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.

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

The previous consensus (reached earlier this year, I believe) was to use "ISIS" in the text, on the grounds that "ISIS" then was the group's common name. I have noticed more use of "ISIL" recently, but cannot quantify it. Who supports a change from "ISIS" to "ISIL"? It would be more consistent with the article's title, if nothing else. Earlier discussion of this is here and here. --P123ct1 (talk) 20:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Support - --P123ct1 (talk) 09:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Support - especially instead of "Islamic State" which is a very problematic name. Legacypac (talk) 20:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

@Legacypac Can you please explain why Islamic State is a "very problematic name"?~Technophant (talk) 14:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - I don't believe that this abbreviation is more common than ISIS, and there would be a disconnect with the use of ISIS on many other articles that would need to be changed also. Gazkthul (talk) 02:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Digging through UN Security Council documents like the al-Qaida Sanctions list, I found the UN is using "ISIL" consistently and long after the group shortened the ir name. A recent example: [2]Legacypac (talk) 03:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Support, the accurate translation of the 2013 name is the same as the article title Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. We should use ISIL with consistency to both accurate translation and article title used.

incidentally the parallel article ar:الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام gives a machine code translation that reads: "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant , known for short as Daash , which calls itself now an Islamic state only .." Gregkaye ✍♪ 06:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

An editor has changed some instances of "ISIS" to "ISIL" without the consensus from other editors needed for this change. I have reverted the changes until a decision is made on which acronym to use in the article. --P123ct1 (talk) 07:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I was the editor who you reverted manually. I'm not upset, just confused as your edit seems to go against what you were advocating, which is consistency. Watching CNN tonight they had ISIS in the graphics over commentators and generals saying ISIL consistently. Strange situation. Legacypac (talk) 09:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

You miss the point. The consensus view of editors as a whole is what counts, not the view of an individual editor. Consensus has not been reached yet. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the action to revert at this stage was optional but I certainly give it support. We have a discussion regarding best use of terminology between ISIS (with more usage in media) and ISIL (according to better English translation and consistency with article title). It is a topic that has been previously raised with this and the last instance being at P123ct1's initiation. It can also be helpful in a talk page discussion to give notification that an action has been { {done}}. Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Neutral Weak Oppose Either is respectable. As I understand it, "Syria" in ISIS is greater Syria and not the current nation-state that was created by Western division. Thus, Levant, the L in ISIL might be better to capture the wider aims of ISIL. However, they've only captured territory in Syria and Iraq, so ISIS is respectable as well. Both are used by sources. My "weakness" stems from a preference for waiting until one emerges as dominant in the sources. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Jason from nyc. I think that, if we could rewrite recent word usage, the 2013 name may have been better rendered as the Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria. This would have given the acronym ISIGS and which would arguably have been a more understandable terminology. The groups name went from reference to Iraq to reference to Iraq and greater Syria/the Levant and now, without giving any public declaration of actual territorial ambition, they have dropped geographical reference altogether. As reference to the 2013 name we are left with a choice between ISIS and ISIL. Arabic sources prefer Da'esh as a clear anagram of the 2013 name. ISIL is the most accurate parallel. Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Let me remove my opposition. It's a judgment call and those who support it here have done hard work kicking this article into shape. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support – Can we please have some sort of consistency here? We're using "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" as the title of this article, at present. Until that changes, we should use the accompanying abbreviation, which is "ISIL". Discussions about the article title can be had elsewhere. Right now, at the title that this is at, it makes sense to use ISIL. RGloucester — ☎ 16:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the views of any opposers should be underestimated. There may be an argument that ISIS still is the group's WP:COMMONNAME, or at least more common than ISIL, which under that guidance would mean that ISIS has to stay. --P123ct1 (talk) 18:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:UCRN is a section title within WP:AT and applies to article titles. For the time being we have one of those. Another part of WP:AT is WP:CRITERIA where the issue of consistency gets mentioned. Again this is an article title issue. Certainly when we look at other encyclopaedias like Britannica that make consistent use of single renderings but reference to WP:RELIABLE relates to the content of sources and not to their methodologies. I don't know of any guideline that directly applies to this situation and think that Jason from nyc got it right. It's a judgement call. Gregkaye ✍♪ 19:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It is a "judgemental call". However, this is an article title concern. There have numerous proposal about moving this article to numerous titles, including the full-length version of ISIS. All of these have failed so far, and given this, it makes sense to be consistent. If we're going to make a judgement call between ISIS and ISIL, which are both used fairly commonly, it only makes senses to use the one that matches the title of our article. RGloucester — ☎ 20:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Quite a few editors have weighed in on now in this thread. And all previous attempts to move the article name to ISIS have failed. I am not opposed to ISIS as an alternate name used in the article just think we need to get off protecting ISIS from being standardized to mostly ISIL. So do we have consensus yet? Legacypac (talk) 21:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

What we have is a proposal (dated: 20:13, 29 September 2014) with three supports and one oppose and this can be viewed in a context of a Wikipedia editing force that has seen the creation of 22,657,167 named accounts. In context ...few editors have weighed providing, at best, a limited view of "wikt:consensus". Its 5 editor contributions over 2 days and any S to L changes made at this stage would certainly be WP:BOLD. I'd suggest waiting a little longer and even then changes would be made at risk as WP:consensus can change. Also the view of P123ct1, as proposer of the issue, is important here. Gregkaye ✍♪ 06:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

If you look at the names, so far it is five for and one against the move from ISIS to ISIL. I sense lukewarm interest from other editors. But as Gregkaye says probably best to wait a little longer to guage consensus. Whatever consensus is reached it should be recorded here, so that if objections are raised by other editors if the vote goes to ISIL, they can be pointed to a clear decision by editors who participated in the "vote". --P123ct1 (talk) 09:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

5:1 sounds more like consensus. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye has already started changing "ISIS" to "ISIL". In the absence of further "votes" or comments since the last count of 5:1, I think it is it is safe to assume there is now CONSENSUS to move from "ISIS" to "ISIL" in the text of the article.

Please be careful about global changes. (a) Quotations must obviously not be altered. (b) If "ISIS" in footnote wikitext is accidentally changed to "ISIL", it could break the links and then readers won't be able to call up the citations. --P123ct1 (talk) 20:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Good point on quotes and links. We have consensus and we shall apply it to this and related articles on the basis of consistency. Further enforcing that there is true consensus, the article was just moved from 2014 military intervention against ISIS to 2014_military intervention against the Islamic_State of Iraq and the Levant based on an RfC that ran for a month and reached nearly 100% agreement. Legacypac (talk) 21:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support Initially US media was using the ISIS acronym exclusively so that was the more recognizable acronym. However, with the State Department (and the White House) using ISIL exclusively, as well as the this also being the predominate use among scholars and international authors I don't have a problem with this change. However ISIL is the acronym for Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. When referring the Islamic State then IS is more appropriate. See my proposal in #Use of "Islamic State" at least in the infobox below.~Technophant (talk) 14:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Animated GIF showing territorial evolution

We should have an animated GIF showing the territorial evolution of this group over time, similar to this one for the Rashidun caliphate here:

File:Mohammad_adil-Rashidun_empire-slide.gif

It wouldn't be that hard to do, we could just blend all the maps we've posted so far as slides, adding dates in the corner as show. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 23:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

God help us all if ISIL sees that kind of success. People keep debating what color the desert should be on the maps ... Legacypac (talk) 08:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Here, the expansion of the Caliphate is pretty much solely at the expanse of two entity's, Persia (which was totally conquered), and the Eastern Roman Empire (which set them on their historic course of consolidating around Anatolia and the Balkans). Both of these had been weakened by decades of fighting among each other as well. This was also a time period when it wasn't exactly uncommon for "barbarian" nomads with greater fighting spirit to utterly destroy civilized neighbors when combined. ISIS, on the other hand, is heavily contained by the existence of several very powerful militarizes in the region that would make short work of them, Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Egypt. They can only really exist in a small web of weak and/or fragmented states, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon. They've also shown little ability to expand outside of their Sunni base. As well, if you'll remember, they are only a descendant of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, and AQI, at it's height, had a lot more extensive control in Iraq itself, holding roughly half of Baghdad and penetrating deeply into Shi'a areas in the south ISIS has mostly stayed out of.108.131.5.152 (talk) 07:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I am sure that they are not short of statements regarding any areas progress that may have been achieved. Success is an interesting word. Some of them will regard their own military deaths as signs of success. I don't personally have an opinion one way or the other with regard to the inclusion of these maps. We are not here to Censor and one advantage of publishing the time framed maps is that it might provide a clearer indication of ways that historical incursions into the related territories may have fucked up. ISIL HAVE HAD a rapid expansion which I believe has slowed and in some places been reversed but the actual nature of the facts is an irrelevance. I don't see an intrinsic problem with maps. "God", however, may be a different story. It may be argued that he or she has caused enough problems already. Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

IS' territory changed in daily basis so i believe animation is inapplicable in this situation. kazekagetr 17:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye&User:KazekageTR The French wiki has a table of images made each month showing the terrotorial expansion. I think we should steal it!~ (talk) 17:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I've translated the gallery into my sandbox below.

For other uses, see Talk:Islamic State (disambiguation).

Looking into Devils Hole; the dark area is the surface of the water.

36°25′25″N 116°18′20″W

Devils Hole is a geologic formation located in a detached unit of Death Valley National Park and surrounded by the Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, in Nye County, Nevada, in the Southwestern United States.

Devils Hole is habitat for the only naturally occurring population of the endangered Devils Hole pupfish (Cyprinodon diabolis). The 40 acres (16 ha) unit is part of the Ash Meadows complex, an area of desert uplands and spring-fed oases that was designated as a National Wildlife Refuge in 1984.

Description

Devils Hole is a geothermal pool within a limestone cavern in the Amargosa Desert in the Amargosa Valley of Nevada, east over the Amargosa Range and Funeral Mountains from Death Valley. It is at an elevation of 730 m (2,400 ft) above sea level and the water is a constant temperature of 33 °C (91 °F). The surface area of Devils Hole is about 22 m long by 3.5 m wide (72 ft long by 11.5 ft wide). Approximately 0.3 m (0.98 ft) deep on one end of Devils Hole is a small rock shelf of 3.5 by 5 m (11 by 16 ft). The dissolved oxygen of the water is 2.5–3.0 ppm up to around 22 m (72 ft) in depth, though the shallow shelf can have dissolved oxygen levels as high as 6.0–7.0 ppm in June and July.

A viewing platform overlooks the hole.

Devils Hole branches into caverns at least 130 m (430 ft) deep, whose bottom has never been mapped. According to geologists, the caves were formed over 500,000 years ago. The pool has frequently experienced activity due to far away earthquakes in Japan, Indonesia, Mexico, and Chile, which have been likened to extremely small scale tsunamis.

Diagram of Devils Hole cavern system

Below the surface pool, Devils Hole descends approximately 160 feet (49 m) through what is termed the "main chamber" before reaching a narrow opening referred to as the 'funnel'. Through this opening lies a much larger chamber of the cavern system known as Acree's Chasm. Acree's Chasm is approximately 300 feet (91 m) in length, 40 feet (12 m) in width, and has a bottom approximately 260 feet (79 m) below the surface.

Immediately after passing the funnel into Acree's Chamber, a narrow side tube can be found to a diver's left. This side tube is narrow and proceeds approximately 90 feet (27 m) upward to a chamber with an air pocket, named Brown's Room after its discoverer William Brown in 1953. The tube leading to Brown's Room has at least 2 offshoots, the higher of which leads to a dead-end filled with a small air pocket, and the lower of which confluences with additional tubes descending from Brown's Room. If the diver instead descends through Acree's Chamber, the first notable landmark is a rocky shelf termed the 'lower ledge,' around 100 feet (30 m) below the entrance to the chamber. The bottom of Acree's Chamber lies around 260 feet (79 m) below the surface, but is not flat. Instead, a portion of the chamber floor descends below this lower shelf; a gradual funnel leads to a hole in the bottom of the chamber featuring a strong current. The hole, later termed the ojo de agua, is 315 feet (96 m) below the surface and just large enough for a diver with equipment to fit through. However, on June 20th, 1965, during the second dive of a rescue and then body recovery mission, Jim Houtz with his dive partner, dropped a weighted depth line to a depth of 932 feet (284 m) from the start of this opening, without hitting the bottom of the chamber below. Due to the strong current, small size of the entrance, and unknown depth of the below cavern Houtz termed the "Infinity Room," Jim and his partner chose not to explore this Infinity Room. This mission did, however, confirm that the depth of the Infinity Room of Devil's Hole, and the cavern system itself, has a depth of at least 1,247 feet (380 m) from the surface.

Updated diagram of Devils Hole (2005)

A subsequent USGS exploration into Devils Hole in 1991 by Alan Riggs, Paul DeLoach, and Sheck Exley entered what they found out to be a narrow tube rather than an 'Infinity Room' at 315 feet (96 m), descending to a depth of 436 feet (133 m). The team reported being able to see down to a depth of some 500 feet (150 m), without visualizing the bottom of the cavern.

Geology

Dense, white, billowy coatings of mammillary calcite originally precipitated on all of Devils Hole’s underwater surfaces, as calcium-carbonate-supersaturated aquifer water circulated through it. The mammillary calcite coating is as much as 100 centimetres (39 in) thick in places and is the material that has been analyzed to develop a continuous 800,000-year-long continental paleoclimate record.

Other calcium carbonate morphologies, including folia and flowstone, precipitated in Devils Hole, but in different locations and under different circumstances. Folia precipitate on the walls of Brown’s Room, a perpetually dark air-filled chamber. Foliar growth is stimulated by Devils Hole’s mixed semidiurnal tide (caused by small changes in aquifer volume as the moon’s and sun’s gravitational forces cyclically distort the aquifer) that alternately wets and exposes a small band of wall around mean water level twice a day. Maximum spring tide amplitude is about 12 centimetres (4.7 in).

A 7.4-magnitude 2012 Guerrero–Oaxaca earthquake, some 2,000 miles (3,200 km) away, centered roughly 12 miles (19 km) below the surface, on March 20th, 2012, caused an undulating 4 feet (1.2 m) rise and fall of the cavern waters, as appreciated by researchers working at Devils Hole at the time. This provided further evidence that Devils Hole cave system was connected to not only the Death Valley Regional Groundwater Flow System, but possibly to even further-reaching underground water systems. The 1991 USGS dive team described the Devils Hole as a "skylight" into the water table.

Devils Hole Cave

Diagram of Devils Hole Cave (1988)

Located 650 feet (200 m) north of Devils Hole is a separate cave system called Devils Hole Cave (#2). It was first explored underwater to a depth of 70 feet (21 m) by divers from he Southwestern Speleological Society in February of 1961. It had been described as being shaped like a boot with fallen rock restriction at the 50-foot (15 m) level leading to a narrow pool of 93 °F (34 °C) water. Since no sunlight reaches the water, algae cannot grow and no fish species are found.

In 1991, deep diver Sheck Exley located a bottom to the eastern shaft at 128.9 metres (423 ft)

On the surface, the cave openings are connected to Devils Hole by an access road and covered with a locked metal grate Below ground, a passable deepwater connection to Devils Hole has been theorized but remains undiscovered.

A team of paleoclimatologists from the University of Innsbruck have been collecting and dating calcite mineral deposits here since 2010. In March of 2017, underwater cinematographer Jonathan Bird received permission to assist scientists in a four day expedition to take water and calcite core samples. IMAX footage was included in the 2020 film Ancient Caves and extra footage was used to create the video documentary Exploring Devils Hole on YouTube. Similar studies had been done in Devils Hole but are no longer allowed permitted due to the endangered status of the Devils Hole pupfish.

Pupfish

Main article: Devils Hole pupfish

Devils Hole pupfish, Cyprinodon diabolis, from Death Valley National Park

Devils Hole is the only natural habitat of the Devils Hole pupfish, which thrives despite the hot, oxygen-poor water. Devils Hole "may be the smallest habitat in the world containing the entire population of a vertebrate species". The pupfish are considered critically endangered by the IUCN. The pupfish has been described as the world's rarest fish, with a population of less than 200 since 2005. Genetic information indicates that the pupfish species is as old as the Hole itself, which opened to the surface about 60,000 years ago.

The pupfish have been protected since being declared an endangered species in 1967. Conflicts of the ownership and use of the groundwater around Devils Hole caused litigation in the 1980s. The litigation triggered further protections of the pupfish. However, since the late 1990s, the pupfish population has substantially decreased. The reasons for the decrease are unknown, but is possibly due to a microscopic non-indigenous diving beetle that is consuming pupfish eggs.

See also

• Cyprinodon - Genus

External links

• "Devils Hole". Geographic Names Information System. United States Geological Survey, United States Department of the Interior. Retrieved 2009-08-10.
• The Southwestern Naturalist: "Pupfish Populations"
• Death Valley Natural History Association - Video of Seismic Waves in the Pool
• Ancient Caves - Exploring Devils Hole on YouTube
• Ancient Caves (IMAX 2020) at IMDb

~Technophant (talk) 18:01, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

:-)   It looks like really good encyclopaedic content worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia. (BUT, see concern below) A potential difficulty is the tonal/shading differences between the images but, who knows, perhaps the creator, fr:User_talk:Absalao777 or someone else may be able to process the images to achieve a bit more consistency. All the same, in my personal opinion, the images are a great find and you'd be performing a real service by putting it together. I hope other editors can comment. Gregkaye ✍♪ 21:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Well it's the french wp team that put it together. It would be nice if the maps were adjusted, and if the creator were to be informed that they were being displayed this way he/she would probably be happy to adjust them. Even without adjustment they put together a visual story of their progress that isn't found elsewhere. Let's discuss which section to put it in (new one?) and what the introductory and concluding text will be. Feel free to edit my sandbox.~Technophant (talk) 22:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

One problem that I have just spotted with regard to the French map is that it only covers Syria.

What do you think about a use of File:Territorial control of the ISIS.svg it covers Iraq and Syria (images 6 January 2014 - 16 June 2014 currently in red and yellow, 17 June 2014 - 23 June 2014 currently in red, yellow and white and indicating areas claimed in 2006 and 28 June 2014 - present in ~burgandy, lighter shade and white.

If you agree with the use of the File:Territorial control of the ISIS.svg images it may even be possible to ask Spesh531 to edit earlier images to bring more consistency of claimed areas and colour tones (if files were kept.

As far as positioning is concerned, one option would be to place the animated version in the country infobox and to place this infobox (as may be indicated in contents such as establishment) at a corresponding point in of the history section.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem with File:Territorial control of the ISIS.svg is that there's several versions in January then the next revision is in July. While the map does include both I and S and is more clear it doesn't show the evolution properly due to the time gap.18:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

An RM to ISIS? (moves now prohibited)

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lede could use some trimming

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggest trimming nation names

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

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

that last link could be composed various nations.

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

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

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 thing 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)

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. d "jihadist". 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: [3] [4] [5] [6]. 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)

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 [7]. No Deobandi? To be fair we do have a Deobandi in India, Mahmood As’ad Madani, [8] of the Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind. Of the 126, [9] 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 [10] (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)

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)

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 came to 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[11][12] 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. 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." Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:39, 20 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)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2014

from the discussion i made about the "self-declared" when talking about the islamic state as a caliphate(and about abu bakr al-baghdadi as a caliph) i made claer that the islamic state is a caliphate in the same way that former caliphate was a caliphates, there is no theological nor logical differences and the ones who supported in not calling them a caliphate("self declared" instead) were unsure about if there is an actual differences between the islamic state caliphate and former caliphates which existed just few decades ago(the last caliphate before the islamic state fell in the 20s of the 20th century).

the media used "caliphate" and "self-declared caliphate" or even just "isis" interchangeably and anyone can find news network that use one name over another more often. so there is no meaning for using some particular media as a "source" for the way they should be treated.

so my request is to simply remove the "self-declared" and treating them as what they are: another caliphate. Wheels of steel0 (talk) 22:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Not done: There has been extensive discussion on this point. Article is fairly stable on using qualifiers as the only people who accept the declarations are other terrorists. So no thanks. Legacypac (talk) 05:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

as you can see the editor who made that "self-declared" edit isn't sure about if there is differences between the islamic state caliphate and former caliphates, i suggest you read that discussion, i already showed the islamic terms for being a "caliphate" and "caliph" which has nothing to do with the recognition of some countries and the term of "terrorists". according to islam the terrorists you talking about are the muslims who give them the right to be called a caliphate. so your claim that "their declaration is accepted only by other terrorists" is meaningless and has nothing to do with what made some politic entity a "caliphate".

the islamic state is already called her an "unrecognized state" and basicaly did accepted their declaration of a state, so why not accepting their declaration of caliphate?.

wikipedia should talk about facts and accept things as they are and not be depend on the personal feelings and POV of the editor. --Wheels of steel0 (talk) 12:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Wheels of steel0 Maybe you misunderstand what an unrecognized state is. It is not a state that is just not recognized, it is not a state period- just like I am not Santa Claus even if I dress in a red suit and say ho ho ho. Since the group is not a state, they can't be a caliphate and can't have a caliph. This is not my opinion, it is how Wikipedia deals with rebel groups involved in armed conflict and how international law deals with the group. Shortening your name over and over to the point they refer to themselves simply as "the State" does not make them a state. My comments about no state, only other terrorists, recognizing them drive right to the point they are not a state and therefore not a caliphate (type of state). Historical caliphates were in fact actual states. Legacypac (talk) 09:22, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

(I'm putting this in brackets because its basically a copy of text entered later. I broadly agree with Legacypac but more for reasons of the high level of opposition that it has generated particularly in the Islamic world:

: (ISIL OR ISIS OR Daesh OR "Islamic State") AND "not a caliphate" which gets "About 69,300 results". There are a lot of people going beyond basic reporting and adding a large content of commentary.

The actual lack of support for this self-declared caliphate may seem to be quite astounding when viewed in context.

See search: "longing for a caliphate" OR "need for a caliphate" OR "eagerness for a caliphate" OR "hope for a caliphate" or "aspiration for a caliphate". That search got "About 843,000 results".

Then consider what a caliphate is meant to be: A caliphate (in Arabic: خلافة‎ khilāfa, meaning "succession") is an Islamic state led by a supreme religious and political leader known as a caliph – i.e. "successor" – to Muhammad. The succession of Muslim empires that have existed in the Muslim world are usually described as "caliphates". Conceptually, a caliphate represents a sovereign state of the entire Muslim faithful, (the Ummah), ruled by a caliph under Islamic law (sharia).

Except for people who may well consider the entire Muslim faithful as supporters or ISIL within ISIL controlled areas and other sympathetic people, ISIL epically fails to represent Islam. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

And fails to meet any test of statehood. Caliphate is a type of state (like republic or monarchy). Legacypac (talk) 12:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac as you could read in this site about "unrecognized state": "A state currently not recognized by one given state", could they be "unrecognized state" without being a state? i don't think so... you won't make such funny mistakes if you start to think about what you are saying instead of just looking for something that will look like an argument while you don't realy have one.

anyway i am recognizing her a blind stubbornness of people who can't admit that they are wrong or just believe in something just cause they want it to be that way, just like arguing with religious people about god. i don't have the time to be her so many time as you do and have some futile argument with someone like the religious people i just mentioned so if you want to call them "self declared caliphate" so be it, but anyone who will read the article about "caliphate" or this talk page will know that the "self declared" is nothing than the editor attempt to make them look like what he want them to be. --Wheels of steel0 (talk) 12:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Wheels of steel0: I wholeheartedly agree with everything you say, here and elsewhere. Editors are trying to write history and present their own version of events in this article, when WP is supposed to report on facts and not interpret or judge. They are flying in the face of the WP:NPOV principle in the WP:FIVEPILLARS and indulging in WP:OR and a partisan approach to the facts, instead of reflecting the outside criticisms in the Muslim world and elsewhere neutrally, in appropriate places in the article. I opened the "Criticisms" section for precisely this purpose, for example. I have often said this, and I think it bears repeating again, for anyone outside who reads this Talk page. --P123ct1 (talk) 17:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Please carefully read the info presented above. Statehood is not created by declaring it - there is a test. Legacypac (talk) 19:51, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I am bemused. They call themselves a caliphate, and as their claim to be one is disputed they are an unrecognized state, aren't they? What is wrong with saying "they declared a caliphate", "they proclaimed an Islamic state", call it an unrecognised state (since because the caliphate's legitimacy is dispute they cannot be a recognized state) and leave it at that? WP has to report on facts. Perhaps I am missing the point and you agree with this? I suspect the problem here may just boil down to semantics. --P123ct1 (talk) 18:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

About description

I think that the summary of ISIL isn't accurate. The main activity of ISIL is torturing and murdering christians and followers of other religions in the name of the Islam -- and this should be clearly stated. Even if they base on extreme interpretations of jihad. The statement "The United Nations and Amnesty International have accused the group of grave human rights abuses" might be interpreted like "they are just accused and maybe innocent". There are dozens of articles which describe the crimes. A quick google search shows a scale of it. Somebody who hadn't known what ISIL is could gain a very incomplete view.

We all know what ISIL is, and maybe "everybody" knows. But IMHO Wikipiedia shouldn't take that into account as a reason to not mention the most important facts, because it destroys a neutral point of view.

My proposition is to add a sentence "ISIL is responsible of such crimes like torturing men and women, rape and mass murder. This includes shooting to death, crucifixion, beheading and other forms of atrociousness.", at the end of the third paragraph. After that might be a bunch of references to various sources. Bypassing an essence of the matter is not neutral. -- gajatko 9.10.2014 01:30

Saying they are accused is fine if there is any doubt, but ISIL puts out videos bragging about most of these crimes. Since no one disputes that they are committing these acts, seems like we can state the facts. The only word that might be an issue is "crimes" but any civilized person knows what these are without us telling them. I'd add kidnappings, murder of POWs, and destruction of historic monuments. Legacypac (talk) 02:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The main activity of ISIL is torturing and murdering christians and followers of other religions

Actually they kill far, far more Muslims than Christians or other religious groups. Until 2014 they had almost exclusively killed Muslims, in fact. And we already have a Human Rights Abuse section that is specifically designed for the material you are talking about. Gazkthul (talk) 02:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Until there is a statement from the UN that goes beyond accusation this is all that we can present. We can only use what has been said. There may be reason to check for new statements. Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Is the UN the only source we can cite? I think that it is not bad to cite articles from news websites, because they often contain photos which prove the accusations.

• Report on the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict in Iraq: 6 July – 10 September 2014
• http://www.huffingtonpost.com/evelyn-leopold/isis-isil-is-thy-name-is_b_5948208.html
• http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=744_1377386471
• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/11111167/British-hostage-Alan-Henning-beheaded-by-Islamic-State-killers.html
• http://www.iraqinews.com/iraq-war/urgent-video-isil-beheads-american-journalist-threatens-kill-another/
• http://www.presstv.com/detail/2014/07/29/373281/video-shows-isil-shoot-teens-in-head/
• http://www.almanar.com.lb/english/adetails.php?eid=165097&cid=23&fromval=1

Well, an official report of HUMAN RIGHTS Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and 6 different sources with photos or videos -- what else do we need? --Gajatko (talk) 11:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

How about ISIL justifying enslavement of women? ""One should remember that enslaving the families of the kuffar -- the infidels -- and taking their women as concubines is a firmly established aspect of the Shariah, or Islamic law," the group says in an online magazine published Sunday." http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/12/world/meast/isis-justification-slavery/index.html Admission and justification = we state it as fact.Legacypac (talk) 12:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Gajatko: That sentence about "grave human rights abuses" has been overtaken by events and you will see it has gone. The UN and Amnesty have been actively investigating since then and their reports are coming through now, and being recorded in this article. --P123ct1 (talk) 18:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Can we try to cite sources that don't require subscription (comment)

title edited from "Can we try to cite sources that don't require subscription" Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC) please. Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

We can and should. Paywall sources can usually be replaced by equivalent free ones. For example if you use the WSJ as a source try to also find a free source that has similar content to put along with it. There's no requirement to avoid paywall sources however. ~Technophant (talk) 11:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal is an RS, so shouldn't be avoided, and there is a way of bypassing its paywall. Search the article title on Google and it will bring up an unpaywalled version. That is why I have put in WSJ footnotes: "(Subscription required) Available via Google." This doesn't work for the Financial Times, however, another paywalled source. --P123ct1 (talk) 14:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd far prefer we talk about reliable materials than reliable sources. I recently had a potentially epic fail in relying on the independent UK broadsheet (one of the normally more reliable sources in my POV) in my reliance on coverage related to #Fear of female fighters. There are plenty of contents and spins that may be added in "RS" for the sake of commercial needs of selling information and advertising space. The two functions of citations are to validate Wikipedia contents and to provide readers with links for further research. These functions are severely hampered by reference to sources that require subscription. Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The WP guidance is to provide an additional source when one has a paywall. Paywalled sources, especially RS ones, shouldn't be avoided as there will be readers who can access them. I can't quote the WP policy on this, but this point has arisen before on this Talk page and that was the guidance given. On the other point, the WP guidance cannot be bent so that reliable materials are used rather than Reliable Sources, just because an individual editor thinks they look biased. They are called "Reliable Sources" for a reason - they have been judged so by WP as whole - and to say that one function of a citation is to validate WP contents is to profoundly misunderstand what WP is all about. WP has to reflect Reliable Sources, not use them as evidence to support a particular way of presenting facts, as happened with the 126 Sunni scholars citation. Btw, I see that para has just been moved to a prominent position in the Lead here which I strongly object to. --P123ct1 (talk) 17:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps "support" was the word meant rather than "validate", but even it was, "validate" is in interesting Freudian slip. --P123ct1 (talk) 19:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Suggest amalgamating second and last para of lead

The second para reads:
In its self-proclaimed status as a caliphate, it claims religious authority over all Muslims worldwide, and aims to bring most Muslim-inhabited regions of the world under its political control, beginning with the region of the Levant which approximately covers Syria, Jordan, Israel/Palestine, Lebanon, Cyprus, and part of southern Turkey.

AND the last (6th) para reads:
The group's original aim was to establish an Islamic state in the Sunni-majority regions of Iraq, and following its involvement in the Syrian Civil War this expanded to include controlling Sunni-majority areas of Syria. A caliphate was proclaimed on 29 June 2014, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi—now known as Amir al-Mu'minin Caliph Ibrahim—was named as its caliph, and the group was renamed the Islamic State.

Amalgamate to last?

Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Support. Jason from nyc (talk) 17:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Syria army still free (resolved)

in: Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#As Islamic State (2014–present) we have written

By that time, many non-Islamist rebels had been assimilated into the group, according to ISIL. In August 2014, a high-level ISIL commander said, "In the East of Syria, there is no Free Syrian Army any longer. All Free Syrian Army people [there] have joined the Islamic State."

A recent change has been made to say "non-Islamist rebels had been assimilated" and perhaps its worth getting the claim into current context.

http://www.ibtimes.com/free-syrian-army-rebels-join-forces-kurds-fight-isis-kobane-1702500

Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:22, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the text which seems to have been a unsubstantiated claim by the ISIL commander. Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

second para, first sentence. (notification of change)

had said

Over 120 scholars of Sunni Islam have declared the Islamic State to be Khawarij, stating that their actions are “not jihad at all, but rather, warmongering and criminality”.

and has been provisionally amended to,

Widespread Islamic criticism of ISIL[31][32] has included an open letter from 126 Sunni scholars to "... the self-declared Islamic State", stating that their sacrifice, without legitimate cause, goals and intention is “not jihad at all, but rather, warmongering and criminality”.

The open letter does not directly mention "Khawarij" and the groups actions were not specifically mentioned in the relevant quote. The refs: [31] is to http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/07/muslim-leaders-reject-baghdadi-caliphate-20147744058773906.html [32] is to http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/another-battle-with-islams-true-believers/article20802390/ but any of this can be amended.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:17, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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)

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: [13] "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;[14]. 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)

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)

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) Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Opponents list

I think the opponents' list is too restricted.

Shouldn't be considered "opponents" the states that have deployed forces in the ground to train the Iraqi Army and/or the Kurdish Peshmerga forces? And the states that have deployed Patriot missile batteries in Turkey to protect it from cross-border IS attacks?

I'm saying this because Spain has deployed 300 soldiers in Iraq to train the Iraqi Army on the ground, and will deploy 6 Patriot missile batteries and 130 supporting troops in Turkey to defend its NATO ally against cross-border attacks from IS.

States like Spain and others are clearly opponents of the IS, and I think their contribution should be noted on this Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felino123 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

No problem with Spain being upgraded on the list - add them. We have been grouping the opponents into:

1. Opponents with military forces in or over Iraq and Syria (this would exclude defensive measures in Turkey, unless war spreads there)

2. Opponents supplying military aid and humanitarian aid

3. Opponents supplying humanitarian aid

4. Talk only = not listed

Discrepancy

In the infobox, it says that the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant was established January 3, 2014. However, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant was announced April 8, 2013, when ISI declared that ISI was being renamed to ISIS: http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/7119.htm

What happened on January 3 is that ISIS officially declared that they have completed the "liberation" of Fallujah and that the Islamic State has arrived to the city. To say that IS was established or announced on January 3 is pretty silly. The rest of the article is quite clear that ISI was established/announced in 2006, renamed to ISIS in April 2013, and then renamed itself to IS and declared a Caliphate on July 29 2014.

The "establishment" date should be changed to either October 15 2006, which is when ISI was announced, or to April 8 2013, which is when Baghdadi announced that ISI is being renamed to ISIS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.112.16.100 (talk) 17:39, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, however whenever I have done this another editor has reverted me, and I haven't been interested in edit warring over it. Gazkthul (talk) 23:33, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Please restore footnote "UN-executes"

There's a dangling reference to <ref name=UN-executes/> in the "As Islamic State" section. It's currently footnote 131, the third footnote at the end of "executions of clerics who refused to pledge allegiance to the Islamic State,^[127] mass executions of prisoners of war,^[128] and civilians,^{[129][130][131]}"

I grabbed the footnote from an old version, where it was defined in the "Treatment of civilians" section. It used to be

<ref name=UN-executes>{{cite news |url=http://www.todayszaman.com/news-350389-un-warns-of-war-crimes-as-isil-allegedly-executes-1700.html |title=UN warns of war crimes as ISIL allegedly executes 1,700 |date=15 June 2014 |website=Today's Zaman |accessdate=4 July 2014}}</ref>

The right thing to do is replace the reference to this footnote by this definition of the footnote. Thank you! 71.41.210.146 (talk) 23:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done, and thanks for taking the time to figure out what the citation had been before someone accidentally broke it. Cannolis (talk) 02:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

There's a (Refbot?) that will fix such things if the refname is in a previous version.~Technophant (talk) 18:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Official website external link and accurate flag

This is apparently their official website. Should this go in the External Links section?

http://khilafah.is/

This is the image in the top right corner of their flag, which is a notably better version than what is being used here on wikipedia.

http://i.imgur.com/BvVrQfX.jpg

Wstn (talk) 04:07, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Wstnthe website isn't working, it has worked for you in the past? --Wheels of steel0 (talk) 10:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Probably they have mirror site(s).

It's http://khilafah.net/ --P123ct1 (talk) 09:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Whatever khilafah.is was it seems to have been removed from the internet. khilafah.net is an unrelated Hizb ut-Tahrir website. Gazkthul (talk) 22:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes it appears it have been taken offline at least temporarily. It might be worth checking the link in the future. Wstn (talk) 02:47, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

placing Terrorism, orders of criticism

I think that ISIL should primarily be defined by what they do and I am now not sure in regard to our prominent presentation of terrorist labling. While I don't doubt that the label applies I personally see ISIL as being more analogous with the war promoting Nazi party or with the Hutu's in the 1990s in their genocide of the Tutsi in Rwanda.

I am questioning the balance between the priorities of the group to simply cleanse surrounding areas of enemies or to initiate terror/to enact reprisals for perceived previous wrongs.

Also, I believe that the section on: 'Criticism of the "Islamic State"' began as primarily as a compilation of criticisms of the groups use of the name "Islamic State" and that this has grown to incorporate other issues.

Suggest starting section "Criticisms" containing subsections: "Designation as a terrorist organization", "Criticism of the name choice, 'Islamic State'" and "other".

Also suggest in the paragraph in the lead concerning criticisms placing the Amnesty international sentence on ethnic cleansing ahead of sentence indicating designation as a terrorist organization by the United Nations and other nations. The United Nations has 193 member states and eight are noted for individually applying this designation. There is far more condemnation on the issues of slaughter, slavery etc.  Done Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I found that the entire EU (following the UN Security Council) designates them as terrorists too and the designation and requirement to sanction is binding on all UN and EU members. Legacypac (talk) 11:05, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm beginning to wonder about the extent to which various nations are bothered with the branding of the group as, quote, terrorists. All the references are valuable in that they clarify the picture of ISIL but, at risk of playing with words, I think the main issues are things like the slaughtering of people more than the potential terror that would clearly be involved. This is not to downplay the issue of terrorism as in any other context terrorism at this scale would be a central issue. I don't know what you think but I considered the views of Amnesty International (small organisation), concerning ethnic cleansing, to be more important than the views of the UN (big organisation), concerning terrorism. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

suggestion as above

Suggest starting section "Criticisms" containing subsections: "Designation as a terrorist organization", "Criticism of the name choice, 'Islamic State'" and "other". Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

a specific/non-specific, definable/indefinable establishment (infobox content)

The first infobox contains a section on "establishment" with presented details of:

	Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant declared	3 January 2014[8][9]

- 	Caliphate declared	29 June 2014 

The section on names begins: "The group has had a number of different names since it was formed, including some names that other groups use for it"

I personally find it contradictory to talk of "establishment" and to talk of names of the group prior to the establishment date.

What establishment are we/should we be talking about? The establishment of the group? The establishment of a government (which may have occurred at any time and not necessarily at name change transition)? The establishment of a capital city? The establishment of a title containing the word "State" (which occurred with the rebranding as "Islamic State of Iraq")? A rebranding of the description of the type of government to Caliphate? Something else?

Thoughts? Suggestions?

I think that the one valuable piece of information here is the date that "Caliphate" was declared and this could be entered in the section of Government. The current text reads: "Self-declared caliphate". I suggest: "Unitary, Single-party state declared as Islamic state (2006) and as caliphate (29 June 2014).

The Mujahideen Shura Council was a single-party and it retains absolute control of the group.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:16, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree, you make a good point here. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 23:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

TY Supersaiyen312. Perhaps now this can be a change waiting to happen. The suggestion was mainly made due to the Lead and TOC being shorter than the infoboxes but this is no longer an issue. I still think that the second map (as at Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#Map:_current_military_situation) might find a place between the infoboxes. At the moment space is being filled in the info boxes with a repetition of the flag at the very bottom position. Gregkaye ✍♪ 04:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

No problem. With the second map in its current position, it might be useful to merge that section into one of the existing ones. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 04:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The establishment section has since been developed with what seems to me to be a more informative content. Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Also propose moving information on leaders and on the capital city into just one info box I suggest that this all goes under Government and capital in the first box. Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

•  Done Gregkaye ✍♪ 04:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Type of government?: Unitary, single-party, Islamic state and self-declared caliphate?

Despite being an unrecognised state the article on ISIL uses: "Infobox country" (first infobox) which has a section on government.

I propose the use of:

Government     Unitary, single-party, Islamic state and self-declared caliphate

• Unitary state, they are not a Federation
• Single-party state, they have had the organisation of a single party since at least the time of the Mujahideen Shura Council and, in operation as a single party that occupies territory, they have similarities to China.
• Islamic state, a more honest title might be "Islamic extremist group" but what can you do!
• self-declared caliphate

I also wondered whether a description Semi-presidential system may become relevant. I won't hold my breath.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Also suggest as subsequent text: Emir and self-declared caliph

Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

More like a military occupation. Reminds me of the Nazi occupations, on religious steroids and ignoring the rules of war. Unlike normal national armies ISIL lacks a home base with a supportive population. Even in the cities they hold the locals often support out of justified fear. We don't have to fill in all the slots. They are there to use if applicable, and they are not applicable here. Legacypac (talk) 15:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac, I think that ISIL should be fully described so that people can see what it is.

It should not be the case but the world has no shortage of unpopular governments. The significant difference here is your arguably apt POV regarding religious steroids. History also tells that religion is not the only cause of despotism and callous slaughter. Other systems have also had a go. Beyond accusations related to religious doctrines and despotism and beyond issues relating to popular support, the legal situation of ISIL is much the same as the legal situation regarding many rebellions. The ISIL page uses the rarely used term Unrecognised state which, when not used in a piped arrangement]], redirects to Wikipedia's List of states with limited recognition. Other unrecognised states and states recognised only by non-UN members are: Somaliland, Nagorno-Karabakh Republic and Transnistria. "States" without full recognition include : China, Israel and the State of Palestine and yet, perhaps remarkably, Zimbabwe isn't listed. However, in all these cases, descriptive pigeon-holing of governmental structure is provided. The (misguided, said with tongue in cheek) independence of the United States wasn't recognised by the (then) British (now UK) government for a couple of decades despite having the Federal presidential constitutional systems (within a democratic framework) that ISIL lacks.

I don't see a problem in describing governmental style.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2014

Change "Ministry of Defence, Israel" to "Ministry of Defense, Israel"

Abspeiser (talk) 19:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done --P123ct1 (talk) 19:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

ُEnough is enough! stop misleading readers! (re: first infobox "Establishment" dates – discussion still open)

It's been months and I'm waiting for someone to change this misleading information in the box that says (Islamic state of Iraq and the Levant was established in 2014. everyone knows that the accurate date is in 2013 as it mentioned in the name section. regarding the sources that use the date in January 2014 this was a misunderstanding because when they entered the city of Fallojah they said it's one of the Wilayat of ISIS which was liberated. they didn't declare anything new! while at that time they had presence in many cities in Syria including Raqqah, Jarabouls and Azaz. please correct the date! 3bdulelah (talk) 19:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I guess its been  Done. I'm not surprised that the parallel effort wasn't made to reply. Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Editor was informed on his talk page. --P123ct1 (talk) 21:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

NOT THIS AGAIN. This matter has already been discussed. This is not misleading. The 2014 date is used because that is the date they took Fallujah. 2014 Was also the date that they broke ties with All Qaeda and the Syrian Opposition. They now had an established territory and were no longer associated with other groups. This date is used not because it is the date that the GROUP formed. It is used because this is the date that they took control of of sections of Iraq. This isn't misleading. There are two sources which backing this up. I will add more if that isn't enough for you. The key here is determining the difference between an INSURGENCY and an UNRECOGNIZED STATE, and when ISIL crossed that line. Why do you think that there are two different infoboxes? I will add the date the Group was formed to the other infobox. In the meantime, please stop beating a dead horse. Quite frankly, I'm growing tired of this arguement. Toolen (talk) 15:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Toolen: That is writing history and WP:OR. WP is supposed to record facts, not interpret them as historians do. They announced on 8 April 2013 that they were re-forming under the name Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and establishing themselves as an Islamic state in a new region: "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant". This is a clear fact, which WP is bound by WP:NPOV to record neutrally. Is WP really going to say, "Oh, they didn't really mean it" and bend their words? Also, trying to set a date for when they might actually have become an Islamic state, and determining when they stopped being an "insurgency" and became an "unrecognised state", are matters of interpretation for historians to make, which is plainly beyond WP's remit. You did not have consensus for your change last time, and you certainly don't now, so you will have to work for it, I'm afraid. This is far from a dead horse! --P123ct1 (talk) 20:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

[Wording adjusted by P123ct1 (talk)]

The group started in 1999. Changes in name and territory controlled do not reestablish the start date. They are an insurgent group that controls territory, not a state, recognized or not. 06:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC) [Is this you, Gregkaye?]

I had added the JTJ 1999 reference but this was unhelpfully removed by Toolen. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

There are three editors here who disagree with Toolen about the date the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant was established: Gazkthul, 3bdulelah and myself. To be fair to Toolen and to prevent an edit-war, I think consensus should be determined before accepting/rejecting his edit. Are there others who agree or disagree about this? Gregkaye and Technophant, do you have a view? The previous discussion on this is here. Please read before deciding. Toolen, you mention two sources which back up your date and say you have others to help you. Can we see them, please? You only quoted one source in the last discussion, I believe. --P123ct1 (talk) 14:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I have some sympathy with Toolen's argument regarding the entity's establishment as being linked to the capture of new territory and with a splitting of association with another group but I don't so much see this as establishment but as re-establishment and/or additional establishment. However I see the group to have been established at some time perhaps that time was nineteen ninety-nine. They adopted some level of affiliation with al-Queda but still, themselves, declared state in 2006. I don't see any great significance in the 2013 date other than that this is a time that they expressed relationship with a larger territory. I think that ISIL have had a relatively fluid history and object to both 2013 and 2014 as being the only dates mentioned regarding establishment. I think 1999 and 2006 are the more significant dates. Either they were "established" at these dates or they are not "established" at all. They are still "unrecognised". The establishment issue is also fairly crucial in regard to the #Position and content of Infobox country. Please also give comment there. Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC) courtesy ping: Technophant :)

ISIS controlled cities alone in Syria in 2013 including Jarabulos and Azaz after their battle with FSA (North storm) if this is your reason. we have millions of sources that indicate their occupation of cities before Falujah. also in Faluhah they were not alone at January and they just clashed with Jaysh al mujaheddin last month. So GO AND READ. 3bdulelah (talk) 15:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I can give u million's of sources http://bigstory.ap.org/article/jihadis-capture-northern-syrian-town-near-turkey 3bdulelah (talk) 15:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

RU saying that you need to have a city to have a state?

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/state

On what is this based?

If a country at war, for a time, lost control of its capital, perhaps because its troops or troop were or was elsewhere would it cease, for that time, to be a country?

The fact is that they have long been a political entity with territory. All they lack is international legitimacy and, as this still isn't forthcoming, they arguably continue to fail the requirements of country, nation, state and, in the context of infobox country, "establishment".

Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I have added "Originated as Jamāʻat al-Tawḥīd wa-al-Jihād (1999)" into the war.. infobox which may cause a conflict as the box's perhaps superfluous first line of content text which reads: "Active 8 April 2013–present". I think that this may be a nonsense line of text as different sub-groups and associations may have been active for any length of time. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Anti-ISIL guerrilla groups

I'm not sure where the best place for this is, but someone might consider adding some brief information about ad hoc guerrilla groups that have risen up against them, like "White Shroud."[15] --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 23:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Use of "Islamic State" at least in the infobox

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Proposal - use names that are contextually appropriate:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Its also worth noting the actual usage:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Position and content of Infobox country

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Content of Infobox warring faction

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

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

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

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

Al-Qaeda's break with ISIL

I have restored "reportedly" in the Lead sentence, "It had close links to al-Qaeda until February 2014 when, after an eight-month power struggle, al-Qaeda cut all ties with the group, [reportedly] for its brutality and "notorious intractability". I think Epeefleche who removed it is probably unaware of the discussion over the wording of this sentence some time ago here. There was a good reason why editors decided that word should be there. Basically, there have been no reports that al-Qaeda cut ties with ISIL on the grounds that it was "too extreme", and it was agreed by editors that this reason was journalistic interpretation. --P123ct1 (talk) 07:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that discussion. But I don't get it. Every single statement in every wp article is "reportedly." The word adds nothing. It falls within the Strunk and White rubric that we should omit needless words. If there is cause to say that it is "journalistic interprentation," and not "reported", then we should say that. If it is reported, then we should omit the word ... because everything here is reported. IMHO. Best. --Epeefleche (talk) 17:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

You are quite right, it is all reported, but "reportedly" is used (like "allegedly") when there is some doubt about the report. --P123ct1 (talk) 20:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I refined the time period of infobox "part of" (here) of non-specific "2013-2014" to "(October 2004–February 2014)" with refs. This covers Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's initial vow to Bin Laden as TQJBRT to the split in Feb. ~Technophant (talk) 06:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Caliphate as territory or power structure or both?

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

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

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

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

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

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

TY GreyShark, I have edited the text to:

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

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

Self-declared references removed re caliphate

The references were removed in this edit[16] despite clear messages stating "!--don't remove qualifier, please see definitions of caliphate--"

It states:
A caliphate (in Arabic: خلافة‎ khilāfa, meaning "succession") is an Islamic state led by a supreme religious and political leader known as a caliph – i.e. "successor" – to Muhammad. The succession of Muslim empires that have existed in the Muslim world are usually described as "caliphates". Conceptually, a caliphate represents a sovereign state of the entire Muslim faithful, (the Ummah), ruled by a caliph under Islamic law (sharia).

Quite clearly Muhammed and any genuine caliphs that followed were accepted by those that accepted the Muhammadan creed. Baghdadi's claim of authority over Islam is widely rejected. The claimed caliphate, if there is one, is well described as self-declared.

See also: (ISIL OR ISIS OR Daesh OR "Islamic State") AND "not a caliphate" which gets "About 69,300 results". There are a lot of people going beyond basic reporting and adding a large content of commentary.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The actual lack of support for this self-declared caliphate may seem to be quite astounding when viewed in context.

See search: "longing for a caliphate" OR "need for a caliphate" OR "eagerness for a caliphate" OR "hope for a caliphate" or "aspiration for a caliphate". That search got "About 843,000 results".

Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I concur with Gregkaye. ISIL is an "unrecognized state". That means they are NOT a State - not a "state without recognition". ISIL fails the Montevideo Convention [Sovereign_state#Declarative_theory] because they 1 ) lack a defined territory (shifting daily); 2) a permanent population (there are no ISIL citizens, refugees all over the place) 3) a government (it operates a military occupation to be kind, a giant hostage camp to be blunt) 4) a capacity to enter into relations with other states (fail, no state will have relations) so long as it wasn't achieved by force whether this consists in the employment of arms, (fail again) ...

A caliph (head of state) is head of a caliphate (type of state). No state=no caliphate=no caliph. To use roughly equivalent English terms - No statehood=No kingdom/republic/country=no king/president/national leader. Hence self-declared is the appropriate and imperative qualifier for accuracy. This is also part of the fundamental problem with calling them the Islamic State, plus that name is like calling a rebel army "The Kingdom" or "The Republic", or "Ruler of all Christians" since the term assumes both political and religious authority over all Muslims worldwide - just too broad. Legacypac (talk) 09:59, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I put it back and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant&diff=prev&oldid=629705152 another user changes it citing talk page, with no discussion by them here. I fixed it again. Legacypac (talk) 18:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Propose amalgamating content of the section on "goals" into the section on "history"

The 8th section of the article is Goals and I am wondering to what extent it is just a repetition of content of the 2nd section: History. I'm thinking that "Goals" should present an indication of what the group plans to do in the future and not what it has done in the past. Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

There is some repetition Gregkaye, but isn't it a good idea to highlight in one paragraph in "Goals", right at the beginning of this next "chapter" of the article, what the group's main goal is and always has been: the establishment of an Islamic state? This next chapter is about how they are setting about achieving that ambition, so it would be a good preamble to it, I think. The first para of the "History" subsection in "As Islamic State" could be shortened by transferring the spokesman's words here, where they seem to fit better. "Goals" here should really be "Goal", as they only have one, the extension of their "caliphate"/establishment of an Islamic state. --P123ct1 (talk) 13:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a draft reworking of the first part of the "Islamic State" subsection in "History" and the "Goals" section. I have cut the "History" part right down and transferred some of it to the "Goals" section. Would this be acceptable?

===Islamic State (2014–present)===

On 29 June 2014, ISIL removed "Iraq and the Levant" from its name and began to refer to itself as the "Islamic State". It declared the territory under its control a new caliphate and named Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi as its caliph. The declaration of a caliphate has been criticized and ridiculed by Muslim scholars and rival Islamists inside and outside the occupied territory.

==Goal==

Since 2004, the group's goal has been the foundation of an Islamic state in the Levant. Specifically, ISIL has sought the establishment of a caliphate, a type of Islamic state led by a group of religious authorities under a supreme leader—caliph—who is believed to be the successor to Muhammad.

In June 2014, ISIL published a document which claimed to trace the lineage of its leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi back to the prophet. That same month, ISIL removed "Iraq and the Levant" from its name and began to refer to itself as the Islamic State, declaring the territory that it occupied in Iraq and Syria a new caliphate and naming al-Baghdadi as its caliph. By declaring a caliphate, al-Baghdadi was demanding the allegiance of all devout Muslims according to Islamic jurisprudence—fiqh.

Shaykh Abu Muhammad al-Adnani al-Shami, spokesperson for ISIL, described the establishment of the caliphate as "a dream that lives in the depths of every Muslim believer" and "the abandoned obligation of the era", while ISIL stated: "The legality of all emirates, groups, states and organizations becomes null by the expansion of the khilafah's [caliphate's] authority and arrival of its troops to their areas." ISIL thus rejects the political divisions established by Western powers at the end of World War I in the Sykes–Picot Agreement as it absorbs territory in Syria and Iraq.

ISIL's current goal is to consolidate the territorial gains it has made, to establish an Islamic state, and to expand the caliphate it has declared throughout the Levant region.

Not too sure about the last sentence I added, but I think something is needed about its current aim. --P123ct1 (talk) 15:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 sorry about this edit which I mostly written a bit earlier today and is being posted before taking the content of your last edit into account. (got to run). I may edit this if I get back here before someone responds.: ad: That looks great. The only change I would make would be to present Muhammed as "Muhammed". Whether or not it is true, its also POV to call him a prophet. Anyway, the rest here is as I wrote earlier. comments welcome. Gregkaye ✍♪ 20:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that there are any bad options so I'll just mention the things that are on my mind to see want you think. If a main issue for the group was "Establishing an Islamic state" maybe something like that could be a heading title. "Governance" might also work as a relevant title and perhaps "goals" could be merged with the first part of that section. Perhaps this could then be followed by "Territorial claims" (possibly named "Territorial aspirations"? Claiming authority over all of Islam may indicate more extensive claim than formally described).

Am also thinking that the content of "Ideologies.." (the title "Doctrine" might also work?!). This section might go well with the section of "Governance" that I gave the potentially changeable title of "Diktats, influences and pressures". A kind of cause and effect flow might work there.

(Another option could be to use the name "objectives" for "goals" but I'm just mentioning possibilities here). Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:55, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and adjusted the text using the draft above. Title heading and positioning in the article, or anything else, can be altered as editors see fit. --P123ct1 (talk) 05:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Second map position

The article contains two excellent maps both of which are produced by User:Spesh531. First things first: I've just awarded a barnstar at: User_talk:Spesh531#ISIL_Barnstar and would be more than happy for anyone else to edit the message and add their signature :)

I was also wondering about the best use of the second map. The first map is in the first infobox and the second map is currently positioned in : Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#Timeline_of_events

Is this the best location for it? Other possibilities include: following either of the infoboxes with the key information being placed as a caption; following the history section; some other position. What think ye?

Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I made this diff to propose moving it the infobox war faction in my new proposed infobox positions. I think it looks good there and provides an overview of the conflict. Comments? ~Technophant (talk) 05:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I personally think it looks amazing, a major improvement over the way the beginning of the page used to look.  :)

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

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

Gregkaye I'm not sure what you meant in your last comment. I think the map with legend should be made into a template since it is being used in multiple pages. That way updates can be done at the template page and be replicated on all pages that it is used on.~Technophant (talk) 23:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I was trying to say that, if the File:Syria and Iraq 2014-onward War map.png is placed in the very locatable top corner of the page maybe a straight repetition of the content might not be needed later in the article. In my view a better use would be to follow suggestions as at #Animated GIF showing territorial evolution in one of the two locations. Gregkaye ✍♪ 05:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is best to close this thread and continue to talk about what maps to use on above thread. 18:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk page too long

I changed the "MiszaBot/config| algo=old" to from default 30 days to 48 days a while back to keep older discussions alive. This page gets up to 1.6M pageviews/day (!) and discussion has been lively. I think it should be set back to 30 days, or even as low as 21 days. ~Technophant (talk) 11:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: After 7 days of no response to the above archived proposal I went ahead and changed the algo to 30 days.~Technophant (talk) 05:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Since I wrote this, the algo has been changed (without discussion) to 14 days, then 7 days here. This is too short. I understand that this talk page is quite long, however not everybody contributes or checks every page on a weekly basis. I'm changing it back to 14 days. I don't support any shorter length of time. ~Technophant (talk) 03:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The Page info currently indicates "Page length (in bytes) 132,716" which isn't in itself overly excessive. In lieu of technical objections I support Technophant's view that "it should be set back to 30 days" but have no objection to settings between 30 and ~17 days 30 and 14 days but preferring something more than 3 weeks if practical. (Give people at least a little over two weeks). There would certainly need to be a very valid reason for the settings of less than 14 days. I'm not saying that anyone should necessarily be bothered but, in the case of clearly concluded discussions, manual archiving is also possible. Gregkaye ✍♪ 04:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

When a page is getting about 20K a day of throughput 7 days gives about 200K which is more than large enough for a talk page. Before I altered it the page was in excess of 450K that is totally unreasonable for anyone with a slow band width or a pay per byte tariff, or for that matter a small memory on device. So 7 days is a compromise between leaving something on view for long enough and simultaneously keeping the page to a reasonable size. This is not just in the number of bytes on the page but also the number of entries in the TOC. when the page was of a size of over 450k there were 117 section to the page, Currently there are 33. I suspect the size of the page was one of the reasons for so many overlapping conversations that when on and on as few bothered to look through a very lage TOC or decided that if a conversation was in the middle of the page on one else would look at it. so while the the number of postings to this page remains so large I suggest that it is left at 7 days (the same time as is allocated for a WP:RM or an WP:AFD)-- PBS (talk) 16:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I have slow bandwidth with throttling and I don't mind that the talk page is long. If you are worried about bytes then the animated gif should be archived or hyperlinked (done). The need to properly discuss this topic supersedes minor technical issues such as large page size.~Technophant (talk) 18:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

It is not just about the size but also the number of sections on a page. The fact that two RMs could be open simultaneously and several other discussions about the name of an article in progress at the same time is a sign that the page was way to big. I did not bother to check, but it is likely that other subjects were being discussed in several places. Such large pages cause problems with assessing what the consensus is on any given subject as a new reader has to read the equivalent amount of text as would be found the average novel, (at the moment the page size is at between 24,000 and 25,000 words).

If desired one can always look at the archive to check for any recent sections one is interested in and resurrect them by providing a convince link to it in an introduction to a new section, that way editors can still see what has been said to date on the topic if that topic needs further discussion. Also note that it is not seven days from the start of a section but seven days from the last comment added to the section. With more than 20K a day being added to the page, seven days without a comment to a section is plenty long enough for it to be considered closed (as I said seven days it the length of the usual AfD, and anything not disused for seven days here in not going to be as critical as an AfD). When the volume to posts to the page decreases so the time to archive sections can be extended. -- PBS (talk) 21:59, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

There's some good points in that argument, however please don't edit war with me like you did here and change the algo without consensus. I'm holding firm on no shorter than 14 days and that's also the shortest time period the current consensus supports.~Technophant (talk) 23:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I think that good points have been made all round (although, with slight tongue in cheek, I'd like to propose the term "edit jihad" - or would that provide an unwarranted justification for actions). The problem that I see is the navigability of the TOC and PBS's insightful comments got me to thinking on the potential benefits of the editing of headings. At risk of adding a new heading, a related proposal is added below. Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) PBS: The way the Talk page works has become very chaotic over the past month or so. Editors open threads for topics when there are already ongoing discussions about them. Editors do not keep to the topic of threads and branch out into other topics (with a plethora of subheadings), which are then continued by other editors. It is very hard to keep track of discussions on particular topics now. Shortening the time to seven days would make it even harder, as it would mean constantly having to look back at the archived discussions to see what was said before (and frankly I can't see that many editors would make the effort, simpler to open a new thread). For these reasons I think seven days is unreasonable. There is a far better chance of following a discussion on a topic if the block to scan for it is 14 days long. --P123ct1 (talk) 08:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

For the moment the length for archiving can remain at 14 days since the last edit to a section. However if the page grows to be large than 300K or contains more than 70 sections then as an administrative action I will put it back to 7 day, for the reasons I have explained before. If that clear the backlog then we can revisit the number of days. For example perhaps 10 days if 14 days have proved to be difficult to manage. -- PBS (talk) 21:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

PBS Alternate proposal: If the talk page gets above 300K or contains more than 70 sections the manually archive discussions that haven't been edited for more than 7 days to get it down to size. Changing the algo against overwhelming consensus is disruptive and displays an ownership attitude. Having the sysop flag does not make you exempt from the same rules other editors must follow. ~Technophant (talk) 05:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

My proposal is far more modest change than would occur if the recommendations of the talk page guideline were to be followed "It is recommended to archive or refactor a page either when it exceeds 75 KB, or has more than 10 main sections" (WP:TALKCOND), as I said above 7 days since a section has last been edited is the same length as the standard AfD and RM and seems to me a reasonable compromise. The reasons why manual archiving is a bad idea, is because when there are lots of disputes on the talk page, it is not unknown for people to question how accurate the archive is when the archive is carried out by an interested party, and for anyone disinterested in the content of the talk page it is needlessly time consuming when the same can be achieved with the use of a bot. -- PBS (talk) 10:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

PBS I agree that manual archiving can create problems. However guidelines are just guidelines. We have a clear consensus here to have the algo set no lower than 14 days and that should be followed.~Technophant (talk) 07:58, 20 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)

Mention of major battles in cities, i.e., Kobani

30k strong terror army, almost half of which is invested in house to house fighting in one city; perhaps mentioning it in the timeline would be prudent, even as events unfold. Defenders in Kobani perhaps the only indigenous military force that has faced ISIL with significant resistance Jigsaw6741 (talk) 14:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Jigsaw6741 Go ahead an put it in the timeline. Excess material can always be cleaned up later. This battle is unique because 1. It's right on the border and there's media + spectators, and 2. There's precision airstrikes which are likely knocking out their strongholds and resupply. ~Technophant (talk) 18:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• Update, this conversation has been moved to Talk:Timeline of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant events#Kobane.~Technophant (talk) 08:21, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Spain should be added to the opponents list

I think Spain should be added to the opponets' list, as it officially joined the Coalition in the Paris summit. Spain has provided 300 instructors to train the Iraqi Army and has offered to assist coalition partners in transport and in air-to-air refueling operations, as well as to provide weapons to the Iraqi Army and the Kurdish Peshmerga forces.

Sources: http://politica.elpais.com/politica/2014/10/09/actualidad/1412867011_131222.html, http://www.abc.es/espana/20141010/abci-militares-irak-envio-201410101616.html

Is the list still restricted as it was before? For example, Germany has only provided instructors to train the Kurdish Peshmerga forces, but has not offered to assist coalition partners or provide weapons to allied forces on the ground, and it's on the list. But Spain is doing more, and it isn't. It makes no sense at all.

It's clear that Spain and Germany are opponents. But if Spain should not be on that list, then Germany shouldn't be, either. I think both should be, as their contribution should be noted and are clearly using their military to oppose IS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felino123 (talk • contribs) 04:06, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe Germany has troops on the ground and is shipping weapons and aid, but if Spain is sending in troops they can be moved from providing aid to belligerent status now. Legacypac (talk) 06:30, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Maps

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maps

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

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

Reported SAA-ISIS collusion

There is a section in the article that indicates that the SAA and ISIS are likely colluding. However, the fact that hundreds of Syrian soldiers were likely killed by ISIS in the taking of Shaar oil field (in July of 2014) is not mentioned at all. [17]. I'm fairly sure that the SAA has increased its airstrikes on ISIS positions recently as well. David O. Johnson (talk) 20:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Sinjar massacres, and other massacres

As there is a page on Sinjar massacre, I wonder whether there should be pages on other major massacres perpetrated by ISIL during last months.

In one considers only massacres with 100+ victims, in addition to Sinjar and other massacres already described in the pages about the massacre of Camp Speicher and the battles of Tabqa air base and Shaer gas field, there were more at Khana Sor (100 Yazidis: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/IQ/UNAMI_OHCHR_POC_Report_FINAL_6July_10September2014.pdf), Hardan (250-300 Yazidis: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/IQ/UNAMI_OHCHR_POC_Report_FINAL_6July_10September2014.pdf), Khocho (400 Yazidis: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/IQ/UNAMI_OHCHR_POC_Report_FINAL_6July_10September2014.pdf), Tal Afar prison (200 Yazidis: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/IQ/UNAMI_OHCHR_POC_Report_FINAL_6July_10September2014.pdf), Mosul (670 inmates of Badush prison: http://www.iraqinews.com/features/isil-kills-670-prisoners-badush-prison-beings-campaign-turkmen-says-un/, http://www.iraqinews.com/iraq-war/urgent-400-bodies-found-mass-grave-northwest-al-mosul/ and http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/lauretta-brown/un-isis-massacred-700-turkmen-including-women-children-elderly) and Beshir (700 Turkmen: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/lauretta-brown/un-isis-massacred-700-turkmen-including-women-children-elderly and http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/170899/women-and-children-among-massacred-iraqi-turkmen.html); in addition to the massacre of 700 members of the Shitat tribe in Der ez-Zor province in the first two weeks of August (http://www.almanar.com.lb/english/adetails.php?eid=166032&cid=23&fromval=1). This (without counting several more massacres with dozens, but less than 100, victims) according to the United Nations; in the mentioned articles and reports there are some details, maybe somebody could create the pages if they are to be considered encyclopedic (some of these are even bloodier than the Sinjar massacre that already has a page). --2.35.58.16 (talk) 21:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

At the very least they could/should be written up in the "Human rights abuses" section of this article. --P123ct1 (talk) 05:01, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I have added it in the "War crimes accusations" section, though some pages about the more bloody ones/those for which these are some information about what happened (I would say at least Khocho, Mosul prison, Beshir and the al-Sheitat tribesmen; also Hardan, Khana Sor and Tal Afar prison, but there is not much more known about those than the number of people killed) may still deserve to be created.

At the same sime, about the Sinjar massacre page: from the page and the comments I can't quite understand if the pages deals only with one massacre in the town of Sinjar, or with all the massacres of Yazidis in the Sinjar district. If the latter case is correct, there would be need of a) moving the number of Yazidis killed indicated in that page from 500 to 5,000, as UN sources state (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2792552/full-horror-yazidis-didn-t-escape-mount-sinjar-confirms-5-000-men-executed-7-000-women-kept-sex-slaves.html), and b) to describe in that page all the massacres of Yazidis in Sinjar region (Quiniyeh, 70-90 killed; Hardan, 60 killed; Ramadi Jabal, 60-70 killed; Dhola, 50 killed; Khana Sor, 100 killed; Hardan, 250-300 killed; al-Shimal, "dozens" of dead; Khocho, 400 killed; Tal Afar prison, 200 killed; Jidala, 14 killed; plus the hundreds who died along the roads and while fleeing to the mountains, the abductions, and the killings with less than ten dead) with the details contained in the OHRCHR/UNAMI report (http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/IQ/UNAMI_OHCHR_POC_Report_FINAL_6July_10September2014.pdf) and therefore the other massacres of Yazidis mentione above should be described there, without separate pages, while new pages could be done for the massacres that did not target Yazidis (Mosul prison - Shia inmates -, Beshir - Turkmen shia - and Ghranij/Abu Hamam/Kashkiyeh - al-Sheitat tribesmen -). --Olonia (talk) 13:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Olonia: Thanks for your edits. I have split them and put one half with "War crimes" and the other half with "Religious and minority group persecution", but have not removed anything you said. It is good to have hard data on this in the article. --P123ct1 (talk) 23:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Fear of female fighters

Amazing:

• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/11110724/Isil-fanatics-fear-being-killed-by-a-woman-will-deprive-them-of-virgins-in-paradise.html
  
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lro62AJ6e7M
  
• http://www.westernjournalism.com/awesome-even-isis-admits-brave-woman-sending-terrorists-hell/
  
• (ISIL OR ISIS OR Daesh OR "Islamic State") AND (scared OR fear) AND (female OR women)
  

I was wondering whether a section might be added as a final subsection of "Opposition" but other options might work. Titles might be: "Female fighters", "Fear of female fighters", Female fighters as an asset", other options?
See also: Houri
If anyone else want to join in a write up, pls do.
Gregkaye ✍♪ 21:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

This claim is pure propaganda. Notice that it is only a Republican politician and Kurdish PYD officials claiming this. Reminds me of the claim that burying Muslims with pigs leads to them going to hell [18] Gazkthul (talk) 01:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Certainly it could only be true within the context of either: prejudiced interpretations of non-prejudiced texts; non-prejudiced interpretations of prejudiced texts or prejudiced interpretations of prejudiced texts. This is not to say that other religions are necessarily better and there are inequalities in the treatment of the sexes in many religious texts. In this case Islam promises 72 houri to a male martyr but one man for a female martyr.

Its an issue that seems to be getting significant coverage. Its either anti ISIL propaganda or or the result of misunderstanding or its true. There is no accounting for the actual beliefs of front line ISIL troops. They believe it to be the will of god to kill aid workers. Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:04, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

As a Baha'i I practice tolerance of all religions. It can be difficult to understand a foreign belief system but I find it best not cast judgement.~Technophant (talk) 07:15, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The claim of female Kurdish fighters is that their male ISIL opponents react differently to them than to male Kurdish fighters. A clearer view of the facts of the matter may develop with research and/or time. Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

OMG. Wikipedia is not a place to spread propaganda! eather PYD or IS. This claim is a stupid propaganda. 3bdulelah (talk) 15:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

• Its interesting that Wikipedia's reliable sources will present this kind of information but they don't present the opposing view. The thing that is perplexing is that many of the Kurds are Sunni so they also should have opportunity to check through their claims. It might be worth writing something up somewhere to set the record straight. Gregkaye ✍♪ 03:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

If added it could go in Critcism. All facts should be attributed to source. Should not be represented as verified fact. Remember, "verifiability not truth"~Technophant (talk) 04:28, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

This article by RS AFP can be used in Opponents.~Technophant (talk) 04:48, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

have put the unisex YPG of whom YPJ are a part in the recently tidied "Opposition within Iraq, Lebanon and Syria" Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Relations with Turkey

Why is there a section about the alleged relations with the Syrian regime, but none about ISIL's ties with Turkey? As far as I can remember, both made oil deals with them. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 23:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

This could answer your question: Why Turkey Doesn't Want To Fight ISIS on YouTube. The channel is affiliated with DNews (Discovery channel) so it should be reliable. ~Technophant (talk) 03:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but Turkey was also accused of making oil deals with ISIL. If we have a section about Assad's "alleged relations" with ISIL citing "Western intelligence sources", then we must have one about Turkey as well, otherwise the article would be unbalanced. Even some EU members were accused of buying ISIL-controlled oil. Syrian rebels previously accused Al-Nusra front of being a product of the Assad regime, but it all turned out to be hogwash eventually. Earlier this year, the Syrian government was accused of deliberately exempting ISIL from airstrikes, but considering the increasing death toll from the SAA's fighting with ISIL (e.g. Battle for Tabqa Air base), these claims are becoming outdated as well. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Table of contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's how the page looks on a mobile tablet: [19] The way the MobileFrontend extension generates the TOC is different than just calling _TOC_ like in normal view so adding the Content wlink creates a duplicate. Also, it just doesn't look right. I'm going to take the wlink out.~Technophant (talk) 16:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Islamic State (2014 - Present)

how balanced is the following statement, when all, with exception of one, of the corresponding citations - are directly from Iraqi-Muslims, here:

"The declaration of a caliphate has been criticized and ridiculed by Muslim scholars and rival Islamists inside and outside the occupied territory.[116][117][118][119][120][121]"

I really want to see more -non I/L sources- citations if one can find those to offer, as it seems as if (albeit not in an explicit manner) the text is a bit.. once sided, or more clearly, an unbalanced claim (though not misinforming) for the amount of the following citations, five of which are Iraqi sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.109.37.236 (talk • contribs) 11:47, 18 October 2014

I don't see anything wrong with Iraqi sources. I'm pretty sure the subjects close to them would know best what they're talking about. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 04:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

If you object to the balance, find some sources you do approve of and bring them here for editors to put in. --P123ct1 (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Arabic name of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

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

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

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

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

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

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

Caliph - Caliphate - "Worldwide Caliphate"

1. This article was giving a link to Caliphate, a former (historic) supreme post for all Muslims. (I changed it to "Worldwide Caliphate", which seems to be a new-born concept that responds to the projects of these ISIS terrorists. Please do be careful to use the concepts not to hurt anybody's feelings. 2. The article also gives a link to Caliph where we see a photo of the last Ottoman-Turkish Caliph Abdülmecid II. The last Caliph was a man of arts, a painter. Please see his photos and those of his daughters at this Google link. Does this family look like that of the so called "ISIS Caliph"? (Have any of you seen a photo of a "woman" from that family?) Please do not confuse our readers on these institutions like The Caliphate and Islam and what, how and who the Muslims are. Begin by calling terrorists by their name: "Terrorists", I mean ALL Terrorists. The so-called "political correctness" of Wikipedia only causes the masses that read it to confuse a Muslim with a TERRORIST, as we use concepts like Islamist, Jihadist etc both in religion and terrorism articles. Any questions? Thanks for reading. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 16:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Despite the use of "Worldwide Caliphate" in the article I would prefer to use "worldwide caliphate" as suggest at Talk:Worldwide Caliphate.~Technophant (talk) 22:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Didn't see this. I've already changed it to "worldwide caliphate", but keeping the same wikilink, of course. --P123ct1 (talk) 22:54, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I've changed my views. I think it should be caps but also be in quotes. Proper name. ~Technophant (talk) 07:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

That will mean nothing to uninformed readers and will baffle them - that is why I changed it. There is still the blue link for the curious. --P123ct1 (talk) 08:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure how the original caliphates, which actually fitted into the definition of "caliphate", were not equally worldwide caliphates. Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Fundamentalism

ISIL are Islamic/religious fundamentalists, yet this description is absent from the article. Should there not be something on it somewhere? It would probably belong best in the section on "Governance", where this characteristic is very apparent. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Its indicated in the link to Islamic extremism. Influential materials related to the topic may be found at: what are the fundamentals of islam. Let's be sure we apply relevant words and as they are applied by truly reliable sources. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Just thought that link needed fleshing out in the article, only briefly though. --P123ct1 (talk) 12:59, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

We do better by describing exactly what type of fundamentalism they are: Wahhabi. The Wiki article on Islamic fundamentalism has a lead which ends with: "Wahhabism is often described as the main cause of Islamic fundamentalism." Thus we go right to the source and spell out which branch of fundamentalism applies to ISIL. The worst choice would be "Islamic extremism" which is essentially a disambiguation page that gives "Islamic fundamentalism" as one of the 3 choices. Why be vague when you can be exact? Jason from nyc (talk) 13:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Criticisms of ISIL are reported to relate to ways in which the group deviates from or misapplies the fundamentals of Islam. Please see the fatwa and open letter. I agree that Wahhabi terminology can be gainfully used. Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

In that case, it would best go in "Ideology and beliefs", where Wahhabism is mentioned. --P123ct1 (talk) 18:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Fundamentalism (in any religion) leads to problems and conflict. I think that this term can be introduced into ISIL#Ideology and beliefs, but not in the first paragraph of the lead. This type of fundamentalism is extreme, ie "extremist" so using the word fundamentalism actually dilutes the degree of beliefs but is a more commonly used term that can also accurately describe their ideology. Most people in the US are aware of the problems that Christian fundamentalism can cause (ie Anti-abortion violence) but may incorrect views on the meaning of Wahhabism, Salafi jihadism, Islamic extremism. Fox News (#1 TV news source in the US) has it's own spin on these terms, and uses anti-extremist rhetoric incessantly. ~Technophant (talk) 18:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Australia is not a member of NATO

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

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

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

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

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

Prose instead of flags?

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)

Italy on military operations list

Italy has been added to "Military operations in or over Iraq and/or Syria".

It's correct that Italy is on this list, as it has offered to assist coalition partners in air-to-air refueling and ISR operations with one KC-767 and two UAVs Reapers.

But the source should be updated, as it doesn't say anything about that. It's the old source from the "9 allies" on the NATO Wales summit, where the roles had not been established yet. Then, other countries joined the Coalition after this summit, and before and after the Paris summit.

I just think the source should be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felino123 (talk • contribs) 09:09, 21 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)

The word "jihad", criticism and disruption

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)

• 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 normal practice in Wikipedia to call groups like this "jihadists". This article is in danger of becoming "The Gospel according to Editors" rather than a neutral Wikipedia article. --P123ct1 (talk) 13:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Should "Criticism should on the criticism section, not on the Lead"?

WP:LEAD makes it clear that "The lead should define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight." So, if criticism is trivial, it probably doesn't belong in the lead. If it not trivial, it does belong in the lead. It is certainly not true that as a general case "Criticism should on the criticism section, not on the Lead." as Felino123 seems to think. Dougweller (talk) 13:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• His criticism was trivial and a disruption. Felino123 (talk) 13:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
• It certainly looks neccessary here. I'm not sure what the trivial or disruptive criticism Felino123 is referring to is. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 04:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
• I think criticism by Muslims and Islamic scholars should be mentioned in the lead as it is a criticism from within the Islamic or Muslim world against ISIS. Mohammed al-Bukhari (talk) 16:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Recent article: Military wing of ISIL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If we want to keep it then perhaps:

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

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

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

Reference: Usage of terminologies

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gregkaye 08:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

grammar terrorists

@ 20 October: villages not willages

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

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

Yes! Though the joke is good. --P123ct1 (talk) 23:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

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

The new template was created with some good looking content.

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

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

@༆:

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

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

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

Recent: Portal:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

Is this something that should be developed or deleted?

@Atifabbasi8: Gregkaye ✍♪

"Al-Qaeda in Iraq" or "al-Qaeda in Iraq"?

This article has both spellings. The Al-Qaeda in Iraq/Tanzim article has gone over to "al-Qaeda in Iraq". After a long period of stability with "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" being the spelling, a discussion was opened last month on the Talk page of the Al-Qaeda in Iraq article here about what the spelling should be, but in usual fashion no decision was reached, and editors now do what they like. This chaos has to stop. Can it be decided here, or on the other article's Talk page, once and for all, what the spelling should be, please? --P123ct1 (talk) 19:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Logos at the "Designation as a terror organization" section

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

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

Lead

Should we add this line to the lead as this is a criticism from within Islam which holds more importance than outsider views on ISIS.

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)