Wikipedia

Talk:Islamic State/Archive 20

< Talk:Islamic State
(Redirected from Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/Archive 20)
Latest comment: 9 years ago by Signedzzz in topic Lead section
Archive 15 ← Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 → Archive 25

Removing material from lead: detailed rationale

Latest comment: 9 years ago46 comments5 people in discussion
Removing unencyclopaedic material from lead: detailed rationale
editor will stay off article Legacypac (talk)
  • "Original aim" is according to US intelligence: this needs to be stated. It's controversial to treat US intelligence as a fool-proof RS.
No, it is according to AQI themselves. Legacypac (talk) 06:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Then the source is wrong. A different source should be used, clearly. zzz (talk) 07:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Have you read the history section that this summarizes? Legacypac (talk) 08:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry if we don't take your word for it but you are the one who has to prove the source is wrong. - Myopia123 (talk) 18:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Sunni majority (areas of Syria) is not in the reference, and highly debatable
Clearly they focus on Sunni majority areas - they are a Sunni group. A basic understanding of the conflict confirms this as fact. Legacypac (talk) 06:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Again, why does the source not back you up? ("Focus on" isn't there; you'd still need a source) zzz (talk) 07:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't know what the source closest to that long standing, easily verifiable statement says. [1] Legacypac (talk) 08:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "The group's chief spokesman declared the "restoration of the caliphate"" (new version). This is exactly what happened, according to the source. It used to say "It then proclaimed a worldwide caliphate" which is no doubt intended to mean the same thing, but it is much less clear, and questionable grammatically (awkward/incorrect use of the verb "proclaim"), and also the phrase "worldwide caliphate" was not used, so it is best to just wikilink it if it is used here.
Nonsense and a change to heavily discussed consensus wording.Legacypac (talk) 06:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Yet again, the source disagrees with you. zzz (talk) 07:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
See the article, stop looking at just one source. Sources get deleted in the lead all the time-some editors would love no sources in the lead. Legacypac (talk) 08:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
What you apparently don't understand is, if a source refutes what is said, it doesn't matter if other sources don't refute it - it's still wrong to state it categorically - especially in the lead. zzz (talk) 08:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "aims to bring most traditionally Muslim-inhabited regions of the world under its legislative control". This is a strangely specifically worded claim, eg:
    • why "most" - not all?
    • why "legislative"?
    • In fact, different sources will give very different versions of the phrase (or no version). Removed as controversial/misleading and inaccurate.
More nonsense and a deletion of carefully negotiated wording summarizing the article contents.Legacypac (talk) 06:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Accuracy should not be sacrificed just in order to summarise the article better. It shouldn't need to be, in any case. zzz (talk) 07:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
No accuracy is achieved by allowing deletion of any reference to the groups worldwide aspiration. See below where there is discussion of tightening the sentence but not deleting it. Legacypac (talk) 08:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "The group was designated as a terrorist organization in 2004 by the United Nations, the European Union and the United States, and several other states eventually followed suit." This summarises the section of the article: previously it listed all the countries. I think lists should be avoided - that is what the section in the article is for.
Appearently WP custom is to list out the designations in order. Legacypac (talk) 06:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "The United Nations and many others have accused the group of human rights abuses; Amnesty International has accused it of ethnic cleansing on a "historic scale"." (New version)
  • "The United Nations and Amnesty International have accused the group of grave human rights abuses, and Amnesty International has found it guilty of ethnic cleansing on a "historic scale". The group's actions, authority and theological interpretations have been widely criticized around the world and notably within the Muslim community." (old version).
    • "UN and AI have accused the group": this gives the impression that other NGOs, or whoever else, haven't done the same.
It does not give any such ridiculous impression about other NGOs - just says which bodies said what. Legacypac (talk) 06:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Ridiculous? I stand by it. It's definitely a bit ambiguous - which isn't ideal. zzz (talk) 07:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
    • "theological interpretations" - It is obvious that any particular "theological interpretation" is going to be widely criticised. This is not covered by a section of the article, so the statement is not summarising anything, making it extremely difficult, and unnecessary, to make a worthwhile statement. The article doesn't discuss their theological interpretations.
Yes the article covers their beliefs extensively, and mainstream reaction and condemnation. Legacypac (talk) 06:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Not "theological interpretations," though. zzz (talk) 07:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Beliefs = "theological interpretations" especially since ISIL's take on Islam is widely rejected by other muslims.Legacypac (talk) 08:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
    • "The group's authority was widely criticised" - unclear what "the group's authority" is
ISIL's... Legacypac (talk) 06:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
...authority? I'm not sure what is meant by this. zzz (talk) 08:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
the sentence uses English while trying to reduce saying ISIL every fifth word.Legacypac (talk) 08:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
    • "notably within the Muslim community" - obviously, a purely subjective, unencyclopaedic, judgement of notability
untrue, and a reversion of heavily discussed wording. Makes it look like the editor never looked at the talk page.Legacypac (talk) 06:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
It was discussed, yes, but that doesn't change the fact: it's still subjective opinion, just more than one person's. zzz (talk) 07:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
That is your opinion about a verified fact. Legacypac (talk) 08:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I also removed al-Baghdadi's "also known as" name (not a crucial point for the lead section, imo).
no comment Legacypac (talk) 06:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I think clearing out all the vague, unnecessary or misleading statements - some of which shouldn't be in the article at all, let alone in the lead - makes the rest much clearer. zzz (talk) 03:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

This view is clearly against the concensus of the dozens of editors actively editing this high traffic article. Legacypac (talk) 06:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I just reverted these changes to the Lead. Original Diff which include the changes (and more) this editor [edit warred over] against consensus. That behavior lead to a 48 hour block that just expired, and this gutting of the lead is their first edit after the block. So it seems nothing was learned. I've add comments indented point by point but note and refer editors to Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#Can_you_please_revert_your_edit long discussion There may be some merit to parts of these changes, but on balance they are not good, and if they are any good they need to be discussed first. I will be seeking additional sanctions now. Legacypac (talk) 06:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The proposals seem broadly sensible.
Clarification may be necessary that they are a Sunni group in Sunni majority areas. They are following clear policies of discrimination and persecution against other elements in the population and this may be rightly highlighted.
I think we should be careful regarding presentation of any declaration of caliphate which should remain in the context of the overwhelming voice of Muslim speakers that the group don't represent Islam.
I seems good to change "aims to bring most traditionally Muslim-inhabited regions of the world under its legislative control" to "aims to bring traditionally Muslim-inhabited regions of the world under its control" and I would like to see if there are any objections to this. At first sight this seems to be a worthy clarification while giving the text a shorter and more pithy content.
I would use: "The group has been designated as a terrorist organization by the United Nations, the European Union, and several individual nations". The nations did not follow the European Union. The UK "proscribed" them as terrorist before anyone else.
Agree with "The United Nations and many others have accused the group of human rights abuses; Amnesty International has accused it of ethnic cleansing on a "historic scale"."
I agree that "notably within the Muslim community" is non-specific in that it presents no reference to the substantial specific criticism of Muslims that the group does not represent Islam.
These suggestions generally seem to present positive contributions to the article. Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
The reason for the roll back was mainly deletion of text that was already rejected as inappropriate deletions. There are some good ideas here as I said.
I also agree to changing "aims to bring most traditionally Muslim-inhabited regions of the world under its legislative control" to "aims to bring traditionally Muslim-inhabited regions of the world under its control" as it is more concise and reflects political and religious power.
I tried a similar sentence on the terrorist designation country list a while back it was quickly rejected. The rational is we always list the countries out. I don't know if that is true. Legacypac (talk) 07:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree "the Muslim community" would be fine if it actually said anything about said community. Here's the actual page with the paragraphs [2]. It's always possible I went a bit too far, of course, but those last 2 paras definitely needed some tidying up. zzz (talk) 08:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

When criticizing the Lead, the Lead has to be looked at in the context of the whole article, of which it is a summary. I get the impression this editor hasn't read the article. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 10:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Legacypac, regarding your statement about this. My thinking is that as a group with no legitimate claim to its land ISIL cannot have a capital. I am also looking to put a terrorism reference in "Status" in the first infobox. As I just mentioned to P123.. Tthere is no citable designation of ISIL being an "Unrecognised state" as per news (isil or isis or daesh or "islamic state") and "unrecognised state" or any kind of state. They are a group as has been very well described as "controlling territory". Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Correct - not a state so can't have a capital. It has a Headquarters. As a passport stamp collector and geography enthusiast I know a LOT about these things. The most authoritative list of what are unique countries, quasi-countries, autonomous regions and dependant territories is http://mosttraveledpeople.com/ The list is assembled from UN lists etc and then members vote on any additions and deletion at the world changes. Syria is just Syria. Iraq and Iraqi Kurdistan (because its autonomous) are listed as the divisions of Iraqi. Plenty of stable non-countries like Somaliland are listed. Legacypac (talk) 22:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Motion: User:Signedzzz should read the article in it's entirety, going through each source in detail before proposing any more changes. What do other editors think? - Myopia123 (talk) 18:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

A good editor would have done that naturally. A good editor would know that a Lead summarises an article. I am astounded this wasn't done doesn't seem to have been done. He has made many bloomers from not doing that first. I support the motion. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 20:37, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I'll support that motion. Few editors would gut the lead without even an edit or any evidence of understanding a long article. Legacypac (talk) 22:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Collapse of previous thread

I do not agree with collapsing this thread. It gives a bad impression. It looks like censorship and could be seen as justifying the claim made by the outside editor concerned that there is indeed a clique of editors on this page that will resist outsiders contributing to it. Not all the edits made by this editor were bad and gave some food for thought in some instances, IMO. Particularly concerning is that it is not possible to call up this thread from the TOC. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 18:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I was just trying to shorten this beast of a talk page. The editor was not blocked because he said he was no longer going to edit this page. Since the thread is largely about that editor's actions, it should be hidden as a courtesy to them, just like the previous thread was concerning the same editor's actions. Legacypac (talk) 20:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Mon oeil. I cannot see how it is a courtesy. More of an embarrassment for some editors, IMO. Did you or someone else collapse the first thread concerning Signedzzz? You have collapsed the thread on "Diktats". What was the reason for singling that one out? It is far shorter than many. The way to shorten the Talk page is to archive, not collapse threads.. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 21:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Gregkaye collapsed the other zzz thread - I am just following his lead. Someone also collapsed the currency thread. I collapsed Diktats because the discussion was concluded and the word stands. Let the bot archive in time - collapsing leaves the info here for now in case anyone wants to comment on the threads before they are archived for inactivity. If someone does want to reopen the discussion they can uncollapse easily. I am already enjoying an improvement in the ability to scroll and find stuff due to the collapses. However, if you spend too much space debating housekeeping the benefits of housekeeping will be canceled out. Legacypac (talk) 21:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
In other words, your housekeeping efforts must not be questioned by another editor. Got it. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 22:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I never said that, but I do not like untrue motive ascribed to my good faith efforts to keep this talk page functional. Legacypac (talk) 00:17, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Your collapsing looked selective. Most threads uncollapsed now, per PBS Talk page, "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant", for the sake of transparency on the Talk page. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 09:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Shortening the article: homework for us all

Latest comment: 9 years ago17 comments5 people in discussion

As said by several people, and probably felt by even more (and perhaps also contradicted by others…): the article ‘Islamic State’ is too long: some 213k today. (This excessive length was the prime reason why we had to discuss, above, ‘scrapping timeline from main article’.) For example Technophant wrote there, about that length problem, on 6 November,04:54: “…There's been a proposal to start a separate article for Human Rights abuses…”
My impression is that many of our 15 sections are rather long. In some cases they may be shortened by making use of a subarticle: ‘Human rights abuses’ is perhaps a good example for that. Also in some cases,I think that the text can be slimmed down even without using a subarticle, just be throwing out off-topic stuff, or rewriting more concisely. I exhort all of us, if we can spare some time, to shorten one, or several, of the sections. And advise all others, to give each other a fair chance at shortening, not immediately grimly reverting such an effort if such effort was made with good intentions and need only some further fine tuning. Corriebertus (talk) 14:07, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree, I am going to be trying to shorten some of the repetitive and extraneous info on this page, hopefully it isn't reverted if people disagree with it. Gazkthul (talk) 00:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
There is very little repetitive info here. Discuss and get consensus first and there will be no problem.
I think a better plan is to divide off sections into other detailed articles. Therefore I propose:

1. Trim https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#Military_and_arms down to a couple sentences since it has its own article and most of the verbage is here. (DONE)

Agreed ~ P123ct1 (talk) 11:52, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

2. Create Finances of ISIL and move this article length section over, leaving max 1 paragraph here.

Oppose - readers will be interested in this. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 11:52, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

3. Create Notable ISIL members and move the list there. Leave only first 5 names and a See Notable ISIL members link. This cuts all the junior guys and dead guys out of the main article leaving the leader, 2 deputies, spokesman and top general. (DONE)

Agreed ~ P123ct1 (talk) 11:52, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

4. Moved the Support-Turkey(Alleged) section leaving link to the Turkey-ISIL article and a couple summary sentences. (DONE)

Agreed ~ P123ct1 (talk) 11:52, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I had to do this again... Legacypac (talk) 19:24, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Anyone want to comment? Legacypac (talk) 02:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

If anything is being split it should be Criticism of ISIL, since it's basically paragraphs of "ISIL has been criticised by A, ISIL has been criticised by B, ISIL has been criticised by C", it seems ripe for summary/split to me. The Military and especially Finances sections have interesting information in an academic sense. Gazkthul (talk) 02:51, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Agreed - Finance section is excellent and will make a great standalone article. Legacypac (talk) 03:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • As it stands now, the article is 180.5K (without the timeline which is 26K). This is after Legacypac's trimming mentioned above. The article should be no more than 100K according to WP:SIZE here. I don't agree with removing the "Names" subsection (8.5K) as readers will need some sort of guide to the many different names which are quite confusing, and it gets across the idea that this group though formed in 1999 is still essentially the same group, which is less easy to grasp from reading the "History" section on its own; however, the description in "Names" could be pared down. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 11:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • It has now reached 209.5K, just five days later. I don't think editors are serious about wanting to reduce the article's size. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 10:16, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
And the talk page is now 305,357 bytes but when a couple editors try to do some housekeeping... one editor assumes bad faith and reverts it all. Trying to do my part to section stuff into other articles because that it the only way we are going to keep this manageable. Legacypac (talk) 10:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • International condemnation of this group is one of its major characteristics and simply cannot be ignored by this article. The "Criticism" section should therefore not be split off into an article of its own, IMO (it is too short for that anyway, I would have thought). ~ P123ct1 (talk) 14:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • WP:SIZE has a section, no need for haste, that says some articles need to be longer. There are so many important dimensions that are worth mentioning in the main article on ISIL. However, we might want to reconsider the French Wikipedia model where ISIL, the group, and IS, the de facto state, have separate articles. Details like governance, finance, and perhaps others could be detailed in the IS article. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

5. I shifted out detailed info on Beheadings and (Again) trimmed Alleged Turkish Support text that is already in the sub articles - the article has not been this short since yesterday! seriously we need to be willing to further break this article up. Finance section next? Legacypac (talk) 19:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

6. Combined Goals and Territory controlled sections due to overlapping content and shifted detailed content to ISIL territorial claims Legacypac (talk) 21:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Should we add this line to the lead

Latest comment: 9 years ago49 comments10 people in discussion
See previous discussion: Archive 14#Should "Criticism should on the criticism section, not on the Lead"?

Muslims have criticized ISIL’s actions, authority and theological interpretations, and some Islamic scholars have declared ISIS to be Khawarij.[1][2] Mohammed al-Bukhari (talk) 18:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference theglobeandmail.com was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ "Over 120 Muslim scholars reject IS ideology". The News. 2014-09-26. Retrieved 2014-10-23.
  • I agree about including the first half of the sentence, but what will "some Islamic scholars have declared ISIS to be Khawarij" mean to the uninformed Wikipedia reader? There is a citation, but do editors seriously expect readers to wade through that long article to find out exactly why they are regarded as Khawarij, and how it is a criticism? The statement carries no meaning on its own, unlike the first half of the sentence. --P123ct1 (talk) 12:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I also agree with the 1st half and I'd say "Some Muslims have ..." There are just too few articles on the variety of Islamic critique. I added one from the Economist a few months back. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with "Some Muslims have ...". Also, what about "... claims religious authority over all Muslims ..."? Surely not over Shia Muslims? How should this be worded? --P123ct1 (talk) 14:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The criticism on the lead, if stated there, should be general, not particular or partial. So we should not single out Muslims, Christians, Jews or any other group. So in order to keep this article clean and arranged, I suggest to put general criticism on the lead, if we put it there at all, on a new paragraph, as mixing ordinary criticism with designations as a terror organizations is a mess. I suggest to put "ISIL’s actions, authority and theological interpretations have been widely criticized around the world," as it is neutral, general and doesn't single out anyone. But I keep thinking that criticism should not be on the lead, as it's not an important part of the article. It's pretty obvious that this group has been widely criticized. Also, criticism is never stated on the lead on similar articles, such as Al-Qaeda's. So I don't think why should it be on the lead on this article. Felino123 (talk) 16:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Felino123 what policy do you base this on? Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Criticisms fall naturally with terrorist designations and the UN'S and Amnesty International's condemnations, IMO I also think the Muslim condemnation of this group is a pretty major factor which deserves singling out. --P123ct1 (talk) 16:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Terrorist designations and human rights reports have nothing to do with religious or ordinary criticism; this is obvious. To mix these different things is to make this article a mess. Also, we should not discriminate between Muslims and non-Muslims, so if we state it criticism on the lead (although I think it should not be there, and it's not on similar articles) it should be neutral and not partial or particular. Opinions we agree with are not above other opinions. Felino123 (talk) 12:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • There needs to be consensus on how this particular sentence is worded, to prevent an edit-war developing. Please will other editors give their views on how it should be worded HERE! --P123ct1 (talk)


  • I agree with Felino123's comment that there is no need for a criticism to appear in the lead, when there is a lengthy criticism section more suited for it. Gazkthul (talk) 04:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • This is the latest edit to that sentence, from Filino: "ISIL’s actions, authority and theological interpretations have been widely criticized around the world." That, especially isolated in its own para, is almost a non-statement. I suggest adding, "especially by Muslims". How on earth is stating that truth discriminatory? --P123ct1 (talk) 19:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Or phrase it "including within the Islamic community." There is also a great deal of support for ISIL or ISIL's brand of Islam from Muslims. As I mentioned before [3], a Saudi opinion poll says “92 percent of the target group believes that 'IS conforms to the values of Islam and Islamic law.” Tunisia sends thousands to fight in the IS. Muslims are not monolithic and we can’t attributed any opinion, good or bad, to Muslims as a whole. Jason from nyc (talk) 03:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Without researching the methodology of that alleged poll result, even if every single Sunni (the only religious group that could conceivable support them) man and woman in Saudi Arabia supported IS, it still wouldn't add up to 92% of the country. Gazkthul (talk) 04:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I am not imposing my point of view and I would never do. If I were, then I would remove all criticism from the lead. You said criticism should be on the lead, although I think it should not. So I clearly put criticism in the lead as you wanted, but of course this criticism should be fair and it should not single out any group or discriminate between groups. Adding "specially by Muslims" is discriminatory, as Muslims are not a monolithic bloc, and also there are many Muslims are supporting ISIS, as Jason from nyc stated. There are also many who don't. But all non-Muslims are against ISIL, so there are infinitely more reasons to add "specially between non-Muslims", as there is more non-Muslim opposition than Muslim overall. That's why I think criticism, if stated on the lead although in my opinion it shouldn't be, should not single out anyone or discriminate, but mention the overwhelming criticism of ISIL around the world. I agree with Gazkthul, criticism should not be on the lead. There's no criticism on the lead on Al Qaeda's article, or Taliban's article. This should not be different. Felino123 (talk) 09:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Felino123 What you may be doing here is highlighting a problem or deficiency in the Al Qaeda and Taliban articles. One of the most noted topics related to ISIL is the great swathe of international and cross cultural criticism that has been leveled against it. Criticism has even some of the most extreme sects associated with Islam. These criticisms should rightly be afforded their due weight in the WP:lead. Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I apologise for misrepresenting you, Felino123, I need to read more carefully. I have changed my mind and now agree with Felino and Gazkthul, that this last paragraph on criticism is best omitted from the Lead. The criticism is dealt with in the "Criticism" section, and I am still undecided, but the way it is worded now in the Lead is so anodyne that it doesn't mean much! What do you think, Jason from nyc and Gregkaye (about removing it altogether)? --P123ct1 (talk) 09:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • WP:LEAD asks for prominent controversies and I'm not sure why some other articles don't have it. I still think it should be in the lead but I agree that a single bland unqualified summation has limited value. Aside from mere labeling and name-calling, in-depth criticism (in the world) is in its infancy. To sum up the nature of that criticism (aside from saying there are condemnations) is problematic. I added a citation to an article from The Economist that mentions the variety of critics but that was so terse that it just isn't helpful. That's one of the reasons I haven't propose a better statement than what's in our lead. At least what's there tells the reader we have a criticism section and they will find the details there. I think we have to indicate that in the lead at a minimum. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Jason from nyc: In that case, how about adding to that sentence Felino's suggestion (though he is against having this para), "specially between Muslims" – or perhaps better, "especially among Muslims"? I remember that Economist article and it was unhelpful. If criticisms are to be mentioned in the Lead, adding "especially among Muslims" would makes the statement more meaningful. As it stands, it looks faintly comical, as if WP is saying that people are in favour of virtue and against vice! (That's assuming the general reader knows at least something about ISIL.) --P123ct1 (talk) 16:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • @Legacypac:? @Supersaiyen312:? @Wheels of Steel0:? @Technophant:? We need to get consensus on how this last Lead para on general criticism of ISIL should be worded. Should Muslim criticism be mentioned here as well or not? (See earlier for examples of wording on this.) Please give your view, if you have one. There is a link to related discussion at the head of this section. This has been debated for over a week, so it is time for a consensus decision one way or the other! --P123ct1 (talk) 15:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • ISIL claims to be practicing pure islam so the opinion of muslims is critically important and should be in the lead. I would not include the word Khawarij as it is not an English word (unlike jihad for example). Legacypac (talk) 16:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The Islamic criticisms of ISIL have been big news across the Media. When Cameron, Obama etc. speak about ISIL they often quote Muslim views. Muslims feel so strongly about criticising ISIL that they pay Youtube to play their critical videos. Campaigns like the notinmyname campaign have gained significant prominence. Gregkaye ✍♪ 20:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I partly agree with you, Legacypac. Criticism of IS by Muslims is important, but you guys already know my stance: criticism should not be on the lead, as it's not on the lead on similar articles (Al Qaeda's, Taliban...). I think it's necessary to point it out, but only on the criticism section. If we add criticism to the lead, I think it should not be partial or particular, but general, as IS has been widely criticized around the world by people of all religions and ideologies. I don't think it's ok to single out any group. And about the word Khawarij: it should not be included on the lead in any way, as it's not an English word and its meaning is not known by most people. Felino123 (talk) 11:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • It looks like we’re all struggling to qualify how criticism should be mentioned in the lead. Views have spanned all possibilities from no criticism (Felino123) to immediate criticism in the very 1st sentence next to defining words (Gregkaye and sometimes P123ct1). I held an intermediate position of summarizing Muslim criticism in general terms and got support from P123ct1. Felino123 wants it to be more general to include criticism by non-Muslims, and he/she has removed “Muslims” from the summational sentence. Gregkaye still wants mention of a particular group of Islamic scholars while I argue they don’t fully represent Muslims. Legacypac believes Muslim criticism should be mentioned. P123ct1 and I, however, that agree that specific mention of Islamic criticism is appropriate but without the implication that Muslims are monolithic and in agreement. That's how our differences look to me. I suggest we add to the end of the current sentence of criticism “by non-Muslims and within the Muslim community.” Thus we note that criticism isn’t just by Muslims (Felino123) but we note that Muslims have spoken out (everyone else) and we don’t imply that it is the whole Muslim community (P123ct1 and Jason). Jason from nyc (talk) 12:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I have been waiting for two three others I pinged to contribute before determining consensus, but so far it is five for and two against mentioning Muslims in that paragraph. (Felino123 and Gazkthul are against, though Felino123 seems prepared to make a concession with the right wording.) Jason from nyc has summed up the varying views accurately and I agree with his wording, "by non-Muslims and within the Muslim community". The statement needs to be as general as that, I think. --P123ct1 (talk) 13:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • It looks fine the way it is at the moment, but I do not see anything wrong with including criticism from either side. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 23:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I think the way it is as of right now (ISIL’s actions, authority and theological interpretations have been widely criticized around the world.) is good. I support a lean precise lead because there's plenty of detailed content below on whatever topic the reader want to know more about. I added this link to anchor here to help users find the section discussing criticism in more detail.~Technophant (talk) 01:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Corribertus: Do you want to add your view here? I know you have not been in the discussions on this, but you may want to contribute. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Can I remind editors that this whole debate started in an earlier thread which began:
"WP:LEAD makes it clear that "The lead should define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight." So, if criticism is trivial, it probably doesn't belong in the lead. If it not trivial, it does belong in the lead. It is certainly not true that as a general case "Criticism should on the criticism section, not on the Lead." ... Dougweller (talk) 13:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)"
  • Wikipedia has rules like this, MOS and several others that are followed. There are ways that Wikipedia does things. Can we also remember Wikipedia's principles in WP:CONSENSUS. Its the method used to achieve Wikipedia's goals. Gregkaye ✍♪ 00:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • It is now five for (six if Supersaiyen's view counts as "for") and three against (or two as Felino seems prepared to agree to a mention of Muslims). This looks like consensus to include wording on Muslims in the last Lead paragraph. Is "by non-Muslims and within the Muslim community" finally acceptable? (See last comment from Jason of nyc.) -P123ct1 (talk) 10:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree, let's put "by non-Muslims and within the Muslim community" on the last paragraph. Gregkaye has just put particular cases of criticism by Muslisms on the lead and before terror organization designations on the same paragraph. Has anyone agreed with this? We are discussing criticism on the lead here and now and we are reaching a consensus here. I have put criticism on the lead the way we all agree. Felino123 (talk) 11:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Felino123: Thanks. I think your edit wording reflects the majority view here, and thanks for being prepared to modify your early views in the interests of reaching consensus! P123ct1 (talk) 13:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Felino123 In cases where I have seen editor's add criticism from within Islamic communities they have put it first. Criticism within Islamic communities especially from within the same sects of Islam is, by definition, notable. If you are going to comment on me please ping me. Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:24, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
  • P123ct1 While I consider the reapplication of the removed mention of Islamic criticism to be a welcome step in the right direction, I still don't think that the present wording is representative. It presents Muslim and other criticism on the same level even though in many countries non-Muslim criticism may may be nothing new. It may simply be a repetition by local press outlets of previously compiled criticisms by International press agencies which can be staffed by people across all communities. A specification of criticism in the press or media certainly relation to criticism of ISIL's actions may be relevant. I don't know of any notable criticism of the authority and theological interpretations of ISIL that hasn't come from Muslim groups. People in various communities around the world do not define themselves as "non-Muslims" and I question the use of "non-Muslims" especially before "Muslims" are mentioned. Never-the-less I see no evidence that non-Muslim groups around the world have notably voiced criticism. The passionate criticism has come from the Muslim communities. Beyond governmental criticism this has been the independent criticism that has been most of note.
I suggest the use or development of a text such as: "ISIL’s actions, authority and theological interpretations have been widely criticized around the world within both Muslim and other communities."
Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Maybe other editors will comment. Too much time is being spent on word hair-splitting and the military section (which an editor has now suggested scrapping as there is already a large article on the 2014 military intervention) and not enough on cataloguing ISIL's human rights abuses and how they are governing their "caliphate", which is far more important, in my opinion. It is like looking at a monster and its outrageous behavior and worrying about what that monster should be called. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 10:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
  • What do editors think about Gregkaye's wording? Nothing is final yet. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 18:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Mohammed al-Bukhari: There was no consensus to add the part about Khawarij to that paragraph. Please bring your edit to this thread for editors to consider it and read here what editors have said about the wording of the paragraph. Please also see my very first comment here, that "Khawarij" stated barely like that will mean nothing to most readers. Also, this is a summary para, so individual criticisms can't be singled out. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 21:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC) [Revised comment] ~ P123ct1 (talk) 18:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I think it's great now. "Within both Islamic and other communities" doesn't sound well. The current phrase reflects the consensus reached by all editors, and there's no need to change it. Criticism from Muslims is important, and it's already noted on the lead and the criticism section. I have removed the "Khawarij" phrase as there has been no consensus, but opposition to it, and it's clearly pointed out on the criticism section, not to mention it's a non-English word that means nothing to the average reader. Felino123 (talk) 10:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Felino123 you have made it clear through both word and action that you want a general removal of criticism. I don't see how you can regard this as great. The suggestion has been added above: "Maybe other editors will comment". Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
    • No, Gregkaye, Felino did say in the thread above that he was prepared to make a concession and have some words of criticism in the Lead. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 16:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • My suggested wording is: "ISIL’s actions, authority and theological interpretations have been widely criticized around the world within both Muslim and other communities." I don't know any person who isn't a Muslim who defines themself as a non-Muslim. Beyond criticisms made by government officials (which are made with a context of national populations which may have Muslim components) the most notable criticisms have come from Muslims. Further more, when consideration is given to the size of Muslim populations in in comparison to the size of other populations combined, it is clear that the Muslim populations have been remarkably outspoken. Islamic criticisms have included video condemnations and theological theses. Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I have changed the wording to "... around the world and notably within the Muslim community". I have done this on the WP:BRD principle (bold-revert-discuss), partly to get editors to reach a definite conclusion on this. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 14:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  • P123ct1, TY. I've just had a look at the section on Criticisms. It starts with 23 words on the UN and Amnesty (which seems surprisingly short) and this is in a ~480 word section of text which almost entirely composed of Islamic related criticism. The presentation of "by non-Muslims and within the Muslim community" on the last paragraph is a gross misrepresentation of the actual situation for this reason and for others previously stated. As: Criticism Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:22, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Gregkaye: Much of the first para in "Criticism" (i.e. related to the UN and Amnesty) is dealt with in "Human rights abuses", so can't be repeated here. (Perhaps there should be anchor link from it to that section.) The Muslim criticism of the group is mportant enough to merit "notably" in the last Lead sentence, IMO. ~ 13:41, 7 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by P123ct1 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 7 November 2014
P123ct1 I think that some specific content, such as a reference to major contentions such as the use of the name might also be added. I think that this would also provide an explanation as to why the article uses the ISIL title. Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely agree - these criticisms of the name and actions are way underrepresented in the lead. We should be explaining the choice of title a little in the same summary. Legacypac (talk) 09:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Second attempt by Mohammed al-Bukhari to add "Khawarij" to the text, this time under a different name "outsiders", but the link is to "Khawarij". (Now reverted.) This is editing against consensus and edit-warring. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 10:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Third edit by this editor against the consensus to not include the sentence about Khawarij, this time breaking the 1RR restriction. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 15:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "Self appointed jihadist"? Ahem... It's jihadist, according to many reliable sources, including Wikipedia. So I think the "self-appointed" should not be there. What's next? "Self-appointed Sunnis" or "Self-apointed Islamic"? I mean, this makes no sense. And the info "Some scholars consider ISIL to be outsiders" is just extra info that is repeated on both the ideology and criticism sections. Felino123 (talk) 22:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Well many Sunni are saying ISIL is not Sunni and the 5 Arab states attacking with the US in Syria are all Sunni led Sunni majority.

With the reorg bringing Criticisms under one Level 1 heading, about 25-30% of the article is Criticism and we need to reflect that in the lead properly. Legacypac (talk) 20:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

RfC of whether Turkey should be listed under opposition

Latest comment: 9 years ago17 comments4 people in discussion

=>Nov 23: Events on the ground have rendered this RfC unnecessary. According to [4] and other sources the Iraqi Kurds and Turkey officials both confirm that Turkey has special forces in Iraq training for the last 3 weeks. That makes Turkey a full participant based on our criteria. The articles are updated. Someone should close this discussion to clean up the talk page. Étienne Dolet can you withdraw your RfC? Legacypac (talk) 20:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Although government of Turkey proclaims that it opposes ISIS on an official level, the academic world appears to dismiss such a notion altogether. In light of the recent report by the Huffington Post, it's becoming increasingly accepted by the academic community that Turkey may not only be actively neutral towards ISIS, but be supporting it outright. Turkey is currently listed as part of the opposition, albeit a "(limited/pending)" kind of opposition. I have currently found no evidence pointing to any incident wherein which Turkey has military engaged against ISIS. Turkey has gone so far as to disallow America's use of their own airbase in Incirlik. With that said, since Wikipedia abides by the standards and opinions the academic world sets, rather than such official policy that may not be in line with the facts on the ground or by the academic community, I propose removing Turkey from the list found under Multinational coalition opposition. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Votes

Discussion

RfC question

Why was this listed as an RfC? Has there been previous discussion of this that failed to reach concensus? Is there some other reason that outside eyes are needed to make this decision? – Philosopher Let us reason together. 00:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Philosopher (talk · contribs) That's a legitimate question. I believe the current consensus is what the article states already. Turkey was listed under the opposition for several months now. So I was hoping to see what the community thinks before making an edit that may be considered a bit too WP:BOLD. It's an article that gets 30,000 views daily and I thought removing sourced information unilaterally may not be such a wise idea. I'm sure there are people that may be against my proposal, so I'd like to hear what they have to say and if there are any other opinions they'd like to suggest. And as far as I can see, there's been no discussion in the talk page regarding this topic that has been regularly discussed in news outlets throughout the world. Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. I've broken up the following into a few different threads of discussion that occur to me immediately - feel free to add more if needed. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 01:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Official status v. actual or unofficial behavior

For those prior conflicts where official declarations have conflicted with actual or unofficial behavior, how have the articles handled the situation? Do we go with the official declaration (in which case this is an easy answer to the discussion) or do we go with the actual actions or, as I suspect may be the case, represent both? – Philosopher Let us reason together. 01:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Philosopher (talk · contribs) I don't think the Wikipedia community should abide by what Prime Minister Recep Tayip Erdogan or the Turkish government officially states. The official policy can always be misleading, hence the reason why we're having this discussion. The Turkish government also denies the Armenian Genocide, should we have Wikipedia align itself to that sort of POV as well? Mugabe says he's a democratic president, but does that mean the Wikipedia community should instill such a consensus? Wikipedia is guided by the academic community. The academic community gives no definite opinion towards Turkey actively opposing ISIS. In fact, it's quite the opposite. The academic WP:WEIGHT is seemingly skeptical, if not outright against, the notion that Turkey is actively fighting against ISIS. But besides that point, I believe that as Wikipedia users, we have the power to create our own WP:CONSENSUS considering that it be in line with WP:RS requirements. With that said, I find no reliable source that supports Turkey's official stance. I don't see anything wrong in removing Turkey from the list of opposition because it simply means that Turkey neither supports nor confronts the ISIS. Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:42, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I think you missed my point. The discussion of what Turkey has done is entirely irrelevant to my question - my question was about what Wikipedia has done in the past in similar circumstances. No need to re-invent the wheel, after all. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 02:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Philosopher (talk · contribs) Oh, sorry about that, I do see your point. My response was just a general observation and not towards your comment per se. Although I do think it's a good idea to provide a detailed roundup of how your question relates to Turkey's situation. As for your initial inquiry, I think the Armenian Genocide example is relevant here. The official policy of the Turkish government is flat-out denial. However, the Wikipedia community has adopted a consensus that considers the Armenian Genocide as a fact in itself. I think that's not very different than what we have here. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The opponents list is restricted to: (a) States and non-State actors with military operations past, present or pending against ISIL in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt and Libya; (b) States directly supplying weapons to ground forces fighting ISIL

- Is Turkey carrying out any military operation against ISIL, has carried out any military operation or has announced it will carry out any military operation?

No.

- Is Turkey directly supplying weapons to ground forces fighting ISIL?

I don't think so.

I found no reason to keep Turkey on the Military operations in or over Iraq and/or Syria (US-led) list.

If they are supplying weapons to ground forces fighting ISIL, then we should move them to the list of states suplying weapons to ground forces. If not, then we should remove it. It's clear that it should not be on the military operations list. Felino123 (talk) 17:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Felino123 (talk · contribs) I agree. I can say that the evidence showing Turkey supplying weapons to ISIS is much greater than the evidence (or lack thereof?) to their opposition or to the supply of weapons to that opposition. The Huffington Post link I gave provides a good academic assessment of the facts and weighs it in favor of Turkey turning a blind-eye supporting ISIS or better yet, actively supports them. Some examples as outlined by the Huffington Post report:

An ISIS commander told The Washington Post on August 12, 2014: "Most of the fighters who joined us in the beginning of the war came via Turkey, and so did our equipment and supplies.

According to CHP Vice President Bulent Tezcan, three trucks were stopped in Adana for inspection on January 19, 2014. The trucks were loaded with weapons in Esenboga Airport in Ankara. The drivers drove the trucks to the border, where a MIT agent was supposed to take over and drive the trucks to Syria to deliver materials to ISIS and groups in Syria. This happened many times. When the trucks were stopped, MIT agents tried to keep the inspectors from looking inside the crates. The inspectors found rockets, arms, and ammunitions.

A senior Egyptian official [http://www.wnd.com/2014/10/turkey-providing-direct-support-to-isis/ indicated] on October 9, 2014 that Turkish intelligence is passing satellite imagery and other data to ISIS.

CNN Turk reported on July 29, 2014 that in the heart of Istanbul, places like Duzce and Adapazari, have become gathering spots for terrorists. There are religious orders where ISIS militants are trained. Some of these training videos are posted on the Turkish ISIS propaganda website takvahaber.net. According to CNN Turk, Turkish security forces could have stopped these developments if they had wanted to.

These are just a few examples. I think it's safe to conclude that Turkey is not only turning that blind-eye, but actively/covertly supporting ISIS. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Turkey's actions

Placeholder header so discussion of this subject, if any, doesn't get muddled in with my question above. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 01:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I recall Turkey got added when their Parliament voted to authorize action and no resistance from editors. They had tanks on the border too. Before that there was general resistance to inclusion. However, they are still negotiating over what to do with Assad months later and have failed to engage which creates the problem of what to do with them here. This graphic is very instructive showing Humanitarian Aid only. Of course they have a lot of refugees in Turkey too. It is not accurate to say Turkey is not supportive of the US-led efforts, just what form the support takes. Legacypac (talk) 01:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Legacypac, you're right, but the list is restricted to states carrying out military operations in and/or over Iraq and Syria and states suplying weapons to ground forces opposing ISIL. Turkey may be doing a great humanitarian job, but I can't find any reason to keep Turkey on the opponents' list. Felino123 (talk) 18:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't disagree with you and am ok with removing Turkey. Turkey has been dealt with as a separate section on the Intervention articles. We also have a Turkey section as the first section under the Support. I just restored the "Alleged" modifier because Turkey is clearly not in the same class as groups pledging allegiance or opening supporting ISIL. In fact, I'm going to move Turkey to the bottom of the supporter section. Legacypac (talk) 20:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Okay, looks like we have a consensus here. I will remove Turkey from the list if there are no objections within 24 hours. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:31, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Turkey HAS been supplying aid to the FSA which is fighting ISIL and Assad all along. They are in NATO and are not a ISIL supporter. Put them in the Military Aid group, rather then delete completely. Legacypac (talk) 03:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Names and History Subsections

Latest comment: 9 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

Suggestion: In the lead we summarize the history and name changes in paragraphs 3-5, then in the new "History" Level 2 Section we have a Names Level 3 section which gives an abbreviated history followed by Level 3 sections organized chronologically matching each name change. The reader has to slog through the names and history three times in various levels of detail before they get to much else. Maybe we could consolidate the Level 3 Names section into the related History sections (as in the lead) cutting quite a bit of duplication without removing any real information? Any objections? Legacypac (talk) 21:16, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes! I am going to put on the gramophone record again: I still maintain that the listing of names in that very short subsection (8K and only one screen) is an ideal way for readers to get a handle on all the different names, and on the concept that although the group was established in 1999, it is still essentially the same group. Both those things can be more readily grasped from "Names" than from reading the "History" section, where that information if incorporated there would be diffused out. Readers need that reference, as all the names (8) are quite muddling at first glance. We are used to it, but imagine you are new reader who knows very little or nothing of the group's history. The names are a nightmare, so a brief run-through I think is a good idea. I think it would be far better to delete the repetition in the Lead, although perhaps not even that – maybe the early history of the group part of the Lead could be condensed down even further. I will see if I can do that. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 21:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

A=Names Names B=Foundation of the group (1999–2006)

A: The group was founded in 1999 by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi under the name Jamāʻat al-Tawḥīd wa-al-Jihād, "The Organization of Monotheism and Jihad" (JTJ)

and

B: Following the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq, the Jordanian Salafi Jihadist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his militant group Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad, founded in 1999, achieved notoriety in the early stages of the Iraq insurgency, by not only carrying out attacks on coalition forces but conducting suicide attacks on civilian targets and beheading hostages.[12][59]

A: In October 2004, al-Zarqawi swore loyalty to Osama bin Laden and changed the group's name to Tanẓīm Qāʻidat al-Jihād fī Bilād al-Rāfidayn, "The Organization of Jihad's Base in Mesopotamia", commonly known as Al-Qaeda in Iraq. (AQI).[16][40] Although the group has never called itself Al-Qaeda in Iraq, this has been its informal name over the years.[41]

and

B: Al-Zarqawi's group grew in strength and attracted more fighters, and in October 2004 it officially pledged allegiance to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network, changing its name to Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn (تنظيم قاعدة الجهاد في بلاد الرافدين, "Organization of Jihad's Base in Mesopotamia"), also known as Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI).[30][60][61] Attacks by the group on civilians, the Iraqi Government and security forces continued to increase over the next two years—see list of major resistance attacks in Iraq.[62] In a letter to al-Zarqawi in July 2005, al-Qaeda's deputy leader Ayman al-Zawahiri outlined a four-stage plan to expand the Iraq War, which included expelling US forces from Iraq, establishing an Islamic authority, as caliphate, spreading the conflict to Iraq's secular neighbors, and engaging in the Arab–Israeli conflict.[63]

In the past the names section had far more detail and each name was bold itaics so it jumped out as you read. That would help. Legacypac talk) 22:45, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not clear what you are suggesting here. I am responsible for paring down the detail in "Names" some time ago, as it repeated the "History" section (as it then was); I wanted to get it down to being mainly about the names. I have condensed the Lead history part further just now. I tried the bold italics, but was reverted by an editor later who quoted MoS which says no bolding for anything apart from in the Lead and in headings in the text, so I then put underlinings instead. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 23:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Legacypac Preamble: While I think that there is a definitely an issue to be debated here I am a little annoyed at the way that you have presented it. Did you review much of previous discussions one reference to which I added in the "See also" hatnote above? In context of past discussion I think P123ct1 fairly mentions gramophone recording. (Sorry to single out this issue for comment as there have been many 'SIL/Syrian War threads started that have not placed arguments/debates in context).
Parallel question: this relates to the relevance of the placement of the Template:History of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant at this point. The template provides reference to the sequence of content within the article while providing links to content outside the article - but it's pretty.
This all having been said I continue to be open to the possibility of change. At the top of Timeline of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant events#2014 events I added an in section index. I'd suggest, that if the names sub-section were assimilated into the history content, then a similar set up could be added as an in section index to the major names. I would be interested in views of other editors but I'd suggest that an "Index to history" might provide an alternate method of introducing content. Given the widely encompassing title of the first subsection of history, "Foundation of the group ...", I agree that some kind of introduction to names is needed. I also think that a brief index of names might meet much of that need. Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:45, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes I think I've read everything on the talk page over the last several months and have been quite involved in the growth of the page. I'm just making a suggestion about how we might shorten the article by removing duplicated info - that is my only point. I'm not going to combine these two sections myself as there are other areas I'd prefer to focus on. Maybe someone will run with my suggestion or maybe not.Legacypac (talk) 10:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • My gramophone comment was not meant to be critical; it is just that I have made this point so many times in different places over recent months! An index of names as suggested by Gregkaye could perhaps incorporate the rest of the text in "Names", e.g.
  1. Jamaat ........................ The group originated as Jamaat ... set up by Al-Zarqawi ....
  2. Tanzim ........................ In October 2004 ....
  3. Mujahideen Shura Council ...................In 2006, AQI merged ....
and so on. That would be clearer. The history part of it could perhaps be condensed even further, and I think some history would need to go in there, just to explain the names. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 10:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Great. I've created what I have called an "Outline of history" at the beginning of Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#History. "Index of history" or something else would work similarly. I guess is someone want to take on the project of moving names content into the History content then the door is open. (or not) Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)]
If anyone is thinking of actually incorporating the names content into "History", please will they first look at my first comment in this thread. I didn't create that "Names" section, but I found it extremely useful when I first came to this article, for the reasons I outlined there. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 16:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
(my misunderstanding) I guess that this discussion may well have a way to go yet. Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I find it repetitive but am not going to push the point - there are other ways to shorten the article that will have a larger effect. Legacypac (talk) 21:02, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Move of Ansar Bait al-Maqdis => ISIL in Sinai

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

See Talk:Ansar Bait al-Maqdis to discuss.Legacypac (talk) 15:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Another option would be to create new content on a topic related to ISIL's influence in Sinai should that content prove to be notable and leave the content on the now fractured and apparently disbanded Ansar Bait al-Maqdis as historical. I think that we should be here to reflect on events with reference being made to terminologies in notable usage. Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:16, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Legacypac In the case of this group I think it would be a mistake to change the name and it may make more sense to start a new article. A significant section of the group remain loyal to al-Qaeda and presumably retain the previous organisational name. I have edited the article into a state where it can be viewed as a group from which a large contingent has split. There still is an option to take the Ansar Bait al-Maqdis article and make this a base for new 'SIL centric article but that would probably need to be a consensus decision. Personally I think that several of the articles of groups who have sworn allegiance to 'SIL may need review. I think that splits should be given consideration. Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I just read 20+ articles on this topic and concluded that there has been a movement toward ISIL by ABM and an effort to influence ABM by ISIL for months. Both are looking for benefits from the tie up. I am not convinced that there is much of a Nile version of ABM or that there is really a split in ABM over the pledge to ISIL. That said, a new article for a new stage is an appropriate way to go. Legacypac (talk) 21:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion for last paragraph

Latest comment: 9 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

Please take a look at Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Criticism. Most of the criticism is from the Muslim community and most of that is critical of the groups faithfulness to Islam.

I propose that the last paragraph of the lead can read:

The group has been designated as a terrorist organization by the United Nations, the European Union, the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, Canada, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, the UAE and Israel. The United Nations and Amnesty International have accused the group of grave human rights abuses, and Amnesty International has found it guilty of ethnic cleansing on a "historic scale". The group's actions, have been widely criticized around the world with many Islamic communities describing the group as not representing Islam.

The above thread covers topics related to: The organisational and governmental designation as "terrorist" and Amnasty's findings of guilt.

This thread proposes that a common theme of criticism from within Islam should similarly be presented in the lead.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with "The group's actions, have been widely criticized around the world with many Islamic communities describing the group as not representing Islam", as "notably within the Islamic community" is too vague. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 09:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The designations as a terror organization are on the first paragraph and criticism is on the last one on the lead. To put criticism on the first paragraph would be a mess. I mean, criticism is important and I think it may be on the lead, but never on the first(s) paragraphs. Let's keep this article arranged. This group doesn't represent Islam, of course, nor do those communities, as Islam is not a monolithic bloc. I think the current phrase is perfect as it summarizes criticism very well. The current phrase implicitly make clear that ISIL doesn't represent Islam. If they did, then there would be no criticism from Muslims. The suggested phrase doesn't sound well and it adds extra info. The current phrase and a link to the criticism section on "widely criticized" is more than enough. Felino123 (talk) 17:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • In this case I think the implicit should be made explicit. This is a major criticism and it needs spelling out. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 20:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Felino123 Islamic responses to a group calling itself Islamic state are of far more relevance than UN responses to a group calling itself the Islamic state. The UN are not dealing with a nation or a state. Its a rebel group in pretty near to the middle of the middle-east that has taken control of territory. Ban Ki-Moon made a major point of quoting the Islamic criticism. He stated: "As Muslim leaders around the world have said, groups like ISIL – or Da’ish -- have nothing to do with Islam, and they certainly do not represent a state. They should more fittingly be called the "Un-Islamic Non-State"." It all comes down to a middle-eastern problem. These are the kind of things that should be sorted out internally. The local voices are the important ones such as those of all the Grand Muftis should be heeded. These references also need to be added to the article. Again, please take a look at the section on criticism. These are voices of neighbouring states and of people who object to the name of their religion getting associated with the repetitive war crimes of this group. This is the more important issue. Gregkaye ✍♪ 04:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • What do you mean when you say clerics' opinions are more important than the UN's? When talking about religion, maybe. But just that. We are not arguing about religion, anyway, but about a terrorist group. That's not even Ban's opinion, and he's not a Muslim cleric. He just diplomatically quoted others. ISIL has to do with Islam, as it's a radical Islamist group, just like KKK or the Westboro Baptist Chruch (WBC) have to do with Christianity, or Kach and Kahanism with Judaism. Altought ISIL, KKK, WBC and Kach are minority groups, they have to do with the religion they claim to represent. You're quoting opinions, but these opinions have no more value than other opinions as Islam is not a monolothic bloc. I mean that we must be neutral and we should not choose the opinions we like and give more relevance than other opinions we don't like so much. These opinions are noted in a very clear way in both the ideology and criticism sections. We don't need to repeat them three times on this article. It is on the lead, specifically quoting Muslims in a notable way (I even oppossed to add criticism to the lead) with a link the the criticism itself. The lead should summarize an article, not to add extra info. If we add particular examples as you're suggesting then that would be adding unnecessary and repeated info. I think the lead is great as it is now. It is already very long and we can't be quoting particular cases. Felino123 (talk) 05:00, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I think "with many Islamic communities describing the group as not representing Islam" as suggested by Gregkaye is an acceptable expansion on "notably within the Islamic community" (which says practically nothing). It is still only a summary, and it doesn't add any new information. Otherwise I agree with you, adding more about Muslim criticism in the Lead is unacceptable for the reasons you give. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 11:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • P123ct1, what about "and notably by many Islamic communities"? It's obvious that if they criticize ISIL is due to the fact that ISIL doesn't represent Islam or Muslims. I think that phrase is too particular and gives extra info. I think my phrase summarizes criticism better. Felino123 (talk) 02:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes its obvious. Its also obvious that there has been a great outpouring of condemnation. There are some things that need saying and this content needs to be fairly represented. The UN quotes the Muslim community. This is the content that comes first. Gregkaye ✍♪ 22:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Latest comment: 9 years ago21 comments7 people in discussion

What are ISIL best known for? Which of their actions get them most prominently in the news? I think it is this. Their methods and practices such as of slaughter, beheadings and crucifixion should all be given due prominence. Gregkaye ✍♪ 18:24, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree, this should be given much greater prominence in the article. It should be mentioned in the Lead somewhere as well, but where to place it will be tricky. I also think there should be more on it in the "Human rights abuses section". At the moment references to these things are scattered throughout the article, but they need to be brought together in one place. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 21:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Which is why the reorg grouped most of the criticism together Legacypac (talk) 05:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely. These are nothing less than evil, brutal thugs - many of which are, according to reliable journalists who've met or watched them, clinically mentally unstable on top of that. Wiki certainly doesn't tread lightly about SS units that operated in eastern Europe, and we shouldn't be shy of the facts just because of some irrational fear of being PC to Muslims. Anyone who reads the facts can separate the jihadist terrorists from peaceful people.HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
We dont need to worry about hurting ISIL's feelings - they celebrate the brutality. Legacypac (talk) 23:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
I am quite sure many of the foreign fighters are psychopaths and worse, and were attracted to ISIL because of the opportunity to indulge in extreme violence. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 06:34, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
The lead is already too long (IMO) at 7 paragraphs, I don't see how or why we should add more info to the lead that is or should be in the Human Rights Abuses section. Although the media portrays them as simply mindless thugs, the Senior Military/Baa'th Party background of their leadership and the influence of books like Management of Savagery gets much less attention than it should. Gazkthul (talk) 06:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Management of Savagery could perhaps be introduced in "Governance", under a subsection titled "Strategy". Perhaps one line about the extreme violence could be added to the criticism paragraph at the end of the Lead, but no more. It is a major feature and as such has to be covered by the Lead, I think. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 07:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Exactly! It should be added to the lead. But it should be a short phrase, as the lead is already very long. Felino123 (talk) 11:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Management of Savagery shows there is method in their madness. It is so alien to Western thinking that it cannot be seen for what it is, calculated violence - planned by those at the top. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 12:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I recently moved some numerical information on troop estimates down into the main article. This is just a few words. Is there an early massacre that we can mention and then say that this set the tone. How else can this be broached? Gregkaye ✍♪ 22:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I find it troubling that one of the pillars, Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view, is blatantly being disregarding in this discussion. The first talk header says "Please be neutral when editing this highly sensitive article. It discusses a topic about which people have diverse opinions." The incident in Syria where ISIL allegedly crucified several men has been misattributed to ISIL, see Crucifixion#Syria. Yes, these acts are a defining characteristic of this group and is worthy of being mentioned in the lead, but please try to be more neutral in your discussions.~Technophant (talk) 04:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • There is a big difference between discussing things in strong POV terms and translating it into NPOV language in the article! I am sure all editors are aware of this. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 09:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
    • NPOV article content is a pillar and a policy, however the WP:Talk#Use guideline encourages editors to "Stay objective: Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their personal point of view about a controversial issue. They are a forum to discuss how the points of view of reliable sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral." Following the principle of garbage in, garbage out it's hard to see how a biased discussion can lead to unbiased content.~Technophant (talk) 20:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Comment: I didn't intend to shut this conversation down (by implying WP:NOTFORUM), I just was surprised to see nearly every editor in this thread violating the principals of objective neutrality (WP:NPOV). I had the idea of starting a subpage called /Personal views where established editors can discuss their personal thought processes with relaxed WP:TALKPAGE guidelines. ~Technophant (talk) 15:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
NPOV doesn't mean being stupid in editorial policy. For example, the general tone of any article on Nazi atrocities can hardly be "neutral" in the terms you like to see because that would neither faithfully represent the issue, nor reflect what RS's say about it. This group is committing atrocities - crimes against humanity. "NPOV" should not be carried to ridiculous extremes.HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
HammerFilmFan: Have you actually read the "Criticism" and "Human rights abuses" sections? It is full of accounts of atrocities and crimes against humanity. It is perfectly possible to describe these things in WP's voice while still keeping to NPOV, as there. Please look there and see how it is done. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 22:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I was responding to a post, not the section. I have been on Wiki since 2006 - I'm very familiar with "how it is done" - but thanks for your concern.HammerFilmFan (talk) 20:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
The thing that is consistently reported by RS is of regular slaughters or of attempted slaughters by ISIL. The general POV presented by RS in these regards it that of Abhorrence. I think that these two issues should be proportionately presented in the lead. Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Following on from the unanimous agreement that additional content should be added I'd like to propose something like the following. The second paragraph contains the text which reads ", but around 2008, its violent methods led to a backlash from Sunni Iraqis ..." I propose that this can read, ". By around 2008, the groups violent methods, including ADDED TEXT, led to a backlash from Sunni Iraqis." I would suggest reference being made to suicide attacks on civilian targets, the widespread killing of prisoners and perhaps other factors as well. Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that the wording now added by Gregkaye is acceptable. Those words were in the Lead for a very long time and were only removed recently by an editor commendably trying to condense the history part of the Lead. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 16:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Map

Latest comment: 9 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion

As far as I can tell, the map of areas controlled by ISIL is completely original research. It looks nothing like the maps that are stated as sources, or any other map I've seen, for that matter. No map that I've seen shows ISIL to be in control of large contiguous areas in Iraq and Syria, all maps I've seen show them to control certain towns and some roads connecting them.--158.222.143.13 (talk) 13:50, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

There is a talk page for the map where you can discuss this, but please consider these points: 1. The area between the towns and roads is generally uninhabited or lightly inhabited desert that no one may have firm control over in the best of times. If ISIL controls the nearest town, then anyone who looks to that town for commerce or anything else is effectively controlled. 2. An image search for ISIL maps will show plenty of maps like the one we are using. Legacypac (talk) 03:09, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
1. Your reasoning may or may not be true, but either way it is original research unless citing a source that describes the area in question, visually or verbally, in a way similar to the map in this article. 2. An image search for ISIL map will show all sorts of maps from all sort of sources, some of which even depict ISIL as covering half of Africa, West and Central Asia, as well as large parts of Europe. None of the "maximalist" maps is from a reliable source, while maps from major news websites either depict a "minimalist" area of control or describe the area on the map as "controlled or claimed" or something to that effect. It seems tendentious to favor the former over the latter.--158.222.143.13 (talk) 02:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
You can confirm statement 1. with Google Earth - as a note on the maps says (or recently said). Lots of empty desert. 2. read http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/08/the-many-ways-to-map-the-islamic-state/379196/. Legacypac (talk) 01:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
1. Google Earth does not show ISIL control, so what you say is irrelevant to this map. 2. I read it, and it does not provide information that confirms ISIL control of the uninhabited swathes of land in question. Your inability to provide a reliable source with a map similar to the map in question speaks volumes.--158.222.143.13 (talk) 03:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
First IP - It's not my map and I don't have to defend it. I answered your question in good faith but you attack me saying I'm doing OR and you make inappropriate generalizations based on your Lack of any Research. I suggest starting with this BBC map [5] which is very much like our maps and the very first result for me seaching "map of isis controlled area" Legacypac (talk) 20:56, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
You don't have to defend it, and I don't understand why you are defending it. You wrote in good faith, no doubt, but you did not answer my question, you referred me to Google Earth as proof that the area is uninhabited, which I did not deny. I did not say you were doing OR, I said that the map is OR. The BBC map specifies "Areas ISIS claims to have presence or control" -- so this is (a) not BBC's position but ISIS claim, and (b) presence or control, not just control.--158.222.143.13 (talk) 01:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Our maps are not based on ISIL claims per se but on collected reports from all sides of who controls what. Legacypac (talk) 05:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Fine. Show a map with those places that are reportedly controlled. This maps shows huge swathes of land for which no report of control exists, and it is OR to assume that they are controlled by ISIL.--158.222.143.13 (talk) 06:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Lead section

Latest comment: 9 years ago14 comments4 people in discussion
zzz Its a good point that we either need a citation for this or to make a correction. I certainly got this impression from watching videos regarding becoming a caliphate and my understanding is that this is the intention of a worldwide caliphate. also when I saw a picture of 'SIL's proposed coins, one side featured a map of the world. Gregkaye ✍♪ 22:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
"or to make a correction": I would go further. Since nothing is generally agreed about 'aims' this should be deleted. zzz (talk) 22:58, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome back zzz. What is not in the sources exactly? Have you read the paragraph you pulled this from and all the sources attached as well as the wikilinked Levant article? Also this article http://english.al-akhbar.com/node/20378 Legacypac (talk) 22:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

What is not agreed about aims exactly? Legacypac (talk) 03:49, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Or, to put it another way, what is universally agreed? zzz (talk) 04:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Still not making a specific suggestion or backing up the request to delete with RS. I we should delete well source material just because one editor personally disagrees with the facts, we might as well delete all of Wikipedia. Legacypac (talk) 04:44, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Whether or not you define this as 'trivia', there's still no need for it in the lead, anyway. zzz (talk) 06:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Can you say specifically why not, zzz? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 11:20, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
zzz There are a few relevant quotes in the citations. One reads: "In the same vein, a leader in ISIS’ rival al-Nusra Front said,... “By declaring the caliphate, they are forcing all groups in the Islamic world to be with ISIS in everything,.." There was also the video released featuring a young Australian 'SIL extremist who was surrounded by a large contingent of militants in which the Australian said things like, "we will see the black flag above Buckingham Palace." If Wikipedia had an article on a fictional antagonist or villain or fictional crime group that had intentions of something such as world domination then I would hope that such an intention should be given due and relevant prominence in content. My first response after another brief look through the content of the citations was to move the last citations and add a citations needed tag to the mentioned text. I withdrew the tag in light of the content in the article Worldwide caliphate. The intentions of the group are relevantly indicated in connection to the caliphate claims that 'SIL are reported to have made. Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:08, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The text now used is completely consistent with many RS and what ISIL has declared by their own words. This is not our opinion - it is actually Baghdadi's view. But asside from the news, here is one scholarly think tank source dealing with the Ramadan speech - it is extemely clear what ISIL wants/has declared and anyone can google more examples:

The new speech is most notable for being forthright about Baghdadi's message on the global nature of the Islamic State's struggle. Baghdadi touched on issues regarding the persecution of Muslims in Burma and the Philippines as well as the French restrictions on the wearing of the veil, and he responded to accusations that the Islamic State engages in 'irhab [terrorism].

Ominously, Baghdadi concluded his speech with aspirations for the Islamic State's conquest of "Rome" and the whole world. Such emphasis on the transnational nature of the Islamic State's project corroborates Baghdadi's projection of himself as the caliph and sole representative of Islamic rule on earth to whom all Muslims must pledge allegiance.

While these explicit proclamations, however, may come across as new in the Islamic State's messaging, the reality is that emphasis on worldwide ambitions has actually been a part of the group's propaganda since at least last summer ... This approach aims to have locals first become accustomed to the norms of Shari'a law, with ambitions for a global Caliphate not expressed openly [before] except in unofficial videos primarily put out by members of Jabhat al-Nusra's foreign contingent.

In the flames of war video the narrator says We fight to rule the entire world with Allah’s revelation. [6]

It is getting tiresome dealing with an editor who makes the same points [[7]] and and over and in edits that had to be reverted but does not seem to read any sources or supply any sources for anyone else to read to substantiate his unusual point if view. Supporters of ISIL will say they are building a worldwide caliphate while Opponents will mock the very idea and point out how dangerous they are, but I can't see in value in denying that ISIL seeks global domination and pushing the point at Wikipedia.

If the latest 200k troop estimate is correct, ISIL has approx the 25th largest active military force in the world. That is more men under arms then the UK, Germany, Israel, Afghanistan, Italy, Libya, Spain and dozens of other nations have. So as stupid as the claim might be, when made by a guy with a bigger badder army then almost every army in the world says he wants to rule the entire world and have religious authority over all muslims, its worth mentioning as part of one sentence early in the group's wikipedia article. Legacypac (talk) 11:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not necessary to guess at their aims in the lead, it's WP:UNDUE, bearing in mind that it's hearsay. Anything that is unsourced should be removed. zzz (talk) 14:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I've reverted the edit undertaken in line with the above comment as another attempt to go against consensus. Hundreds of media reports of recorded ISIL statements about their aims are not hearsay. Legacypac (talk) 18:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • No consensus (see this page). NOT IN SOURCE, UNDUE etc. Zzz (talk) 00:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islamic_State/Archive_20&oldid=1045764739"