Wikipedia

Talk:Islamic State/Archive 17

< Talk:Islamic State
(Redirected from Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/Archive 17)
Latest comment: 10 years ago by Legacypac in topic Allies/Opponent of IS
Archive 10←Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20

Restoration of deleted lead text re criticism

Latest comment: 10 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion

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

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

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

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

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

The sections of the article are presented as follows.

Lead section

Contents

1 Names

2 History...

3 Designation as a terrorist organization

4 Support...

5 Opposition...

6 Analysis...

7 Ideology and beliefs

8 Goals

9 Territorial claims

10 Governance...

11 Human rights abuses...

12 Criticism...

...

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

[Comment removed by agreement]

The first edit mentioned within this thread cut a large section of long standing text. Any of my edits involving textual changes, or movements of text have been small scale compared to this. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
There are some criticisms in the "Ideology and beliefs" section, higher up. "Criticism" is in a logical place. It cannot be put higher as criticism follows events, described in earlier sections. Criticism put before the subject of criticism is illogical. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 12:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
This is true, thank-you. There is also fairly overt content in Governance and Designation as a terrorist organization obviously presents a clear message> I think rightly so. Given that coverage of ISIL is anything but approving in the vast majority of cases and that critical wording and phraseology are commonly used, it is necessary to have issues proportionately represented in the lead. This is all the more relevant when many of the article's critical contents are typically presented so far down the page. Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I sympathize with Gregkaye's concern. The 1st 5 items are what I call "public facts" and are dry details. It gets interesting when we get to "private facts" such as the (7) ideology and beliefs that drive ISIL, (8) their alleged goals, and our reaction (6,11,12) to their acts and claims. But I don't know of any way out of this. The "who, what, where, when" must come before the "why." Perhaps we could put "(1) Names" in an appendix. We made great strides in moving material to other articles. (edit conflict) Jason from nyc (talk) 13:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree, it is a bad situation. I wouldn't be happy about moving "Names" to an appendix or from its position at the top, though, as the history of this group and its bewildering number of names is hard to grasp for a new reader (I know it was for me) and I think it gives a good run-in to "History". Without knowing something about the names first, I think the reader could be quite confused by "History" and many of the later references. I have cut the "History of Names" section right down already, but would it be an idea to scrap the index of names? Perhaps 2.5 "Notable members" and "Designation as a terrorist organisation" (which used to be nearly the last item) could be moved to the end and perhaps the "Support" and "Opposition" sections could be combined into one big section with "Military and arms", which comes after "Criticisms". ( "Designation as a terrorist organisation" just fleshes out one of the Lead paras, which could perhaps be moved to a higher position in the Lead along with the criticisms Lead para to compensate for relegating the designation infobox to the end; also, the terrorist designation para and criticism para in the Lead moved to a prominent position in the Lead would highlight from the start the criticisms of the group. These paras used to be at the start, and I can't remember now why they were moved down.) The sections I have mentioned are not part of the narrative and mostly are more like the appendix tables you see in other encyclopaedias. I am just trying to think of ways to move up "Criticisms" to a more prominent place, which it deserves, without breaking logical order. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 16:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Moving the criticism to the end of the lead was a result of our discussion (see "Logical Order in Lead" i.e. [1], see 14 Oct. You have some good ideas about moving the sections that are little more than lists. I know it is hard to read about the topic without a glossary and cast of characters/nations/groups. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:13, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I have moved the "Support" and "Opposition" tables to near the end of the article, as they are not part of the narrative and are more like the appendix tables seen in other encyclopaedias. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 10:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
_____________________________________________

Another bad editing practice (different topic)

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

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

My quick 2 cents. Thank you, Gregkaye, for your comment about my proven record of well informed contributions. I have a quick comment on this thread. You're not the first, nor the only one, that has done this. Pot and kettle went up the hill yet black still. At least you admitted it, and at least there is no evidence of your changing the comments of other editors.Worldedixor (talk) 01:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I have amended titles usually with additions for the sake of clarification, altered texts that I thought were inappropriately indented in the context of dialogue and have reverted a collapse related to one of my own texts. That I think is the limit. I mainly make my "confessions" above knowing that the issues mentioned relate to the smooth operation of the page and thought this would be an appropriate vehicle for their mention. I can only comment on your valued and language able contributions in the time I have known you .. and will add comment, need more :) Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Does Tunisia really support ISIL?

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

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

Please remember WP:CIVIL on this Talk page. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 12:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Corriebertus, that was P123ct1's idea, the owner of this page. 172.56.31.134 (talk) 04:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
All headings cleaned up now. If encouraging editors to drive towards consensus rather than discuss topics endlessly getting nowhere is ownership, I plead guilty to ownership it. I don't see it that way. I can guess who the IP is. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 21:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

[redacted by P123ct1]

Logos

Latest comment: 10 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion
See previous discussion: Prose instead of flags?

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

Comment I personally find this topic to be of great interest but don't have strong opinion. I normally approve of general use of visual ques but in this case with a range of typically monochromatic and irregularly shaped symbols I don't see much if any advantage in use. Here is a link to a current version of "Support" with flags --- and here is a link to a temporarily produced version of "Support" with flags removed.
In the #Prose instead of flags? discussion (opened by David O. Johnson), Orange Suede Sofa quoted "WP:ICONDECORATION (which is referenced by MOS:FLAG)" which argues for removal. (However, to be fair, I also think that a significant proportions of MOS can be unnecessarily prescriptive). Since this time of the last discussion entries have been consistently afforded with their inconsistently shaped emblems. Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Gregkaye, can you do an example of "Opposition" with just the logos removed? --P123ct1 (talk) 09:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
What do editors think about the simple list format for the "Supporters" section in Gregkaye's example above? What do they think of this version for the "Opposition" part, which has all the indented logos/flags removed? There is a lot information there, and I think the logos/flags in the article's current version are distracting and make it difficult to take that information in. --P123ct1 (talk) 19:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Adding comments to the Talk page

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

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

I can try to generally do that in the future however there's traditions and customs in Talk pages. Inserting indented comments after an earlier remark are meant to be a reply to that remark, instead of furthering the main discussion below. I don't think it's reasonable to expect other users to change their habits on that.~Technophant (talk) 10:03, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
My ignorance is showing again. I didn't realize it was acceptable practice in Wikipedia. I haven't been here long enough. Apologies. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 22:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Population of ISIS

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I Roughly calculated the population of ISIS to be around 204,000-250,000 using information from the internet such as [2] we must know the amount of people that are trapped under ISIS's flags. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weegee12 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Mosul alone contains over 1 million people. Anyway we'd need reliable sources populations estimates rather than original research. Gazkthul (talk) 22:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Flag of the Islamic State

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

First, I'm pleased that User:TRAJAN 117 has taken the initiative and created this article. There's a story behind every flag. There are a few issues however. 1) the article needs more context and sources for verification. 2) there's a proposal to rename the article to Flag of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant on the talk page. Please take some time to contribute if you can. ~Technophant (talk) 05:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I am also pleased that the initiative has been taken to create this article content. The story of the flag on the main page of the ISIL article is that it was added to the page at some time prior to 22 February 2013 as the "Flag of the Islamic State of Iraq" and was further developed at some time prior to 24 February 2014 with a link to the then uncreated namespace Flag of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. I am less pleased that the Flag of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant page was then created as a redirect to an article using the non-consensus name "Islamic State". Given the title of the main article the move is obvious which, if it is to be mentioned on this page, must be mentioned in the context of its creation.
What would be helpful would be, if editors are to create new articles in relation to this main topic, that they supply other editors with notification of new content at some central source such as this. Gregkaye ✍♪ 04:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
It was nominated for deletion (first CSD, then PROD, now AfD) yesterday. Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flag of the Islamic State.~Technophant (talk) 02:39, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
While it is good that a bit of extra info was added to WP, that info does not justify a new article on the the same flag. The article should be deleted as a duplication of Black Standard and if kept (which it should not be) should definitely NOT be named "Flag of the Islamic State" against the consensus name ISIL. Legacypac (talk) 21:41, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Section 1: Index of names

Latest comment: 10 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion

Is the index of names really needed? What value does it add to the article? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 17:18, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

No, and none, in my opinion. Gazkthul (talk) 22:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Gregkaye? I know we worked hard on this! ~ P123ct1 (talk) 09:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Not an issue, at least for me. However, take a look at the section of text following the index as, say, from ISIL#JTJ. To me the following content seems pretty heavy going. My thoughts are, if the rest of the section is to be kept then the index would provide one way to give the article a friendlier intro. Another solution may be to scrap the names section altogether. Can content be woven into the rest of the article?
A third solution might be to move both names and history under the title "History" and convert the current title "History" to something like "Chronology". Perhaps the Template:History of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, if its presentation can be agreed, could then be moved from its current position at the beginning of ISIL#History to the beginning of names.
Otherwise I think something should be done about the dense appearance of history of names.
(On a related topic we can also note that there is current discussion regarding the repetition in this article of timeline content. If there was a place for its perhaps limited inclusion it might be as a subsection of History following names and chronology. Perhaps that discussion can continue in the relevant section). Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:27, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
I think the "History of the Islamic State of Iraq and Iran" template is better than the index of names, which I think should be scrapped. To repeat, once again, I think the "History of names" must be retained, as without a glossary of names and skeleton history at the beginning, I think the uniformed reader would be at sea when reading the "History" section and confused when coming across references to the different names, sometimes used interchangeably (Islamic State/IS/ISIL), scattered throughout the article. It neatly gets across the idea that while the group started as far back as 1999, it is in fact still the same group, which metamorphosed over time. That is not as immediately apparent when reading the "History" section on its own. With perhaps a different title, the "History of names" subsection I think would be best incorporated into the "History" section, as the first subsection of it. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 22:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
I have removed the "Index of names" as it is repeated in the "History of the Islamic State" template nearby and turned the "History of names" into a numbered list, which I think is clearer than the bulleted list. I do not think this list is heavy-going for an encyclopaedia. I hope this edit is acceptable and obviously am open to challenge on it. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 08:59, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Gazkthul, P123ct1 and others I've expand the history section to encompass names and, once again, notable members and have moved the template of history. Now the template is in context perhaps we can properly consider any issues related to the validity of its use. Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:17, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
I have also deleted the emblem from this template on the basis that it has no specific relevance to the topic and was unsure whether the use of space was warranted. Thoughts? Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:30, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
While I agree with adding "Names" to "History", it seems somewhat irrational to separate "Military and arms" from "Support" and "Oppositon" by putting "Analysis" between them. I don't think "Analysis" should be so near the end of the article. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 21:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Moved "Analysis" to before "Military and arms" ~ P123ct1 (talk) 09:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

coat of arms, seal or emblem?

Latest comment: 10 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion
File:Seal of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.png

How should we describe this image and what reference do we have for it?

It is found at File:Seal of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.png which was created by User:Illegitimate Barrister

This file states that it was derived from File:Emblem of Islamic State in Iraq and Sham.jpg which was created by User:Monotheist.

The image is described as: Coat of arms in Infobox:country (the first infobox) and as Seal in Template:History of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

How is this thing best described? Where is it cited?

Gregkaye ✍♪ 18:41, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure on the best terminology for it, but it is a symbol they use frequently, such as sticking it on the side of captured vehicles [3] [4]. Gazkthul (talk) 23:14, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Good question... It's the symbol of their "military wing" or the symbol of their "state"? If it's the symbol of their state, I think "coat of arms" is accurate. If it's just the symbol of their "military wing" then "emblem" or "seal" is more accurate. It's labeled as "seal" on most pages it appears, but I think "coat of arms" is the most accurate terminology. Felino123 (talk) 02:30, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Coat of arms, looking at the definition, seems inaccurate to me (possibly about as inappropriate as Crest (heraldry)) and I would suggest the use of emblem, Seal (emblem) or insignia. Wikipedia namespaces starting "coat of arms" tend to redirect to "Emblem ..." type articles. Seal is supported by content such as in Commons:Category:State seals of New Mexico. Most specifically it is a Roundel but I think a term should be used that can match with similar Wikipedia content.
Gregkaye ✍♪ 03:09, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Emblem is the correct term in the context of Wikipedia. See: Category:National emblems. Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:02, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Not a Coat of Arms. There is no "state", just a military operation that occupies territory. Legacypac (talk) 21:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
"Coat of arms" may have originally been used in this article despite of Image file title and contents and the description of a Coat of arms due to personal interpretation. I also think that responsibility needs to be taken of contextualised usage of the image. For instance without reference to the history of the image I think it's place on the history template, which contains information going back to 1999, is unwarranted. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Opinion. A seal is a round carved emblem used to press into wax or clay as an official to "seal" a document as official and prevent tampering. On the portal a user described it as "Great Seal of Islamic State" however when I tried to Google it the only results were onwiki. Mos def a seal. ~Technophant (talk) 16:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Technophant I agree and think that the previous user's use of "Great Seal", unless it was somehow referenced may be a hyped comment in a similar vein as the previously used "coat of arms". Similar images to the image in question when used by recognised states in the Middle-east region, as far as I have seen, are simply called emblems. Gregkaye ✍♪ 18:18, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Reducing Islamic criticism and highlighting the involvement of Israel

Latest comment: 10 years ago13 comments5 people in discussion
Administrative close. Do not comment further in this section -- PBS (talk) 18:51, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

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

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

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

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

Felino123, I am not against you but am certainly against what you have been doing and the extent to which you have been doing it. As you know, through all this, you conducted a clear 1RR violation. You have placed an extremely biased and misrepresentative text at The word "jihad", criticism and disruption. You are not answering questions at #Israel should be added to the opponents' list. You give every impression of being a competent editor. You certainly know how to present your arguments and belittle your opposition. Your edits show great ability in enacting multiple simultaneous edits. However, the effect of your edits is to remove distance ISIL from Islamic criticism while simultaneously highlighting the involvement of Israel. The result of this will remove the well documented Islamic calls for moderation and have an effect towards that of offering a red rag to a bull. All I have done is presented a list. You have disregarded both the edit comments of previous editors and even the fact that all other editors were making contributions in the opposite direction than you. Your first edit was to slash a great section of text from the article that had been developed by I a significant number of editors over a significant period of time. Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Glad to know you're not against me, but it seems otherwise. The admin took no action because, as he said, it was not clear if I violated any rule and it seems that I was right on the edge. I have answered the questions on #Israel should be added to the opponents' list, and I have also highlighted opposition by other countries such as Spain and Italy on this page and the military intervention pages. Thank you for the compliments, but I am not as good as you say. I'm just trying to improve this article, but I have committed mistakes (I am sorry). In fact, I spend half an hour on the multiple edits, because I'm learning how Wikipedia works. Knowing how to present arguments has nothing to do with being competent or not. As I said before, I am not trying to downplay criticism of ISIL by Muslims; in fact, it should be clearly noted. I just don't want ANY particular criticism on the lead, but I'm willing to make concessions. You're defaming me without any evidence. The text you're talking about was rejected by a consensus, and now we are trying to reach a consensus on criticism on the lead. Please don't distort this. Felino123 (talk) 14:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Felino123, What I have done is I have taken you to AN/I after you made a clear breach of 1RR making two reverts in under 24 hours, I have highlighted your editing practice in which other editors were consistently adding content of criticism into the lead with only you editing in the other direction and I have supplied resisted correction to your inclusion of Israel in opposition. It was the wrong edit performed in the wrong way. If you edit in more conventional ways then there will be nothing against you. Gregkaye ✍♪ 23:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
There is no record of this on the AN/I site. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 12:11, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
P123ct1 It was taken to WP:3RRN. The case was dismissed, no action taken [5].~Technophant (talk) 09:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Technophant To be clear the AN/I, your glowing endorsement within and the result all occurred at a time prior to the presentation of the above information. (the above is edited from previous content following talk page discussion). Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

History of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant infobox

Latest comment: 10 years ago23 comments3 people in discussion

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

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

P123ct1 I am not sure why it isn't working. There has certainly been disruptive editing by TRAJAN 117 from this to this with a change in title and with result that, when displayed in ISIL#History, the spacing doesn't work. However the link has consistently gone by redirect at History of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Many changes made. Do they all need to be reverted? In the history listing I think we also need to use: self-described as the Islamic State as per main article. Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Gregkaye: On second thoughts, it should probably be "Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn", not "Al-Qaeda in Iraq", as that is AQI's official name. Putting "Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant" in bold is not necesssary and spoils the layout. The rest looks okay as it is. How can the infobox/template(?) be accessed for editing? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 14:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
At least as far as the template is concerned changes   Done I can't see them on the article yet so maybe there is some type of info saving delay!?
Making the changes is not meant to close discussion tho. P123ct1, I not sure if there is a way to remove the bold effect from the "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" entry. The bold simply indicates link goes to the same page as the link is based. I've also added a little space between the links and the date info. Gregkaye ✍♪ 21:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Gregkaye: The two links you showed don't have "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" in bold, so it must be possible to revert it. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 21:51, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
P123ct1 I've tried the contrived link [[Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant|Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant]]. Maybe when it loads that could work. I don't know. Gregkaye ✍♪ 21:58, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Gregkaye: Should this be taken to the Village Pump (Technical) Help Desk for assistance? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 07:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

Mujahideen Shura Council  (2006)

Islamic State of Iraq  (2006–13)

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

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

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

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

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

A request relating to the issue raised here is now raised at:
Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Causing a within page link to appear as non bold re: template:History of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  Done as Revision as of 11:14, 3 November 2014 finally :)
The link [[Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#content|Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant]] appears as: Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant which functions slightly differently from [[Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant]] which, while still appearing as: Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, links to a slightly different point at the top of the page.
Now that this link problem has been resolved I've reestablished the link [[Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#As Islamic State (2014–present)|Islamic State]] which links to that section of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#History. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
What is the point of having this template in the article anyway? As far as I can see the TOC already links to sections which this template links to. The portal it links to has no more information than this article does, it just displays it in a different way ~ P123ct1 (talk) 14:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
That's a question that I raised in the previous thread. I think that the template adds to the user friendliness of the article without adding fresh content. To me that translates to pretty weak support. Gregkaye ✍♪ 22:34, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure why there's an attempt of getting rid of the bold self link. It's the usual desired behaviour when a template has a link to the page it is located on. On pages other than this one it will be rendered as blue link.~Technophant (talk) 03:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I can see how the template might be useful in other articles, but because it duplicates the TOC, I cannot see the purpose of it and think it should go. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 08:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I reduced the title text width and now the sidebar is less than 310px. I've been putting it on relevant pages. There may not be room or need for it here. P123ct1 Have you seen Portal:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant?~Technophant (talk) 03:38, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Technophant:Yes, I have - see my comment above. As with this History of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant template for this article, I cannot see the point if it. There is a lot of editorial hyperactivity in this and related articles, IMO, which I think is beginning to be counterproductive for this article in particular. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 08:44, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Technophant the view that the "bold is not necesssary and spoils the layout" in relation to this article has been extensively discussed with the proposal and action to remove the bold only facing your recent objection. Until a different consensus is reached, the template has been reverted to the non-bold version. Gregkaye ✍♪ 06:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Gregkaye Please see the comments at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical) about using {{No selflink}} or leaving as default. Having the bold link is the behavior the user expects. Having a bluelink to top of the page is undesirable behavior. P123ct1, having a bold self link is the expected behavior, even if you think it doesn't look right this sidebar shouldn't go against convention. I would like to ask all users that have technical questions on this minor technical coding/format issue put to ask thier questions there so volunteers with expertise in technical issues can help. Also, the sidebar/infobox template talk is the preferred place to talk about the template, as it is now used on 9 pages not just here. Further talk about this template here should be limited to its use on this article. ~Technophant (talk) 06:16, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
We are well aware of those issues as per discussion above. Having no bluelink to "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" but having a bluelink or a differently presented link to "Islamic State" when that content is present in the same article is also an undesirable behaviour. It suggests the presence of a separate article that does not exist. Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Life in ISIL-controlled Ar-Raqqah

Latest comment: 10 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion

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

Cynical comment: Why not? Surely its just innocent jihad. Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
I thought it could go in "Governance" or "Human rights abuses", to show exactly what is going on. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 08:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Reliably Sourced?

(late addition but in topical flow (and it doesn't seem I'm learning)) Cynicism also relates to accuracy of press reporting especially in relation to pixelated photos presented by outlets like the Daily Mail. This case seems fairly well supported as demonstrated to search: (ISIL OR ISIS OR Daesh OR "Islamic State") AND (baby OR toddler) in news to today. Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
P123ct1 I personally find the crucifixion content to be most readily believable. In regard to the, I believe, Kurd supplied image showing a Muslim child kicking at a pixelated area of ground, against reliable sources, I advise caution. Islam has strict rules on health issues on topics such as Halal and I don't think there should be ready acceptance of the idea of a severed head being left on a pavement with a smiling man holding a bare footed child in the air so as to help the child kick a dead, severed head. It would have been very easy for, I believe, the Kurdish (Islamic) source to have found a photo and doctored. ISIL killings that I have seen can involve victims kneeling in front of a grave so that they can fall in when shot and some of the activities seem to be relatively clinical. This is not to say that stories involving the use of heads aren't true but unless evidence becomes really clear I would caution against using Wikipedia's voice to state facts.
The topic of the article that I think is more corroborated relates to crucifixion. See: (ISIL OR ISIS OR Daish OR Daesh OR "Islamic State") AND crucifixion in Videos and (ISIL OR ISIS OR Daish OR Daesh OR "Islamic State") AND crucifixion in News. Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
I was thinking more of the last few paras of the article, about the group trying to record what is happening in Ar-Raqqah, but perhaps that is unreliable information as well. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 14:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
IBTimes is NOT a reliable source and should not be used in this article. They find any flimsy report from any "news source" and repost it without fact-checking. They "broke" the news about al-Baghdadi being a secret agent of the Moussad via a bogus Snowden revelation (see talk archive). I came up with my own Google News search: (isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") crucif*. The only reliable source that mentions crucifixion is the recent mention of the alleged cruficion of a 17-year old boy in Raqqah with photo. Such a photo can easily be staged and I'm going to remain sceptical unless there's significant coverage by non-tabloid sources.~Technophant (talk) 03:26, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
The source I quoted is the Daily Mail. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 22:31, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
"The toddler's father is believed to be an avid Islamic State supporter", not the best sourcing in my opinion for that specifc incident. Is the man a member or just a supporter? Certainly beheadings in general happen quite frequently. Gazkthul (talk) 04:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
The Daily Mail is not a Reliable Source. It has often been caught out giving wrong facts. Just thought the stories might be worth investigating. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 09:52, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
And those stories are --- but, to be fair, I don't think that there is necessarily any such thing as a reliable source. Everything is relative. With my pedants hat on I'd think we should talk of secondary sources, at best, being relatively reliable sources. Reliability in each case relates to the individual ability, integrity and knowledge base of the individual reporter and related editor. When the Daily Mail gets things right with good well written and well presented content then surely it's fine. Gregkaye ✍♪ 19:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Steven Hassan and Huffington Post

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I found this in the Huffington Post in which Steven Hassan, an authority on cults, believes that this group is cult-like. Should we add this to the criticism section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Discuss-Dubious (talk • contribs) 00:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Discuss-Dubious perhaps you can go ahead and add. He is at the top of his profession and the reference comes from a good source. It seems appropriate.
It also may be relevant to note that the article, in a similar pattern to many others, refers to "the group calling itself Islamic State" at an early stage but uses other references in the title and throughout. Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
diff Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 22:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Introduction relevance

Latest comment: 10 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion
See also #Should we add this line to the lead

Quote: "SIL’s actions, authority and theological interpretations have been widely criticized around the world by non-Muslims and within the Muslim community." Question: how is non-Muslim criticism of the interpretation of Islam in any way relevant? Who within the Muslim community has criticized IS interpretations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.192.65.176 (talk) 10:14, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Remember you must log in and sign your comments on the talk page. Thank you! It's all on the criticism and ideology sections. Felino123 (talk) 02:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
    • 88.192.65.176 TY Re: 'SIL. It is representative of a widespread view. The criticism that has been substantially has been most notably raised by governments, Muslims and academic scholars of Islam. Until recently the article had content like this which I think far better represents article content as per WP:LEAD. Other edits that that you have not signed deal with less sensitive subjects than this and it may benefit clarity if all editors where possible could sign. Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


"ethnic cleansing on a "historic scale" " ought to read "ethnic cleansing on an "historic scale" " — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adantedae (talk • contribs) 18:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

This is the 21st century, not the late 19th-early 20th century. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 00:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I would disagree because "an" is only used before vowels, and the "h" in "historic is not a vowel. It would create a grammatically incorrect statement. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 18:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Okay, it's an Anglicism, and I'm not going to debate that.Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 19:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Rand Paul

Latest comment: 10 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

After a recent update there is the following after Foreign Support: US Senator Rand Paul has accused the US government of arming ISIL.[347][348] The US government has been funding ISIL's allies, such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and supporting the terrorist group in Syria, Paul told NBC News's "Meet the Press".[347] "I think one of the reasons why ISIS has been emboldened is because we have been arming their allies. We have been allied with ISIS in Syria", Paul said to CNN.

The first source, Iran's Press TV, says that Paul accused the US government of "arming ISIL", however the second source says "armed their allies in Syria." There are already multiple mentions and sources elsewhere that there is no evidence that the Governments of these countries are actually providing any support. Personally I don't believe this claim belongs in the Foreign Funding section of the article. Gazkthul (talk) 00:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Politicians are not generally reliable sources. (No sarcasm intended.) They might be worth citing as an opinion but I'd hope we'd have at least some indication that they are explicitly referring to their contacts within the government. I'm on record (somewhere in the archives) for removing the analysis of Hillary Clinton (current in the "Analysis" section) and she was Secretary of State. I didn't see evidence that she was referring to her access to sources in the State Department as oppose to posturing for political purposes. Jason from nyc (talk) 01:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
I have moved the para on Rand Paul to the "Analysis" section. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 09:18, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
I haven't had the opportunity to evaluate Senator Paul's statements, however I agree with Jason from nyc in restoring the analysis of Senator Clinton. Her opinion was insightful and represented an overview that was RS, appropriate, and relevant. Can you please find the diff for its removal?~Technophant (talk) 15:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Unless I am misinterpreting him, Jason from nyc was arguing in favour of Hilary Clinton's comments being removed, an opinion I share. Gazkthul (talk) 03:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I favor removing Mrs. Clinton's comments, too. Jason from nyc (talk) 01:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Any objections to removing the Rand Paul section for the reasons described above? Gazkthul (talk) 00:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Whatever the views are on Hillary Clinton's and Rand Paul's opinions, don't their judgments and beliefs deserve to be recorded? Isn't it censorship to stifle them? I have put them in a new subsection called "Political commentary", but "commentary" is not really the right word. What would be a better title? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 15:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
There are hundreds of Senators and former Government officials with opinions, it doesn't add anything to the core article to wade through various pollies scoring political points (particularly for those of us who aren't Americans). This is distinguished from say military analysts, who would have worthwhile commentary on the groups battlefield tactics or potential weaknesses for example. Gazkthul (talk) 23:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Pauls and Clinton's comments on US actions have no place here. They belong here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_American-led_intervention_in_Iraq#Domestic_criticism (US section) so I moved them. Legacypac (talk) 20:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

First sentence of Lead

Latest comment: 10 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

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

I think there needs to be a separation so it reads something like "a Sunni, extremist, jihadist group and an unrecognized state" Gazkthul (talk) 21:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Gazkthul's wording. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 11:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's better. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:33, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
It is not a state. On a related article I just took out wording that gave ISIL a National Flag and a War flag. We need to be careful not to create a state where there is none.
Obvs. How can an unrecognized state be jihadist? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 21:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (aka Taliban-ruled Afghanistan) perhaps fits that description. Gazkthul (talk) 00:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
To the extent that the word jihadist can be applied, I think that it can be applied in similar ways to other adjectives like communist, democratic and similar. I think that there are definite advantages in Gazkthul's suggestion of "jihadist group" as not everyone in the "territory" proscribes to the groups ideologies and political views. There was a recent discussion where one RS had mistakenly associated caliphate with territory. To the extent to which the word jihadist can be honestly applied then it is best used to directly describe the people that hold "jihadist" views. In ISIL's case, I think, the state is taken as a metaphor for government and, in the same way as you can have a communist government or a communist state I think that jihadist state is acceptable. However jihadist group is more accurate. Gregkaye ✍♪ 06:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
In view of the above comments, I have added "group". ~ P123ct1 (talk) 12:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Who added the "citacion needed" note to the word jihadist? We had already a discussion about this, the consensus agreed to keep using this word and I think we don't need a citacion for that, as we don't need it for Sunni or extremist. Even Arab news agencies such as Al Arabiya use this word to describe ISIL and describe its militants as "jihadists". I think the note is needless and gives a bad impression. I agree with Gazkthul's phrase, it's perfect. I have never seen the terminology "jihadist state", and ISIL is not even a recognized state, so I agree with Gregkaye that "jihadist group" is more accurate. Felino123 (talk) 14:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Felino123: It was Corriebertus, who I don't think was involved in those very long discussions. See. I directed the editor to those discussions at the end of the "To b or not to be" thread, and this appears. IGU. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 15:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Propose scrapping timeline from main article

Latest comment: 10 years ago35 comments9 people in discussion

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

I don't understand why some of the timeline is duplicated in this article and have said so before. I support removing it and leaving a link to the timeline article along with some suitable wording. --P123ct1 (talk) 20:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, a link to the timeline page should be sufficient. Gazkthul (talk) 22:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  Done this has been a long running issue previously proposed with no opposition yet not actioned. Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:19, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Gregkaye: Where is the link to the timeline article? --P123ct1 (talk) 19:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
P123ct1 It comes first thing in the see also template in history and near by there is the history infobox which also has a timeline link. i've also added a link into the main "see also" section at the bottom of the page. Gregkaye ✍♪ 19:46, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Gregkaye: In the infobox it is tiny! It will easily be missed by readers. (Btw, the link at the top of that infobox is not working.) I think there needs to be a link at the end of the "History" section as well, to indicate to readers there is more on the current situation in the Timeline article. Also, readers who may have been coming here to read the timeline will be puzzled why the link to the Timeline article which used to be here has suddenly disappeared. --P123ct1 (talk) 20:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Also, I am not sure that one day since proposing this and just two editors agreeing to the removal of the timeline was enough to go ahead and delete it, which is a major step for this article. --P123ct1 (talk) 20:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Would anyone prefer the "Timeline (latest events)", as I have called it, to be restored? This can easily be done and further comment either way is welcome. I am also not so certain about my "this has been a long running issue" statement. Thanks P123ct1 for the provision of extra links. Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

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

It sounds as if the timeline has been restored to help editors rather than readers. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 11:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm also hoping that it is also what the readers want as well. I added the {{Merge section to}} as a way of drawing more reader input into this. I'm seeing that the article is pretty much written, and while there's a lot of discussion-it's mostly on minor matters like wording and formatting. By adding an excerpt of the timeline I'm using a webmaster trick of adding dynamic content into what is becoming a static/stable article. I would hope that readers would enjoy not just reading this article once, but would also like to regularly check back to see "what's new". and without this "dynamic content" it would essentially be the same article with a few well-discussed additions.~Technophant (talk) 05:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
It's pointless repetition that also divides history content to separate ends of the article. I see no advantage in this.

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

I agree with Gregkaye. I cannot believe that Technophant thinks the article is almost written. The dispute over "jihadist" is still not over, there is much more to write up in the "Human rights and abuse" section (see Talk #37 Life in ISIL-controlled Ar-Raqqah and Talk #40 ISIL's practice of massacre and slaughter to be presented prominently in the lead), something about Management of Savagery, in perhaps the "Governance" section, and who knows what major news will break about ISIL that needs to go in the main article rather than just the Timeline article? There is also discussion going on about how to adjust the organization of the article and whether or not to the scrap the military section (see Talk #34). ~ P123ct1 (talk) 15:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not saying that the article is "done", but the amount of major changes is slowing down and all significant issues have some coverage. I got the User:Dr pda/prosesize tool working suggested in WP:Article size. While the total amount of wikicode is 207kB, the amount of "readable prose size" (text only) is only 56kB (9183 words) . If you use the tool you will see which parts are counted in yellow, which doesn't include infoboxes, the transcluded Timeline, or the list of names (lists aren't counted). All in all the article is just about "right-sized" and has room to grow. We've split several sections out, and it was a wise move to split the Timeline, however think that making the Timeline a complete "orphan" will hurt both this article and the Timeline.~Technophant (talk) 18:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support scraping the timeline section in the ISIL article, having a link from the history section. We don't need 2 sections for history and timeline in the main article and the timeline article is including all the minor events for that purpose.GreyShark (dibra) 18:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Corriebertus If you look above, the readable prose size is 56kB, however that estimate is low. I would say per WP:Article size >60kB = Probably should be divided (WP:SPLIT). There's been a proposal to start a separate article for Human Rights abuses.~Technophant (talk) 04:54, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
I've run some load tests with Chrome developer tools. I get an average load time logged out of 2.5 seconds, logged in 20 seconds. My internet bandwidth (wireless WIMAX) is 6Mbits. The flag images from 130B to almost 1,000B each. The part that takes so long is the 13 second wait time of the 173kB gzipped wiki html text. When logged out the wait time is .113 seconds. Receiving time is about .8 seconds on both. I think when you are logged in you are bypassing server caching. Long story short, I don't think we should worry about the flag images. See Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance~Technophant (talk) 09:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose scrapping the timeline. I have changed my mind as I am persuaded by the arguments put forward by Technophant for retaining at least some of the timeline in this article. I support keeping 14 days of the timeline in it. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 10:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose to scraping the timeline. With everything that's going on out there, and the significance of the events, it's best to keep a record of recent events going back to 2 months, so that readers who want to be up-to-date with the news (especially those who are new to the subject) will have a firm grasp of the recent developments without having to go to another article just to read about it. LightandDark2000 (talk) 23:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
  • LightandDark2000: How hard is it to click on the link provided? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 23:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. This is an article, not a news ticker. I'd like to see a true summary style of timeline events (i.e. generally describing what resources are in the timeline article) and certainly a very prominent link, but the current set-up with "past two months" of news links tagged on the end of this huge article is not defensible. Usually people who cry "recentism" are wrong, but the current two-month ticker is a bona fide case of showcasing recent events regardless of importance. Wnt (talk) 15:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Possible alternate option

  • Technophant, How possible is it to set the timeline loading into the ISIL article on a single month basis or even on, say, a regular number of days - perhaps 14. I saw that your original idea was to have 30 days of timeline displayed and I am wondering whether, instead of displaying ~30 - ~60 days displayed we could have something like 0 - ~ 30 days.
What's on my mind is an idea to shunt notable members into its own section and to place this type of smaller timeline as a last sub-section of history. I guess that, on a monthly basis, this might mean that on the first few hours or days of the month the timeline may have no information in it but it would still be placed in a sensible position to act as a link to the timeline article. Would it be possible to display a set number of days such as 7 or 14. My personal view is that the main value is to give readers a taste to help them decide whether to access the main article. What do you think? Gregkaye ✍♪ 21:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Gregkaye: Quite possible and   Done. I've moved the onlyinclude tag down and now there's around 15 days. Moving the tag is done manually, and in case of a Zombie apocalypse it would nice to figure out an automated way of doing it. I can agree to take on the responsibility for maintaining it and looking into using a bot to maintain it. If such a method can be devised it could be reused on other similar pages. There's even a chance that there's simple method to do this so I don't have to re-invent the wheel. I view this page compositing as innovative, and if there's support to allow it to remain I do think it's going to be appreciated. Side note: in the last 2 weeks on the timeline the editors there have used only bare links for citations. Needs some clean up and user-education. ~Technophant (talk) 04:54, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Ping: P123ct1, Gazkthul, Technophant, GreyShark, Corriebertus

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

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

Ping: P123ct1, Gazkthul, GreyShark, Corriebertus

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

Gregkaye: I support seven days. This article has now reached about 185K without the two-week timeline, and I wonder if this is why handling the article, editing and moving around it and its Edit history page is becoming noticeably slower and more cumbersome. It would be useful to know if Wikipedia readers are finding the same problem just reading the article. Reducing the length of the timeline would help with that problem, as would reducing the size of this article, which is getting too long, IMO. Why is are the Support/Opposition sections being kept, when there is already an article with this information, 2014 military intervention against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant? I think someone said that some of the support/oppose information in this article is not in that article; if so, why can it not be added to it? The flags/icons in these sections must be slowing down moving around in this article, but more to the point, these sections seem repetitious and for this reason perhaps they should be scrapped. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 13:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps if agreed an editor with the know how can go ahead and make the changes otherwise I can check with viliage pump. Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

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

@Gregkaye: (ping page creator @Ericl:) - I think that's a sensible move proposal. To be official it needs to be placed on the Timeline talk page.~Technophant (talk) 20:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
I've no problem with that as the title now in use wasn't mine.Ericl (talk) 20:26, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Name change

Latest comment: 10 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
See the #Moratorium on Requested Moves
See above the RfC: Three months moratorium on page moves
See archived discussion Archive 13: Proposed move from "ISIS" to "ISIL" in the article text (29 September – 15 October 2014)
See archived discussion Archive 14: Use of "Islamic State" at least in the infobox (14–25 October 2014)

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

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

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

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

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

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


StanMan87 I could not agree more with your para 2. At the moment this article is choking on political correctness, IMO. The name is a fact and should be recorded as such. There are too many "self-described" and "self-proclaimed"s in the article. I specifically set up the "Criticism" section as a catch-all for the many different kinds of criticism levelled at this group, particularly over legitimacy, and I am surprised it is still quite empty. Let the article keep to NPOV and record facts, and deal with the objections to these words in "Criticism". As for the name "ISIL", that isn't regarded as "accurate" by WP, it is one of the names used by Reliable Sources, which WP has to reflect per WP:RS, and it was decided to move from "ISIS" to "ISIL" in the article as it was more consistent with the article's title as it is now. We have a moratorium on discussing title name change, so nothing can be done about changing the title at the moment. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 16:47, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
P123ct1 I think that a balance can be struck between use by primary and secondary sources. English speaking governments do not tend to refer to "Islamic State" and many news organisations, such as the BBC, begin with a phrase like "so called Islamic State" and then continue with "Islamic State" unqualified or with "ISIS" or "ISIL". The news agency reuters has, for whatever reason, chosen to only go to the extent of quoting other peoples qualifications of the group. Just to summarise: legitimate objections to "Islamic State" are both political, ethical and theological. Politically it is not a State, ethically it has no right to gain authority over people by military force and theologically it has no right to claim authority over the rest of Islam especially when the majority of other Muslims consider it as un-Islamic. The Islamic State sub-section of history begins "On 29 June 2014, ISIL ... began to refer to itself as the "Islamic State" and then the text uses "Islamic State" without qualification. I think that this (depending on the extent that this section may develop in the future) presents balanced content. I think that qualification is also of relevance in the Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
StanMan87, I couldn't agree more. And the fact that its official name is not used at least in the infobox is political correctness going too far. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 10:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Supersaiyen312: The problem with the infoboxes is that they have to follow the title of the article, but basically I agree with you. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 14:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Not exactly. The title is for the "common name" and the infobox is for the "official name". Many countries articles also reflect this. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 03:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Supersaiyen312: I stand corrected. Can you give examples? Is there some WP guidance on this? ~ P123ct1 (talk)
Of course, there's South Korea, Argentina, Russia, Greece, Syria, France, Italy, Portugal, Burma, and Taiwan, and then there is also FIFA, Boko Haram, the Muslim Brotherhood, or Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. I am not aware of any specific guideline for this, but other articles seem to follow it. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 23:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Allies/Opponent of IS

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The topic of allies and opponents of IS is very contentious. For example, there are copious amounts of articles on the internet which detail the collaboration between Iraqi Ba'ath loyalist groups and the Islamic State in the early stage of the current conflict in Iraq. But now finding more recent material detailing this partnership is harder to come by, and this article released on the 23rd of July by an Iraqi new outlet states that the Ba'ath Party of Iraq has declared war on IS. [1]

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

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

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

collapse of content ISIL's own Proposed currency - Consensus not to add to Infobox Please uncollapse as preferred/necessary.
  1. ^ http://english.shafaaq.com/index.php/politics/10630-baath-in-iraq-declares-war-on-isis
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islamic_State/Archive_17&oldid=1136827283"