Talk:Islamic State/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

Suggested Trimming of Infobox Info & New Infobox

For note of all editors I suggest that some content be removed/transferred from the infoboxes at least to the extent that that their combined length will not exceed the length of the Lead and the TOC. The removal of the map is suggested for reasons presented above. Either alternatively or additionally sections that might be extracted from the infoboxes include "timezone" and "strength." This last section, in the context of my browser, inserts five lines of text with its claims based on sources such as "a kurdish leader." The information also has limited usefulness in isolation from allies and opposition contents which would normally be placed in the infobox. The information is better covered in the context of article text. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:38, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

We use the red map in the article and we really only need the one detailed map between the two infoboxes. Agree - I added the second time zones after someone tagged cite needed but states set time zones, not rebel armies. We are using the country infobox for a non-country which includes some inappropriate parameters. Strength is best explained in Military of ISIL and the same section here since the estimates are so different and moving and now spread across 7 countries. Better to put "See Military of ISIL" after Strength and remove all the estimates from infobox. Legacypac (talk) 12:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The combining of the infoboxes reduced the overall length and eliminated some duplicated info (group name for example). I think the opponents could be nicely boxed in a limited purpose war faction box, since usually opponents are listed in such an infobox but the list was so long it was getting way out of hand. Legacypac (talk) 21:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Well that was a big waste 3 hours of work - LightDark2000 deleted the combined infobox without discussion. Legacypac (talk) 01:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

@LightDark2000: I'm interested, what benefit did you see in reverting to the use of two separate infoboxes? Gregkaye ✍♪

Moratorium on a name change

As you know, there is a moratorium on discussing name changes for this article. I just wanted to ask what will happen once the moratorium ends, and if I am unable to voice my opinion when the time comes. StanMan87 (talk) 12:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Infoboxes and Lead

[Transferred from P123 Talk page]
Gregkaye Something that struck me when copy-editing yesterday was that the infoboxes have a lot about the current conflicts that ISIL is involved in, but there is nothing in the Lead about them. Do you not think the Lead should have a few lines about these conflicts? Readers before reading the article may wonder what the infoboxes are talking about when they see nothing in the Lead about it. This is going on the principle that the Lead is meant to summarise the article. There would be room for a few sentences as I cut down the history part of the Lead the other day by a few lines. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 09:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I think you raise a really interesting subject as I don't think that infoboxes are mentioned in WP:LEAD. I see lead contents as working side by side with infoboxes in similar roles. Before Legacypac combined the infoboxes, the content got moved around a lot in the article but now it may hopefully be stable on the page. The content gets prominent mention in the infobox in list form. The third and fourth paragraphs I think gives the list content some context. I am not certain but I think this may be enough. Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

[comments after content transfer]

I was wrong WP:LEADELEMENTS includes the infobox as part of the lead. I'd also like to add that I think that the amalgamation of information into the single infobox is a great improvement. Repetitious information was getting added into both boxes on a regular basis, the important page link information was non-sensicaly buried at the top of the second infobox and the context of the use of the red splodge map made it little more than a fluff image. I still question the usefulness of this map for reasons mentioned at #Article Maps but the main question here, as I see it, is how to best get the lead and infobox contents to work together.

You guys are very accurately describing exactly why I put over 3 hours into building a more appropriate single infobox using the Geopolitical entity infobox. ISIL has been determined to be a rebel group controlling territory (not a country/nation/state).All similar groups use war faction infobox (which is too limiting here) but which correctly puts the conflict(s) up top just like the new combined box shows. Normally in a less complex conflict we would start the lead with something like "XYZ is a rebel group fighting in the 2014 screwedupcountry Civil War" Given the number of conflicts ISIL is now in, and the prominence of the links to them at the top of the infobox now, I don't currently have an opinion on what to add to the lead if anything.

As for the red map, I don't have strong feelings but once the two maps were presented side by side I noticed that they show IDENTICAL territorial control. In its current use the red map adds the useful info of what they claim - a good indication of where they will fight next. Someone added links to the underlying maps which is fantastic because now any editor can see the detailed process the maps are based on - they are hardly OR as has been often claimed here. Legacypac (talk) 20:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

iraqi insurgency map

we need a updated version of the map. Baiji is under government control and an ongoing battle at ramadi is taking place--Arbutus the tree (talk) 01:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

This page does not control the map - which is actually two maps for Syria and Iraq put together. In the infobox under the maps are links to the pages where you can express your opinion or edit the maps yourself. Legacypac (talk) 02:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

the problem is no one ever uses those pages.--Arbutus the tree (talk) 02:59, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe there has been much real estate in Syria or Iraq changing hands since the airstrikes started. ISIL has been bogged down in Kobani and unable to advance in Iraq much because they get bombed when they move and the kurds are holding ground, while there are complaints about the Iraqi Army's ineffectiveness in regaining ground. If you have different info you can update the maps yourself. Legacypac (talk) 09:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Again pinging map editors @Haghal Jagul: @Spesh531: @Kohelet: @Joan301009: @Vectrex: @Mondolkiri1: to raise this in addition to other threads.

Controlling what?

The first paragraph of the article describes a "rebel group controlling territory" and, while I think that this is a reasonable description, I thought it might be relevant to raise a "controlling what?" question.

If the areas are anything like Jordan then I would imagine that, from the perspectives of both sides, a lot of the territory is relatively difficult to "control". What there will be is a lot of variously defensible and potentially strategic locations and a variety of populated areas in amongst a whole lot of typically desert wilderness. The maps are useful but I think that the block colours can be deceptive. It can be easy to think of borders in coloured terms perhaps in relation to our conceptions of border crossings etc. It can also be easy to think of wars in terms of Front lines and with conceptions affected by knowledge of historical conflicts such as WWII with its trench warfare.

"..controlling populated and other areas.." might work.

Also pinging the various map editors on this, @Haghal Jagul: @Spesh531: @Kohelet: @Joan301009: @Vectrex: @Mondolkiri1: See also: #Article Maps which was a particular issue on the 'SIL page in its condition before its amalgamation of infoboxes. Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I looked into this in detail because this question keeps coming up. Yes, there are large desert areas with limited population. Between the Euphrates valley and the Karameh Border Crossing there is one highway with one oasis city called Rutba, all in Anbar Province. "Rebel Iraqi tribes" took control of the crossing in June. ISIL controls the approaches in the Euphrates valley, the highway and the oasis city. Two days ago "ISIS controls 80 per cent of the western province of Anbar, whilst the rest is under the control of the army and tribes, Iraq's Minister of Electricity Qassim Al-Fahdawi ".

Look at it this way. If the Russians invaded Alaska and took Anchorage and most of the smaller cities, would you draw a map showing Russia controls just the cities and that the USA controls all the forests and bears between? Territorial Control does not mean a solder on every street or in every village or standing the the middle of the desert- it means the exclusive ability to project authority as required and deny other forces access. Like in Risk you can control territory with just one army token if you have enough forces elsewhere that prevents anyone else from getting into that territory.

We can show ISIL control of the empty area, Govt control (which the quote above denies) or like one map I saw, show the empty area in another color.

Legacypac (talk) 18:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Games, Games - Civilisation might be an arguably more relevant example as it gives differentiation to the value of localities - (but I guess value in this case also includes oil) Gregkaye ✍♪ 18:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Israel did not designate "ISLAMIC STATE או ISLAMIC STATE IN IRAQ AND SYRIA/ALSHAM/LEVEANT או ISIL/ISIS או AQI" as a terrorist organisation

I am no fan of Israeli politics but one thing that seems fairly clear to me is that they can be very clear in what they say. It is also clear that Israel has been listed in the article in error.

Israel, that I have seen, makes declarations about organisations in two significant ways. They can make a declaration of to say that an organisation is an organisation "as a terrorist organisation" (הכרזה כארגון טרור - "as an organisation of terror") and they can make a declaration to say that an organisation is a "Unlawful organization" (התאחדות בלתי מותרת - an "association/united group, not, allowed"). I have gone a bit into the etymology of the terms but regular translation simply relates to declarations of terrorist organisations and declarations of unlawful/illegal organisations and Israel made the second of these declarations in relation to 'SIL.

I found this information by searching on "הכרזה כארגון טרור לפי פקודת מניעת טרור" ("Declaration, as [an] organization, [of] terror, "from mouth", [of the] Ordinance, [of] prevention of, Terror") and then by choosing the download the immediately presented link with address shown as: www.mod.gov.il/Defence-and.../teror16.11.xls . This link has the title "רשימת ההכרזות - משרד הביטחון" which translates as: List of, Announcements - Office, [of] Security, (Ministry of Defence).

Israel has ten times issued a "הכרזה כארגון טרור לפי פקודת מניעת טרור" Declaration as a terrorist organization by the Command of preventing terror. I counted ten groups on the list and they included PLO, Fatah, Hamas, Palestine al-muslima, Palestinian relief and development...

Israel has also often issued a "הכרזה על התאחדות בלתי מותרת" Declaration of an unlawful association. I estimate about 100 items and groups include:

3.9.14 דאע"ש או המדינה האסלאמית או המדינה האסלאמית בעיראק ובסוריה או החליפות האסלאמית או אלקאעדה עיראק ISLAMIC STATE או ISLAMIC STATE IN IRAQ AND SYRIA/ALSHAM/LEVEANT או ISIL/ISIS או AQI אלדולה אלאסלאמיה פי עיראק ואלשאם או אלקאעדה פי עיראק الدولة الاسلامية או الدولة الاسلامية في عراق والشام או داﻋﺶ או اﳋلافۃ الاسلامية הכרזה על התאחדות בלתי מותרת לפי תקנות ההגנה (שעת חירום) 1945 שר הביטחון - משה (בוגי) יעלון 03/09/14 Daa"s or Islamic state or an Islamic state in Iraq and Syria or Islamic caliphate or Al-Qaeda or Iraq ISLAMIC STATE ISLAMIC STATE IN IRAQ AND SYRIA / ALSHAM / LEVEANT or ISIL / ISIS or AQI Haldol Alislamiya Iraq and al-Sham according to Al-Qaeda or Iraq الدولة الاسلامية times or الدولة الاسلامية في عراق والشام or داعش or الخلافۃ الاسلامية declaration of an unlawful association under the Defense (Emergency) Regulations, 1945 Defense Minister - Moshe (Bogie) Ya'alon.

The inclusion of the Israel reference in the section "Designation as a terrorist organization" is totally unjustified. Beyond the table the text of the section states "Many world leaders and government spokespeople have called ISIL a terrorist group..." Israel, as far as I can see, has not even done this.

Thank you P123ct1 for removing the reference from the ISIL list. I will add relevant declarations to the article List of designated terrorist organizations. It is important for Israel to be kept accountable for their notable actions. Thank you also for asking me the right questions to help me find Israel's surreptitiously hidden information on this.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 18:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

TY. Gregkaye and I sorted this out on my Talk page, if anyone is interested to see how this was arrived at. The Israeli government document Gregkaye refers to shows that Israel declared ISIL an "unlawful organization" (see no. 350) on 3rd September 2014 (same date as given in two citations originally appended to Israel designation in infobox), while there are other groups in that list that are clearly declared as "terrorist organisations". The Arabic source, one of three originally appended to the infobox designation, was clearly a misreport. P123ct1 (talk) 19:00, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The lesson is don't just trust sources, especially secondary ones. We have been providing misinformation for a long time - as the particular Arabic source concerned continues to do. Gregkaye ✍♪ 20:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

[links below belong to an earlier TP thread]

Footnote appeal

alt. title: (sorry) toe the line

We here announce the ISIL article "Footnote appeal"

Don't let ISIL reference footnotes go naked - for it is written: "bare URL footnotes – i.e. footnotes that contain only the website http address – are susceptible to link-rot,". Oh the horror.

You can play your part in this most worthy campaign. Should you find that an editor has left a footnote in a bare, defenceless and susceptible condition, please gently inform them of this plight.

Supportive links are now provided:
Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#FootnoteDirective or Talk:ISIL#FootnoteDirective will take an editor to relevant content in the banner. Yes footnotes are indeed given worthy mention amongst this content.
Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Footnote 2 or Talk:ISIL#Footnote 2 will take an editor direct to the relevant hatnote above
(Similar access is provided by link: Talk:ISIL#FootnoteHatnote)

These poor destitute URLs are best brought amongst the abundant fields of: Author, Title, Date, Publisher/Work, Agency, Access Date and other accompaniment that may be applicable to the foots individual condition.

Let's keep our feet happy - and thank-you.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 03:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Technical note:
As noted above, bare URL footnotes (with just the hhtp address and nothing else) are susceptible to link-rot. Link-rot happens when a website moves to a new domain. When it moves, it acquires a new http address, so the original link is broken and the reader will not be able to call up the citation. The reason why footnotes formed using the WP cite templates are better is that they have a lot of information in them, so that if the http address does change, that information can be used to retrieve the article from the internet. Broken-link or "dead-link" footnotes are easily repaired by substituting the old URL address with the new one. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 09:29, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

The current count of bare URLs stands at 25 in this article and 14 in the timeline article, the highest it has ever been. The message is not getting through. ~ P123ct1 (talk)

Thanks to the kind editors who rectify these footnotes from time to time. Having gone through 350+ footnotes in ISIL checking for accurate configuration and filling many gaps in them some months ago, I am not well disposed to converting bare URLs. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 21:58, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Related Article nominated for deletion

I found this new article via a link in the ISIL article. 2014 U.S. and allies versus Islamic State hostilities and conflicts. There are a number of issues with this article a deserves a look by other editors - I've AfD'd it. Legacypac (talk) 11:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Reorganisations

See: #Article Section Reorg - from 14 top level headings to 6

1. It was only very recently that the article went through a significant restructure as per link above. At this stage the TOC looked like this.

2. Since then there has been another major revision that brought the TOC to look like this.

3. From this point I made some further reorganisations to produce an article sequence with a TOC that looks like this.

Each edit has its qualities. What do editors think. Gregkeye 16:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Several editors actually reorged the Criticisms section lower, and then right to the very bottom, and others complained about it. That gave me the idea of integrating by topic. So action/policy-response, action-response. Did not get it all polished off yet, but I hope this will lead to more stability and enhanced reader usability. Your changes are in a similar direction and at quick glance, quite good. I'd prefer to get the opponents section more prominent. Normally the enemies are listed prominently in a war faction infobox (and used to be here) but as the list grew out of control. Legacypac (talk) 17:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Population

After looking at all the towns under isil control's populations i have made a rough calculation that ISIL's population is 612,484 but unfortunately not all the towns populations are logged so their should be more than this. [Where I got my source ] --Weegeeislyfe (talk) 08:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Your estimate is way under reality and appears to cover just part of Syria based on the link. Mosul Iraq and area alone is 1.5 million people. Just before I saw this post I finally found a source - the WSJ - for 8 million people between Iraq and Syria, and added it to the governance section. Legacypac (talk) 11:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I personally think these efforts to be of great value for editor contextualisation and consumption and I personally think that any well researched information, if checked and found to be valid, should be able to be used in content. It can certainly be used to case other claims into doubt but unfortunately Wikipedia has a rule on original research and such info can't be directly used. Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I do wonder if the Wall Street Journal # of 8 million is a bit high (no idea how they came up with the number) considering how many millions of refugees are sitting outside the war zone. Extreme example - ISIL controls parts of Kobani with a statistical population of 45-50,000, and 200,000 in the area of Kobani EXCEPT the current civilian population of Kobani is Zero. Legacypac (talk) 20:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Honest mistake, sorry for that. I did not realise that my source did not include iraqi cities, I will fix my calculations soon. --Weegeeislyfe (talk) 08:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

(new section started below-same topic-I brought them together Legacypac (talk) 21:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)))

4,644,780–8,000,000 Honestly? If we do no know the first digit why should we write 5 more digits that are pure fairy tale. This should be 4 million-8 million.95.91.128.159 (talk) 09:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• Agreed. I'd suggest a content such as:

Population

Speculative estimate 4–8 million ^[ref]

The words population and estimate above are fixed. The wording of the previous, area, field reads "estimate only of controlled areas" and I'd suggest that a new potentially brief section on might be created on "Population of controlled areas" and perhaps a section on refugees. Maybe sections such as these could fit in between sections:

4.3 Leadership and governance

4.3.1 Diktats, influences and pressures

4.4 Propaganda and social media

4.4.1 Beheadings

4.5 Finances

Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The lower figure was obtained by adding up all the cities they control off WP maps. That naturally misses all the villages, ignores the fact there are well over a million internal and external refugees and does not deal with the problem of different levels of control, casualties, and that that no consensus is possible. The higher figure comes from the Wall Street Journal - who did not specify how they got it but it is a nice round number, or to how many significant digits. Was it 7,999,350 rounded up or 10 million people minus the refugees? For example, take Kobani pop 45,000 (in the city) or up to 200,000 in the immediate area.... except there are no civilians in Kobani today and ISIL controls only part of the city. So what population does ISIL control in Kobani for statistical purposes? The same problems in estimation exist to different degrees across the conflict area. Difficult problem... no easy answers. Legacypac (talk) 20:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac and others, I suspect that the Wall Street journal figure might be the product of some extremely fanciful NY accounting. As noted, it makes a mockery of the 4,644,780 figure. I don't believe that there are 3.3 million+ other people accounted for in desert villages and new arrivals even before the subtraction of the unknown number of refugees and dead. I'd suggest that the (Sesame, I mean) Wall Street accounting either be deleted or reduced to a footnote where it can be explained as not having been accompanied by a justification. I'd suggest an entry "~4,644,780 (figure not accounting: village populations, arrivals, refugee departures and death)". Alternately all the additional info could be placed in a footnote. Thanks for the explanation. Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:51, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Not for insertion in the article, but as a reasonableness check. Sources often say ISIL controls a 1/3rd of each country. Pop of Iraq 33.42 million + Pop of Syria 22.85 million =56.27 million together X 1/3 = 18.75 million = 2.3 times lower then WSJ's 8 million. They don't control the biggest cities 3.8 million in Baghdad + 1.7 million in Damascus = 5.5 million but they do control Greater Mosul at 1.5 million, various other cities, large rural areas and a whole bunch of desert. Take 4 million(proposed above)/56.27 total= 7.1% and 8/56.27=14.2%. Looking at these numbers and the control maps, and at the number and size of towns they control and "vast swaths of territory" phrase often used in the media, clearly the 1/3 number is based on % of ground not population. Even considering the unevenness of population distribution the WSJ's 8 million or 14.2% of the combined population against 1/3 of the territory looks a lot more accurate than a lower number calculated by adding up the larger population centers, which ignores the large rural village populations. Legacypac (talk) 17:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2014

Addition of ~12,000 militants who were recruited in Balochistan region of Pakistan under ISIS' military size.

Kennybmr (talk) 10:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 19:09, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Timeline keeping

The decision as to whether to keep the timeline in the article has been a bit "in, out, in, out, and shake it all about" as per recent continuation of discussion at Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/Archive_17#Propose scrapping timeline from main article.

No real consensus was reached but the last definite view expressed was to keep seven days (I'll say ~seven days) of the info in the main article. For reasons that I won't go into I have had to check up on how this works with a query at WP:PUMP. The bit that I understood was that the "transclusion" works when <onlyinclude>...</onlyinclude> tags surround the section of text and unless anyone wants to understand the next bit I suggest that this last bit is the bit we should work with .

The next bit relates to the tech's statement that, "A more versatile way to do this is with labeled section transclusion". Does anyone want to look into this? Anyone?

Otherwise what I plan to do is to just look at the timeline once in a while and, when the length stretches to over a week, to move the "<onlyinclude>" tag down to something like a four day timespan. All other editors are welcome to join me in this as are editors that edit the actual timeline document for love of that page.

My personal view is that the section of the timeline presented in the 'SIL article just needs to be long enough to give a taste of the content of the full timeline document so as to also present the most recent headlines. I still don't have a strong opinion as to whether timeline content should be kept in the main article but at least now everyone knows how things stand.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The other thing that should be noted is that the section headings (AKA "months") from the timeline document are also "transcluded" into the ISIL document with the rest of the timeline text. This basically means at the wrong phase of the moon we get two titles in the TOC of the main document for the price of one. A personal thought is that this might be a good time to shorten time length, by something like the fourth of each month, to a corresponding number of days. Its just a thought. Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree - and on a related point, why are there so many events in the main article under other headings. Legacypac (talk) 01:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac An editor who may have been unaware of recent content of the previous backwards and forwards discussion had moved the "<onlyinclude>" tag to the beginning of November. To be fair my edit of the timeline document was not accompanied by suitable explanation. I've now moved the tag back to cover a shorter timeframe. Gregkaye ✍♪ 03:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

You should do what you are proposing - if someone does not like it they can come here to complain. Legacypac (talk) 03:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

There is still a tag on the timeline saying that the content is being considered to be merged into the main timeline document. If noone else does it sooner and if there are no further comments then I will remove the tag when this thread gets archived. Gregkaye ✍♪ 21:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

next issue it was previously agreed to set up a format on the Timeline page so that the month heading would not appear as a second item on the TOC after "Timeline of recent events". This is still what I think looks best, most straightforward and honest. For instance it might get to the last week in November and yet there would still be a heading saying November even though just one week is displayed. A difficulty in not having the title is that editors would actually need to load the timeline document to make edits. I'd still favour losing the extra title. Gregkaye ✍♪ 20:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Article Section Reorg - from 14 top level headings to 6

What it was) vs What it is now 1 History

1.1 Names

1.2 Foundation of the group (1999–2006)

1.3 As Islamic State of Iraq (2006–2013)

1.4 As Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (2013–2014)

1.4.1 Syrian Civil War

1.5 As Islamic State (2014–present)

1.6 Timeline of recent events

1.7 November 2014

2 Criticism

2.1 Islamic criticism

2.2 Criticism for use of the name "Islamic State"

2.3 Other international criticism

2.4 Human rights abuses

2.4.1 War crimes accusations and findings

2.4.2 Religious and minority group persecution

2.4.3 Treatment of civilians

2.4.4 Sexual violence and slavery allegations

2.4.5 Attacks on members of the press

2.5 Designation as a terrorist organization

3 Countries and groups at war with ISIL

3.1 Opposition within Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt and Libya

3.2 Multinational coalition opposition

3.3 Other state opponents

3.4 Transnational organizations

3.5 Other non-State opponents

4 Group characteristics and structure

4.1 Ideology and beliefs

4.2 Goals and territorial claims

4.3 Leadership and governance

4.3.1 Diktats, influences and pressures

4.4 Propaganda and social media

4.4.1 Beheadings

4.5 Finances

4.6 Military and arms

4.6.1 Foreign fighters in Iraq and Syria

4.6.2 Conventional weapons

4.6.3 Non-conventional weapons

5 Supporters

5.1 Statements of support

5.2 Turkey (Allegations of Support)

6 Analysis

6.1 Conspiracy theories in the Arab world

The article has grown organically without anyone looking hard at the structure for a long time. There is a method to this madness. These 6 major sections will allow us to bring together and reduce duplicated info to trim this down. For example, we had the leaders listed and linked in two sections (Governance and Leaders) Once reorganized that was obvious and the duplication eliminated with no loss. This is also is a lot more user friendly. Legacypac (talk) 14:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Why did you not bring your planned restructuring to the Talk page first, so editors could agree or not agree to it? This is what happened before when there was a major reorganisation. Much discussion first. This is a major and radical reorganisation, which I believe should have been put to editors first. You may think it is a more user-friendly, but how can you be sure other editors agree? [Redacted] ~ P123ct1 (talk) 15:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Because there was no planned restructuring - this evolved organically from a serious effort to find places to shorten this LONG article with a lot of moving parts. Like a puzzle with no box to compare against, it took 3.5 hours of looking for similarities and out of place info and saying "hey that fits with this". Those efforts resulted in what you see now. Just look at the diffs and time stamps to see the process. Now it is set up for condensing without gutting important info out. The order of the 6 main sections and the order within those sections could still be refined. Legacypac (talk) 17:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I think quite a lot of it will have to be spun out into different articles given the horrific size this one has grown into, but before looking at that and at your restructuring, do you think you could make that TOC into one or two columns? All that information is quite hard to digest and then juggle with in the layout it now has. This is how we did it last time; we put up a straight list and juggled with it. You could skip the "History" part as that is straightforward. It might also be useful to do the same with the old TOC, so comparison is easier. Some of us aren't very good at handling more than one screen at a time! ~ P123ct1 (talk) 19:53, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - it is possible to set it out in a column (I'm hopeless at that in wiki) but why not just look at the article Table of Contents or hit edit on this section to see it laid out in point form. how the TOC looked yesterday. Legacypac (talk) 20:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the most relevant section of Wikipedia guidelines on this is WP:BODY. The basic principle is that: "Headings introduce sections and subsections, clarify articles by breaking up text, organize content, and populate the table of contents. Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose." MOS:HEADINGS also indicates that there are four levels of heading available. In its current state the article makes use of three of them, it uses six major ==headings== as detailed above which provide navigation to well over 40 section titles.

I was the editor that proposed the last look at the article structure and, possibly as a result of my introduction, we had a lot of discussion about sequence of content but not a lot about depth. My personal opinion for what it is worth is that the new layout is less bitty than it was before providing an easier navigation than we previously managed to achieve. Content remains the same but I think people will now be able to access it more easily.

Controversial changes in actual content material certainly need to be raised here and I know Legacypac has rightly followed this procedure when proposing #Standard for Naming ISIL in Sinai, Libya etc for example. The concept of consultation as mentioned by P123ct1 is vital in this article and when editors deviate from this they can be rightly held to account. My view is that the current edits are far from destructive. I'm quite annoyed that I didn't think of them myself.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 20:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Have turned the contents into a list, for the benefit of those who find it hard to juggle screens. Can revert if wanted. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 23:27, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Looks great :) Legacypac (talk) 03:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• I think "Group characteristics and structure" needs to come before "Criticism". It is illogical to describe criticisms before describing the things that are being criticised, isn't it? I see an editor has already altered the order putting "Group characteristics and structure" before "Criticism", most likely for that reason. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 12:34, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
• The criticisms material is really the more newsworthy content. It is also the content that deals with situations that are more immediately apparent. In comparison the "Group characteristics and structure" is the content that goes into more depth and as such this should be mentioned later. Criticisms often presents sound bite type contents that build together to produce a good outsiders picture of what's happening. Criticisms deal with things like that they commit war crimes, that they have human rights abuses, they are considered "outsiders" of Islam, that they kill lots of prisoners, that their name as "Islamic State" is widely rejected both by governments and especially within Islam, that they are described as a death cult, that they are mocked, that they are judged to have human rights abuses, that they are judged to be guilty of war crimes, that they persecute minorities - a whole load of minorities, that there have been massacres and that that they killed more than 1,000 civilians in 17 days, that there are sexual violence and slavery allegations, that there are RS stories of women being captured and raped, with women being treated like cattle and subjected to physical and sexual violence, that they are attacks on the press with reports that fighters have been given written direction to kill or capture journalists and that various nations and bodies call them terrorist. This is all prominent and newsworthy stuff. This is the material that should get top billing. People do not need to know the details of such things as the governance structures and finance arrangements to understand the more newsworthy stuff.

In comparison people may not need to be presented so quickly with details such as that of ideology or religious histories. Abuse such as in educational restriction and of mannequins needing to be covered are important details but these are details that are more relevant for later stages of the article. We don't immediately need to know that the judges are Saudi or that "ISIL released 16 notes labeled "Contract of the City", a set of rules aimed at civilians". OK the information on Propaganda and beheadings is worthy note but they are also commented on in criticism. Lastly the reader may not immediately need details on finances and hardware.

The most newsworthy material is the criticisms related content. This should be mentioned first. In comparison we should not start by talking about admin. This is not how RS work. Gregkaye ✍♪ 21:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

It is "not how RS work", but encyclopaedias do not behave like RS, or focus on the "newsworthy", they have a quite different set of priorities. This article should not be turned into the equivalent of a series of media reports; this not what encylopaedias do.

1. Wiki article: "Encyclopaedia": An encyclopedia ... is a type of reference work or compendium holding a comprehensive summary of information ...enyclopedia articles focus on factual information to cover the thing or concept for which the article name stands.
2. Oxford English Dictionary: "Encyclopaedia": A book or set of books giving information on many subjects or on many aspects of one subject ..."

Dull perhaps, and not as exciting as media reports, but this is what a Wikipedia article is: first and foremost a factual account of the subject.. Not to mention the point that reading criticism before it is known what the criticism is of is illogical. Readers go to Wikipedia primarily to learn about the facts of a subject. Putting "Criticism" first assumes that the reader already knows quite a lot about the facts. A Wikipedia article is not a polemic or a series of opinion pieces, its first aim is to deal with the basic facts about the subject. The whole "Criticism" stance of this reorganisation is not neutral, as an encylopaedia article should be and it flouts WP:NPOV, yet again, IMO. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 22:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• Just to clarify, the word "Criticism" suggests an attitude of mind. WP should have no mind of its own, its stance should be neutral. That is what I meant by flouting WP:NPOV, the "neutral point of view" standpoint which WP has to adhere to. Maybe this is just a semantic quibble at this stage, but I suggest the word "Criticism" in any heading should be used with caution. ~ P123ct1 (talk)

P123ct1, MOS:HEADINGS states, "The provisions in § Article titles.. generally apply to section headings as well.." WP:AT presents the basic principle, "The title indicates what the article is about." The word "Criticism" suggests a level of involvement that can range from constructive criticism to more derogatory forms of destructive criticism. No attitude of mind is suggested other than an engagement in analysis. However, when we check the content of the "Criticism" section we find a high content of outright condemnation accompanied with accompanying comment. Even amongst the fatwas and other Islamic documents I have seen little evidence of constructive criticism. There may be contents which in Wikipedia terms might be defined as AGF but all contents are consistently strongly worded. As far as I can see a use of the word "Criticism" in this context is very comfortably on the mild side of a NPOV. It doesn't really cover the extensive condemnatory content and yet, in other respects, it still provides a good, reasonably accurate and encyclopaedic coverage of the topic. Your suggestion is fine but any title applied to a title or heading must be representative of content.

I object to your use of an uncited insinuation that content in the article "yet again" flouts NPOV. If article content has flouted NPOV a variety of directions of abuse are equally possible. Gregkaye ✍♪ 18:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I clarified. My point has clearly eluded you. I did not say the content flouts NPOV, I said the stance did. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 19:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Good. The section could use much stronger phrasing in the section header and still be ok.Legacypac (talk) 20:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Please see #"Diktat" in the Talk page, where my argument over titles was basically the same.~ P123ct1 (talk) 21:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes please see: Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/Archive_18#Diktats (now archived since last edit by P123ct1). While people may naturally and fairly express POV in a talk page environment it should be clearly noted that this thread involved what can only be described as POV push for a change in article presentation. In reply to my reference to call a spade a spade, you even claimed "Calling a spade a spade is not what WP does". This is exactly what Wikipedia does. See: Spade. We have to give accurately descriptive titles to content for all the guidelines based reasons as presented above. Not doing so would be unencyclopaedic and flout principles of NPOV. I am all for the fair explanation of words and content (and am grateful for your support in this) but all content needs to be presented fairly. That's what Wikipedia does. Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I was concerned that "Diktat" and "Criticisms" (as the main heading for the section) were not neutral titles and demonized ISIL from the outset which to me shows POV. Have neutral titles and let the facts speak for themselves, as they do in both sections. The overwhelming impression left by strong titles like this is that WP is very against ISIL, when it should not show any point of view. That is what I meant by POV. There is no watering down of the truth by having a neutral title, as, once again, the facts beneath those titles speak for themselves. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 09:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

[Above content is placed out of chronological sequence]

The sequence as presented by Legacypac above is logical. Section one describes the History of the group and its intermittent expansion across territory. Section two can then fairly give details on the very apparent methods used related to this expansion. Section three can then take a look at the more detailed functional details of the organisation and this section finishes with first financial details and then a run down on military equipment. This serves as a very suitable introduction to sections four and five which cover content on opposition and support. Its a logical sequence for the presentation of information. The sequence of sections two and three is logical. It presents what they do and how they do it. Gregkaye ✍♪ 23:46, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with P123ct1, to me it seems logical to have the groups history, actions, ideology etc. before criticism, which is essentially reactive in that it consists of responses by outside sources to the group. Gazkthul (talk) 00:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

First someone already moved "4 Group characteristics and structure" into Section 2 pushing the other sections down. This is a strange case where the organization is all about the stuff they are being criticised for that section is where most of the hard facts about the group are. The Group Characteristics and Structure is a collection of other material full of speculation and hard to prove stuff because they are so opaque. We could consider relabeling Criticisms as Activities - but I don't see the point.

Compare to an article on the polar opposite Red Cross

1. History of Movement,
2. Activities, including

2.1 Organization of the Movement

2.2 Fundamental Principles of the International Red cross and Red Crescent Movement

2.3 Activities and organization

1. History of the emblems,
2. 1996 hostage crisis allegations (ie criticism)

Legacypac (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Gazkthul The history section does comes first. The groups most notable actions are the ones that are addressed in the criticisms section. They are the actions being criticised. The Criticisms section hardly directly relates to much of the content of ideology, it doesn't relate to goals or leadership and governmental structures, it doesn't overlap with content on issues such as the removal of aspects of curriculum or restrictions on clothing, it has nothing to do with use of a certain flag, packaging and branding, content in criticisms related to beheadings has a stand alone content and the criticisms has nothing to do with details of the groups financial arrangements or even the fact that the group has weapons. The criticisms section is a stand alone section that discusses largely what the group is doing with these weapons and peoples reactions to the related atrocities. As already stated the section on history does come first so that should not be in your argument. The groups most notable actions are directly discussed in criticisms. They are the things being criticised. On the topic of characteristics I am sure that if we asked what are the things that characterise ISIL many people would very regularly comment on the way that they try to go into places and kill people killing prisoners and that they are characterised by many of the many of the prominent issues mentioned in the news. Yours is the push of POV to say that a whole range of administerial details should be presented before more notable aspects of content. Within the context of the new clearer presentation of the TOC it is even more possible than it was in the past for a reader who wants to locate specific content to follow navigation to it. The arguments presented for departing from Legacypac's sequencing, when considered more closely, makes no sense. Gregkaye ✍♪ 05:06, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

History actually details who the group is and many of their major activities, but so does Criticism (as Gregkeye says). It is the most appropriate followup section. I'd suggest a little reordering to get the Human rights abuses closer to the History since they are the main place we detail this activity.

Current: 2 Criticism (as now organized)

2.1 Islamic criticism

2.2 Criticism for use of the name "Islamic State"

2.3 Other international criticism

2.4 Human rights abuses

2.4.1 War crimes accusations and findings

2.4.2 Religious and minority group persecution

2.4.3 Treatment of civilians

2.4.4 Sexual violence and slavery allegations

2.4.5 Attacks on members of the press

2.5 Designation as a terrorist organization

Proposed: 2 Criticism

2.1 Human rights abuses

2.1.1 War crimes accusations and findings

2.2.2 Religious and minority group persecution

2.3.3 Treatment of civilians

2.4.4 Sexual violence and slavery allegations

2.5.5 Attacks on members of the press

2.2 Islamic criticism

2.3 Criticism for use of the name "Islamic State"

2.4 Other international criticism

2.5 Designation as a terrorist organization

Legacypac (talk) 01:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support proposed order for this section, but I still think "Group characteristcs and structure" should come before "Criticisms". ~ P123ct1 (talk) 08:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
• I also agree with the logic of the presentation above as the human rights abuses gives an appropriate run through of the relevant issues involved. I think that it is important to note that, "Religious ... persecution", "Treatment of civilians" and "War crimes accusations" largely relates to the persecution of both Sh'ia Muslims and Sunni Muslims that have opposed 'SIL's extremist line. Everything here relates to the actions of a group that claims authority over Islam and, in this context, Islamic criticism should be the next thing being specifically mentioned.

If we look beyond titles and look at the actual content of the sections "Criticisms" and "Group characteristics and structure" then, for all of the reasons presented above, the content of the criticisms section, title included, should come first. Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac, P123ct1 not wanting to cut off discussion re the above but  Done discussion can continue to see if a revert/adaptation is necessary. Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

[Comment above placed out of chronological sequence]

I am less convinced by the idea that the section "Countries and groups at war with ISIL" should go before the description of 'SIL's "Military and arms" as presented at the end of "Group characteristcs and structure" or that the "Countries and groups at war.." section should be split from the section on "Supporters". I see a logic in this section following "Designation as a terrorist organization" but don't consider this to be sufficient to justify such a move. Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

(moved from a new section started) Current order of sections is not suitable. We'd better put introductory sections (such as Group characteristics and structure) first, then we might have sections such as criticism and etc. I edited based on this idea, but it was reverted every time. Mhhossein (talk) 07:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

In the interest of keeping each topic together on a long talk page Mhhossein I'm moving your comment into the section of the talk page dealing with this topic. Please read this section carefully and then provide your input if you still feel the same. Thanks.Legacypac (talk) 08:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

@Legacypac, P123ct1, Gazkthul, and Gregkaye: I read the above stuff. I believe that it is not logical to have an introductory section such as "Group characteristics and structure" after "Criticism". I'm in favor of moving "Group characteristics and structure" so that it is before "Criticism". In such an encyclopedic article we don't care how newsworthy a section is. Our job is to reflect the facts based on the reliable sources. The readers should get familiar with the group before reading the criticisms about it. Mhhossein (talk) 05:24, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Mhhossein I think that everyone here agrees that it is our job to reflect the facts based on the reliable sources. It is also our job to present actual content in an order that meets readers needs and yes we do take our lead from the most reliable sources. The way reliable sources typically work is to start with basic and prominently noticeable information about a group and then go on to explain the detail. The title "criticism" has also been called into question but this section's content logically comes first. It essentially describes the main things that the group are known for and presents the widespread and well noted condemnation of these actions. The article starts with a long section on the history of the group detailing its actions. The next logical thing to present is international and other responses to these actions. It would make no sense to disrupt this flow with details on things such as structures, finances and logistics. Gregkaye ✍♪ 05:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

@Gregkaye: Of course we don't care how "reliable sources typically work"! This is an encyclopedia, not a reliable source. Recognizing how an encyclopedia works will help the editors edit it correctly. Again I repeat, we don't care how newsworthy a section is!. It is not logical at all. I think we should act based on this procedure: 1-Describe who the group is! 2- Explain other details about this group and say how other people think about ISIS. Mhhossein (talk) 18:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

To use the Red Cross article example, the main stuff they do comes before minor criticism at the end, but here the main stuff isil does is headed criticisms. We don't just say they are terrorists, but we need to show the designations high in the article. Also a lot of the structure stuff below is thinly sourced and speculation, while the human rights abuses are heavily sourced. We used to have 18 headings, including a short Criticism section but now we grouped all the stuff that is related together- if someone has a better heading name make a suggestion. Legacypac (talk) 06:23, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Mhhossein I would imagine that you will be pleased with the new structure of the article. In this the section that covers the most prominent issues of the group, the ones they are mainly criticised for, comes after an newly formatted "Group operations, characteristics and structure" section. The pedantic finance and similar content has been split to rightly appear at a later point in the article. There was no way that the criticisms section was going to appear after that. Gregkaye ✍♪ 18:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

@Gregkaye: Thank you. It is too much better now. Mhhossein (talk) 03:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

reintroduction of material twice reverting my edits

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.

---

LightandDark2000 has twice put in material in the Supporters section Once by dropping in material I moved (which I reverted assuming he did not realize where it went and immediately reached out on his talk page) and now by reverting my reversion of his edit. That crosses the 1RR line so I've requested he revert himself and come here to discuss his concerns. As state in my edit summay and his talk page I believe the "Supporters: remove material reinserted in error by LightandDark2000. This info was not deleted earlier, it was moved to and summarized in Section 2.6 Military and arms with details in Military of ISIL)]])" Legacypac (talk) 04:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• I think this is the edit "requested" from above accessed through history. Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The list of groups pledging in can be found here and summarized here so we don't need it here anymore. And if the fighters joined ISIL why would we list them as Supporters. If we are going to list these 5 or 6 groups we should list all the dozens of groups in Iraq and Syria that joined ISIL, sometimes a 1000 at a time. Legacypac (talk) 04:50, 24 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.

• Related request, Can editors please check the article to see if information already exists in the article or related content before adding. If you think that content deserves repetition can editors please consider making related proposals on the talk page or otherwise make notification here. Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
• Copy-editing new edits shows that editors usually do not read the surrounding text before making them. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 09:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

List of Countries controlled by ISIS

It is mentioned that part of India is controlled by ISIS, which is not true. Can anyone remove it?

In the first part of the lead and infobox- will delete that fiction. Legacypac (talk) 18:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Propaganda and perspective

Article content should accurately report on the wholly unjustified inter-Muslim/inter-faith conflict currently occurring in Iraq and Syria. This conflict should be fairly presented as should the relative status levels and backgrounds of any of the groups involved. It is only right that the truth of the nature of this sectarian warfare be clearly presented.

On the other side of this same issue there should not be attempts to highlight western involvements in ways that go beyond the actual realities in Iraq and Syria. In other articles I have seen a rhetorical repetition of the terms American and U.S. in a way that, amongst other things, might well leave us other coalition member states (and the government of Syria etc.) feeling left out. It has been common in various places in various articles to talk of Assad, of al-Maliki and of U.S President Barack Obama as following mention of the U.S.-led coalition and other U.S. related references. While I think that it is fair for all groups that have intervened in the region to be fairly accountable for their actions it often seems that some editors take every turn to place a U.S. centric spin on local issues. I think that the thread above on Israel indicates a gratuitous act by some journalists to indicate a sensationalist involvement of Israel whose headline may have shifted a few more copies of the paper. Closer to home I don't think that a gratuitous emphasis of U.S. involvement should be tolerated. I have attempted to balance this out where I have been able and hope that other editors can also be watchful.

References in articles to local groups are a cause for concern. In the references such as in the timeline article I seen can talk about ISIL and rebel groups. I think that it may even be proposed that 'SIL is about as rebellious a group as it is possible to get. It has rebels against local governments, it has rebelled against and has separated from al-Qaeda and it arguable that the extremity of many of its actions constitute a rebellion against a great many purported authorities of Islam.

Terminologies we might use could include "other rebel groups" or perhaps we could talk of the "ISIL separatists" in comparison to "rebel groups" or rebels. Better still perhaps we can name the other groups and state something on their ideologies. Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment: the article is written in marked American English, which perhaps is indicative of something. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 09:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Don't the other rebel groups generally have their own articles that cover their ideologies? Why muddy up this article with details like that?

Agreed, and I cannot understand why there is now a detailed paragraph at the beginning of "Analysis" on the Sunni-Shia conflict which does not mention ISIL at all. Why should this article report on that, as suggested above, when this article is about ISIL? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 12:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 I would be happy for the whole paragraph to either stay or go. The previous state of that content was to take a quote regarding an Analysis of the complex lead up to the current conflict so as to only include the element that placed the whole blame on the Americans. It was a gross misrepresentation of content. So should it stay or should it go? Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

ISIL uses Sunni-Shite conflict as justification for atrocities, but that is about all we need to say on the topic, maybe wikilinked to the an appropriate article. This is not stated in the article now, but they built a big force by paying better (defections) negotiating friendly mergers, recruiting foreign fighters, and intimidation both of individuals (fight for us or we kill you and family) and groups (public beheadings etc). Legacypac (talk) 17:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Original had: "Analysts have underlined the deliberate inflammation of sectarian conflict between Iraqi Shias and Sunnis during the Iraq War by various Sunni and Shia players as the root cause of ISIL's rise. [REASON 1] The post-invasion policies of the international coalition forces have also been cited as a factor, with Fanar Haddad, a research fellow at the National University of Singapore's Middle East Institute, blaming the coalition forces during the Iraq War for "enshrining identity politics as the key marker of Iraqi politics [REASON TWO]". No anti-US bias that I can see. Only bias is in the language used, "blaming". That could have been eliminated in this way: "Fanar Haddad, a research fellow at the National University of Singapore's Middle East Institute, for example, viewed the coalition forces during the Iraq War as "enshrining identity politics as the key marker of Iraqi politics"." or some such wording. But as there is no citation for "Analysts have underlined", and that whole para is so badly worded and woolly anyway, probably best to drop it completely. Reading it is like peering through mist, IMO. I don't think there is any need for a substitute like Gregkaye's, as it doesn't mention ISIL. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 17:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC).

"ISIL uses Sunni-Shite conflict as justification for atrocities" is interpretation and just a point of view. That argument could not be used by WP (it would be WP:OR), but it could if someone else had said it. Then it would be a report of an interpretation, and thus not fall foul of WP:NPOV. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Ya of course we would need to source this as it sounds like opinion, but its true. Legacypac (talk) 20:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

As for the Syrian Govt and other Syrian rebels being left out - they have their own Syrian Civil War set of articles for coverage.

Fine, if there are some RSs which say this. But I think even with RSs it would still be opinion. [Redacted last comment] ~ P123ct1 (talk) 20:52, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

back on "propaganda" In the timeline document there was another text example contrasting, "unite several hard-line groups" and "other moderate Syrian Rebel groups". What makes the hard-liners to be hard-liners but the moderates to be rebels? It's difficult to know the politics of each of the many groups out there but, as far as I have been able to understand, it's the hard-liners that have been the groups that have rebelled against the the Syrian and Iraqi regimes. In the articles, however, it is POV to differentiate between the groups. Gregkaye ✍♪ 21:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)