Talk:Islamic State/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

Recent: Portal:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

Is this something that should be developed or deleted?

@Atifabbasi8: Gregkaye ✍♪

• Well it was nominated for deletion by Safiel, it was developed from this to this in the ensuing time period and editors who do not seem to have otherwise made contribution to Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion opposed its deletion.

The portal is developed with such features as a completely blacked out and politically loaded map of the Middle-East region. Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:20, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I suspect that the use of the dark map which borders closely on the use of Wahhabi colours may be an example of an extreme and long running POV push in mid east topics. There have always been maps presented in grey and a very Arabic green as illustrated in the globe map presented.

Propose that a cropped map using the more neutral colours of grey and green or just grey be used as per Wikipedias standard colour scheme. I have prepared and uploaded a possible map as the third image now shown and I'm in the process of checking that the licence and loading procedures have been correctly followed. Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Terrorist as a primary descriptor

Designation as a terrorist organisation has been applied, amongst others, by the UN and the EU. This is an organisation that opperates by intimidation and threat through its videos and other media output. It publishes videos of the execution of foreign nationals which are accompanied by threatening narratives. See this on: Isis urges more attacks on Western ‘disbelievers’.

Quote: Abu Mohammed al Adnani urged the group’s supporters: “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,” he said.

“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.”

We currently use the term jihadist with no qualification despite the fact that the majority of Muslims condemn ISIL not to being representative of Islam, not representative of Islamic, not representative of jihad. The very use of the word jihadist is also contested.

Reliable sources use "terrorist" and none of these complexities apply. Gregkaye ✍♪ 19:42, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Terrorism is a deeply loaded and pejorative term, the exact opposite of the NPOV that Wikipedia uses in their articles.

Only when applied by drive-by article vandals and extreme nationalist types - the term can easily and more importantly, correctly, applied by consensus of a vast number of responsible editors on Wiki.HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The Tamil Tigers, Shining Path, Provisional Irish Republican Army, Red Brigades, ETA, HAMAS, Al-Qaeda, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and Boko Haram are all designated terrorist organisations by many governments around the world, however none of the above articles use terrorist as a primary descriptor. Gazkthul (talk) 21:54, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Gazkthul is absolutely right. We had a long discussion on the Talk page some months ago about using the word "terrorist" in the article, and the use of this word in Wikipedia's voice to describe ISIL directly flouts WP:NPOV. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 22:04, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Many terms can be pejorative terms if the terms are not well applied. ISIL make extensive use of "violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims" and the word is well applied. (Recent output details crucifixions. Threats and intimidations are incorporated into rhetoric as standard). This page has talked about reliable sources with great consistency. Reliable sources make extensive use of "terrorist" in relation to ISIL and I don't see any content in reliable sources that contests the interpretation of terror. Reliable sources also make extensive use of "jihadism" in relation to ISIL and yet reliable sources even go as far as to present substantial content to question ISIL's very validation within Islam. "Jihadism" is also a deeply loaded and, in relation to word root, incorrectly loaded term and its use results in a misrepresentation of Mohammedan teaching. Content in reliable sources should be evenly, fairly and neutrally represented. Reliable sources indicate that both can be used but, as far as I can see, reliable sources only calls the validity of one of them into question.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 04:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

There are all sorts of problems with using the word terrorism. Plenty of sources refer to Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorists, at the same time they have gotten millions of votes in democratic elections and have been in Government. In the current conflict in Ukraine, both the Pro-Russian and Pro-Ukrainian militias are referred to be the opposing Governments as 'terrorists', but of course they don't use this for their allies. The People's Mujahedin of Iran was a designated terrorist organisation for many years, until an expensive lobbying campaign in the US got them delisted. The Assad Government and it's allies refers to all armed opposition factions in Syria as terrorists, including those that are supported by the United States. This has been discussed countless times throughout the Wikipedia project, and to reiterate, is not used for other such groups.

The following is the policy of Reuters journalists,[1] but is worth taking into consideration in relation to WP:NPOV: Reuters does not label or characterise the subjects of news stories. We aim to report objectively their actions, identity and background. We aim for a dispassionate use of language so that individuals, organisations and governments can make their own judgment on the basis of facts. Seek to use more specific terms like “bomber”, or “bombing”, hijacker or hijacking, “attacker” or “attacks”, “gunman” or “gunmen” etc. It is particularly important not to make unattributed use of the words terrorism and terrorist in national and territorial conflicts and to avoid using those terms in indirect speech in such a context. Gazkthul (talk) 05:16, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Nah, they are terrorists and should be described as such.HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

HammerFilmFan, spot on. Wikipedia has an internal policy that is in some ways related at WP:QUACK. In relation to sock puppets it says: "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck". If this principle can be applied on the minimal basis of text based edits then how much more can it be applied when faced with the over whelming evidence of slaughter and intimidation as is practised by ISIL. Many RS declare them terrorist and, unlike the case of jihadisms, there are no indication that the description does not apply. Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

This does not address the point that, as stated above, the word terrorist is avoided in Wikipedia articles for other designated terrorist groups like the Tamil Tigers, IRA, ETA etc etc. Also, the term is both pejorative and meaningless, see How the U.S. and five ‘terrorist groups’ are on the same side in war against the Islamic State[2] Gazkthul (talk) 22:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

This does not address the point that RS use the term and that the definition of the term clearly applies to this group. It confounds me that political correctness issues get liberally applied to issues such as this and yet other valid issues are criticised for political correctness elsewhere on the page. Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Despite the above Wikipedia has a clearly presented guide WP:LABEL advising that that "Value-laden labels" that "may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." On this basis it is advised that words such as terrorist not be used.

The issue was raised in a discussion following corrections where an editor had cited a news article that had presented "massacred" yet had used "executed" in the text and it was commented that: "massacred" is a pov word it implies illegality, just as "executed" is a pov word it implies legality.

Gazkthul My main argument remains that similar arguments apply to jihadist. It is a "value-laden label" and, although I think that it may arguably used, I think that certainly in this case its use should be qualified. Guidelines and their governing principles should be evenly applied. I don't think you can have it both ways. Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:18, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Jihad By Sex, and prostitution

I came to look for more information on Jihad By Sex, but found nothing.

http://www.aina.org/news/20140621162728.htm

Perhaps such a topic is too unsubstantiated for notability here?

I also saw no mention of condoned "not prostitution" prostitution.

http://shoebat.com/2014/06/23/muslim-terrorists-iraq-issued-decree-ordering-families-send-unmarried-women-participate-jihad-sex/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.4.173.18 (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

User:174.4.173.18 The topic is well-substantiated by multiple reliable sources, however the source you provided looks does not appear to be one (see http://www.aina.org/aboutaina.html). Try searching Google News for better sources.~Technophant (talk) 17:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

There is an article dedicated to it on Sexual jihad. For what it's worth, I consider this claim to be propaganda, as the whole story seems to be based on a Fatwa that no one can reproduce, and the alleged author of which denies ever having made it. Gazkthul (talk) 03:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@Gazkthul and Technophant: According to sources(1, 2, 3 and etc), girls from even European countries move to Syria with the aim of Jihad and helping to remove the tiredness of their brothers! Whether there's a Fatwa or not, the reality shows that such a thing is happening. Mhhossein (talk) 04:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

There is a difference between young women going to Syria/Iraq to marry male members of the group, which is definitely happening and is supported by RS, and the far more lurid tales involving girls essentially prostituting themselves, going with dozens of men etc. Gazkthul (talk) 04:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Digression: I would be interested to see information related to the preservation or abuse of women's rights in 'SIL controlled areas. A recently released video showed a man's daughter being stoned for adultery. There was no accompanying video of the stoning of the male involved. Gregkaye ✍♪ 18:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Three months moratorium on page moves

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.

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Partial Support I had the idea of starting a moratorium while on a wikibreak. When I came back I found that PBS had already suggested it. I seconded it and closed the discussion after one week with the expiration date of end of year (December 31, 2014). PBS later came by and without asking changed it to January 7th. I know, what difference does a week make? I think it should be changed back, so that while most Wikipedians are on holiday/vacation a well-thought out move proposal can be started and discussed on New Years Day. If it's kept at Jan 7th then most people will be going back to work or school and a chance to "start anew" will be lost.~Technophant (talk) 09:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

  As I said in the edit history "If there has to be a date on the Moratorium then make it precisely three months to the day, as many editors are away on holiday during the Christmas period." 12:38, 18 October 2014. It is the mirror image of your "Rationale: the weekend contributor. I'm not one, but concessions need to made for the Wikipedian who only has time to contribute on their days off, and that day may not be same from week to week." Some may think that on holiday there is nothing better than to snuggle up next to a warm computer, but for mny editors visiting family or friends over Christmas, or skiing in Europe and North America, or on the beach in Australia or New Zealand (Down Under its the summer holidays), they have limited access to computers and even less desire to edit Wikipedia. So given that some editors seem to want a specific date, the 7th of Jan is the day after the 12 days of Christmas and exactly thee months after the start of the Moratorium and seems like as good a day for ending it. -- PBS (talk) 11:22, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

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

"Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

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

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

Edit to check the premature archiving of this RfC. -- PBS (talk) 00:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Support Consensus was reached during the last discussion. Let's not undo it without probable cause. ---Mr. Guye (talk) 00:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Diktats

In the heading to s.6.1, "Rulings" has been replaced by "Diktats", to describe ISIL's orders under "Governance". To me "Diktat" is a loaded, pejorative, POV, unencyclopaedic word. (See Diktat). Am I the only one who thinks this word should not be used here? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 17:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• Articles presented in reliable sources speaking of the kinds of contents in that section would hardly speak present a headline: Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#rulings, influences and pressures

They would, for the most part, say something far stronger as reflecting the authoritarian strictures being applied. Consider the content. Educational options are denied, expression is restricted, peoples movements are restricted to homes, people of certain faiths or of alternative brands of Islam are forced to pay if they don't submit to apparent thought control influences and severe punishment is threatened for infringement. People get crucified.

Seriously: What kind of title would be given to this kind of content if it were presented by your average reliable source within the English speaking world? there may be many possibilities of title but something should be written that is representative of the content.

See: #Diktats, influences and pressures 18:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC) edited with "crucified" content, Gregkaye ✍♪ 20:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with everything you say, but that isn't the point. It's the NPOV principle again. ISIL are terrorists, as everyone agrees, but WP can't use that word directly. Same thing here, the language must be moderated if it is in WP's voice. The facts given by WP under those headings, which speak for themselves, are stated neutrally, as befits an encyclopaedia. The heading should be stated neutrally, too. WP isn't a series of opinion pieces, where more trenchant, critical language can be used. What about "Orders", which is far closer to "Diktats" than "Rulings"? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 19:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The governance section has grown in content over time and some time ago I noticed that the section had a change in theme part way through. It starts with information on administrative systems and then goes into information on their extremely prescriptive application of law. The reports on education problems indicate a great deal of resentment and resistance by teachers and parents and, in this context the use of the word diktat is completely accurate and appropriate. The same goes for other situations mentioned. I produced a sub-head title which as far as I remember and I think fairly read: "Diktats, influences and pressures" and, as far as I remember, this title was long standing. I recently saw that the wording had been changed in a way that was less specific and accurate in its description of section content as referenced by the citations. In this context I changed the title back to its original form. I see no problem with the use of the word "dictats" and as this favourite of my personal references shows, I have long thought we should "call a spade a spade". We do no favours in glossing over the truth. However, if we can work out another form of words that gives an equally fair representation of section content that would also be fine. Gregkaye ✍♪ 23:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Calling a spade a spade is not what WP does. If it did it would call ISIL terrorists. WP has to abide by WP:NPOV, but this always falls on deaf ears here, which I think is serious. There is no glossing over the truth. The facts in that section speak for themselves, nothing is suppressed. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 10:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Another issue and one I think that a more pressing issue is that the article frequently describes killings in a legitimising way as executions. Other sources describe murder while the main certainty in each case is that someone has died.

The definition of diktat, in comparison, is clearly more applicable. It is a ruling that goes against the wishes of the people involved and is accurately used and according to reports this is what is happening. A title such as Totalitarian regulation provides a suitable strength of description. Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Diktats is exactly the best word. Agree with Gregkaye's and add that Rulings implies some kind of fair judicial or quasi-judicial process. There is debate over the very existence of the ISIL Sharia Council. Legacypac (talk) 05:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think rulings imply that they are fair, but judicial process does seem accurate due to their rulings being based on their interpretation of Sharia. I am not aware of any debate over the Sharia Council not being real, do you have any sources for this? Gazkthul (talk) 22:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I read that in conjunction with an article that refed this graphic. Gazkthul http://media.vocativ.com/photos/2014/09/Sarah-Cartoon687495687.jpg Legacypac (talk) 02:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Isil as a redirect to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

I have created this proposal at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_November_17#Isil

Gregkaye ✍♪ 22:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Lead references

See also: Caliphate as territory or power structure or both?, "self-declared" caliphate, there is no caliphate ever that wasn't "self-declared" and without muslim opposition exept in muhammad life, Suggest amalgamating second and last para of lead, Self-declared references removed re caliphate, New name.

The Lead, including the infoboxes, has five referencence to "self-":

"self-proclaimed as the Islamic State"

"self-proclaimed caliphate"

"self-proclaimed status as a caliphate"

"self-declared caliphate"

"self-declared caliph"

Is this acceptable? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 12:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

A lot of sources use "so called ..." which is a lot more blunt so I think our wording is quite subtle.

The clear issue here is that many people: governmentally, in the Arabic world, across the press and in interest groups don't recognise the group as either "Islamic State" or as the/a caliphate.

As options perhaps in the third paragraph we could change " In its self-proclaimed status as a caliphate, it claims religious authority over all Muslims worldwide," to simply "It claims religious authority over all Muslims worldwide,".

Perhaps the last ref in the infobox could go from "self-declared caliph" to "declared caliph" which may also make more sense.

"So called ..." may also work in some instances. Many sources use quotation marks as in "Islamic State". There are references in the text and in Template:History of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant that use Islamic State in an unqualified way and which may be acceptable depending on context used. Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

"As a caliphate it claims religious authority over all Muslims worldwide"? "Self-declared caliphate" describes what it really is in the first sentence. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 15:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 The change that I am suggesting mid-way through the lead is: "It proclaimed a worldwide caliphate on 29 June 2014, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi—known by his supporters as Amir al-Mu'minin, Caliph Ibrahim—was named as its caliph, and the group was renamed the Islamic State.[5] In its self-proclaimed status as a caliphate, it claims religious authority over all Muslims worldwide"

In the first infobox I've just done an edit in "establishment" to: "declaration of an Islamic state 13 October 2006" and "declaration of caliphate 29 June 2014" but other versions may also work. I think that the self can be implied. Personally I think either way works but the briefer version seems good. Gregkaye ✍♪ 18:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye: Sorry, I was not clear enough. That was a suggestion. I think "As a caliphate" has to go in first, as "It claims ..." refers to the Islamic State and it isn't the Islamic State claiming religious authority. I will edit it to "As a caliphate it seeks to claim ..." and see what you think. It has already been described at the beginning of the Lead as a "self-declared caliphate". I can revert if you think it looks wrong. The four dates in the infobox as before is better than three; you have dropped the ISIL date when this article is about ISIL! ~ P123ct1 (talk) 19:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

It refers to the Islamic State to which reference has just been made that it proclaimed a worldwide caliphate ...(with) Caliph Ibrahim ... as its caliph. It refers to a group that is very clearly described as making a claim to caliphate and I think that the context could hardly be clearer. By definition there is only meant to be one caliphate at any one time. To speak of "a caliphate" may actually be misleading and the earlier version should have read "self-proclaimed status as caliphate".

In establishment the three notable dates related to development are mentioned. We can also list renamings such as the groups renaming to the article title. This might be useful information for inclusion. A full index might even be gainfully added but I don't see these as issues of establishment. Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The infobox is headed "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" and "Establishment" refers to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, which was established on 8 April 2013. It isn't complicated. How it began and what it became subsequently are secondary. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 16:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 Since about August this year I became one of most regular contributors to various requests raised at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Throughout the intervening time I've witnessed claims made due to renamings and rebrandings of an extremely wide variety of entities. In very few cases has there been any significant re-establishment of content and I see great similarity to the current case. In this current case ISIL expanded and chose a new name for itself in response to change in situation. Beyond that I do not see that there was any change in ethos, strategy or claim or anything else involved. Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Never seen a group go through so many names, but they were established in 1999 period. The rest is maneuvering and optics. Legacypac (talk) 10:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

The group was established in 1999, the form it took as Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant happened in April 2013. I don't understand why everything to do with this group has to be made so complicated. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 14:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

The argument based on objections to the usage of the title "Islamic State" has always been that a "self-described as" type qualification should be applied to at least the first usage of this title in a text. This principle also applies to Template:History of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. This template is used in a variety of contexts including placement in a number of articles including those relating to the history of the group but the qualification has been removed. Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 I think that the first reference to "self-proclaimed caliphate" can go on the basis that the fourth paragraph makes extensive mention of caliphate. This change would also be one way of briefly introducing the issue of Military occupation which is a central issue of the article which largely addresses issues of attempted conquest and occupation. In this case the first paragraph could read:

"The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL /ˈaɪsəl/), also translated as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS /ˈaɪsɪs/; ad-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fīl-ʻIraq wa ash-Shām), also known by the Arabic acronym Daʿish and self-proclaimed as the Islamic State (IS), is a Sunni, extremist, jihadist group, occupying territory in Iraq and Syria as an unrecognized state.

or alternately as:

"The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL /ˈaɪsəl/), also translated as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS /ˈaɪsɪs/; ad-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fīl-ʻIraq wa ash-Shām), also known by the Arabic acronym Daʿish and self-proclaimed as the Islamic State (IS), is a Sunni, extremist, jihadist group, occupying territory in Iraq and Syria.

I think, with the mention of "occupying territory" and with the mention, in the first infobox, of "Status Unrecognised state", that the mention of "unrecognised state" in the first paragraph becomes superfluous.

The text of the fourth paragraph contains the words "caliphate", "Caliph", "caliph" and "caliphate" so as to read:

"...It proclaimed a worldwide caliphate on 29 June 2014, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi—known by his supporters as Amir al-Mu'minin, Caliph Ibrahim—was named its caliph, and the group was renamed the Islamic State. As caliphate it claims religious authority over all Muslims worldwide, and aims to bring most traditionally Muslim-inhabited regions of the world under its legislative control, beginning with the Levant region, which approximately covers Syria, Jordan, Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Cyprus, and part of southern Turkey."

The first paragraph is substantially shortened in both versions, removes the ungainly repetition of self-proclaimed terminology and adds important content on Military occupation.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC

I don't mind these changes. Events are overtaking our lead though. How about adding "Libya and Sinai" to the end of the first paragraph for areas controlled and this:

"...As a self proclaimed worldwide caliphate, it claims religious authority over all Muslims worldwide, and aims to bring most traditionally Muslim-inhabited regions of the world under its legislative control. It has declared Provinces in much of northern Iraq, north and eastern Syria, the Sinai Peninsula in Egypt, eastern Libya, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen and its territorial claims include the Levant region (which approximately covers Syria, Jordan, Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Cyprus, and part of southern Turkey). The group promises to march on Rome and Madrid."

I think the leader name, titles, and exact date is well covered elsewhere. We need to summarize the scope of their religious and territorial claims succinctly here. Legacypac (talk) 18:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye: Why not drop the reference to "caliphate" in the first sentence and leave the sentence as it is? On the wording you suggest, can an unrecognized state be said to "occupy" the territory it controls? I think "occupy" has a strict meaning. This question has come up before and I don't think it was settled. Can you remember that discussion, Legacypac? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 18:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I never saw a discussion about occupy, but we pipe "unrecognized state" to the separatist movements page and list ISIL under List_of_active_rebel_groups#Groups_which_control_territory. military occupation says "Military occupation is effective provisional control of a certain ruling power over a territory which is not under the formal sovereignty of that entity, without the volition of the actual sovereign.[1][2][3][4] The intended temporary nature of occupation, when no claim for permanent sovereignty is made by the occupying entity, distinguishes occupation from annexation" - which does not fit ISIL's situation. I think "control" or even "military control" is a better technical term than occupy. For example: American occupation of Iraq, German occupied France, Allied occupation of Germany - all cases where the occupying sovereign power had military control but did not claim sovereignty. In contrast ISIL both controls and claims sovereignty (over areas controlled and not controlled), but is not a sovereign power. Legacypac (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac,P123ct1, I think that you make a good point on "occupation" particularly in relation to the use of a link to the article on Military occupation which certainly focusses on recognised states in its content so, perhaps, this link should not be used. I still think that the description of occupation might can still be relevant. I used to be part of the protest group Camp for Climate Action lol and we "occupied" loads of stuff. It never happened at a significant scale but it was fun. If the wording were to be used perhaps something should be said relating to significant occupation. When other groups pledge allegiance to Bagdadi they do exactly that. I wouldn't classify this as occupation until there are clear indications that the relationships with ISIL are not just associations of convenience. Gregkaye ✍♪ 18:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

"...that has taken direct control of territories in..."? Gregkaye ✍♪ 19:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I've changed the link away from military occupation (its not that) to "controling" linked to the list of rebel groups (better technical term and link), added "rebel" before group (suggesting not a State) and eliminated the problematic "unrecognized state" term that has caused so much confusion. I note that all of the rebel groups on the linked list control territory and many claim to be a state of some sort. See territorial claims for why I believe we should list Sinai and eastern Libya.

"The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL /ˈaɪsəl/), also translated as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS /ˈaɪsɪs/; ad-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fīl-ʻIraq wa ash-Shām), also known by the Arabic acronym Daʿish and self-proclaimed as the Islamic State (IS), is a Sunni, extremist, jihadist rebel group controlling territory in Iraq, Syria, the Sinai, and eastern Libya."

Legacypac (talk) 19:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure of the notability of the Sinai, and eastern Libya. Genuine nations with dependent territories do not mention them in the first paragraphs of their articles and some of these territories are extremely significant. How about "... directly controlling territory ..." or "that has taken control of territory" Gregkaye ✍♪ 19:14, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't see these areas as dependant, and neither does ISIL, but as declared provinces where they hold territory. In Libya especially they sent operatives to establish control of the city, while in Egypt an existing group merged in (and very significantly has a history of attacking Israel). The articles on the groups and conflicts have already been updated by others to reflect ISIL active in those areas.

Why the extra words of "... directly controlling territory ..." or "that has taken control of territory" ?Legacypac (talk)

I inserted the last version I posted here - will see if it excites anyone (including those who are not following talk closely- or if consensus is reached. Legacypac (talk) 22:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Jihadism as a value laden label

See also: To b or not to be - adding qualification to Wikipedia's endorsement of ISIL as jihadist

A heading was inserted above as: "Jihad - the struggle over terms continues". I changed it to: "Jihadism as a value laden label" and have and have repeated the final comment from previous content so as to provide context (this is also important with regard to keeping archived content legible.

• Signedzz, I'm sympathetic to where you're coming from, I think the article has been filled with way too much unencyclopaedic criticism and POV pushing ever since this group hit the headlines in mid 2014 and we received an influx of new editors, but the way you are going about this is confrontational and probably won't lead to anywhere constructive. Gazkthul (talk) 00:51, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• Gazkthul Please do not make vague and uncited accusations that permit no response. Please read encyclopedia and WP:NPOV. 'SIL are one of the most criticised groups that there has ever been. In this context it is perfectly fair, right and balanced that the article has a representative content of related material both in the content and in the lead. Please also make your own editorial pushes in even ways. I think you fairly argue against the word terrorist in the lead which fits in with the principle WP:LABEL that Value-laden labels... are best avoided. However, as at 21:36, 10 November, you make repeated objection even to the adding of a unobtrusive footnote to the work jihadist despite it also being a Value-laden label. I am however pleased that you criticise the confrontational nature of the editors contributions. I would also be pleased if you gave similar criticism to sock puppetries, derailments, misrepresentations, against consensus usages of terminologies and false accusations as are evident on this discussion page and on associated pages. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Jihadist isn't a value laden label, it is a neutral term used in academia, the media, and by politicians; both in Western Countries and non-western countries, it is no more value laden than the term Islamist.

I don't understand what your last sentence means or what you are asking me to do. Gazkthul (talk) 12:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course "jihadist" is a "value laden label". It is associated with the religious doctrine of jihad. In effect its associated to the supposedly holy values of a supposedly almighty god and, for those that believe, it's pretty well impossible to get any more value laden than that. In this article the word is applied to 'SIL an organisation that is widely and rightly regarded as being utterly unrepresentative of Islam. Further more the group's claim to both jihad and jihadism are questioned. You reject one value laden label and yet propose unqualified support, in Wikipedia's voice, to another.

There's no shortage of other things that could be mentioned regarding my first and last points but, one issue at time. Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

No, it's simply a term used to describe any militant group that claims to be waging jihad. A Google search returns 9,140,000 results. It is also by President Obama, for example here [3] at 0:24, who is waging a war against them and is unlikely to be associating them with the "..holy values of a ...almighty god" Gazkthul (talk) 20:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I think here you get to the nub of the matter. There are very few people who would actually associate ISIL's many abuses with the "..holy values of a ...almighty god". And this also represents the problem. The extremist elements that condone the groups multitude of abuses do. Most people, and that includes most Muslims, think that there is nothing holy about this war. At the other extreme ISIL place great value both in their false claim to jihad and similarly to their value laden designation as jihadist. Jihadist is a value laden term and yet the whole thing is a sham. Yes the word jihadist has adopted a new meaning and, to this effect, it has slipped moorings from its roots in jihad. A responsible encyclopaedia would notify the reader of this fact. Gregkaye ✍♪ 22:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

That is supposedly what the wikilink for "jihadist" in the Lead is for, but the Wiki article on this has only four lines on the two meanings of jihad, so not really enough. Perhaps this could be dealt with in a short para in "Criticism", building on that one line of quote on jihad from the scholars' letter. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 22:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with some of what you are saying, but I don't see any evidence that ISIL value .."their value laden designation as jihadist". I have read English translations of their propaganda and I have never seen them use this word, they use terms like Mujahideen, which seems to be closer to what you are talking about when you say Jihadist, that is a non-NPOV value-laden term that places it's recipient in a positive light. Gazkthul (talk) 22:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your observations but they merely confirm the presence of value laden labels. It's as you say that Mujahideen or jihadist, are essentially the same thing. Either way we come to the same crunch. If we are to accept the definition of Mujahideen as "people doing jihad", it doesn't apply. The definition of jihad from the Quran is of defence. The contradiction between the core meanings of the words and their application here is stark. Readers should be given the chance to see the difference. Gregkaye ✍♪ 23:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Yup Mujahideen is translated as "people doing jihad" so Mujahideen=jihadist. So an we go with the non-islamic non-state non-jihadist false-caliph marauding band of guys with guns, and tanks and knives?

I think we're talking past each other, but the two words aren't the same thing. Mujahideen is an Arabic term that they use, and dates back to the earliest days of Islam. Jihadist is an English neologism that was coined in the West as a way of describing various insurgent and terrorist groups active around the world motivated by the same ideology.

Or putting it a different way, Jihadist is a term used largely by it's opponents, including people currently bombing them from 20,000 feet. Gazkthul (talk) 00:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect - how did a "word from Arabic jihād, literally ‘effort,’ expressing, in Muslim thought, struggle on behalf of God and Islam." become something coined by the West? Can you cite that statement? try this artile http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1603178.stm Legacypac (talk) 01:12, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, well adding ist to the end of a word to signify ideology is a common technique in the west ie: Socialist, Communist, Fascist, Anarchist, Islamist. According to the Middle East Forum in 2003 [4]

"French academics have put the term into academic circulation as "jihadist-Salafism." The qualifier of Salafism—an historical reference to the precursor of these movements—will inevitably be stripped away in popular usage. "Jihadist-Salafism" is defined by Gilles Kepel, Jihad: The Trail of Political Islam (Harvard: Harvard University Press, 2002), pp. 219-22; and Guilain Deneoux, "The Forgotten Swamp: Navigating Political Islam," Middle East Policy, June 2002, pp. 69-71."

"...the use of jihadism was largely confined to the Indian and Pakistani media. But the terror attacks in the United States, the war in Afghanistan, and the battle against al-Qa'ida, have facilitated the term's migration to the West. At present, jihadism is used to refer to the most violent persons and movements in contemporary Islam, including al-Qa'ida" Gazkthul (talk) 03:10, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Gazkthul You say that, "Jihadist is a term used largely by it's opponents", which would be yet another reason to consider it as a "value laden label". The truth is that various governments have policies not to use this terminology and for good reason. Like Mujahideen it is a "value laden label". You argue against the use of one value laden label and you repeatedly argue for the unqualified use of another. I don't think that these are balanced positions to take. Coalition forces aim for military targets from 20,000 feet. 'SIL extremists directly kill prisoners whose only crime was to be born in the "wrong" location. Its not jihad and I don't think that we should unnecessarily present a false connection. Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Can we add this important information to the Lead?

Some of the Islamic scholars have declared ISIS to be outsiders. Mohammed al-Bukhari (talk) 15:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Mohammed al-Bukhari, editors have already decided that this information about "Khawarij" should not be added to the Lead. See the discussion "Should we add this to the lead" on this page. Have you read what it says about it? The Lead is supposed to summarise the article, not give details, details are in the body of the article. "Khawarij" is dealt with in two places in the article, "Criticism" and "Ideology and beliefs". ~ P123ct1 (talk) 16:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC).

I didn't add Khawarij to the sentence it says outsiders if you read it carefully, second their is an article for Khawarij in Wikipedia so Khawarij is not so foreign word to English and third it means outsiders. Also there was no consensus in the previous discussions. Mohammed al-Bukhari (talk) 17:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1, it was you that previously asked Mohammed to bring his edit for editors to consider and read. Admittedly this did not happen at the time as originally specified but this does not mean that it cannot happen now. WP:LEAD states, "...the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body,.." Some relevant content to substantiate criticism may be gainfully added to the lead. Maybe "Khawarij" maybe something else. Gregkaye ✍♪ 18:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course this can be raised again, of course I saw that outsiders means Khawarij, of course the Lead will repeat information that is in the body of the article, because the Lead is supposed to be a summary of the article. WP:LEAD:

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

As there are only about four lines on Khawarij in the article, it is hardly one of "the most important points" – unless it is expanded on in the article, which of course can be done if that is what is wanted, but from the citations I have read there is hardly any discussion about it. But to repeat, the Lead is not the place to add extra information, it has to summarise. Go on seeking consensus, but I do not agree with adding this to the Lead. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 19:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

As this article is about Islamic State so the opinions of Islamic scholars is notable and important. Secondly the article characterizes ISIS to be Islamic, Jihadist and Sunni which they are not as the opinion of the Islamic scholars shows but you seems to believe it is not which is ridiculous.Mohammed al-Bukhari (talk) 23:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

There is criticism in the article of 'SIL being wayward of Islam. Some groups want to call it un-Islamic. Large portions of the Arab world use Daish and there are reasons for this. Others have commented on associations to Islam using the terms like Non-Islamic and cult. Khawarij is one part of a larger and specifically driven content. One editor is proposing this to be a major point and it has the cohesive advantage of linking to established Wikipedia content. Gregkaye ✍♪ 05:31, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

There were three editors in the "Should we add this to the lead" discussion who were against including a reference to Khawarij in the Lead. My carefully explained points seem to be lost on editors, and not for the first time. Put these Muslim criticisms, which I fully acknowledge, in the "Criticism" section, but not in the Lead as that is not the place for them. Editors may not realize that I was the one who recently expanded on the 120 scholars' criticisms in "Criticism" by including more of their words condemning ISIL in that letter. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 08:33, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• Criticism by Muslims is clearly pointed out on both criticism and ideology sections. That many Muslims are criticizing ISIL is also pointed out on the lead, that should summarise the article, not to include extra information as you're suggesting. Giving individual examples or expanding it is to add extra info, and it's not what the lead should include. The lead is already too long. We already reached consensus on both the Khawarij and criticism on the lead. Felino123 (talk) 00:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

There has also been consensus that the lead is light on critical content. The strongest criticism has come either from Muslims or from scholars that have studied Islam and related religious issues. This is the most obvious type of information that would be most relevant to add and there is a current deficit of this content in comparison to former states of the lead. Gregkaye ✍♪ 19:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Where is this consensus that we need to add more criticism to the lead? I do not see any such thing. Gazkthul (talk) 00:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Gregkaye - not enough criticism in the lead compared to the weight in the article. The multitude of names and history of the names just sucks space and I really wonder if some of that could be split off in another article. Legacypac (talk) 02:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

"Names" takes up 8k of space and is only one screen long. A lot of useful info at minimal cost, IMO. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 22:34, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Addition of WP:SIZE Template

I feel that it is appropriate to add this tag to the article at this time. I'm asking because I don't want to get bitten. Any objections? - Myopia123 (talk) 23:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes - I object - That tag is good for alerting passing editor of an issue on a low traffic article. Very high public traffic - that tag does not help the reader at all. This very high traffic talk page has multiple discussions about trying to shorten. So the template does not alert editors to anything new and does nothing for the reader. Legacypac (talk) 23:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The tag is not needed for the reasons Legacypac has given. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 23:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, for the record anyway, my opinion is that this article is getting waaaay too long and certain sections probably deserve their own article at this point. -Myopia123 (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

As Legacypac says, this is being discussed and one idea is to do just that, spin off parts of it into separate articles. There seems to be general agreement among editors so far that the article is indeed way too long. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 00:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

We all agree - please put your suggestions in the lasted discussion about solutionsLegacypac (talk) 00:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

It isn't just words either, some parts have been removed to other articles already, some editors are working on condensing the remaining text, the length of the timeline has been reduced and some want to reduce it further. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 00:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Disruptive Edits - result User blocked for 48 hours under Community Sanctions

Can someone archive this section? Legacypac (talk) 01:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Not before the 48-hour block on this editor has elapsed, please; there may be more reverting. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 13:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Good call - editor made substantially the same changes just off the block. reported at Ani again Legacypac (talk) 07:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

(Moved from my talk page)

You recently made changes to the article Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant in this edit. I was notified of the situation by a fellow editor who correctly noted that the content had been decided on by the careful seeking of consensus as you will see through reference at Talk:ISIL. Please can you revert the edit. Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I think my edit improves the article immensely, so I can't revert the edit. I explained the reasons in the edit summary. Sometimes editors get too attached to excess verbiage, and it requires someone else who hasn't been involved in its production to see what needs to go. The lead is clearly too long, and I identified the bits that just aren't worthwhile. I can only suggest you seek another opinion from another fresh pair of eyes. I believe the article is much better with the edit - I'm either right or wrong, I guess! If you want to add back

• the supposed "claims and aims" (According to who? when? depending on what? who thinks/believes any of this? etc) in the lead, and then finish with
• "The group's actions, authority and theological interpretations have been widely criticized around the world and notably within the Muslim community." (Why would you think that anyone needs to read that, exactly? What information does that impart? Etc...)

then I suggest you think of a reason for doing so. (Better than "that's what *we* decided")! zzz (talk) 16:37, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

That info seems like it's from reliable sources. I find it to be relevant. I think it was inappropriate to remove it without seeking consensus. Myopia123 (talk) 18:49, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

We should have also made a joint decision regarding the removal of this long standing content that editors had previously discussed at length. I would have reverted myself but for the 1RR rule. Gregkaye ✍♪ 19:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

The reasons for removing it, as stated in the edit summary and also repeated at length above, have nothing to do with reliability of sources, or "relevance" (whatever that is supposed to mean). "Long-standing" isn't a reason to keep substandard material. As I said, if there's a good reason to replace the material go ahead. "It was there before" isn't a reason, nor is "it was inappropriate to remove it" (it wasn't) zzz (talk) 19:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I find the information you removed both relevant and interesting and you cannot claim to be an authority to decide what a readership wants or needs. Gregkaye has been nice enough to ask you to revert your own edit and is clearly trying to avoid an edit war. For the purposes of an encyclopedia, the information should be restored. Myopia123 (talk) 19:47, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

If it's "both relevant and interesting" that's a reason to include it in the article. I haven't deleted anything in the article. zzz (talk) 19:52, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh lord have mercy. How benevolent of you. Myopia123 (talk) 19:59, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

That's about as relevant as your other comments, I suppose. Yes, some of us are actually WP:HERE to build an encyclopedia. zzz (talk) 20:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I see you started editing in Wikipedia in June 2014, unless you have opened a new account. I don't know how familiar you are with WP guidance and policy, but the obvious ones that apply here are WP:CONSENSUS, WP:LEAD and WP:CIVIL. Per the first, you will need to persuade editors your judgment is right, per the second, the words you removed summarise parts of the article, and the relevance of the third I don't think needs explaining. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 20:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

__________________

Notification of associated editing by an under used IP
I was not the only one to add edits onto Signedzzz's talk page. An editor knowledgeable in a related subject praised the removal of a large slab of text while using an IP address that only made these related edits. The editor failed to log on both times. No reflection is meant regarding the recipient concerned. I think that there are elements of dishonesty and of lack of directness working at some level in this subject area that I am beginning not to like. Gregkaye ✍♪ 20:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Quoting policies and making personal attacks doesn't avoid the fact that my edit improved the article, for the reasons I've explained. zzz (talk) 20:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

And yet, three editors have disagreed with you. You are failing to convince anyone, therefore failing to create consensus. The only reason I'm not reverting your edit is that I have a funny feeling it's going to turn into an edit war. Myopia123 (talk) 20:25, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

And I'm sorry but I must have missed the time when you were made the supreme decider of what constitutes an "improvement" on a wikipedia article. I was under the impression it was Wikipedia policies and guidelines which dictated that but please correct me if I'm wrong. Myopia123 (talk) 20:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• I have reverted the edit in question. zzz will need create consensus before he takes any further action. Myopia123 (talk) 20:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of "consensus" here. The consensus to revert an edit should be based on the best way to improve the article, not simply as a means for preservation of whatever was there before. zzz (talk) 20:49, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

You have not obtained consensus for the original removal of content by you. So far, you are the only person harping on about how you've improved the article when three other editors have disagreed. Since you have taken unilateral action once again, I am refraining from a revert because it will then constitute an edit war. However, your latest revert is a violation of WP:CONSENSUS Myopia123 (talk) 21:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Signedzzz, how does commenting about a deceitful use of sock puppets equate to a personal attack. The use of sock puppets makes things very non personal. I don't do attack. Gregkaye ✍♪ 21:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I reverted Signedzzz's second removal of the carefully drafted material. I also take issue with this edit which effetively sanitizes ISIL's actions https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant&diff=prev&oldid=634129583 Then there is an edit that removes various names they don't like. What is the motivation behind these bias edits? Legacypac (talk) 21:47, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I see a HUGE diff between "ISIL considers the term "Dāʻish" derogatory and reportedly punishes with flogging those who use it in ISIL-controlled areas." and "ISIL reportedly considers the term "Dāʻish" offensive" and it is not "editorializing" This should be reverted. Legacypac (talk) 22:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

It's the very definition of editorialising. One example of several I have attempted to remove, only to be met with personal abuse. Therefore, the "essay-like" tag is fully justified. zzz (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

The statement concerning the penalty imposed for the use of the term was completely sourced at the reference given and is significant to the reader's understanding of how seriously the use of term is regarded by ISIS. It is therefore not editorializing. Dwpaul ^Talk 23:05, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Since there is clearly a determination to revert changes and resort to personal abuse, while refusing to address any issues raised, I can see why other editors have left this article in the state it's in. Hopefully other editors will consider cleaning up this article. zzz (talk) 22:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Signedzzz, you removed material that was added after a lot of debate and once consensus was reached, an editor asked you to revert those changes. You removed it saying you thought your changes were better. Multiple editors disagreed, I reverted it and you reverted that. Another editor then reverted your edit so things are back to square one. In the entire process, you provided no sources, references or any other material except to say that it was your opinion that your changes made the article better and to simple disagree with any points that were raised. Everyone tried to reason with you. If my sarcasm offended you, then I apologise. But I guarantee you this, no editor on wikipedia would be able to push such unilateral action through. So it's not about just you - Myopia123 (talk) 22:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Your reverts went against consensus, simple as that. The reason for some of your edits is hard to understand, as Legacypac has noted. One has to question the motive behind them. A number of these are not normal "cleaning-up" edits. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 22:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Your two removals of heavily discussed material borders on edit warring. I agree with what they said - and I request you self revert the two edits I pointed out at the end of the last section. Legacypac (talk) 22:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Uninvolved editors, note that while repeatedly refusing to address any of the reasons given for changes to the article, editors "owning" the article immediately resort to personal abuse in order to maintain it exactly as it is. zzz (talk) 22:33, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

zzz go offered no reasons except your personal opinion. Tagging one of the top edited and trafficed articles on Wikipedia as essay like is very odd. Legacypac (talk) 22:41, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, User:Signedzzz. So indulge me for a moment and state the reasons once more. Please and thank you - Myopia123 (talk) 22:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, i'm reading through your earlier comments and I don't see any reasons that you claim to have stated. This is what I do see:

If you want to add back

the supposed "claims and aims" (According to who? when? depending on what? who thinks/believes any of this? etc) in the lead, and then finish with "The group's actions, authority and theological interpretations have been widely criticized around the world and notably within the Muslim community." (Why would you think that anyone needs to read that, exactly? What information does that impart? Etc...)

then I suggest you think of a reason for doing so. (Better than "that's what *we* decided")!

That content is there through consensus. You removed it and once again, there was consensus that it should stay. If you want to interpret that as what *we* decided, then you do your thing. Myopia123 (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

See report for Edit Warring here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Signedzzz_reported_by_User:Legacypac_.28Result:_.29 Legacypac (talk) 00:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• also accessed here Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Template:Essay-like

• "Claims and aims" have been unjustifiably listed in lead without context let alone the WP:UNDUE issue. What's more, they have been selectively quoted according to editor's choice.

To quote from the guidelines of when to use the "essay-like" template, This template should be used when the article contains the editor's own personal, emotional comments on the subject. Use it when the article does not necessarily represent a blatant opinion or opinion piece, but is still overly judgmental (declares something to be morally right or wrong) in tone.

• "The group's actions, authority and theological interpretations have been widely criticized around the world and notably within the Muslim community."

This could not possibly be a clearer example of "the editor's own personal, emotional comments on the subject" and "overly judgmental (declares something to be morally right or wrong) in tone." There is no other reason for it to be there in the lead of the article. zzz (talk) 23:11, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Have you read the article? Anyone who had would have clearly seen that the sentence beginning "The group's actions ..." is a summary, as per WP:LEAD, of what is said in "Criticism" and "Ideology and beliefs", and is not the POV that you think it is. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 23:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• "ISIL considers the term "Dāʻish" derogatory and reportedly punishes with flogging those who use it in ISIL-controlled areas" - How does this impart more encyclopedic information than my edit, "finds the term offensive"? Another clear, blatant example. zzz (talk) 23:17, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I find some of your arguments here "offensive". If I decide to flog you for it, I think you would find that rather more significant than the fact of my having been offended. That statement accurately reflected what the source said, and your dilution of it borders on misrepresentation. Dwpaul ^Talk 23:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

It is sanitizing, which is very POV pushing. We have or had another quote from Mosel saying ISIL will cut out your tongue for speaking the ISIL name. "They don't like it" is meaningless and misses the whole point. Legacypac (talk) 00:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• As far as "Claims and Aims" goes, I disagree with you completely. It belongs in the lead and as mentioned multiple times, it went through it's own debate and was added after consensus. If you would like to reopen the debate and argue your points, it might even be removed. But it will happen through consensus. The second point is not an example of POV language. A clear example of POV language would be saying something like "Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi is a bastard." The sentence that you have quoted is a fact(they have been criticised). If someone was to say "Myopia called Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi a bastard", that would be a fact and not a personal opinion. Hence, the sentence you have quoted satisfies WP:NPOV - Myopia123 (talk) 23:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

The same logic applies to your second quote. It is stating a fact - Myopia123 (talk) 23:20, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

More personal abuse, and, no surprise, still an WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT approach to the points raised. Repeatedly. zzz (talk) 23:29, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

What part exactly was personal abuse? - Myopia123 (talk) 23:31, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

And as far as WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT goes, did you read this part:

Do not confuse "hearing" with "agreeing with": The community's rejection of your idea is not proof that they have failed to hear you. Stop writing, listen, and consider what the other editors are telling you. Make a strong effort to see their side of the debate, and work on finding points of agreement.

- Myopia123 (talk) 23:33, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Signedzz, I'm sympathetic to where you're coming from, I think the article has been filled with way too much unencyclopaedic criticism and POV pushing ever since this group hit the headlines in mid 2014 and we received an influx of new editors, but the way you are going about this is confrontational and probably won't lead to anywhere constructive. Gazkthul (talk) 00:51, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

No nation recognises the group by the name "Islamic State"

Currently the section 9.1 "Islamic State", criticism of use of this name reads No nation recognises the group by the name "Islamic State", owing to the far-reaching political and religious authority which that name implies. The United Nations Security Council, the United States, Canada, Turkey, Australia, Russia, the United Kingdom and other countries generally call the group "ISIL"

However Australia does seem to recognise the group by that name in their terrorist designation[5]: The first listing of this group for proscription purposes was under the Arabic name it formerly used, Tanzim Qa'idat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn, in 2005. It has also been listed as al-Qa'ida in Iraq and as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). On 29 June 2014, the group proclaimed an Islamic caliphate in areas it controls and changed its name to Dawla al-Islamiya, or the Islamic State. This statement has been prepared to support its continued listing under this new name. Gazkthul (talk) 21:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. This is exactly why I put a "verification needed" tag on "No nation", but this was reverted. To say "No nation" boldly unqualified is misleading, IMO. Best to say "Many nations" until it is proved conclusively that "No nation" is correct. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 21:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Canada also used Islamic State on its terrorist list, but this misses the point that no nation recognizes (linked to diplomatic recognition. Legacypac (talk) 22:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac, can you spell out the diplomatic recognition point here? (I am not necessarily disputing it, just think the point needs clarifying.) ~ P123ct1 (talk) 00:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I suspect that he was pointing out that the first sentence's phrasing implies a second subject - that "recognition" of a group implies endorsement of that group's existence as a state. The point of the paragraph - how the countries identify the organization - is clear, but perhaps the word "recognizes" should be changed to "identifies" in that sentence. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 01:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

diplomatic recognition is a statehood concept - no recognition = not a state (generally). In this unusual case countries also refuse to talk about ISIL using the name "Islamic State". A single use by Australia in a legal designation of a terrorist organization does not change govt policy. Remember how in Sept to the UN General Assembly Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott said "To use this term [Islamic State] is to dignify a death cult; a death cult that, in declaring itself a caliphate, has declared war on the world". I doubt Abbott has changed his mind on that. In the interest of making this even clearer I've changed the sentence, splitting it into two. No nation recognises the group as a sovereign state. Many object to using the name "Islamic State" owing to the far-reaching political and religious authority which that name implies. However I still believe that NO nation either diplomatically recognizes or uses the words "Islamic State" when dealing with ISIL (except now in a very narrow legal sense like Australia and Canada have when designating the group as a terrorist network). Legacypac (talk) 03:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

That is probably a better phrasing. The issues of recognition and naming may be related, but they are separate issues. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 03:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

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

1RR

Content more relevant for user talk pages

Mohammed al-Bukhari, you violated the one-revert rule, duplicated info on the lead, so disrupted the article. When I reverted your disruption, you reverted my correction and put your disruption again. Please correct your disruption. Thank you. Felino123 (talk) 17:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC) Felino123: Thanks for correcting my error; I don't know how I did that. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 18:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC) I am sorry, I thought you duplicated the info. It was Mohammed al-Bukhari who did violating the one-revert rule. My apologies, P123ct1. Felino123 (talk) 18:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC) Yes, I've just seen that! That's okay. Mohammed al-Bukhari has only just been warned today (a few hours ago) after being taken to the Edit-Warring Noticeboard for two 1RR infractions on this page and editing against consensus. This has not stopped. Now there is one more 1RR infraction, two more edits against consensus and more edit-warring. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 18:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC) Unless there is reason to report to editors that content changes have been made to the article, notifications such as above have no place on an article talk page. This is personal communication on an otherwise already overloaded page. Gregkaye ✍♪ 04:59, 20 November 2014 (UTC) Clashes between editors that have been a major disruptive feature until recently have no place on the Talk page and should be kept to editors' Talk pages. Who split off part of this thread and gave it a 1RR heading? That wasn't a good idea, IMO. Can it be reverted? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 07:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Since, more or less, I've been invited to write here...

Given that my previous edits about war had to do with Eastern Ukraine, I'm still not completely awary about how this article has been developed, but at least I'm glad I may edit an article concerning to which any reasonable person has a position against a determined group, unlike in Eastern Ukraine (there are reasonable and unreasonable ppl on both sides there). But any suggestion about what I might start to write about, it might be useful, as well as for other new editors about ISIS. Thanks a lot for reading.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 05:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Mondolkiri1: Welcome. You will find many topics concerning this group are being discussed on the Talk page and you can join in and edit or give your views on any of them. If there is an aspect that concerns you particularly about ISIL that has not been discussed, you can raise it under a new heading, in the way you have done now. But please remember that the Talk page is for discussing ways to improve the article, it isn't a forum for discussing the subject generally. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 08:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Disputed edits (resolved)

"Fastfingers666" heading changed to reduce prominence. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

This editor has made massive reverts and changes throughout the article – -5734 – under the Edit Summary "m fixed spelling error".

Resolving problem on Revision History page

This edit is timed 21:58 on the 18th. According to their userpage, the editor has been editing in Wikipedia since 16 September 2014. Is this a sock-puppet or a vandal? I have reverted the edit. (Signedzzz's 48-hour ban expires at 1:36 on the 18th, but there may be no connection.) ~ P123ct1 (talk) 22:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC) Seems more like an accidental restore to an earlier version to me (though does not show that way) as the reverts don't go in a particular direction. Good revert. Legacypac (talk) 22:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC) The editor could have saved onto an earlier version – the version where they made their previous edit – but I cannot follow through all the diffs to see if this is correct. [Redacted] ~ P123ct1 (talk) 23:12, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The editor has confirmed it was a mistake. (See their Talk page.) ~ P123ct1 (talk) 13:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)