied to religion. Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The only ISIL member with a Wikipedia article who is indicated to have a religious background is Bilal Bosnić. He seems to be more involved into recruitment activities rather than theological studies. See: Category:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant members. Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that we're not charged with deciding which variant of Islam is the true Islam. Catholics have considered Lutherans heretics for centuries. (Anecdotally, my wife said that when she was a little girl the nuns taught that to her.) No encyclopedia would write Lutherans out of Christianity. We report what the sources report. The most common descriptor is jihadist (we studied this above). The word jihadist is now an English word: [2] [3] [4] [5]. Like many words it can have many meanings but the use of the word for religious warrior makes it suitable to almost all of our sources without further explanation. It's the only word we need in the lead with further explanation given in the body of the article. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• Gregkaye, you don't realize that the islamic state is more than just fighters or those 31,000 fighters(the numbers are much higher now) and are made up from various peoples who serve in various duties from islamic judges(qadi) to teachers of islam and imams, the same goes for the taliban which swore allegiance to them. so even if we ignore the imams who preach for joining the islamic state we can get more than 120 imams who support the islamic state. and if you read the artivle about Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi you will see that he has a PhD in islamic studies, and he isn't the only one with academic islamic knowledge.

you also need to realize that their islamic opposers has no theological islamic claims against them, its not like somebody like your imam from iceland can come and say "the islamic state aren't doing jihad, jihad is:(some kind of defenition) while the islamic state is doing:(something that doesn't fit to that defenition)", the imam from iceland is opposing the islamic state probably from the same reason you and me are opposing them: they are fanatics who kill and ruins the life of many people. but the imam from iceland is facing a conflict between the horrors that happened in the times of the former caliphates which he can ignore and the same thing(and even less horrific) that the current caliphate is doing which he can ignore and look at it is if he read the history with islamic POV about how the caliphates kill and conquer in the name of god. the islamic state could do the same things in the past and if that imam from iceland was reading about them he obviously wouldn't oppose them and their dids cause it is much easier to support this kind of stuff when you read about it from a religious book rather than see it happen in the TV and look at the victims of the caliphate in the eyes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wheels of steel0 (talk • contribs) 12:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Wheels of steel0, Islam's imam from Iceland has joined ~119 others to say that ISIL's actions are not Jihad and these imams are the authorities of these things. Jason from nyc the definitions you supply say things like: JIHADIST: a Muslim who advocates or participates in a jihad; and JIHAD: a holy war waged on behalf of Islam as a religious duty. Islamic scholars, Sunni and otherwise, call into question a representation of both Jihad and Islam. The dictionaries also give definitions or words like "warmongering" and "criminality" as well as other terms like "murdering" etc. These are things that are pretty much confirmed. Jihad is disputed. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

On the topic of definitions: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/source

source: A place, person, or thing from which something originates or can be obtained:

Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• Gregkaye, what makes this 120 imams better than the 120(and probably even more) imams who support and even work for the islamic state?, you are acting like you are the real authoritie in these things and not the imams you are talking about.

and as you already said, jihad is a disputed and unclear term, so why you keep talking like the islamic state can't be called like that unlike other organizations and former caliphates who can be called like that?. if you have problem with the use of this term in general you need to talk about changes in many other wiki article instead of acting like there is a clear and accurate defenition for "jihad". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wheels of steel0 (talk • contribs) 13:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Wheels of steel0, AS YOU HAVE READ: the 120 Sunni imams and academics include some of the Muslim world’s most respected scholars. 120 does not limit the number but they are a group that spoke out at one time in one voice. If you can cite other imams then go ahead. Yes I try to research what I write but I don't claim to be an authority. All I have tried to do is to point to those that are. Please, don't say that I have said things that I have not said. This is disingenuous. Please don't appeal to some 'clear and accurate defenition for "jihad"'. The simple fact is that the application of the word Jihad in this case is disputed by a number of authorities on Islam. It is questionably used. It should not be used without qualification. Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• Gregkaye, "the 120 Sunni imams and academics include some of the Muslim world’s most respected scholars", as i already said this is just one group of imams and nothing more than that, the islamic state have their imams in their controled territory and also imams who recruiting members in many countries. coming together and giving some statment to the media as a group has no impact about their authority or capabilities to conclude such statment about some vague term from a religious book, its not like they can say something like "jihad is: (something) while what the islamic state doing is different", and yes you need a better accurate defenition in order to do somekind of a difference between the islamic state and other jihadists.

you need to realize that muslims can seperate the islamic state from themselves but not from the religion itself and other caliphates and people they don't know, nobody can have that authority especialy not some small group of imams, and don't forget that the number of islamic scholars and people with religious role in the islamic state is probably much more than 120 and this is the same case with organizations who support them like the taliban. you are too focused on comparing them to nazis and with blind hate against them(don't get me wrong i hate them to but its not blind hate) that you fail to see what they realy are: another islamic caliphate with the same goals and motives as former caliphates. --Wheels of steel0 (talk) 16:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you really saying that all caliphates operated by senseless murder? I did not intend to be at all focussed in comparing them to the nazis. As far as I can tell, in many respects they are worse than the nazis. No limitation was intended. Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

they killed many innocent people in the name of god and for the sake of their empire, the arabo-islamic colonization of huge parts of asia and africa was all full of murder and oppression, and all that in the name of imaginary entity. that was all senseless murders unless there is some divine mandate for those killing which also make the killing of the captives of the islamic state a justified actions...--Wheels of steel0 (talk) 17:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye, Islam is not monolithic. It is not our job to decide which Muslims speak for Islam as a whole. There are various strains of Islam and that has been true from shortly after Muhammad's death when the Sunni and Shiite split on succession. Like the word algebra, jihad is now an English word and the English language is determined by common usage not scholarly institutes (as the French have). The reason our search show that jihad is the most common descriptor for ISIS is that it is the closest word in the English language that categorizes ISIS. Let's stick with sources and not try to become experts in Islam theology. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

As there is no consensus for militant I have reverted the edit to the previous consensus per WP:BRD. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Jason from nyc, Islam is based on the same core texts that it has had for one and a half millennia. It is our job to decide on encyclopaedic content. The present content relates to a disagreements between factions within Sunni Islam. We have an obligation to present rational content and, while we don't need to become experts on Islam, perhaps we can have some trust in those who are. The reversal of edit supports a further radicalisation of language. Jihad means struggle and this is related to a struggle towards Islamic values. You allow it to be associated with a group that supports the murder of a taxi driver turned aid worker. We are supporting a redefinition of Jihad and I do not think that this is Wikipedia's role. I doubt that organisations like Britannica would only have taken newspapers as source materials if they could not track down primary source. The whole point of the Islamic campaign "notinmyname" is to say that the name of Islam is inappropriately applied to "ISIL". In Wikipedia the suggestion of renaming the article as ISIS is rapidly shut down and editors argue that we apply the validating term "jihadist" to an organisation that amongst other things executes innocents. In effect unwarranted and unqualified support is given to a murderous organisation. This is not neutrality. Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• Gregkaye, you can't say that you rely on experts while you choose which one to rely and which one to ignore in order to claim the statement you want as "backed by experts" as if its undisputed. as i said in another comment of me to you, you are too focused with the hate to them and loosing neutrality, you are talking about "letting" the term of jihad to be associated with "murderous organization" as if the former caliphates didn't kill anyone innocent and as if it was less worse cause of some divine mandate for those murders.

wikipedia should point out FACTS and not POV like the opinion of some group of imams as if they are authority, like what next? mybe wikipedia should decide who is right between the shia and sunna? in the article about shia there will be said that the shia are infidels according to some sunni imams and that they are self proclaimed to be muslims or even delete "islam" from their article.

i know what you feel about the islamic state, and that the muslims shouldn't be generalized as supporters of what the islamic state is doing. but nobody can seperate the islamic state from islam and other terms like jihad and caliphate or claim that the "moderate" muslims are more "muslim" than the "extremist" once, this is just imposible to do just from the religious text which is everything in islam. --Wheels of steel0 (talk) 17:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Wheels of steel0. Your argument stateing: "in the article about shia there will be said that the shia are infidels", is baseless. In the States there is the example of the Klu Klux Klan which basically involved the persecution of black Christians by white Christians. There are a great many cults that have a basis of Christianity that are regularly criticised as non-Christian. If Wikipedia were to state these organisations to be or have been struggling towards Christian values then such claim would be rightly disputed. Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

The word “jihad” has many meanings like most words in the English language. Given the nature of the article it clearly does not mean “struggle” but something more specific that clarifies the nature of ISIS. We are not writing an article about Islam and Islam is not monolithic. Nor are we saying that everything or anything ISIS does is consistent with Islam or acceptable to this group or that group of Muslims. That there are Muslims that say “notinmyname” only points to the diversity within Islam. That there are 120 scholars who can sign a detailed repudiation of ISIS again shows diversity especially since there are no Saudi scholars signing that document. (Is Wahhabi not a bona fide strain of Islam? I know Muslims who would say it is not. But we can’t answer that question.)

The word “jihadist” when used in the contexts of fundamentalist militant Muslims has a narrower meaning to the English readers that makes the lead intelligible. Militant, radical, Sunni, fundamentalist, etc. just doesn’t do it. I agreed to the addition of “extremist” to “jihadist extremist” but we did not get consensus on that. One might consider Salafist jihadist also but that seems less common in the literature (I could be wrong here.) Plain and simple, the overwhelming descriptor in the English literature is “jihadist.” We report the sources, not our analysis of what should be said. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Jason from nyc, My comments are made from a background of involvement in Jewish Yeshiva by which the most profound experience I had of racial disregard for other life came within just a few hundred metres of the Western wall. Honestly we are not simply dealing with a modern word here. Information sources like the western press and Wikipedia really need to take some responsibility. We are cowtowing to extremism. Its a dangerous game that we play and its not our lives that are most at risk. Gregkaye ✍♪ 19:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Our job is to report, not to transform or recommend. Words have many meanings and that always involves the danger of equivocation and other logical fallacies. I believe the context here is clear and the reader will understand the use of the word in the sense that it applies to this group. Jason from nyc (talk) 19:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Let me also say that the 120+ signatures are not representative of all Muslims. The only Saudi signer, Al-Sayyid Abdallah Fadaaq, is the leading Sufi cleric of the Hijaz. No Wahabbi? The Pakistani signer is Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri, a Sufi scholar as I suspect Muhammad Suheyl Umar is as well [6]. No Deobandi? To be fair we do have a Deobandi in India, Mahmood As’ad Madani, [7] of the Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind. Of the 126, [8] 38 are Egyptians. Egypt’s government has recently taken over religious studies to the point that Friday sermons must be approved by the government and the same sermon is read simultaneously at every mosque. Are these scholars hand picked by the government? This document should be in our article but it should not be in the lead nor given as proof of universal agreed upon theology. Jason from nyc (talk) 19:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Or "should not be in the lead"? Rothorpe (talk) 20:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant. I knew I left out a not somewhere and I'll put it in now. Thanks. Jason from nyc (talk) 20:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for second paragraph which currently begins:

• "In its self-proclaimed status as a caliphate, it claims religious authority over all Muslims worldwide,.."
  

and which I suggest changing to:

• "ISIL is often described as being jihadist and, in its self-proclaimed status as a caliphate, it claims religious authority over all Muslims worldwide,.."
  

or simply:

• "ISIL is often described as being jihadist. In its self-proclaimed status as a caliphate, it claims religious authority over all Muslims worldwide,.."
  

This gets by the problem of the unwarranted use of Wikipedia's voice.
ISIL is a new issue. See search: more extreme than al qaeda.
Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye, I don't understand how the term Jihadist is contested, who is contesting it? I'll also note that Arabic Wiki [9] (which presumably has a high number of Muslim editors), also refers to the group as Jihadist or Salafist Jihadist, as do a large number of media sources in the Arab world, Pakistan etc. Gazkthul (talk) 21:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

See, amongst others: http://lettertobaghdadi.com/

The parameters of lesser jihad (the relevant form of jihad) involves any Muslim who has people fight against them and who fights back. It does not involve involve invading kurdish villages and driving inhabitants into the hills, it is an Islamic term that cannot be applied to armed conflict against any other Muslim; it does not involve the decapitation of journalists, it does not involve five year expansion plans. There are many words that may relevantly be used to describe ISIL. Jihadist is far from being the most relevant descriptor. Its use is grossly misleading.

"The Reason behind Jihad: The reason behind jihad for Muslims is to fight those who fight them, not to fight anyone who does not fight them, nor to transgress against anyone who has not transgressed against them. God’s words in permitting jihad are: ‘Permission is granted to those who fight because they have been wronged. And God is truly able to help them; those who were expelled from their homes without right, only because they said: “Our Lord is God”. Were it not for God's causing some people to drive back others, destruction would have befallen the monasteries, and churches, and synagogues, and mosques in which God's Name is mentioned greatly. Assuredly God will help those who help Him. God is truly Strong, Mighty.’ (Al-Hajj, 22: 39-40)."

Islam believes in an unproven invisible God but, none-the-less, this is what it believes. We are dealing here with a warring group of religious extremists that are not even considered by many Muslims to be representative of their religion.

In the use "jihadist" without the use of descriptors that better describe the actions of ISIL we are effectively saying "this is jihad". This is irresponsible and we need to take more care. It is an utter misrepresentation of both the term and, for what its worth, its theological base.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 04:14, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Reading back through this thread, there does not seem to be a WP:CONSENSUS amongst other editors for the changes you have proposed. Gazkthul (talk) 05:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Which means continuing to apply Wikipedia's voice in our further radicalisation of the concept "jihad" despite the use of the terminology being in dispute. I think that if we are to play with people's lives we should pay more attention. Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't follow that describing them as jihadists implies that they are good jihadists or everything they do is consistent with jihad. Your change, that they are "Sunni militants," has the same problem. After 9/11 there were many complaints that the West was defining "good Muslim" and "bad Muslim." There was even a book with that title objecting to that trend. The notion of "moderate Islam" and "radical Islam" was criticized by many Muslims including the Turkish PM, Erdogan. We are not defining or apply standards of jihad or Islam--that's original research. We reflect sources and sources use jihad but note criticism. So do we. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Jason from nyc, sure but at present we merely state "jihadist" and we do so in regard to a group that from a wide variety of perspectives murders (not jihad), kills Muslims (not jihad), that advocates attack on the "people of the book" (not jihad) and that fights for territorial expansion (not jihad). We fail to give indication related to any kind of additional concept including that of good or bad. We just endorse them as jihadist. Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC) edited

Gregkaye your quote barely has anything to do with the islamic state or about proposed difference between them and another jihadist groups along the history. you saying that if they fight muslims it isn't "jihad"? i didn't found it in the hadith. at the end the islamic state fights for the enforcment of the islamic law(against secular regimes) in the same way the former caliphate did it: they conquer and kills any resistant and than enforce the islamic rule by force.

you need to understand that muslim people can seperate the islamic state(and other jihadist militants like them today) from themselves but can't act as if they have the authoritie to say that they are not muslims and not doing jihad, cause they don't just have nothing to back up their claims they also hypocrites for supporting the same thing that they read in the islamic literature(looks much more ideal and romantic due the obvious islamic POV) but stop to supporting it when they look the victims in the eyes and most of the world are angry and develope bad stereotypes of muslims. --Wheels of steel0 (talk) 13:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Question: How unholy would a war or a warring group need to become before losing a primary description of "Jihad"? Seriously! I'd like to know, or do you endorse the radicalisation of the term with no limit. Definitions like good and bad are irrelevant. Jihad has a definition and, according to various facettes or behaviour, limits will be crossed. Are we to apply a definition without limits? Is that the plan? Are we just to pander to whatever various journalists choose to churn out as they aim to increase publication circulation? Wikipedia is not acting as an encyclopaedia but as a lapdog for the press.

Comparison can be made with the likes of Saadam Hussain, a character who incidentally I would by no means describe as "good" but following the Kuwait war he did little but resist. Yes he kept human shield prisoners but they were kept in good health. He also spoke of Jihad but is not spoken of as a jihadist. ISIL blatantly abuse the a great swathe of Islamic teaching and yet jihadist terminologies are liberally applied. We are feeding radicalism and, when presented with opportunities for moderation, we fail. Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Every criticism you make of ISIS can be made of Wahhabism more generally. From our article: “al-Wahhab declared jihad against neighboring tribes, whose practices of praying to saints, making pilgrimages to tombs and special mosques, he believed to be the work of idolaters/unbelievers.” “Wahhabis embraced the ideas of Ibn Taymiyya—which allow self-professed Muslim who do not follow Islamic law to be declared non-Muslims—to justify their warring and conquering the Muslim Sharifs of Hijaz.” “Wahhabis also massacred the male population and enslaved the women and children of the city of Ta'if in Hejaz in 1803.” Our article states that IS is an offshoot of the Wahhabi movement and relies of Wahhabi literature. Saudi Arabia has funded Wahhabi Madrasas around the world. While I applaud the “open letter” condemning IS, we can not be an advocacy venue.Jason from nyc (talk) 14:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

You are not answering my question which is one that can equally be raised at Wahhabism. Here is another situation of a warring group claiming jihad despite the fact that other groups have very different understandings of the term. They may claim to act by jihad but we fail to give fair representation and, as I say, by failing in this way we are radicalising "jihad". Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC

"Assem Barqawi, also known as Abu Mohamed al-Maqdesi, who was released from a Jordanian prison in June after serving a sentence for recruiting volunteers to fight in Afghanistan, called fighters loyal to the Islamic State group's leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, "deviant"."
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/07/muslim-leaders-reject-baghdadi-caliphate-20147744058773906.html
We still use Wikipedia's voice to call them "jihadist". Its messed up.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:09, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye like seriously? what is that question? how the fuck do you describe "unholy"? do you define other jihadists and caliphate "holy" and calls them and their cause an "holy" and justified one? and all that without being a muslim?...

as i said several times before, not you or the the specific imams you choose(or anybody else where he is imam or not) can be an real authority, the best they can do is to speak for themselves but not for the imams and scholars who support the islamic state and obviously not in the name of islam itself cause the text it self just can't seperate the islamic state from former caliphate. i know you want to seperate those terrorists from other muslims but you just can't speak in the name of islam and every muslim in the world.

you keep with the same mistakes of treating islam as an organization or science with leaders or expert which can have such authority to differentiate between the islamic state and former caliphates. and anyway some of the "leaders" in that article are noted to be supporters of al-qaeda and jabaht a nusra which began to fight with the islamic state in the recent weeks. --Wheels of steel0 (talk) 18:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye and anyway if you believe in the authority of some islamic "leaders", mybe wikipedia should note that shia are "heretics" (http://www.nairaland.com/740058/sheikh-qaradawi-shia-heretics) and that alawits(another off shot of islam) are "more infidel than Christians and Jews"(http://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/07/opinion/abdo-shia-sunni-tension/index.html)?, you used al qaradawi for claiming that the islamic state aren't a "caliphate" and not doing "jihad"(and its not like he provided some serious proves for that) so why his suposed "authority" is only limited for what you want? you act as if you are the real authority for islam.--Wheels of steel0 (talk) 18:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

As a more accurate parallel I would like Wikipedia to question any endorsement that might be made of various controversial groups which may well have a basis of Christianity, such as the Klu Klux Klan or various organisations widely described as cults, that these groups were struggling for Christian values. Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

My valid question is: How unholy would a war or a warring group need to become before losing a primary description of "Jihad"? Sure its not down to me or and individual muslim or an individual imam. Jihad is an Islamic word describing, warts and all, a struggle for Islamic ideals.
When even the more extreme people in Islam reject ISIL, don't you think that maybe, just maybe that says something?
The most that we can do in the situation is perhaps say that they are "reportedly jihadist" and the only reason we may be forced to go this far is because of an idiot press that spouts wording that it either doesn't understand or doesn't think through.
There is no dispute to them being terrorists. There's dispute in their following of jihad. There is dispute of them following Islam. Its not that complicated.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 00:53, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• Gregkaye what is valid in that question of "how much unholy they need to be" like what the fuck is "unholy" and how exactly other caliphates/groups who has done jihad(confirmed as one by you of course) was "holy" unlike the "unholy" islamic state?, this is the only valid questions her.

again you miss the point (or simply just ignore what i am saying). who said that fighting for a caliphate and for the enforcment of the islamic rule isn't "a struggle for islamic ideals"? this is not just jihad this is also the same thing which the former caliphates and organizations which you call "holy" and justify them has done in the past.

and as i said before, it doesn't matter who are the people who oppose the islamic state and if they are "extremists" or not, they just can't talk in the name of islam and do what the islamic text can't do: to seperate the islamic state from other caliphates in the past.

you failed to provide any theological argument which seperate the islamic state from other caliphates and the only argument you have is that SOME muslims say that they didn't support the islamic state while you choose which muslim scholars and imams to delegitimize(the supporters of the islamic state) and even choose what statment to support and what statement to delegitimize with the imams you see as "authority". you don't realy rely on anything or anybody, only on your own opinion and POV which is quite mysterious i must say, you say that you don't believe in islam but act as if the former caliphates(the "real" ones according to you) and their religious struggle was justified, moral and even "holy". you can only speak like that if you believe in islam. --Wheels of steel0 (talk) 02:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Wheels of steel0, do you have any kind of theological background?

I will walk you through. Holiness, by definition, is being "dedicated or consecrated to God". In application to Islam the definition of holiness becomes that of being dedicated or consecrated to the God of Islam. The supposed teachings of the God of Islam are found in the Quran and related literature. Holiness in Islam necessitates attempt at adherence to such teaching. Holiness on an individual's terms and not on a god's terms is not holiness at all. Its not dedication to a god but dedication to different agendas.

In the current situation, in the Iraqi region, ISIL are in flagrant breach of the teachings of Islam and this is to the extent that people normally regarded as Islamic extremists condemn them.

The relevant theological point relates to the actual differences between the behaviour of ISIL and the requirements of righteous practice within the conceptions of Islam. Differences to other so called Caliphates are irrelevant and yet you continue to attempt to push that irrelevant point. If the same criticisms that can be applied to ISIL can also be applied to other groups then these become issues for those articles. The current discussion relates to the discrepancy between the behaviours of ISIL and the requirements of Islamic teaching. There are long pages of content written on this topic that you are welcome to read. All of the departures have relevance to theological conceptions of holiness and, to cap it all, there is even the specific criticism that the group's "sacrifice in intent for jihad ...is not jihad at all". My valid question on this topic remains.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• Gregkaye before you wrote that pointless mumblings about the defenition of "holliness" you could reread what i said about your question and understand that there is nothing real behind that term and that anybody can claim himself to be "dedicated or consecrated to the God of Islam", and you didn't show any proof for why the islamic state is "flagrant breach of the teachings of Islam" or why the islamic state couldn't be called "caliphate" unlike former "real" caliphates which is basicaly the whole point of this argument, cause if you can't differ between the islamic state and former caliphates what is your point exactly? if you claim that nobody were "jihadist", "caliphate" and "khalif" you are simply in the wrong talk page.

you have no real argument to back up your POV which is all about seperating the islamic state from former caliphates, jihadist groups and even islam itself. so if you don't have anything more to say other than "even the 'extremists' don't support them" you need to realize that you were wrong and also had wrong preception about islam(and religions in general) instead of repeating on the same pointless argument as if i didn't showed to you how much it has nothing to do with the islamic legitimacy of the islamic state. --Wheels of steel0 (talk) 16:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Wheels of steel0, please don't resort to rhetoric. Seriously? You don't see the point in discussing understandings of Islamic terminologies in association to a group that claims authority over Islam? Really? Gregkaye ✍♪ 22:29, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• Gregkaye i am the only one in this argument who talk about islamic terminologies her. you on the other hand talk only about the opinion of SOME muslims as if they have the authority to contradict and add to the islamic text, and even other users has told you that you act as if islam has monolithic leadership while it obviously far from being that way.

i know you hate the islamic state and know that they are bad people with no moral and nothing they do is justified, but it doesn't mean that you or some muslims can seperate the islamic state(or any islamic faction) from islam and claim that they "aren't doing jihad" or "aren't a caliphate" without any quote from the quran or other similar islamic text, cause those people are nothing more than another followers of islam and not more muslim than the supporters of the islamic state.--Wheels of steel0 (talk) 12:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The first thing that I really came to hate in relation to the recent history of Iraq is the loss of much of the countries ancient historical heritage - specifically that U.S. and UK forces drove up to protect the ministry of oil etc. and not the museums. This is the thing that I find hardest to comprehend because the decisions were solely based on about money rather than humanity. I have a better understanding of inter group hatred and the anti-Shiaism involved but this is still not forgiveable. I have equal "hatred" of any anti-Sunni sentiment that may have grown up in surrounding populations. We all bleed the same colour blood. I also hate misrepresentation. This hatred is shown in comments regarding the unhealthy misuse of Semitic references in anti-Semitism and this will be clearly apparent should you choose to take a look at Talk:Antisemitism. I currently hate the present misrepresentation of jihad. I also hate the continuing and senseless loss of life but this does not mean that I hate the murderers. Please don't attempt to derail arguments by trying to make things personal. Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

That's all fine and well but besides the point. The word jihad is now also an English word. The Wikipedia Manual of Style recognizes it as such. Even this past weekend, three time Pulitzer Prize winner, Thomas Friedman used the word in relation to ISIL. He says it is in part "Sunni Muslim jihadist fighters from all over the world ..." but which is changing the culture of Iraq and Syria "into bleak, dark, jihadist, Sunni fundamentalist monocultures." This is not an article on Islamic theology nor the Islamic doctrine of jihad. The difference is worth pointing out but the English usage of the word, even in the Old Grey Lady, is common in the English language. And we use the English language. This is how reliable sources in the English language use the word. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Jason from nyc it is true that "jihad" is also an english word now but there is a need to point out that the islamic doctrine of "jihad" is found only in the islamic text(like the quran) and it fits to the islamic state in the same way it fitted to former caliphates in the past. --Wheels of steel0 (talk) 17:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

You're asking me for the truth. I'm arguing that the word is now in current English usage and for the purpose of describing groups like ISIS. I'm not arguing for the usage of the term based on historical or theological concerns. You and Greg are addressing that matter as does the article on Jihadism. With all due respect, I'll bow out on that question as interesting as it is. Jason from nyc (talk) 18:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The only trouble is that we are working with an extremely loaded Arabic term that is transliterated into English. I'm going to take a detour to try to present an allegory. Let's say, for a moment, that we weren't talking about Islamic Jihadism but rather the French, Légion d'honneur. Let's say that the "honour" of this group had a religious agenda but that various groups had increasingly taken to unjustified violence. Finally a group emerges that is so extremist in nature that they embark on the mass slaughter of parallel groups with similar beliefs and slaughters innocent aid workers. At some point, if there was any rationality, someone would say this is not right. You are not what you claim to be. I really think that the jihadist claims of ISIL similarly have an Emperor's New Clothes quality about them. Sure they are actively "struggling" but when they are slaughtering fellow believers and murdering those providing humane support then their struggle in actuality has a very different associations than they may imagine. These struggles are like a Legion without honour and scholars have characterised them well. They are not jihad. Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

That is your own personal view and WP:OR. WP has to be neutral and reflect RS usage. Can you really not see that? Or do you see it and think WP is wrong and you are right on this? Because that is what it looks like. You are not a theologian or moral arbiter in WP, you are just an editor like the rest of us. --P123ct1 (talk) 18:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

That last talk page explanation is theological POV but I think it holds. However the current issue relates to the theology ISIL that and that alone. Reliable sources have called this theology into question. Even when we turn to other facets of what Wikipedia call RS, we find that the term extremist is at least as well supported as the term jihadist - and this by journalists who may have little or no theological training or background. Within this situation I think it is fair to give consideration to the views of various Islamic experts in the field. If its a question of morals, if it were to come to a choice between of those of the press or my own, I trust mine. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

All that apart, the simple fact remains: you do not have consensus for removing "jihadist". At least four editors on this thread alone disagree with you. Sooner or later the word will be reintroduced, possibly by an editor who is oblivious of this Talk page discussion. If when it is you remove it again, it will be seen as edit-warring and going against consensus. which is a serious matter. --P123ct1 (talk) 07:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I understand potential consequences but to be fair the thread started without the context of the addition of "extremist" a term that receives equal support and which is not disputed. Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

You are right Gregkaye. Point taken. --P123ct1 (talk) 16:12, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Other editors comments are also found at Category talk:Jihadist organizations Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:01, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Jason from nyc has inserted the questionable "jihadist" terminology in addition to the Islamic extremist link present. Given the context that Jihad is a topic with a wide range of meaning and that notable scholars state that Isil's actions go beyond the remit of jihad, I removed the reference but was reverted by Jason. It is intolerable that the article should speak in Wikipedia's voice to describe this murderous group as "jihadist". At the very least this unjustified claim needs reply. I have moved the paragraph containing the text "not jihad at" back to its second paragraph position so as to permit this reply. Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The insertion is jihadist not jihad. Jihadist is used by a consensus of sources specifically to refer to armed struggle. Jihadist is different from Jihad just like Islamist is different from Islam. Don't confuse the two. Usage of jihadist in the sense of Jihadism is standard and widely accepted. Jason from nyc (talk) 04:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Jason from nyc, I definitely agree that there is confusion. Wikipedia plays a dangerous game in adding to it.

PLEASE see, read and absorb, for instance, Islamic Supreme Council of America, legal ruling regarding:

Jihad: A Misunderstood Concept from Islam - What Jihad is, and is not. Read as much or the ruling as you like.

Despite this context you made two reversions to the replacement of the "jihadist" terminology into the article within a one hour period[10][11] without making reference to the talk page all for the sake of adding a questionable terminology the use of which will contribute to an irrational radicalisation of Islam and the unjustified provision of a religious justification for the heinous acts of this group.

The term Islamic extremism is accurate in every sense and the article regarding that topic presents information on jihadism that readers can evaluate for themselves. The article on jihadism even has a lead that states: "Muslims have argued that press use of the term Jihadism to denote terrorist activities has helped the recruiting of terrorists, but the term Jihadism is viewed positively by Muslims, and is understood to mean the fundamental struggle for good against evil." We are taking a word regarding a "the fundamental struggle for good against evil" and misapplying it to an organisation engaged in ethnic cleansing and the beheading of people engaged in helping the needy. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

First of all not all Islamic experts agree and you can not cherry pick the ones that support your POV to override common usage of reliable sources. More importantly, we are talking about jihadism not jihad. An -ism creates a derivative concept that differs from the parent concept. Jihadism differs from jihad just as Islamism differs from Islam. This is just how the English language works. We are talking about Jihadism not jihad. We make this clear my wikilinking to jihadism. Finally "Islamic extremism" is ambiguous. Extreme in what sense? Our wikilink brings us to what is essentially a disambiguation page where jihadism is one of the 3 choices. Thus even when sources use this they mean jihadism. So lets spell it out for the reader. (PS let's continue below in #14) Jason from nyc (talk) 11:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk of a subject like jihadism without reference to jihad is just about as nonsensical as talking about a subject like purpleness without reference to purple. Of course this is no problem in regard to a familiar and well recognised topic like colour. There. Please do not misrepresent what I have said. "There is no dispute to them being terrorists. There's dispute in their following of jihad. There is dispute of them following Islam. Its not that complicated." edited, Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

NB There is parallel discussion going on about this in #14 "Logical Order in Lead". --P123ct1 (talk)

N.B.: In Logical Order in Lead Gregkaye suggested "NB can editors interested in the "Logical Order in Lead" please continue to use this discussion and can editors wanting to comment on the use of specific terminologies please use the discussion their actions are “not jihad at all, but rather, warmongering and criminality” (See related discussion at #Logical Order in Lead)" Also, I've taken User:Gregkaye to AN/I for possible 1RR violation and disruptive editing. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive editing on ISIL by User:Gregkaye.~Technophant (talk) 19:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

I consider this among a range of questionable behaviours of an editor who made no contribution to this discussion. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I honestly don't see why the word "jihadist" is being debated here. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 04:06, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• Supersaiyen312, it hasn't been debated here for a very long time. Please consider the page implications of bumping threads. The reason, as stated is that jihad is interpreted in a range of ways including holy war and yet large sections of Islam reject ISIL as not being representative of the religion. Gregkaye ✍♪ 06:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Logical Order in Lead (See also #The word "jihad", criticism and disruption” and #their actions are “not jihad at all, but rather, warmongering and criminality”)

(Pinging: Gazkthul, Jack Pepa, Jason from nyc, Legacypac, P123ct1, Rothorpe, Wheels of steel0, re: current time responses - late additions. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

The lead "serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects." It should have a logical order. "It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies."

Thus, I made a change to start with the descriptions and moved "prominent controversies" to the end of the lead section. This way we have " unrecognized Sunni jihadist state" ... history of its growth ... "aim was to establish an Islamic state" ... "caliphate was proclaimed" ... "claims religious authority over all Muslims worldwide." I moved the criticism paragraph that starts with "Widespread Islamic criticism of ISIL ..." to end the lead. The criticism is total. Everything about ISIL is being criticized and condemned.

Why, Gregkaye, do you object to that? Jason from nyc (talk) 15:22, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Jason from nyc, I am still awaiting your reply to my "You are not answering my question" statement above.

Editors can't have it both ways. You can't place an unqualified endorsement of ISIL as being "jihadist" (struggling in holy war) and also remove content presenting the contrary view.

Either we qualify the statement or we move both the statement and its opposing text together.

If the opening paragraph used a description similar to: "a Sunni reportedly jihadist unrecognized state in Iraq and Syria in the Middle East" then any move of subsequent text would be fine.

Another option would be to move both the "jihadist" claim and the "not jihad at all" comment to another part of the text but, without qualification being given to the "jihadist" claim, it becomes necessary for these two contents to appear together.

I would be equally happy with either solution.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I removed nothing. You seem stuck on jihadist. It is not just jihadist that is being criticized by other Muslims (and non-Muslims). The claim to an "Islamic state" and "caliphate" and "religious authority" are all being criticized. Do you want a parenthetical remark after each phrase? Our article would read ... "jihadist (rejected by 126 prominent Muslims) ... Islamic state (not Islamic according to 126 prominent Muslims) ... religious authority (rejected by 126 prominent Muslims) ..."??? Not only are Muslims (and non-Muslims) critical of such claims, they also list a host of atrocities and appropriate condemnations. Do we insert those after every sentence? The "open letter" that we refer to has explicit rejection of ISIL doctrine on a point-by-point basis. It is much more than the word jihadist and there belongs as a response to the whole description, after the whole description. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:15, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure I am stuck on "jihadist". "Islamic extremist" would be a marginally better description despite the group being widely rejected by Islam. Why do you mention parenthesis? Please don't misrepresent the content of other editors. My clearly stated suggestion was to either keep the two Jihad related references together or to use something like "reportedly jihadist". Many sources have described then as being jihadist. We can reflect that. I am resolutely stuck on the view that a group that kills aide workers should not be given an unqualified endorsement as struggling for Islam or that they are engaging in "holy war" at least not without fair and immediate reply. Gregkaye ✍♪ 21:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll repeat myself. Since Islamic critics reject IS on many grounds and not just it's claim to be waging jihad, it should come at the end of the lead so that it expresses the full critique of all that comes above. Jason from nyc (talk) 22:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank-you for limiting yourself to your point. My point is that we cannot speak in Wikipedia's voice in crediting them as "jihadist" and separate this statement from opposing claims. Many reports on ISIL begin with reference to criticisms and then continue to present additional context. There is no imperative to present content in a particular order. It is important to either give qualification to the first "jihadist" statement or otherwise keep the two references to jihad together. Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe we still achieve your objectives as long as this paragraph is in the lead. It isn't just "jihad" but "Islamic" and "caliphate" that are being rejected by Islamic critics. Putting this paragraph last still achieves the objective of telling the reader that there is Islamic opposition to ISIL and to all of ISIL's claims and activities. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Jason from nyc, Since the time of your above edit the content you mentioned, which used to be contained first thing in the article' second paragraph, has (as is clearly demonstrated in the recent AN/I has been repeatedly removed from the lead. If I am to be described as being involved in edit warring then, clearly, I am not the only one. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

My objective is that we don't give ISIL an unbalanced endorsement of them being "jihadist" or that immediate reply is enabled.

Options of working text include: "... is an Sunni extremist unrecognized state", "... is an Islamic extremist, Sunni unrecognized state" or "... is an Sunni reportedly jihadist unrecognized state".

In the first option the use of "Sunni extremist" eludes to Islam without direct reference to the term while the extremist link is piped to Islamic extremism. This page contains the text: "for achieving perceived Islamic goals; see Jihadism." All bases are covered and there is no force feeding of the reader with conclusions but space is given to the reader to make up their own minds.

No-one argues that ISIL are extreme whereas the applicability of Jihad is disputed.

(ISIL OR ISIS OR Daesh OR "Islamic State") OR "extremist" gets "About 24,000,000 results" in news

(ISIL OR ISIS OR Daesh OR "Islamic State") OR "jihadist" gets "About 23,800,000 results" in news (almost exactly the same).

Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I had argued for "jihadist extremists" and got some agreement but not consensus. In the meantime our pipe of jihadist to Jihadism allows the reader to understand the debate about the usage of this word. We, however, can not correct the sources. That's not our job. They use jihadist and it is up to the reader to understand in which sense and with what legitimacy this word is used. We have objections cited in the lead section but these objections are wider. They are objections to ISIS' usage of jihad, caliphate, and Islamic. This is why the paragraph should be at the end of the lead. It says in essence "all the above is condemned by Islamic authorities. We can trust the user to read to the end of the lead. They came to wikipedia to get more than sound bites. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

In this case, with regard to a group of murderers who slaughter innocent people, I will continue to correct for the simple reason that it is wrong. I know the potential consequences. What can I do? It's immoral B******t. You know the most used descriptions. I have presented the information. If you want to push this and see me lose my editing rights that's up to you. I cannot with good conscience let this go. Radicalisation creates a clear route to the lose of life. It can result in the loss of loved ones. I have no choice. On this specific issue, and in the actual true sense of the word, this is my "jihad". Gregkaye ✍♪ 18:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

You object based on conscience and that should be respected. Every human being has to use their moral judgment when to part with the majority. Wikipedia has to go with the description in reliable sources and the lead must summarized the article. As consensus doesn't mean unanimity and your personal ethics prohibits your assent, we should ask other editors if they can weigh in and resolve this impasse. Jason from nyc (talk) 19:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree with Jason from nyc. We have to follow the way the word is used in reliable sources and the common usage of the term, which according to Google is: "Jihadism (also jihadist extremism, jihadist movement, jihadi movement or militant jihadism) is used to refer to armed jihad in Islamic fundamentalism. This has been a major meaning of the term since the later 20th century, but with a continuous history reaching back to the early 19th century". (My italics.) ISIL are Islamic fundamentalists. The objection to using the word "jihadist" to describe them is best covered in a para at the end of the Lead along with other criticism of the group, as proposed by Jason from nyc. I understand exactly Gregkaye's moral objection, but I really don't think this one word should be singled out in the Lead for special treatment. The "Criticisms" section is the appropriate place to register objection to it, IMO. That is my vote. --P123ct1 (talk) 20:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Jason from nyc and P123ct1. There are plenty of other "groups of murderers" - al Qaeda and Boko Haram amongst them - that are referred to by RS as Jihadists, so it is used on a much broader level that simply in reference to IS. Gazkthul (talk) 23:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye, instead of edit-warring we've given this considerable attention and stayed engaged. This is the best we can do. I believe we have a duty to reflect the sources and organize the lead per WP:LEAD. I also believe this is the consensus on an issue that will never be unanimous. Nothing will be removed and we still maintain fidelity to our obligation to report "prominent controversies." I appreciate everyone's review of this long discussion. I will move the 2nd paragraph to the end of the lead. Jason from nyc (talk) 01:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• This is a case of passing by "extremist" (more widely used) in favour or "jihadist" (less widely and questionably used). Reference to Jihad on this page is not the same as reference to jihad in articles. People commit atrocities in the names of various gods and they even use justifications, as in this case, that make no coherent sense. Gregkaye ✍♪ 04:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Quote from: [12] "If Jihad cannot be justified, it isn’t Jihad, because Jihad by its nature cannot be unjust. I know for many non-Muslims this is the most absurd statement they have heard in a very long time, and the words ‘ISLAMIST, EXTREMIST, TERRORIST’ is probably crossing their mind faster than they can read this, as they think I’m about to justify terrorism...

Jihad is thus the act to eradicate oppression and uphold justice. Jihad may be a physical struggle or a verbal struggle; “The greatest Jihad is to speak the truth in front of a tyrant ruler” [Bukhari] – but it must be a just struggle, for a just cause."

Gregkaye ✍♪ 05:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Did I misunderstand something? I thought the agreement was to keep in the word "jihadist", as the term used by reliable sources and generally to describe this group and groups like it. If it was, Gregkaye by removing it is going against the consensus of other editors. Please will someone elucidate? Did you not understand that this word was to be kept, Jason from nyc? I do not agree with its removal. --P123ct1 (talk) 06:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

There was some mention to include "extremist" along with "jihadist" in this section but more extensively in another past section without reaching a consensus. I don't see any consensus forming on removing "jihadist", however. I'll be away for a few days and hopefully have no access to the internet. Regards. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The user that removed it was Gregkaye;[13]. I reverted that particular edit. David O. Johnson (talk) 07:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes P123ct1 I think that you have misunderstood something. The word extremist got more hits (marginally) in a last search on the two terms and the descriptions are on parr. The relevance of the word extreme is not disputed while the relevance of "jihad" is contested by some of the most reliable sources in Sunni Islam.

As mentioned it is perfectly possible to use: "... is a Sunni extremist unrecognized state". The "extremist" link is piped to Islamic extremism, to a page that contains the text: "for achieving perceived Islamic goals; see Jihadism." All bases are covered and there is no force feeding of the reader with conclusions. Instead space is given to the reader to make up their own minds.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

On a personal basis I think that any religious teaching that advocates war for the sake of, for instance, the expansion of belief is corrupt. Different scholars seem to have differing views regarding the validity of offensive jihad. Did the god of Islam endorse slaughter by way of evangelism? I can't imagine any benevolent, all powerful god that would endorse such tactics.

Beyond these concerns there the specific practices of ISIL. There are certainly no is certainly no justifications for many of them. The hanging question regards where the line should be drawn. We can't rely on sources that lack the religious knowledge necessary to comment on these things. The reliable sources should be the scholars. I think it is likely that this is the group of people that Britannica would refer to.

The final verdict is not one that I am sure of. After the open-letter I imagined that there might have been more opposition to jihadist terminologies than there has actually been. Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye has made this edit, moving to a very prominent position in the Lead an edit that editors have hotly debated, on the grounds that the reintroduction of "jihadist" to the Lead needs rebuttal. The Lead is not the place for such rebuttal. That is a very strong, emotionally-charged POV para, loaded with judgment, and even worse, it is in WP's own voice. WP is not a debating chamber or a legal prosecution forum, it is an encyclopaedia. (I exaggerate to make my point.) For these reasons, I think this para should be edited out. --P123ct1 (talk) 17:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I've stated my reasoning on all these matters and anyone looking at the content can make up their own minds regarding issues of POV. A revert to an addition of "jihadist" was made. I reverted. "Jihadist" was added again and all this happened in something far less than a 24 hour period of time. Following the passing of 24 hours from my last edit I will attempt to revert all. At this stage I'm quite willing to follow the rules. Gregkaye ✍♪ 21:28, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I can see why you did it Gregkaye and why you would want to revert all, but I fear "jihadist" will creep back in again if you do. --P123ct1 (talk) 22:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Jihadist is a widely used descriptor as we've all seen from google searches. Your POV that the usage is a miss-usage isn't sufficient to override the vast number of reliable sources. We still have your superlative "extremist." You don't like the way sources use the word "jihadist" and we get that. But your POV can't veto reliable sources. Jason from nyc (talk) 03:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

If a full-blown edit-war breaks out and Gregkaye cannot accept that he is editing against consensus in removing "jihadist", this will have to go to WP:Dispute resolution. One thing editors cannot do is edit against consensus, whatever their convictions are. In WP editing the collective view must always overrule the individual view. That is just how it is. --P123ct1 (talk) 07:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@Gregkaye I must ask that you stop making reverts/changes or you WILL be taken to the noticeboard. If you disagree with the majority consensus then start the WP:Dispute Resolution process. Furthering this discussion could be viewed as disruptive.~Technophant (talk) 08:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

A "new" editor has now removed the 126 Muslim scholars para from the Lead here. The editor is clearly oblivious of the long discussions on this (see edit summary). --P123ct1 (talk) 09:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I thought we had a consensus that that paragraph should be at the end of the lead. I see Gregkaye reverted that move and now someone completely removed the paragraph. WP:LEAD asks us to include any controversies and we agreed that it was best to put that at the end of the lead. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The removal constitutes edit warring. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Jason from nyc I have no objection to the use of something such as: "widely described as jihadist". However I have to ask, which reliable sources should we refer to, political analysts with vested interests in selling their books or promoting their newspapers or the Islamic authorities who actually understand the ramifications of the admitedly dubious original statements? A further radicalisation of Islam that results from the false endorsement of murderers as being "jihadists" will result in a perpetuation of needless death. Its unqualified and needless use of this westernised wording is not something that I can support. I will not have blood on my hands. Please reply to the parallel and on topic discussion on the use of the word jihadist. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Jihadists do not follow Wikipedia. They learn their brand of Islam from Wahhabi sources that the Saudi government has spent billions to spread around the world. This is a bona fide interpretation of Islam but not the only bona fide branch of the religion. Muslims will have to sort this out among themselves, hopefully peacefully but sadly they choose otherwise in some cases. I responded to terminology in the other section. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia article traffic statistics - Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Regardless of whether or not they are on the fringes of radical Islam, a wide range of people continue to have internet access both in and out of such locations as Iraq and Syria. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Interesting stats. When I choose "Arabic" language I see only 5 hits. According to the New York Times, the greatest number of ISIL foreign fighters come from Tunisia [14]. It says every young person knows someone that has gone to fight for ISIL. But it also says they don't believe the news reports about beheadings. They think it is propaganda. I don't think they'll think Wikpedia, which reflects sources, is any better. Our article has to reflect sources, not our theories about how people deviously twist the words we write. I merely mention the above because I respect your worry and hope it will ally some fears. We don't drive this battle. We merely report as reliable sources report. We can't correct them in here. But do what you can "out there." Jason from nyc (talk) 12:45, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Once again we pipe “jihadist” to jihadism not jihad. As we explain in our article on ism (i.e. -ism) the suffix creates a derivative word, generally a political ideology. Jihadism is not the general struggle of jihad just like socialism isn’t just being social. There is no need to explain a word in common usage for a narrow specific purpose. No footnote is needed. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

NB can editors interested in the "Logical Order in Lead" please continue to use this discussion and can editors wanting to comment on the use of specific terminologies please use the discussion [[#their actions are “not jihad at all, but rather, warmongering and criminality” - see top of this section for link to it. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

Use of "Islamic State" at least in the infobox

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Proposal - use names that are contextually appropriate:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Its also worth noting the actual usage:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Position and content of Infobox country

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Content of Infobox warring faction

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

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

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

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

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

Caliphate as territory or power structure or both?

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

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

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

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

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

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

TY GreyShark, I have edited the text to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maps

Changing colors in second map for red-green colorblind users ==

In the second map ("Map: Current Military Situation"), the colors used for ISIS and Iraq are virtually indistinguishable to me and (presumably) many others with red-green colorblindness. I have to look very closely to find the borders between the two. At a glance, the map makes it look to me like all of Iraq is held by the same ISIS.

For greater legibility, I would recommend making whichever one of the two is green significantly bluer, as is done in many traffic lights.

Since I don't know anything about editing Wikipedia, and since I fear messing things up, I leave the decision for this change to other users' discretion.

2601:E:1C80:2EA:2C3A:7372:7AD7:EB36 (talk) 18:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll ping the Spesh₅₃₁ial one to try to raise the issue. Gregkaye ✍♪ 20:11, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Maps

I asked the person who does the maps if he could mark in the Syrian/Iraq border, and his reply is here. He says he can put in all borders in the region if wanted. I think some borders might be a good idea are essential, to help readers unfamiliar with the region. All media maps and diagrams show them when reporting on this conflict. Should he be asked to provide an example, so that editors can decide on this? Obviously the maps must not be too crowded, so perhaps they should only show the Syria/Iraq border. --P123ct1 (talk) 15:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Deafening silence. I have asked him to provide a few examples. --P123ct1 (talk) 23:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Table of contents

Prominence when collapsed
When collapsed, the TOC has a box saying "Contents [show]". Could that box be put in a more prominent place - for example, straight after the Lead on the left? It is easy to miss hidden away on the right under the infobox. --P123ct1 (talk) 06:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

(tangent: It might be an idea if Wikipedia placed a collapsed TOC or link to a non-collapsed TOC as standard at a set position on pages).

I didn't find anything relevant at Help:Section#Table of contents (TOC) or at Template:TOC right and am uncertain whether content will help much via Category:Wikipedia table of contents templates. Sry. Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Width
Is it possible to adjust the width of the TOC (as at Template:TOC right) so that the width is matched to the width of the war faction infobox above. So far I have also started to look at results of WP search Template:infobox width but these results seem to work on a different format methodology. Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the style parameter of width can be set. Right now it's auto-width. Alternately the width of infobox war faction may be able to be changed. (no, seems to be set at 315px). I'm a html "hacker" meaning I know enough to change a few things but not proficient in HTML or CSS. I consider myself to be "advanced" level regarding Wikimarkup. After I get done dealing with all the discussion issues I can try fiddling with it and post a diff to see if it looks better. How does the movement of the TOC right here compared to how it was previouly here look? It gets rid of the blank spaces. Since the infobox is soo long it does make the TOC slightly lower than expected. A link to the TOC can be put anywhere including a collapsed TOC link {{TOC hidden}} in the standard position. A lot can be done with TOC templates. Keep in mind that TOC limit does not work with mobile browsers. I submitted this as a bug and it's been promoted to a feature request.~Technophant (talk) 15:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done I set the TOC width to 315px (here), aligned the infobox with top of page by moving disambig down, and put a wlink to the Contents at the place it would normally be found.~Technophant (talk) 16:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Here's how the page looks on a mobile tablet: [15] The way the MobileFrontend extension generates the TOC is different than just calling _TOC_ like in normal view so adding the Content wlink creates a duplicate. Also, it just doesn't look right. I'm going to take the wlink out.~Technophant (talk) 16:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure all of you meant well, but as it is today the article doesn't look well. The table of contents stands too low in the article: when on full screen, I see first the lead section, then section 'Names', 'Index of names', 'History of names', and only then on the right the table of 'Contents'. That table should appear immediately after lead section, I suggest. --Corriebertus (talk) 11:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Corriebertus, I agree, I may have also been wrong to ask for the TOC to have the exact dimensions of the infobox above. It may not now seem sufficiently distinct from above when scrolling down the page. Tweak?

Also the war... infobox currently contains sections: Active, Ideology, Area of operations, Strength, Originated as and Battles and wars. Any and perhaps all of this information could be amalgamated into the article so as to raise the TOC into a more accessible position. Battles and wars may fit well above See also as this would efficiently allow the removal of repeated entries. Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

It could be tweaked to be slightly larger by changing with to be >315px or if the width is removed then it goes to auto-width and is wider also. I think it looks good being the same width, however it is too low. I had a link to the TOC added ([[#toc|Table of Contents]] or [[#toc|Table of Contents]]) but I removed it because it duplicated the TOC in mobile view (trivial matter). I'll add the link back. I wanted to have a second TOC right below the lead collapsed {{TOC hidden}} but it didn't seem to work. There seems to be only one call for TOC allowed and the first one is displayed and subsequent ones ignored. Another solution could be shortening {{Infobox war faction}} so the top of the "float right" {{TOC right}} is visible at the bottom of the lead. That would involve removing some information (such as battles and wars) or even use a wp:collapse box.~Technophant (talk) 05:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

In consideration that several options are available I had an experiment with this edit

I took br breaks out of a couple of lines ("Ideology Anti-Shiaism,[1], Salafist jihadism, Takfiri, Wahhabism" and "Area of operations Iraq, Syria, Lebanon[2][3]), and removed entry: "Active 8 April 2013–present" (I have added text: Originated as Jamāʻat al-Tawḥīd wa-al-Jihād (1999)) and entry "Strength" (I thought that this numerical info might go into another part of the article). I also wondered whether we might place a more complete listing of names here. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

One possible solution to the TOC size would be to reduce the number of subheadings, e.g. use bold text rather than further subheadings. Do the separate subheadings of September and October 2014 really need distinguishing? It is especially confusing because the October 2014 timeline is immediately followed by a paragraph starting "In March 2011...". In other cases, perhaps "Index of Names" and "History of names" could be subsumed into simply "Names", or combining the sections "Ideology and beliefs" and "Goals". This would of course require editorial skill, creativity, and discretion, and perhaps more deference to summary style. --Animalparty-- (talk) 21:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The original problem was not so much the size of the TOC but just that it appeared half way down the page. The names section is one of the longest in the article but I think it would go well under the one heading. I also think that the first section of History, 2.1 Foundation of the group (1999–2006), would be better named as something like 2.1 Early history (1999–2006). The length of time required for the founding of a group is not prescribed. See: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/08/isis-a-short-history/376030/ uses JTJ: The Early Days and AQI: The rise and fall. (ISIL OR ISIS OR Daesh OR "Islamic State") AND "history" Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

As per --Animalparty-- I've edited out the === subheadings from names. I was also wondering about the Timeline template, and whether anyone could take out the month subtitles. With the new layout, length of toc doesn't necessarily help. Gregkaye ✍♪ 22:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Arabic name of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

There are two different spellings for this name in Arabic, one in the Lead and one in the "Names" section, ad-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fīl-ʻIraq wa ash-Shām and al-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fī al-ʻIrāq wa-al-Shām. They need to be the same. Which is the best? --P123ct1 (talk) 08:48, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Ping @Suomichris: @Worldedixor: Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:40, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Ping @AntiqueReader: @Gazkthul: and also try using the talk pages of some of associated WikiProjects (ie Islam, Arab World, Terrorism) ~Technophant (talk) 14:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh yeah, can also check ar.wikipedia.~Technophant (talk) 14:56, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Judging by several edit summaries in the past where the Arabic spellings have been changed, I think WP has an Arabic transliteration standard it uses, but I have no idea which one it is. --P123ct1 (talk) 15:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Worldedixor, can you help here? --P123ct1 (talk) 09:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Australia is not a member of NATO

Australia is not a member of NATO, so it should be off the list of NATO members.

Where should it be then? "Other state opponents"? Or on the section "—Military operations in or over Iraq and/or Syria – (US-led)—" but off any list?

What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felino123 (talk • contribs) 11:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done and thanks, that's hilarious. (Pic added). Australia, being positioned between the Indian, Pacific and Southern Oceans is about as far away from the North Atlantic as it is possible to get. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

However they got dropped out of the US-led group, I've put them back in the right place. Listed but without a bullet point under NATO or GCC. Legacypac (talk) 08:50, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Prose instead of flags? (See also #Logos)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I made this:

The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, history of names.

Jamāʻat al-Tawḥīd wa-al-Jihād, 1999 - October 2004 Tanẓīm Qāʻidat al-Jihād fī Bilād al-Rāfidayn, October 2004 - 12 October 2006 (with names including: "al-Qaeda in Iraq" and "Jamāʻat al-Tawḥīd wa-al-Jihād" also being used). Islamic State of Iraq, 12 October 2006 - 8 April 2013 Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, 8 April 2013 - On 29 June 2014 Islamic State, On 29 June 2014 - present, but with many governments and Islamic groups prefering previous terms of reference.

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

Can it be used in other articles?

Could it form the basis of a template?

Are there other templates that could be beneficially made?

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

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

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

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

The word "jihad", criticism and disruption (See also #their actions are "not jihad at all, but rather, warmongering and criminality" and #Logical Order in Lead)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sunni Media - ISIS Its NOT Jihad | Sheikh Monawwar Ateeq

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

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

take the time to consider the content!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• P123ct1 It was removed by Felino123 in his continued undisclosed POV push [16] Gregkaye ✍♪ 21:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Should "Criticism should on the criticism section, not on the Lead"? (See also #Should we add this line to the lead)

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." as Felino123 seems to think. Dougweller (talk) 13:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• His criticism was trivial and a disruption. Felino123 (talk) 13:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
• It certainly looks neccessary here. I'm not sure what the trivial or disruptive criticism Felino123 is referring to is. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 04:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
• World leaders speak with passion against ISIL and this is matched by strongly voiced opinion of a large section of the second largest religion in the world. It is a highly criticised group and article content should faithfully reflect this. The criticism are not trivial, they are certainly not mine alone and if Felino has been paying any attention to the content above xhe knows this well. Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• I think criticism by Muslims and Islamic scholars should be mentioned in the lead as it is a criticism from within the Islamic or Muslim world against ISIS. Mohammed al-Bukhari (talk) 16:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
• This criticism is important enough to have a mention in the Lead, and the Lead is meant to cover the main criticisms. I suggest this sentence should be added to the last Lead para: "Muslims have criticized ISIL’s actions, authority and theological interpretations." --P123ct1 (talk) 19:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Jason from nyc has suggested in a later thread "Some Muslims ...", which is more accurate. --P123ct1 (talk) 14:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

[Have moved proposal that there should be consensus on this before further edits are made to the thread headed "Should we add this line to the lead" (see link in title of this section). In order to stop the parallel discussion on this, please add comments there and not here.] --P123ct1 (talk) 14:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Recent article: Military wing of ISIL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If we want to keep it then perhaps:

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

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

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

Reference: Usage of terminologies

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gregkaye 08:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

grammar terrorists

@ 20 October: villages not willages

Just a stupid typo of mine, no terrorist threats now.--Olonia (talk) 16:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Can this go straight to archive? Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes! Though The joke is good, but in very poor taste. --P123ct1 (talk) 23:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Suggest move Template:History of the Islamic State (caliphate) to Template:History of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

The new template was created with some good looking content.

Propose move to "Template:History of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant"

The title may need to be formatted to span two lines of text.

@༆:

Gregkaye ✍♪ 18:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Support If we need the template we should definitely have it match the agreed article title 09:01, 23 October 2014

Another question then is whether the template is beneficial. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done and tidied. Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Oddly the main heading link of the template leads directly to history in the ISIL page. It now reads:

  | linkoverride = <small>&nbsp;</small>[[History of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant|Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant<small>&nbsp;<br />History</small>]]

 Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant 
History

Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Recent: Portal:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

Is this something that should be developed or deleted?

@Atifabbasi8: Gregkaye ✍♪

"If you can kill a disbelieving American or European...

...especially the spiteful and filthy French – or an Australian, or a Canadian, or any other disbeliever from the disbelievers waging war, including the citizens of the countries that entered into a coalition against the Islamic State, then rely upon Allah, and kill him in any manner or way however it may be. Smash his head with a rock, or slaughter him with a knife, or run him over with your car, or throw him down from a high place, or choke him, or poison him". This was Abu Mohammad al-Adnani, the ISIL spokesman, a month ago. Now this happens. Should such "incidents" (in addition to this, also the beheading in Oklahoma City in September, and the recent shootout in Ottawa if it also turns out to be ISIL-inspired) be mentioned somewhere?--37.116.57.244 (talk) 21:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Not sure, we'll have to see what happens. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 00:21, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Prime Minister Harper was very clear tonight linking the "run over" event with ISIL and calling the Parliament attack terrorism. Both dead perps had their passports confiscated as travel risks. Legacypac (talk) 03:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Category:Islamic terrorism shows plenty of examples of article formats. One option might be to create templates for article lists that could fit into collapsable boxes on topics such as 2014 Islamic terrorist incidents. Terrorist however becomes a loaded and an even more subjectively applied word when certain military targets are involved. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:21, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

As "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" (2013~)

Why have you altered the date in the "History" section here Gregkaye? Your edit summary gives no explanation. The ISIL section is how headed "As Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (2013~)", and the Islamic State section is headed "As Islamic State (2014 - )". Are these two bodies running concurrently? Wikipedia has uninformed readers who need clear information and they will be puzzled by this. --P123ct1 (talk) 13:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• I see your point. I was thinking simply in regard to names of which there are several running concurrently. Various names are presently running concurrently and thought that the tilde might indicate this situation. Either option has its strengths but I have no problem with the (2013--14) text. Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:29, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree, it's a messy situation. Probably best to keep to (2013-2014), I think, for the readers' sake! --P123ct1 (talk) 23:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done Have changed it to (2013-2014). --P123ct1 (talk) 08:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I had made a similar change to Template:History of the Islamic State (caliphate) which has not been returned to: (2013--14) text. Its been busy. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Logos at the "Designation as a terror organization" section

On Israel, you put the logo of the Israel Defense Forces to refer to Israel's Ministry of Defense. This is wrong, as the Ministry of Defense has its own logo.

This should be corrected, but I think it's not necessary to put the logos of the national institutions that designated IS as a terror organization. Felino123 (talk) 05:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree. It makes the infobox look like a page from a children's colouring book! It also looks frivolous, IMO. --P123ct1 (talk) 14:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Should we add this line to the lead (See also #Should "Criticism should on the criticism section, not on the Lead"?)

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

• I agree about including the first half of the sentence, but what will "some Islamic scholars have declared ISIS to be Khawarij" mean to the uninformed Wikipedia reader? There is a citation, but do editors seriously expect readers to wade through that long article to find out exactly why they are regarded as Khawarij, and how it is a criticism? The statement carries no meaning on its own, unlike the first half of the sentence. --P123ct1 (talk) 12:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
• I also agree with the 1st half and I'd say "Some Muslims have ..." There are just too few articles on the variety of Islamic critique. I added one from the Economist a few months back. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
• I agree with "Some Muslims have ...". Also, what about "... claims religious authority over all Muslims ..."? Surely not over Shia Muslims? How should this be worded? --P123ct1 (talk) 14:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
• The criticism on the lead, if stated there, should be general, not particular or partial. So we should not single out Muslims, Christians, Jews or any other group. So in order to keep this article clean and arranged, I suggest to put general criticism on the lead, if we put it there at all, on a new paragraph, as mixing ordinary criticism with designations as a terror organizations is a mess. I suggest to put "ISIL’s actions, authority and theological interpretations have been widely criticized around the world," as it is neutral, general and doesn't single out anyone. But I keep thinking that criticism should not be on the lead, as it's not an important part of the article. It's pretty obvious that this group has been widely criticized. Also, criticism is never stated on the lead on similar articles, such as Al-Qaeda's. So I don't think why should it be on the lead on this article. Felino123 (talk) 16:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
• 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 [17], 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)
• I apologise for misrepresenting you, Felino123, I need to read more carefully. I have changed my mind and now agree with Felino and Gazkthul, that this last paragraph on criticism is best omitted from the Lead. The criticism is dealt with in the "Criticism" section, and I am still undecided, but the way it is worded now in the Lead is so anodyne that it doesn't mean much! What do you think, Jason from nyc and Gregkaye (about removing it altogether)? --P123ct1 (talk) 09:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
• WP:LEAD asks for prominent controversies and I'm not sure why some other articles don't have it. I still think it should be in the lead but I agree that a single bland unqualified summation has limited value. Aside from mere labeling and name-calling, in-depth criticism (in the world) is in its infancy. To sum up the nature of that criticism (aside from saying there are condemnations) is problematic. I added a citation to an article from The Economist that mentions the variety of critics but that was so terse that it just isn't helpful. That's one of the reasons I haven't propose a better statement than what's in our lead. At least what's there tells the reader we have a criticism section and they will find the details there. I think we have to indicate that in the lead at a minimum. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
• Jason from nyc: In that case, how about adding to that sentence Felino's suggestion (though he is against having this para), "specially between Muslims" – or perhaps better, "especially among Muslims"? I remember that Economist article and it was unhelpful. If criticisms are to be mentioned in the Lead, adding "especially among Muslims" would makes the statement more meaningful. As it stands, it looks faintly comical, as if WP is saying that people are in favour of virtue and against vice! (That's assuming the general reader knows at least something about ISIL.) --P123ct1 (talk) 16:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
• @Legacypac:? @Supersaiyen312:? @Wheels of Steel0:? @Technophant:? We need to get consensus on how this last Lead para on general criticism of ISIL should be worded. Should Muslim criticism be mentioned here as well or not? (See earlier for examples of wording on this.) Please give your view, if you have one. There is a link to related discussion at the head of this section. This has been debated for over a week, so it is time for a consensus decision one way or the other! --P123ct1 (talk) 15:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
• ISIL claims to be practicing pure islam so the opinion of muslims is critically important and should be in the lead. I would not include the word Khawarij as it is not an English word (unlike jihad for example). Legacypac (talk) 16:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
• The Islamic criticisms of ISIL have been big news across the Media. When Cameron, Obama etc. speak about ISIL they often quote Muslim views. Muslims feel so strongly about criticising ISIL that they pay Youtube to play their critical videos. Campaigns like the notinmyname campaign have gained significant prominence. Gregkaye ✍♪ 20:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
• I partly agree with you, Legacypac. Criticism of IS by Muslims is important, but you guys already know my stance: criticism should not be on the lead, as it's not on the lead on similar articles (Al Qaeda's, Taliban...). I think it's necessary to point it out, but only on the criticism section. If we add criticism to the lead, I think it should not be partial or particular, but general, as IS has been widely criticized around the world by people of all religions and ideologies. I don't think it's ok to single out any group. And about the word Khawarij: it should not be included on the lead in any way, as it's not an English word and its meaning is not known by most people. Felino123 (talk) 11:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
• It looks like we’re all struggling to qualify how criticism should be mentioned in the lead. Views have spanned all possibilities from no criticism (Felino123) to immediate criticism in the very 1st sentence next to defining words (Gregkaye and sometimes P123ct1). I held an intermediate position of summarizing Muslim criticism in general terms and got support from P123ct1. Felino123 wants it to be more general to include criticism by non-Muslims, and he/she has removed “Muslims” from the summational sentence. Gregkaye still wants mention of a particular group of Islamic scholars while I argue they don’t fully represent Muslims. Legacypac believes Muslim criticism should be mentioned. P123ct1 and I, however, that agree that specific mention of Islamic criticism is appropriate but without the implication that Muslims are monolithic and in agreement. That's how our differences look to me. I suggest we add to the end of the current sentence of criticism “by non-Muslims and within the Muslim community.” Thus we note that criticism isn’t just by Muslims (Felino123) but we note that Muslims have spoken out (everyone else) and we don’t imply that it is the whole Muslim community (P123ct1 and Jason). Jason from nyc (talk) 12:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
• I have been waiting for two three others I pinged to contribute before determining consensus, but so far it is five for and two against mentioning Muslims in that paragraph. (Felino123 and Gazkthul are against, though Felino123 seems prepared to make a concession with the right wording.) Jason from nyc has summed up the varying views accurately and I agree with his wording, "by non-Muslims and within the Muslim community". The statement needs to be as general as that, I think. --P123ct1 (talk) 13:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
• It looks fine the way it is at the moment, but I do not see anything wrong with including criticism from either side. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 23:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
• I think the way it is as of right now (ISIL’s actions, authority and theological interpretations have been widely criticized around the world.) is good. I support a lean precise lead because there's plenty of detailed content below on whatever topic the reader want to know more about. I added this link to anchor here to help users find the section discussing criticism in more detail.~Technophant (talk) 01:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
• Corribertus: Do you want to add your view here? I know you have not been in the discussions on this, but you may want to contribute. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
• Can I remind editors that this whole debate started in an earlier thread which began:

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

• Wikipedia has rules like this, MOS and several others that are followed. There are ways that Wikipedia does things. Can we also remember Wikipedia's principles in WP:CONSENSUS. Its the method used to achieve Wikipedia's goals. Gregkaye ✍♪ 00:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2014

There was an update from the BBC page quoted on [487][488] correcting the claim listed above reading: Correction: An earlier version of this article wrongly referred to the contents of the airdrops in Kobane as "US weapons". The weapons were in fact supplied by Kurdish authorities in Iraq. Source http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-29715044 about 2/3 down the page. Thank you. 97.73.240.17 (talk) 07:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article still seems consistent with the BBC report to me. The clarification was who owned the weapons, not who dropped them (whih still remains the US). Stickee (talk) 09:12, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk page too long (318,000)

See previous discussion: Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/Archive 14#Talk page too long

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

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

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

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

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

I did the maths on the 20th:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggest: the archiving of sections such as:

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

4 Lede could use some trimming 4.1 Suggest trimming nation names

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

9 Syria army still free (resolved)

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

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

13 Discrepancy

15 Official website external link and accurate flag

16 placing Terrorism,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What {{anchor}} provides are alternative hidden section headers where section headers exist or provide hidden section headers to specific paragraphs (for example I have added an anchor at the top of this page to #Moratorium). So for clarity what one usually wants to use for links are the section headers, because that is what people see on the page and are usually the most obvious names to use. If not then the pipe trick can be used [[#Talk page too long(318,000)|TPTL]] TPTL. It is unusual on talk pages to need to use the {{anchor}} template -- PBS (talk) 09:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Issuing of Passports

The Islamic State seems to be issuing passports over the last month or so in order give itself an air of legitimacy. [18]

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

• TRAJAN 117 I got caught out by a false news story just recently and this may be similar. According to pictures from UK "RS"ish, the Daily Mail, the passports have the writing: "islamic state of al khilaf". A limited number of references so far have called this wording into question. Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• TRAJAN 117 This is untrue [19]. The IS doesn't even accept the concept of nations or borders. Gazkthul (talk) 04:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Israel should be added to the opponents' list

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

Sources:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Coordinating the width of Infobox country

Code within infobox country reads:

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

and something has made the width of the box increase.

it now contains the text:

Capital Ar-Raqqah, Syria [3][4] 35°57′N 39°1′E

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

Any ideas?

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

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

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

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

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

Minor edit request

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

They're also technically coalition forces...

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

Propose scrapping timeline from main article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2014

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

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

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

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

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

Reducing Islamic criticism and highlighting the involvement of Israel

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

Index of topics

see above #Talk page too long (318,000)

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

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

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

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

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

RfC: Three months moratorium on page moves

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

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

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

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

• 'Strong Support - for maintaining the moratorium on page moves. Check the list of failed page moves at the top of the page before commenting here please. The constant failed attempts for new names is highly disruptive. Pretty much everything has been proposed either at the top of a RM or in the body of a RM and no other name has succeeded in attracting broad support. That PBS was pushed into bringing this here for comment because an editor wants to battle titles again is sad. Legacypac (talk) 02:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I thought this matter was resolved already? I'm not sure why PBS has started this RFC.~Technophant (talk) 02:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
• Strong support for maintaining the moratorium on page move discussion. Discussing a new title name is pointless until name usage in the media settles down, which I don't think will be for quite a long time. --P123ct1 (talk) 08:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment No opinion, I strongly support the use of current title and yet I think that democratic process favours the view that ideas can, at intervals, be contested. I don't care one way or the other but thought this an important point to mention. Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I have also added an additional anchor for the use of #Requested Moves in addition to #Moratorium as ways of linking to the related content in the header and have adjusted the title to read similarly to the first link. Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Logos (See also #Prose instead of flags?)

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

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

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

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

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

• I really like both versions, but I don't really see advantage on using the logos. They are "nice", but the version with no logos seems cleaner. Felino123 (talk) 00:36, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2014

Please, add the first book on the islamic state :

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

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

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

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

Badoush Prison

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