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.

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 later discussion: Logical Order in Lead

See latest discussion: 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: [1] [2] [3] [4]. 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 [5]. No Deobandi? To be fair we do have a Deobandi in India, Mahmood As’ad Madani, [6] of the Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind. Of the 126, [7] 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 [8] (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[9][10] 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've struck the improper description.~Technophant (talk) 00:00, 4 November 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 previous discussion: their actions are “not jihad at all, but rather, warmongering and criminality"

See later discussion: 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 ✍♪ 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: [11] "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;[12]. 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 [13]. 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)

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

Prose instead of flags?

See later discussion: Logos

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I made this:

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

See previous discussion: Logical Order in Lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is an encyclopedic article, not propaganda or an opinion piece. 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 [14] 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)
• There is now another link in the first para of the "Criticism" section, which leads directly to criticisms in the "Ideology and beliefs" section. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 09:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Recent article: Military wing of ISIL

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

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

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

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

It does look like a split, but i'm not aware of any discussion about doing this. It also comes close to 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)

Not a very useful name

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

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

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

Recent: Portal:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

Is this something that should be developed or deleted?

@Atifabbasi8: Gregkaye ✍♪

Should we add this line to the lead

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

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

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

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

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

• I agree with Felino123's comment that there is no need for a criticism to appear in the lead, when there is a lengthy criticism section more suited for it. Gazkthul (talk) 04:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
• This is the latest edit to that sentence, from Filino: "ISIL’s actions, authority and theological interpretations have been widely criticized around the world." That, especially isolated in its own para, is almost a non-statement. I suggest adding, "especially by Muslims". How on earth is stating that truth discriminatory? --P123ct1 (talk) 19:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• Or phrase it "including within the Islamic community." There is also a great deal of support for ISIL or ISIL's brand of Islam from Muslims. As I mentioned before [15], a Saudi opinion poll says “92 percent of the target group believes that 'IS conforms to the values of Islam and Islamic law.” Tunisia sends thousands to fight in the IS. Muslims are not monolithic and we can’t attributed any opinion, good or bad, to Muslims as a whole. Jason from nyc (talk) 03:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
• Without researching the methodology of that alleged poll result, even if every single Sunni (the only religious group that could conceivable support them) man and woman in Saudi Arabia supported IS, it still wouldn't add up to 92% of the country. Gazkthul (talk) 04:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
• I am not imposing my point of view and I would never do. If I were, then I would remove all criticism from the lead. You said criticism should be on the lead, although I think it should not. So I clearly put criticism in the lead as you wanted, but of course this criticism should be fair and it should not single out any group or discriminate between groups. Adding "specially by Muslims" is discriminatory, as Muslims are not a monolithic bloc, and also there are many Muslims are supporting ISIS, as Jason from nyc stated. There are also many who don't. But all non-Muslims are against ISIL, so there are infinitely more reasons to add "specially between non-Muslims", as there is more non-Muslim opposition than Muslim overall. That's why I think criticism, if stated on the lead although in my opinion it shouldn't be, should not single out anyone or discriminate, but mention the overwhelming criticism of ISIL around the world. I agree with Gazkthul, criticism should not be on the lead. There's no criticism on the lead on Al Qaeda's article, or Taliban's article. This should not be different. Felino123 (talk) 09:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Mohammed al-Bukhari: There was no consensus to add the part about Khawarij to that paragraph. Please bring your edit to this thread for editors to consider it and read here what editors have said about the wording of the paragraph. Please also see my very first comment here, that "Khawarij" stated barely like that will mean nothing to most readers. Also, this is a summary para, so individual criticisms can't be singled out. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 21:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC) [Revised comment] ~ P123ct1 (talk) 18:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
• I think it's great now. "Within both Islamic and other communities" doesn't sound well. The current phrase reflects the consensus reached by all editors, and there's no need to change it. Criticism from Muslims is important, and it's already noted on the lead and the criticism section. I have removed the "Khawarij" phrase as there has been no consensus, but opposition to it, and it's clearly pointed out on the criticism section, not to mention it's a non-English word that means nothing to the average reader. Felino123 (talk) 10:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Felino123 you have made it clear through both word and action that you want a general removal of criticism. I don't see how you can regard this as great. The suggestion has been added above: "Maybe other editors will comment". Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • No, Gregkaye, Felino did say in the thread above that he was prepared to make a concession and have some words of criticism in the Lead. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 16:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
• My suggested wording is: "ISIL’s actions, authority and theological interpretations have been widely criticized around the world within both Muslim and other communities." I don't know any person who isn't a Muslim who defines themself as a non-Muslim. Gregkaye ✍♪ 20:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk page too long (318,000)

See previous discussion: Archive 14#Talk page too long

See later discussion: Index of topics

For reasons of this talk page being too long, I deliberately put this posting in this new section. For the foregoing discussion (2 Sept–20 Oct2014), see Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Talk page too long. Colleagues, the Talk Page today seems excessively long (318,000bytes). Sections are now automatically archived after 14 days without new posting, but that apparently results in this too long Talk page. There was some resistance (P123,Technophant) to shorten it to 7 days (PBS advised 7 days), therefore I propose now to first shorten it to 10 or 12 days, because the situation now causes too much problems for too much visitors. I’ll be bold and now immediately change it into 12 days: just to see whether it gives a satisfactory result. P123 said on 16 October that the Talk page is also being used chaoticly; I agree, but that is, unfortunately, common practice on every Talk page in 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 retrievability. Digression over. --P123ct1 (talk) 11:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My worry and the reason I started this discussion, is: this talk page being far over 100k and over 200k (today it is 288k, takes about 10 seconds to open the page) is cumbersome for many every-day-users and less-frequent-users, and that trouble seems avoidable with relatively little disadvantages, by archiving old threads earlier. Today, sections are archived if for 8 days no new posting was added – my proposal and that of PBS is to shorten that to 7 days. Ofcourse that has a possible, or hypothetical, disadvantage, for a user who has only once in seven or ten days the time to come visit here (‘Weekend Contributor’, WC). (P123 sees that disadvantage also now old threads are archived after 8 days.) I don’t mean to say such WC users are unimportant, on the contrary; but I’ve explained several times that that hypothetical disadvantage is relatively small: if thousand visitors in a week time consider a discussion not worth reacting on, the chance is very small that it is still a relevant discussion, and for me that small chance doesn’t weigh up to the continuous discomfort for most of us to have to deal dayly with an excessively long page.
P123 yesterday brought up a new argument: users have to be well informed about previous discussions on this page before they comment in a running discussion, therefore the talk page must contain as many old sections as possible. Sorry Mr P123, that is nonsense, excuse me my blunt speech. It is quite usual, and no problem, to restart a discussion that has been held two or six weeks earlier. Conditions may have changed since then. If some new discussant isn’t aware of that older discussant, another colleague can bring it to his attention, that is no hassle but normal 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)

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

Issuing of Passports

The Islamic State seems to be issuing passports over the last month or so in order give itself an air of legitimacy. [16]

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 [17]. The IS doesn't even accept the concept of nations or borders. Gazkthul (talk) 04:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

Israel should be added to the opponents' list

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

Sources:

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

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

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

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

Felino123, I think that you are working according to a misunderstanding of citations and their purpose in 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)

[In answer to Felino]

• 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)

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

Propose scrapping timeline from main article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Possible alternate option

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

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

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)

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

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

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

Reducing Islamic criticism and highlighting the involvement of Israel

• Revision as of 22:49, 19 October 2014 Felino123 removes whole of second paragraph of the lead complete with its 7 footnotes
• Revision as of 12:10, 20 October 2014 Jason from nyc adds: "Muslims have criticized ISIL’s actions, authority, and theological interpretations." stating, "The lead should summarize "prominent controversies" per WP:LEAD"
• Revision as of 06:47, 21 October 2014 Gregkaye adds "[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)

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

Index of topics

See earliest discussion: Archive 14#Talk page too long

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC: Three months moratorium on page moves

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

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

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

Logos

See previous discussion: Prose instead of flags?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2014

Please, add the first book on the islamic state :

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

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

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

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

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

Badoush Prison

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

Adding comments to the Talk page

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

Restoration of deleted lead text re criticism

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

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

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

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

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

The sections of the article are presented as follows.

Lead section

Contents

1 Names

2 History...

3 Designation as a terrorist organization

4 Support...

5 Opposition...

6 Analysis...

7 Ideology and beliefs

8 Goals

9 Territorial claims

10 Governance...

11 Human rights abuses...

12 Criticism...

...

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

[Comment removed by agreement]

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

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

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

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

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

Moving the criticism to the end of the lead was a result of our discussion (see "Logical Order in Lead" i.e. [18], see 14 Oct. You have some good ideas about moving the sections that are little more than lists. I know it is hard to read about the topic without a glossary and cast of characters/nations/groups. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:13, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

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

_____________________________________________

Another bad editing practice (different topic)

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

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

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

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

IS Anasheed

An anasheed used by the Islamic State as a form of patriotic/national anthem. [19][20] Is there any truth to this?

As I've have heard this song in several IS documentaries before. For exarmple [21] TRAJAN 117 (talk) 13:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Loosely related

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

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

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

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

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

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

Supporting evidence:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Above comments inserted out of time sequence]]

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

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

New suggestion:

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

Comment:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_______________________________________

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

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

or, in a longer version,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I agree with Gregkaye's last paragraph, but instead of a footnote would prefer the word "jihadist" in the Lead to be linked straight to the "Criticism" section, where the dispute over whether ISIL are truly "jihadist" is touched on. I also think that brief mention there in connection with the scholars' letter should be expanded on, because as Gregkaye says this is a very big criticism of the group voiced by many Muslims. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 10:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
• Most reliable sources and all the media describe ISIL as jihadist. Also, the word "jihadist" has its own meaning in English. ISIL and its supporters claim they are carrying out jihad. Other imams say that ISIL is carrying out jihad but that jihad should not be carried out against other Muslims. And others say that what ISIL is doing is not jihad. There is no consensus on Islam about this concept, and it has its own meaning in English as I said before. In fact, I have consulted three or four dictionaries and the definition I got is "(among Muslims) a war or struggle against unbelievers" and very similar definitions. No particular POV or religious source should ban or limit the usage of any word. Gregkaye, the views of anti-ISIL Muslims are not ignored at all; in fact, they are clearly noted on both ideology and criticism sections. Adding footnotes makes no sense, and linking the word jihadist on the lead to the criticism section doesn't make sense, either. Felino123 (talk) 12:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
• I think it is justifiable to add a "silent" link to the "Criticism" section. To see "jihadist" used prominently in the very first sentence of the Lead to describe ISIL will offend many Muslim readers and make them question the neutrality of this article. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia for readers of all faiths and nationalities, after all. I do not see how a "silent" link to the relevant section goes against WP:RS policy. An efn footnote added to "jihadist" with wording that clearly disputes RS usage of the word is a different matter. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 14:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
• What do you mean by "silent" link? Felino123 (talk) 17:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Life in ISIL-controlled Ar-Raqqah

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

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

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

Reliably Sourced?

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

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

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

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

History of the History of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant infobox

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mujahideen Shura Council  (2006)

Islamic State of Iraq  (2006–13)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

let's change the title of the article

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Romania is a member of NATO

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

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

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

What a Lead should be per WP:LEAD

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

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

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

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

Does Tunisia really support ISIL?

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