Template:Pbneutral

Template:Syrian Civil War sanctions

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Iraq B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IraqWikipedia:WikiProject IraqTemplate:WikiProject IraqIraq articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Middle East B‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles B This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  Middle Eastern military history task force Syria B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Arab world B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Terrorism B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on terrorism, individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TerrorismWikipedia:WikiProject TerrorismTemplate:WikiProject TerrorismTerrorism articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

There is recently much talk of editors being "pro-ISIL" and "anti-ISIL". What do these two terms mean, exactly? ~ P-123 (talk) 09:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The terms "anti-ISIL" and "pro-ISIL" have not appeared in the talk page and archive that much. Here are the instances:

• Revision as of 16:53, 23 July 2014 User:50.53.148.252 "anti-ISIL propaganda"
• Revision as of 12:38, 4 November 2014 User:Felino123 "the views of anti-ISIL Muslims"
• Revision as of 21:17, 19 November 2014 User:P-123 "anti-ISIL propaganda"
• Revision as of 23:59, 8 December 2014 P-123 "this article is anti-ISIL from the word go."
• Revision as of 15:58, 9 December 2014 P-123 "profound anti-ISIL POV"
• Revision as of 09:12, 14 December 2014 User:Legacypac "pro-ISIL positions that can't be substantiated"
• Revision as of 15:48, 14 December 2014 User:Wheels of steel0 ""pro-isil" you are talking about were probably atheist to or even christians."

Any answers? GregKaye ✍♪ 04:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To me, "anti-ISIL" means criticism of ISIL placed prominently in the article. This was a problem before but is now resolved, except in the Lead, where to me the second paragraph looks like an attack on ISIL before the article has started. Others may think differently. Neutral presentation of facts has sometimes been seen as being "pro-ISIL", but being neutral must not be mistaken for whitewashing ISIL. Are there other views or is this subject not worth examining? P-123 (talk) 12:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-ISIL is presenting the ISIL narrative as factual - other then where we specifically say "ISIL claims xyz" or "so called" followed by appropriate qualifications. That starts with statements suggesting they are a sovereign state. As for criticisms - we can't accurately deal with ISIL without placing the criticisms next to the claims because 99% of the world does not like virtually every ISIL actions. Legacypac (talk) 18:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Legacypac blindly undermining about anything they claim or say is just stupid and ignores the facts which wikipedia should mention without caring if its look like "pro-isil". facts are facts and they stay facts whether you are against the IS or not, and wikipedia should reflect those facts instead of the editor's personal feelings about some group. --Wheels of steel0 (talk) 21:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wheels of steel0 Infering that someone is blind and stupid is an abuse of talk page privilege. You should strike your personal attack. Please read and absorb the related content in policy. Please can all editors stand up to these abuses and help build a more collegiate approach to discussion on the page. GregKaye ✍♪ 06:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[content above placed out of chronological sequence]

ha we need to state real facts, not ISIL fictions as fact. Legacypac (talk) 05:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Wheels of steel0. Qualifying facts, that they are now a caliphate and Islamic state – this is what happened on 29 June, these are events – to me is "anti-ISIL" POV and flouts WP:NPOV. If I said something about a person named Jane, I would not say, "Jane - or she calls herself Jane, or she self-declares as Jane - did this." That would be crazy. To use "self-declared" with ISIL is as crazy as that, IMO! P-123 (talk)

that is where you go wrong. ISIL is neither a caliphate or an Islamic state or even Islamic or a State regardless of what they call themselves. I'm not the "Ruler of the World" and my backyard is not a State either regardless of how I title myself or what I control. It is a bit like the DPRK which is not Democratic, run by the People, or a Republic, though the world agrees the DPRK is a (pretty sad) country. Legacypac (talk) 23:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I find the terms anti-ISIL and pro-ISIL to be quite inappropriate. It basically moves from the language of NPOV and uses discrimination language.

There are legitimate points of view in regard to these issues. There is the point of view of 'SIL and its supporters and there is the point of view of non-'SIL supporters in, for instance, the wider Islamic world. Which view do we represent. Neither! We just say what each side claims. We don't say that they are the worldwide caliphate and we don't say that they are not. We say that this is what they claim to be and we say that others disagree. We don't take sides in our presentation of article content. That would be POV. If we said in Wikipedia's voice and in line with a large content of criticism that they were not a caliphate then that would be POV. If we stated in Wikipedia's voice that they are a caliphate then that would also be POV. Why do people find this so hard to understand. GregKaye ✍♪ 19:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The term "anti-ISIL" was first used to describe a phenomenon that appeared on the Talk page some time ago, a phenomenon that looked to me and some other editors like "anti-ISIL" POV. As usual, these are matters of opinion. I am not suggesting these two terms should be used, only that they should be examined carefully now that they have arisen. There is absolutely no doubt there is a clear divide among editors about what WP:NPOV means and those two terms appear to me to describe that divide quite well. P-123 (talk) 22:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think that the image placed on the right is a suitable encapsulation of clear fundamentals of WP:NPOV. NPOV is a guideline to ensure that article content is balanced and not skewed towards any one point of view. For instance, when there is disputed content we do not take a WP:YESPOV approach in article content and present opinion as facts. We quote what people say and let the reader decide. GregKaye ✍♪ 02:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GregKaye: Why do you always call ISIL 'SIL? I think in the context of this discussion this is quite a relevant question. ~ P-123 (talk) 22:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For similar reasons as we have covered on my talk page. The article states, "Many object to using the name "Islamic State" owing to the far-reaching religious and political claims to authority which that name implies". I am one of them. This group kills people who go to Mosques (sometimes who preach at mosques), who read the Quran and, from their own POV, are trying to be Muslim.

• So editors are right: you are anti-ISIL. Editors are supposed to edit neutrally. Private opinions should not affect editing. P-123 (talk) 10:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The word Islam is based on the word Salaam which has a generally understood meaning of peace. I am not anti-'SIL and certainly not so as a group of individuals. I wish them all happy and peaceful lives within a wish that they might live up to the root meaning of their proclaimed name.

Names mentioned in the article that have variously been recommend for use include, "Al-Qaeda Separatists in Iraq and Syria" or "QSIS", and 'Un-Islamic State' (UIS). I chose my own wording in the context of an article talk page, other people choose theirs. We all treat issues and editors with respect as we do so. GregKaye ✍♪ 02:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GregKaye: You say, "If we stated in Wikipedia's voice that they are a caliphate then that would also be POV." Please explain exactly how. A fact is a fact, is it not? It is not for Wikipedia to decide whether facts are "true". All it can do is record them neutrally, and record the different views about those facts. To me that is what NPOV means. ~ P-123 (talk) 22:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P-123 I really do not understand what you mean when you say: It is not for Wikipedia to decide whether facts are "true". Of course it is. Caliphate is an extremely loaded term. Please justify that your view that it is a fact that 'SIL, a group that many consider to be unIslamic, is a caliphate. Still such a view should only be used in Wikipedia's voice if accepted without qualification in the majority of instances in RS. I personally think that, in addition, it should also only be used if it is found to fulfil the various conditions that are ascribed to the formation of a caliphate yet Wikipedia rejects this as OR. As it is we go on balance on what is used in sources. We don't push POV. GregKaye ✍♪ 03:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see: Results from (isil or isis or daesh or "islamic state") AND "not a caliphate" and WP:YESPOV "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts....". Please also note that 'SIL do not just claim to be "a caliphate" but the caliphate within the context of our time. They fight people who also have a Mohammedan based faiths and these people contest the groups claimed religious authority with bullets. Under the guidance of WP:NPOV we can't pick a side. See image above. In the presentation of article content no editor should side with one POV. GregKaye ✍♪ 03:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The full quote from WP:YESPOV is: "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements." Which reliable sources make conflicting assertions about ISIL, being a caliphate, Islamic state, etc? All reliable sources speak out unanimously against ISIL and its claims. P-123 (talk) 10:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P-123 I agree that reliable sources speak out against "ISIL" and its claims. As you know the majority of the times in which RS mention this group in conjunction with the word caliphate, they also relate it with word and phrases like declared, proclaimed, so-called or claimed amongst others. They do much as we do. 'SIL's claim of authority over Muslims worldwide has been roundly rejected by Muslims worldwide. In views of the example of RS and of Muslim opinion it would be a gross violation of NPOV to declare, in an unqualified way, the group as caliphate. GregKaye ✍♪ 19:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But following RS on this is following opinion, isn't it? Surely WP should say "This is the fact, but RS sources question it", shouldn't it? To keep strictly NPOV? P-123 (talk) 20:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P-123 In the lead we state the fact, as reported, that "On 29 June 2014, the group proclaimed a worldwide caliphate". We declare this fact, in this case through the use of the root word "claim", in much the same way as is done in RS. Caliphate is not just a word like dictatorship. There are far wider implications of its use. This is an area that is open to research and I would be interested in findings. I'd suggest a start might be via Scholar: (isil or isis or daesh or "islamic state") AND caliphate AND theology or just caliphate AND theology. (The neutrality of sources should also be checked where possible with regard to such things as academic critique). I do not think that we should merely rubber stamp the things that 'SIL are saying. However, if we were to do this then it imperative that we are clear on the implications of what we are saying. In the meantime it seems clear to me that the groups claimed authority over the Islamic world (which includes people that they are fighting) is not being widely accepted.

None-the-less, sources that Wikipedia labels as RS remain as our guide. If the majority of RS sources accept the group as being caliphate without giving qualification to the statement then fair enough. If not then we cannot push a POV. GregKaye ✍♪ 03:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)][reply]

To say that stating facts as facts is pushing POV turns all logic and reason on its head and is ludicrous, IMO. No amount of words will persuade me otherwise. I cannot understand why all this has to be made so complicated. WP has to state facts neutrally and RS should be used to show what the world thinks of those facts. That is the way WP normally operates. Why should a big exception to this rule be made here? P-123 (talk) 08:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gregkaye says, "I really do not understand what you mean when you say: It is not for Wikipedia to decide whether facts are "true". Of course it is." I cannot believe I have just read that, after all the many discussions among editors about what a Wikipedia article is. For the umpteenth time: Wikipaedia is an encyclopaedia. An encyclopaedia is principally a compendium of facts. It reports the controversies about those facts. Wikpedia is not a history-book. A history-book principally interprets events and facts. Deciding whether facts are "true", i.e. interpretation, is the domain of history-writing, not encyclopaedias. If this very simple distinction cannot be grasped, there really is no hope for this article making it as good encyclopaedic content. For the nth time, Wikipaedia states facts. The fact is that ISIL proclaimed a caliphate on 29 June 2014 and has renamed itself the Islamic State, thereby setting up an Islamic state. Those facts should be reported as facts. The near universal rejection of the newly-set up caliphate and Islamic state, as not being a "true" caliphate, is ;a judgment on that fact, and should be reported by Wikipedia as just that, a judgment, with Reliable Sources to back up that judgment. This is the umpteenth restatement of this principle, and I cannot believe it is still not getting through. P-123 (talk) 14:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gregkaye also says, "Please justify your view that it is a fact that 'SIL, a group that many consider to be unIslamic, is a caliphate." That is easy. Because in June they established themselves as a caliphate: fact. It was a news item, a fact, an event. Any judgment on whether it is a true caliphate is secondary to this being the basic fact. P-123 (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P-123 One thing that I think is a very true statement is that a judgement would need to be made to be made to decide whether it is a true caliphate. If it isn't a true caliphate then Wikipedia cannot declare in Wikipedia's voice that it is a caliphate. All we can do is state the clear facts. The group declared themselves as caliphate and this declaration was reported in secondary sources. The fact remains that, when RS talk about 'SIL in reference to the word caliphate, they typically do so with some form of qualification such as declared or similar.

'SIL declared themselves as caliphate. So what? Wikipedia only uses WP:PRIMARY sources in situations in which claims have been substantiated and verified within secondary sources that are proven to be reliable. I could declare myself Pope but this would not mean that I was Pope. There is only one Pope. There is only meant to be one caliphate. Is that 'SIL? We may all have our opinions but as far as the making of direct statements to say either that 'SIL definitely is not caliphate or that 'SIL definitely is caliphate - this is not for you, me, editors or the group to decide. Within editing we have to see which claims are substantiated and verified and which claims are unsubstantiated and unverified. Its only the first category of content that we state to be factual in Wikipedia's voice and this, only if uncontested. Content comes from what here are called reliable sources. Many journalists use qualification when describing 'SIL in terms of caliphate and they do this even though, I suspect, many of them may not have had relevant theological training. To make a move to state in Wikipedia's voice that they either are or they aren't a caliphate we would benefit from strong neutral and unopposed theological comment as reported in reliable sources. So far notable comments given from Sunni as well as Shia believers is that the group are un-Islamic. GregKaye ✍♪ 18:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to complicate a very simple situation with those kind of arguments. The very simple situation is that ISIL declared itself a caliphate, a caliphate was established, it declared itself the Islamic State, an Islamic state was established. Those are FACTS and EVENTS. When Wikipedia announces in its own voice those facts - think of them as items in a news bulletin - for that news bulletin it does not matter what the world said. What the world said, "They are not a true caliphate", etc, is a judgment on those facts, is commentary. What the world said has to be reported in Wikipedia as what they are, judgments and opinions and commentary on those facts that happened in June. How is this very simple point so difficult to understand? P-123 (talk) 19:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not Wikipedia's place to discriminate between the differing views and see which are substantiated, which are unsubstantiated, and which ones to use for its own statements. That would be Wikipedia making judgments. That sort of discrimination is for historians to make, not encyclopaedias. Again, a very simple point. P-123 (talk) 19:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to go beyond established fact, that the group proclaimed itself as caliphate, and then go into opinion so as to state that they either are or aren't a caliphate. We do not do this in Wikipedia's voice unless views are substantiated. Otherwise it is nothing more than editor's POV. One way or another there would need to be substantiation from reliable sources. I suggest that the sources that we should really look to should be those of WP:SCHOLARSHIP. P-123 my arguments are based on WP:Policy. This policy, as and when handled correctly, presents necessary complications. We all work by the same rules and they should be followed with similar measure in all situations. GregKaye ✍♪ 08:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At last. P-123 (talk) 09:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes at last. We don't use Wikipedia's voice to state that they are or aren't caliphate until this gets established one way or another. GregKaye ✍♪ 15:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just stumbled on this: "Some radical Islamists have criticized ISIS for declaring a caliphate without first obtaining the unanimous consent of the nation’s scholars of religion. If Baghdadi is to be a caliph for all Muslims, then is it enough for him to obtain the consent of all scholars of Iraq and Syria – assuming that even this could happen to begin with?"

"In turn, a member of the Abdullah Azzam Brigades weighs in. He told Al-Akhbar, “There is no good in declaring a caliphate under these circumstances; it is something that has evil consequences, which means it is invalid.”" Source: http://english.al-akhbar.com/node/20378 . GregKaye ✍♪ 18:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just like all the other criticisms of the caliphate, in the "Criticism" section. WP cannot pick and choose which view to follow. It should state facts, i.e. those events on 29 June. My point was clearly completely lost on you. P-123 (talk) 20:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P-123 Please specify: what were the events on 29 June? GregKaye ✍♪ 06:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declaration of caliphate and renaming as Islamic State. P-123 (talk) 07:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, we can quote them in that they declared themselves as caliphate. They have called themselves Islamic State but this does not mean that they necessarily are a state. There are international guidelines on this type of distinction and there are references in media, academic and governmental sources to consider. There are debates currently going on regarding the various designations that Wikipedia can neutrally use in its own voice. Neutrality must be observed. We cannot go beyond these bounds. We cannot state that the group definitely is something or isn't something until the related debates are resolved. Wikipedia policy in these cases is to state what is claimed or declared. GregKaye ✍♪ 09:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Despite personal drama and accusations, could we have an overview of the neutrality disputes in regards to the introduction? Such an entry summarizing the problem would be greatly appreciated. (Have a wonderful New Year) Breckham101 (talk) 15:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Involved editor close but long overdue. I count 7 Supporting the proposal, including John the Gamer (comments, no actual Support vote), and 5 Opposing the proposal including LightandDark (comments, no actual Oppose vote). Consensus is that map legend should exclude reference to Israel, Disputed or Occupied and the Golan Heights should be light gray like all surrounding areas are. Legacypac (talk) 09:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

---

The map image, File:Syria and Iraq 2014-onward War map.png, is used with the following headings:

• Controlled by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
• Controlled by al-Nusra
• Controlled by other Syrian rebels
• Controlled by Syrian government
• Controlled by Iraqi government
• Controlled by Syrian Kurds
• Controlled by Iraqi Kurds
• Disputed territory or Occupied by Israel

The proposal here is to remove reference to Israel and the Golan Heights disputed territory from the map as an irrelevance to the topics within which the map is used.

Please respond with Support or Oppose

I propose that there is no relevance in the inclusion of Israel in the context of the articles in which the map is used. Israel are not one of ISIL's military opponents and they are not amongst the nations that have designated it as a terrorist organisation neither have they been a participant in the war in Iraq and Syria in 2014. If Israel do engage in the war then I think a highlighting of Israel would be fair but until then I think inclusion is questionable. Basically the proposal is that, while there are certainly issues related to the Israeli occupation of regions such as the Golan Heights, these are best covered elsewhere. I have not seen maps in RS publications make reference to Israel and I think that Wikipedia should follow the same lead.

GregKaye ✍♪ 15:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Any reference to Israel should be deleted, which means making the Golan Heights/Israeli occupied Quneitra gray.—SPESH531Other 20:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to supporting the removal of color in Golan Heights, after the outcome of this RfC, the following images should be deleted (or at least be agreed on not using, and leave them available due to their presence in talk pages/archives):

• 
• 

Comment: You're right, that Israel has nothing to do with Syria war. But saying just disputed obfuscates, that United Nations have condemned this annexation. It is irrelevant but what's the problem with mentioning the occupation? I suggest for clarification to use both (Disputed territory occupied by Israel)--Kopiersperre (talk) 21:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Within the context of the Syrian civil war, Israel has absolutely nothing to do with the war, and has nothing to do with the map. If Israel played an active and direct (indirect role would be like Turkey or Iran) military role in the Syrian civil war, then they should get a color. Israel is not a combatant in the war, and so Israel should not be shown. Adding another color to represent Israel also adds clutter to the map/legend—SPESH531Other 21:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: And to your comment about the United Nations and Resolution 497, if Israel, Lebanon, Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Turkey all had different colors, then Golan Heights would be colored in the same color as the rest of Israel. The dashed border in Golan Heights should give enough information to show that it is a disputed territory.—SPESH531Other 21:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "Israel should not be shown.".. Israel is already not shown. Golan is Syria, not Israel.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To clarify, when I say "Israel should not be shown," Israel should be gray like the rest of the countries. Golan Heights' borders are dashed, already showing a dispute. If a Syrian combatant held territory in Golan Heights, then it should be colored. But a foreign country (represented in gray) occupies it, so it should be kept in gray.—SPESH531Other 21:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Israel is already grey like the rest of the countries. The captions to the maps used for Syrian Civil War maps say "Military situation in Syria.", Whether Israel is part of the civil war or not, they are occupying part of Syria, so they are part of the "military situation in Syria".--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there was a page that said "Military Situation in Syria" that was not created for the civil war, then you may have a point. But, these maps are for the civil war, hence the name "File:Syrian civil war.png".—SPESH531Other 03:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So how about this: We make the Golan Heights striped, Black/grey. And then we change the caption to all images: "Participants in the Syrian Civil War" - or something like that, then we can remove mention that Israel is occupying the GH, because it is not a participant in the Syrian Civil War. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 04:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that in images that deal exclusively with the Syrian Civil War captions on images should relate to "Participants in the Syrian Civil War". This is the only relevant content to the issue. There has been edit-warring over captioning. We can't let an area be given different colouration without an invitating continued disruption. GregKaye ✍♪ 06:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Israel is not included in any of the maps above. The maps only show the military situation in Syria and Iraq. Golan is part of Syria and is occupied by a foreign invading country. So that should of course be shown in maps showing the military situation of Syria. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - we tried using the grey and brown striped for Golan Heights to emphasize the disputed area with the Syrian Arab Republic, in order to satisfy some users like Supreme Deliciousness, but it has just created more confusion and has not reduced edit-warring. Furthermore, Syrian Arab Republic doesn't control the Quneitra border areas (1967 cease fire line) with Israel any more, and considering that Israel is not significantly involved in the war - Israeli-controlled Golan should be made external color.GreyShark (dibra) 22:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No I can support brown for Golan, but why cant it say in the infobox that brown is "Occupied by Israel" ? The 1967 line is not the border with Israel, the land to the west is part of Syria. Excluding it from the map mean "Golan is not Syria" Which is an Israeli pov and in violation of international community view. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because Israeli military occupation and later unilateral annexation in 1981 has nothing to do with the ongoing Syrian Civil War. The Israeli-controlled Golan is not an arena of the war and Israel is not a belligerent (so far), so it should not show on "Syrian Civil War map" images.GreyShark (dibra) 07:32, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - there is no "Israel" in the original image, so why is this vote for? inclusion of Israel has widely been discussed at talk:Syrian Civil War/Israel and no consensus has yet been gained.GreyShark (dibra) 22:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This discussion is supposed to be the final consensus (at least for English Wikipedia) on what the status of Golan Heights should be as shown in the maps.—SPESH531Other 22:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about only maps showing the military situation in Syria or also other Syria location maps showing places in Syria? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About the two maps that include a white, gray, or brown striped Golan Heights that has to do with the civil war.—SPESH531Other 04:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The Israelis are less involved than others (namely the Americans and us Europeans, let alone the local actors), but have repeatedly bombed Syria. Golan Heights are occupied (inadmissible to acquire territory through war; bog-standard international law). Describing the territory as "occupied by Israel" is a simple statement of fact. In all honesty, what is the big deal here? All we're going to get, if we do as you suggest, is someone come along and say that Wikipedia is trying to airbrush Israel's occupation of the Golan Heights. If Israel doesn't want to appear on such maps, it could always withdraw from the Golan Heights. Anyway, for what it is worth, my view is that this is a non-issue. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 01:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

YeOldeGentleman to clarify I personally don't know but I have not personally heard of military activity for a relatively long time. I agree that the occupation of the Golan Heights is morally wrong but think that these issues are best dealt with elsewhere. We have to present encyclopaedic content here. These maps are used relevantly in connection to the current episode of Sunni-Shia conflict and in relation to the warring factions concerned. I think that this is the central issue that should be addressed in content with no more than warranted distractions of other issues. GregKaye 03:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, GregKaye. "Israel last bombed or otherwise intervened militarily in Syria" less than two weeks ago, apparently. This is by no means exhaustive:

Syria conflict: Israel 'carries out Latakia air strike', "believed to be sixth Israeli attack in Syria" in 2013.

Israel bombs Syria's Golan after blast, March this year.

Israel bombs nine military targets in Syria after ‘unprovoked’ cross-border attack kills Israeli teen, June this year.

Cheers! --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 23:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Supreme created the map highlighting the Golan in bright white and adding Israel to the legend to promote his anti-Israel/pro-Arab POV that extends to fighting over salads, the location of archaeology sites and names of Kurdish towns. He has been trying to push this map all over Wikipedia for months. Tenacious editing at its worst. Israel is not a combatant in the Syrian Civil War (any action has been very limited right on the border when attacked) and the Golan is not part of the conflict. However other gray countries - Lebanon, Jordan, KSA for example ARE involved in the Syrian Civil War with troops or bombing but are all gray. No one is disputing that Israel occupies the Golan Heights but the map is supposed to show which faction controls what part of Syria in the Civil War. Legacypac (talk) 02:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When Lebanon, Jordan or KSA are occupying a part of Syria, we will ad their color in the map. But currently the only foreign country occupying part of Syria is Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 02:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The map (added again for perspective) is used in relation to the activities of the militarily active factions in Iraq and Syria. We need to encyclopaedicly present relevant issues on the Sunni-Shia conflict which is the central issue presented in the articles in which the image is used. Israel is an issue relevant in many topics but not here. GregKaye ✍♪ 04:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support The most that Israel has done in relation to the current conflict is, I believe, that they have set up a relatively small refugee camp. The fighters: Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, al-Nusra, other Syrian rebels, the Syrian government, the Iraqi government, Syrian Kurds and Iraqi Kurds, all deserve mention. They all have valid inclusion within the context of the "...War map" discussed.
I agree with SPESH531Other, who is a regular editor on these maps and seems to know their content: "Adding another color to represent Israel also adds clutter to the map/legend". In my view it offers no encyclopaedic benefit to article content concerned while presenting an invalid distraction. GregKaye ✍♪ 04:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I already said, that Israel is not involved, but that's not true. See May 2013 Rif Dimashq airstrikes, January 2013 Rif Dimashq airstrike and Number of wounded terrorists treated in Israeli hospitals on the rise.--Kopiersperre (talk) 08:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other countries are doing airstrikes but on the map. Israel has not sought to control one sq ft of extra land. Turkey is taking in wounded too which surely does not make a country a belligerent.

Support We had a similiar discussion at Talk:Syrian Civil War/Israel. Mark Golan Heights grey (like Israel, Palestine, Lebanon etc.) as the Israeli occupation of Golan Heights is not related to the civil war but the general situation, though there has been some incidents there. However, marking Golan Heights with a colour such as brown here and mention it as "Disputed" like now is unacceptable. It is viewed as occupied by the world. --IRISZOOM (talk) 15:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support The dotted line seems sufficient to me to show that this is not a de jure national boundary. The colouring implies fighting, but the Turkish border, particularly around Kobanî/Ayn al-Arab has had far more fighting. Were rebels to try to reclaim the area, or have a major battle in the area, then I might reconsider. Everything else I have to say has been said above repeatedly.--Banak (talk) 20:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I assume this discussion effects File:Syria_and_Iraq_2014-onward_War_map.png, File:Syrian civil war.png and Template:Syrian Civil War detailed map. If so, an immediate improvement would to (assuming support) switch from using File:Syria_location_map3.svg to using File:Syria_location_map.svg in the Syrian detailed map, then updating the other two maps. Is there a map of Syria without the Golan Heights being highlighted.--Banak (talk) 21:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it is for the two files and template. The file in the template does not have to change, it as easy as making the striped areas gray, we do not need to worry about the template. About the Syria sans Golan Heights, I'm not sure.—SPESH531Other 22:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be clear, I meant the Israeli-occupied part of the Golan Heights only. --Banak (talk) 04:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I have just taken a look through all the other language, parallel articles to the English article on 'SIL Of the articles that use the map at File:Syria and Iraq 2014-onward War map.png only the Tamil article added reference to the occupied territories in the context of this map. I left a link to this content for anyone who wants to join the discussion. GregKaye ✍♪ 15:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is instructive, the evidence suggests Israel is fighting Hezbollah/Iran in Syria, not Syria, confirmed by Jewish academic and Lebanese press. "Prof. Eyal Zisser, an expert on Syria from the Moshe Dayan Center at Tel Aviv University, told The Jerusalem Post..., “Israel’s policy is clear. It does not interfere in the war and has no interest to attack [Syrian President] Bashar Assad and its army, or to topple the regime.” However, he said that “Israel took advantage several times in the past of Assad’s weakness and acted against arms shipments on their way from Syria to Hezbollah.”" Syria says Israel is helping the al-Qaeda terrorists-which makes zero sense. [1].Legacypac (talk) 20:28, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The map shows the current military situation in Syria and Iraq; the UN, and most countries in the world, recognize Golan Heights as part of Syria under Israeli military occupation, so that is relevant to the situation of the map. Furthermore, while Israel has not been a major player in the Syrian Civil War, they have attacked Syrian government forces several times, and there have been media reports of them providing low level aid to the rebel forces, so that is another reason to include them in the map. SJK (talk) 06:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• SJK The map relates to the 2014 military situation in Iraq and Syria. As far as I am aware Israel has not attacked the Syrian government forces was a relatively long time. The low level aide that you are referring to relates to medical aide given to war wounded. Certainly some if not all of the casualties may have been fighters but, the nature of wounds received, will mean that a large number of them will not return to active duty. Israel has no motive in antagonising the Assad regime and I think that it is likely that this is a PR move with the rebels. Israel is not involved in military activity of any relevance to the articles in which this map is used. I don't think that this map is an appropriate place to attempt to WP:right wrongs. As I see it the only thing that will result from a highlighting of Israel will be an increase in antagonism and a distraction from a Sunni-Shia conflict which also needs to be resolved. There is nothing encyclopaedic in the current context in a mention of Israel. Please alter your decision. GregKaye ✍♪ 12:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • GregKaye, you say "As far as I am aware Israel has not attacked the Syrian government forces was a relatively long time". According to the Washington Post, Israel attacked Syrian government facilities earlier this month, I don't think that was a long time ago. Given that Israel has attacked the Syrian government and its allies in Syria on more than one occasion, I don't think it is right to label Israel a non-participant in the Syrian Civil War. Their degree of participation is at the lower end of the scale, but it isn't zero. SJK (talk) 08:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • • SJK Thank-you. Having given more attention to ISIL related issues I was unaware of this significant handful of attacks on the Syrian government. However I don't see that this information is relevant the majority of ISIL related articles within which the map is predominantly used and viewed. Israel is not raised as an issue in these forums. There are maps available specifically related to the Syrian situation in the Syrian Civil War and these maps can equally be used in the one relevant article use there. GregKaye ✍♪ 09:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So have we come to a conclusion or are we going to leave this for a discussion 6 months later?—SPESH531Other 22:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There has to be. The current situation where some are repeatedly showing the Golan Heights in a certain colour and calling it "disputed" is unacceptable of the reasons I have mentioned above. --IRISZOOM (talk) 16:01, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result is clearly for making the Golan Heights gray. But, I won't change it until the discussion is closed.—SPESH531Other 04:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leave the Israel-occupied area as orange - We already have "grey" for ISIL, and the area is clearly Israel-occupied, so the map key should be changed to reflect this. However, the color should remain orange, because the color grey is already in use. LightandDark2000 (talk) 03:14, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand, I believe the proposal is to colour it the same as other territories not involved in the conflict/ other countries, not the same as ISIL. Whether that grey is territories not involved or other countries (de jeru) is in effect what we are asking, I believe. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 04:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Golen is not involved in the Syrian Civil War and has not been controlled by Syria for several generations. It should be coloured the same as Jordan, Turkey, Kuwait etc. The map is about the Syrian Civil War and Iraq Insurgency. Legacypac (talk) 20:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming another wave of RfCs went out that I was notified now when much of the conversations seems to have taken place a couple weeks ago. Support per the immediately preceding statement by Legacypac and the earlier statement by IRISZOOM. The Golan Heights has been viewed as occupied independently of and preceding the civil war and Islamic State conflicts and is not relevant for highlighting in a graphic. Weedwacker (talk) 00:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• But if Israel's territory of the Golan Heights is to be colored grey, then it should be grey-striped over a white background, because the area is not globally recognized, and due to the fact that there is some political tension between Syrian and Israel right now over the issue of the occupation of the Golan. LightandDark2000 (talk) 02:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand your comment, you are saying to make it grey one will/should make the golan heights striped grey over a white background. Currently the map is striped orange and grey or white and grey depending on who the most recent updater is. I believe your comment is therefore incorrect as staying half grey would not be colouring the area grey. I believe making it more grey could therefore only reasonably mean making it all grey like surrounding countries. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 05:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The text of the fifth paragraph of the lead begins: "The group's original aim was to establish an Islamic state in Sunni-majority regions of Iraq, and after it joined the Syrian Civil War, this extended to include Sunni-majority areas of Syria." Is there any quote from the group itself regarding its original aim or is this just speculation? Why were they fighting? For territory? For statehood? For vengeance against or hatred (or similar) of Shia believers and/or of other ethnic groups? For the enforcement of Sharia law on wider groups of people? For a cleansing of the land? I am speculating here but (I am guessing) that whoever added the original text may have done the same.

Citations on the group's declared aims, if it ever made any, would be appreciated. For now I have edited so as to place the "Sunni-majority" reference within its relevant section and removed reference to the claimed singular aim here. GregKaye ✍♪ 11:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GregKaye: This sentence you have removed was carefully decided upon by editors:

"The group's original aim was to establish an Islamic state in Sunni-majority regions of Iraq"

Gazkthul can put you right on the history of the group's Islamic state dream, but unfortunately he is away. There are several citations on this in the article which might help you on this if you care to look at them. I suggest you restore the sentence until this can be sorted out. P-123 (talk) 12:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P-123, what exactly do we know about this group? They promote various lifestyle aspects of Sharia law; they threaten and terrorise citizens so as to force compliance to their requirements; they kill people that they think will be a threat and they torture and kill people who refuse to comply and they have declared an Islamic state and caliphate. A group of Muslims could buy an island from a government in a way that in which the government renounced sovereignty and declare an Islamic state. Clearly, unless an Islamist agenda is being pushed, it may be argued that the other issues mentioned may not be necessary. We cannot crystal ball with speculations regarding the group's original aim. At most we may be able to quote members of Jamāʻat al-Tawḥīd wa-al-Jihād as to what they say that their aim was. We have difficulty in crystal balling their aim at any stage in proceedings. I think we are better off quoting what they say and what they do.

I've notified Gazkthul of thread and edit developments and have invited contribution here. GregKaye ✍♪ 22:52, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. Sources are needed for this. I think there may at one time have been an RS which backed up that sentence, even in the Lead. What about the other references in this article which back up that they have always aimed to found an Islamic state? (Don't be frightened of pro-ISIL bogeys, I honestly don't think there are any working on this article! You ask the right questions, but is the cat on the mat perhaps getting the better of you again? ) P-123 (talk) 23:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P-123 When you mention anti-ISIL and pro-ISIL the only issue involved is neutrality and unless in response to another editor, these are terms that I have never used.

• Of course the only issue is neutrality. I never meant anything else when contrasting those two terms. P-123 (talk) 09:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC) [redacted][reply]

Not just 'SIL but other similar groups may well have an aim to establish what they would describe as an "Islamic state" or what they would describe as an "(Islamic) caliphate". However to say that such was the aim of Jamāʻat al-Tawḥīd wa-al-Jihād would need confirmed citation. The fact is that the group have undertaken a wide range of War Crime type actions that are, by no means, required for the formation of either of the above. When there are citations saying that the group are targeting and killing the Shia, should we declare the groups aim to be the denuding of Shia populations? We can't crystal ball on these issues. We are not thought police. We can only present facts. GregKaye ✍♪ 08:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• GregKaye: I am not clear why you are making these points. It has already been decided that citations have to be found. I had an exchange with Gazkthul about this some time ago; the matter has to be taken up with him on his return. He is very knowledgeable about the history groups like ISIL as you probably know. Observation: your constant return to the iniquities of ISIL, brought in at every possible opportunity, is very telling about your attitude towards editing this article, IMO. P-123 (talk) 09:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P-123 It is fine to raise question of motive but I find it curious, when you have repeatedly protested against perceived "thought police" on instance when the content of your edits have been challenged, that you raise this type of issue here.

The first point I made was in reply to your mention of pro-ISIL bogeys. I responded.

The iniquities of ISIL are a major topic in relation to the group. In relation to article content there have been what you have described to be surreptitious attempts to edit the article which have had the effect to remove critical content; There are currently attempts to declare in Wikipedia's voice that the group are (Islamic) caliphate despite several "facts": that the claimed authority of the group is extremely widely disputed; that they are widely regarded to be un-Islamic; that, when RS use the word caliphate in connection to this group, they typically qualify the use of the term and that other groups with similar but less extreme claims to Islam are fighting against them. Accurate heading descriptions in relation section content have been disputed. I think that various issues are being pushed in the article and that they are telling, IMO.

Thanks for mentioning the point about other references in this article. I was interested to see a primary source text dating back to 2005 (in the goals section) in which the establishment of a caliphate is mentioned 6 times and state is mentioned (in the context of becoming one) is mentioned 4 times. There is also an interesting justification of slaughter amongst other things. The Shia are mentioned 19 times. Again I have to wonder whether the aim was to build a "caliphate" or destroy the Shia. What do you think? GregKaye ✍♪ 10:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You say, "P-123 ... you have repeatedly protested against perceived "thought police" on instance when the content of your edits have been challenged". That is a gross misrepresentation. (See collapse box for my original comment removed by Gregkaye.) P-123 (talk) 22:54, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The assertion of a title "Refactoring muddle" is a gross misrepresentation. You inserted text directly into my edits which is an issue that I have previously requested you not to do. All your content has done is assert more of your unsubstantiated claims. I did not refactor anything. I now regret not just deleting the intrusive content and letting you start again. Your edit summary that your "comments", "have been unilaterally removed by Gregkaye and put in a collapse box" is also a misrepresentation. If the comments were relevant you could easily have added them or edited them at the end of my comment in the normal way and as I have requested. This bickering is no use for an article talk page. Please desist from your "sparring". GregKaye ✍♪ 13:27, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies to editors. Gregkaye, please read: (i) I have already scored out "to this box" (see inside collapse box); (ii) I had already altered "refactoring" to "removed" in my notes; (iii) I will alter all "refactoring" to "moving" to meet your objections. I will not disrupt the Talk page by repeating why this is no trivial matter (see collapse box). P-123 (talk) 16:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P-123 Please see: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing comments, "The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." You had no justification to add text within my edit but did so despite my previous objection to this type of action. You chose to instigate the collapse by your own volition. You now want to highlight the content within the collapse. This whole thing has been a disruption from beginning to end. GregKaye ✍♪ 16:41, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GregKaye: I am a bad person to ask as I don't know too much about it, but I would say the aim was to do both. It is alien to our way of thinking, but I can see how for groups that seem to think like ISIL do those goals would not be incompatible. (One of the big problems in understanding ISIL, I think, and much of the Middle East for that matter is that the mindset is so completely different from the Western one. Sorry, this is not a WP:FORUM.) I am puzzled why that 2005 letter you refer to is cited in support of ISIL's caliphate/Islamic state dream, because I don't think it is from a member of ISIL (in a former incarnation) at all. I looked it up before and I think the person who wrote that letter, Abu Muhammad, is Ayman al-Zawahiri from al-Qaeda. That name is listed in the wiki article on him as one of his aliases. P-123 (talk) 11:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because ISIL=al-Qaeda at the time? P-123's understanding of NPOV is flawed and indeed is making him look like an ISIL cheerleader now. Neutral POV includes giving appropriate weight to RS - and in this case the overwhelming RS evidence is not pro-ISIL claims. Legacypac (talk) 19:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Legacypac: Correct about the letter covering ISIL as ISIL was part of al-Qaeda at the time. Will have to check with Gazkthul when back whether this is al-Zawahiri's letter. Perhaps it should be made clear this was ISIL's view as well, either in the text (messy) or in the footnote (better). Re: "overwhelming RS evidence is not pro-ISIL". Of course it isn't. I don't question the accuracy of that paragraph's contents or correct balance; I was in the discussions to compose it as you were. To repeat, it is that para's positioning in the Lead, not its content, that is crucial here. It looks POV placed there (even though balanced and accurate) and that is what counts, first impressions and all that. This same point was made in very early discussions on this para. This article has to be looked at as a whole, not piecemeal as a series of facts. Balance applies there just as much as it applies to the individual facts reported in it. That is all I meant by my comments. P-123 (talk) 20:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree that it will be interesting to consider the possible aims of the group may have been.

The paragraph states that, the group proclaimed a worldwide caliphate, that al-Baghdadi as Caliph Ibrahim was named its caliph, and the group was renamed the Islamic State... that, As caliphate it claims religious, political and military authority over all Muslims worldwide. and that One of ISIL's goals has been to establish a radical Sunni Islamist state in Iraq and the Levant region,.. as per original citation content. It has been mentioned before but there is a lot of caliphate content here. There are also a lot of reference to Islamic State... and ISIL terminologies throughout. There has also been a significant drive to kill or condition large groups of people.

It will be interesting to hear views and interpretations on the drives and aims that brought these things together. I find it curious to note that there is no arabic article on a parallel to the article Islamic state. It makes me wonder how important a concept being an "Islamic state" is. There's certainly and Arabic article on the topic of caliphate as ar:خلافة_إسلامية. Greg Kaye 00:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Generally people aim to do something before they do it. At least as far back as sometime before the declaration of the Islamic State of Iraq, they wanted to form a country organized as an Islamic state. The caliphate was not proclaimed earlier because they perceived the time not to right yet, but I understand the dream of a caliphate is widely shared by islamic extremists around the world. Legacypac (talk) 18:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is getting wordy with too many "also"s and lots of qualifiers. Perhaps we cut down to"The ISIL" is a "X", a (insert short desription here). It is commonly referred to in Arabic as "Y". It has proclaimed itself as caliphate refered to as "Z"" GraniteSand (talk) 08:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Re: "X" I would suggest changing "extremist, jihadist" to "Islamist" as per search results in news:

(isil or isis or daesh or "islamic state") AND Islamist gets "About 1,100 results"

(isil or isis or daesh or "islamic state") AND extremist gets "About 839 results"

(isil or isis or daesh or "islamic state") AND jihadist gets "About 842 results"

I don't know of any objections to the group being described as Islamist.

Re: caliphate, other groups including al-Qaeda, the al-Nusra Front and various Kurdish groups that all hold predominantly to Islam based doctrines do not regard the group as caliphate. I think that the article should focus on what the group is and on its history without unnecessary focus being placed on its contested claims. Issues relating to the groups claim as caliphate are dealt with extensively in the fifth paragraph. I do not think that we should present a ham fisted preferential treatment between groups. GregKaye ✍♪ 10:52, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I think I speak for all editors if I say, "Oh no, here we go again!" The Lead has been discussed at great length by editors, analysed, quartered, diced, reconstituted, so many times. Pity the poor reader, who has been getting a different version of the Lead nearly every other week day, for months and months. An encyclopaedia that cannot make up its mind is a very bizarre thing. Gregkaye seems to be wanting to raise the vexed "jihadist" wording again, first raised by him at the beginning of October. I don't think there will ever be an end to this if matters are allowed to take their course. P-123 (talk) 11:29, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Stability in lead content would be advantageous. All the same it is better that editors raise changes to the lead here rather than just making changes without consultation.

P-123 That was what I wrote until I ran into edit conflict with your personalised redaction above. Given the context of the last three bids to change the lead, presented here, here and here were all proposed by you; that you have significantly supported my proposals re jihadism and that the comments above relate to clear prevalence of use in reliable sources I find this criticism quite surprising. GregKaye ✍♪ 12:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GregKaye: My proposals led to a consensus (not always in my favour) and I believe those agreed changes should now not be altered. As you know, I supported a link attached to "jihadist", not removal of the word. You say, "I would suggest changing "extremist, jihadist" to "Islamist"", opening up the whole "jihadist" debate again, which was very disruptive and led to your AN/I at the end of October. No editor agreed with you on the removal of the word "jihadist" and now you raise removing it again. [Comment added later:] The AN/I was inconclusive and Gregkaye received no sanction. ~ P-123 (talk) 20:27, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TY P-123, yep I got away with that one, joking. It is certainly true that I was certainly soapboxing in the initial thread on the issue but on a subject that I thought had significant importance. Amazingly, even though the terminology "Islamist" was mentioned a number of times in the debate, the word itself was never suggested as an alternative description. With reference to the actual usage of words it is clear that Islamist is the more commonly used term in relation to the group. I think the description fits. Reference to earlier threads on this topic will demonstrate difficulties surrounding the description "jihadist" but I think that "Islamist" ticks all the boxes.

Digression, P-123 and I have also been known to disagree on a number of subjects but, to his/her great credit, during the difficult time of the AN/I s/he gave a generous, supportive communication lifeline within Wikipedia. I felt this to be a difficult time and the contact was appreciated. I think that this represents something that goes way beyond the standards of good practice in situations in which editors are being called to account. GregKaye ✍♪ 23:45, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the previous thread you said, "For now I have edited so as to place the "Sunni-majority" reference within its relevant section and removed reference to the claimed singular aim here." Now you say, "All the same it is better that editors raise changes to the lead here rather than just making changes without consultation." Please make up your mind! P-123 (talk) 13:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that WP:guidelines apply to different extents to different issues, The way I see it is that some things are debatable on issues such as, "do we put this content into the lead". In other cases I think that there are issues on which Wikipedia guidelines present a clearer level of guidance on a choice to be taken. My personal view is that, in these situations, WP:BOLD changes may be more validly made. GregKaye ✍♪

The lead rightly notes the complexity of DAESH, from its illogical claims, un islamic actions, to multitude of names. If the OP has specific wording, post it up for comment. Legacypac (talk) 19:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, my earlier comments were not intended to shut down debate. Newer editors need to know the background to the "jihadist" debate, that is all. P-123 (talk) 20:27, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P-123 Re: Newer.. Why? All older and newer editors "need to know" is the topic of a debate. If at this stage you want to paint pictures of long past disruption I suggest that you add balanced comment on the various sides of the story. You very well know that I backed away from debates of my own volition despite what one administrator described as bad faith contributions within the threads. You also know that my proposal here is something new and not before mentioned. I take exception to argumentative wording "here we go again", "bizarre", "vexed" and "ever be an end". It would have been nice if the proposal had been able to run its course without being unduly and disruptively prejudiced against from the start. I would not like to "mirror" this raising of past issues in this way. I wonder how editors past would regard these approaches. GregKaye ✍♪ 17:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I imagine they would agree with me. We all opposed your wish to remove "jihadist". The link I gave earlier to Talk page discussion on this, and the links from that discussion, demonstrate it very clearly. Yours is hardly a new proposal. You still wish to remove "jihadist", the common RS descriptor for groups of this type. P-123 (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P-123 Please read carefully the above and related texts. Granite sands has proposed using a short description and I have highlighted the fact that the most common descriptor for groups of this type is "Islamist". This is also true for groups like al-Qaeda and other Islamist groups for which I have done similar checks as above. My original proposal (very briefly held) was to exchange "jihadist" (in relation to a group very disputably following jihad) for "extremist". When objection to this proposal was raised I responded and moved to an adapted proposal to make sure that qualification was given to the use of that jihadist terminology. Now it turns out that "Islamist" is the most common descriptor. The proposal raised here is new. Please do not evoke imaginary support. If support is given one way or another then fair enough. Please do not prejudice against an argument in the way that you have. If you can present that Islamist is less of a commonly used descriptor than jihadist in relation to this group then present your case. GregKaye ✍♪ 07:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Gregkaye: I have read them. I am not trying to pick holes, but what search terms did you use for those Google results? Are they results from Reliable Sources? Apart from al-Qaeda, which other groups did you get similar results for? A survey of this sort (or any sort) is only as good as the questions asked. (An observation: for an editor to say criticism is disruptive and prejudices argument says an awful lot; it strongly suggests that editor is unable to take criticism.) P-123 (talk) 08:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "put up or shut up" attitude is needlessly aggressive. I made an unambiguous suggestion for a clean up of the lead, which everyone else seems to follow. What are you confused about? GraniteSand (talk) 10:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GraniteSand, I am sorry that you feel that way although it may also be argued that the introduction of a thread with the wording "Ham fisted.." is also quite aggressive. Please also review your edit above in terms of aggression.

The truth is that references to caliphate as associated to 'SIL are far from dominant within general reporting which is demonstrated in the following search of news:

• (isil or isis or daesh or "islamic state") AND caliphate gets "About 806 results" in news.

A mention of caliphate in the opening paragraph of the lead has only recently been added (without agreement) and, as I have mentioned, the claim is very widely "contested". The result of the previous discussion on lead content here supported the return of the "unrepresentative of Islam" statement back into the second paragraph of the lead. If the group's claim as caliphate is to be placed into the lead's first paragraph, then an increased need is raised for counter claims (as raised within the wider Islamic world) to be returned to the second paragraph. GregKaye ✍♪ 11:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I dropped caliphate from the first paragraph and fixed it up. Some weird markup made several of the widely used terms including DAESH completely invisible. I don't think we can make it much more compact and still include the names commonly used by the media - ISIL, ISIS (which comes from two translations), DAESH, and "Islamic State"/"IS" which is usually qualified somehow. Legacypac (talk) 19:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. The amended second paragraph now says very loud and clear: "We, the editors of this article, are very critical of ISIL. Look what has been said about it. We are right to be." Not exactly NPOV, is it? P-123 (talk) 21:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why not throw in for good measure, "Over 60 countries are directly or indirectly waging war against ISIL", from the end para? P-123 (talk) 21:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My, it has been done! The Lead now shows profound anti-ISIL POV and sets the tone for readers of this article. Whatever happened to WP:NPOV, one of the WP:FIVEPILLARS upon on which Wikipedia was founded? Are the current ISIS editors uninterested in upholding them any more? [Comment restored]

I like the suggestion of moving that sentence up (now wikilinked to the appropriate section) I don't think that the lead inaccurately deals with the global condemnation of DAESH, in fact it is really light on the topic. WP:NPOV "means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". If the article was to really be fair and proportional it would be 99% critical of DAESH. Legacypac (talk) 23:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that the criticisms facts [entailing criticism, of course, "criticisms" there is misleading, sorry] have to be summarized in the Lead, as they are a major feature dealt with in the article, the condemnatory tone here in the Lead I think is too strong. The article on al-Qaeda manages to be completely neutral in the Lead and there are as many criticisms of al-Qaeda as there are of ISIL. There needs to be a more neutral way of describing these criticisms. An anti-ISIL bias in the Lead at the moment is very strong. One way to make the Lead more neutral would be to move the second paragraph to the end of the Lead. I think in fact this is why that paragraph was moved to the end in the first place, and it has slowly moved back up, which began with my moving up some parts of it to the top. (See Archive ##22 "Bold change of para order in Lead".) I did express doubts about what I had done at the time, because it has led to bias; I now think I made a mistake and am sorry I did it. P-123 (talk) 07:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Legacypac: When adding your comment above you deleted my accidentally unsigned comment, which I have restored. I imagine this was a mistake. P-123 (talk) 07:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC) Yup - never saw it Legacypac (talk) 07:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You should regret your last post P-123. Nothing in the paragraph is criticism (the expression of disapproval of someone or something based on perceived faults or mistakes) but hard verifiable facts.

Right now it says: "The United Nations has held ISIL responsible for human rights abuses and war crimes, and Amnesty International has reported ethnic cleansing by the group on a "historic scale". (Section 4) The group has been designated as a terrorist organization by the United Nations, the European Union, the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, Indonesia, Canada, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, India, the UAE, and Egypt. (Section 3) ISIL's actions have been widely criticized around the world (very weak part Section 5), with many Islamic communities judging the group to be unrepresentative of Islam. (Section 5) Over 60 countries are directly or indirectly waging war against ISIL." (part of Section 7) = 4 sentences dealing with 4 sections in a factual summary kind of way. "Neutral" is not the goal of NPOV - fair and proportional without bias reflecting significant views in RS is the goal. The proclamation of caliphate paragraph in the lead lacks any balance right now - no line that anyone opposes it.

I'd say AQ look like Boy Scouts compared to ISIL, committing a fraction of the total killings and few of the other war crimes documented to have been committed by ISIL. Between 1992 and 2008 the AQ terrorist network perpetrated 31 attacks with a toll of more than 4,400 lives outside Iraq and Afgahnistan [2] June-Sept 2014 5,500 killed in Iraq only by ISIL (plus Syria!). [3] Legacypac (talk) 07:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Legacypac: Finesse it how you like, that paragraph displays anti-ISIL POV. The facts should be there, but everything is in how they are presented. That presentation does not show a neutral point of view. WP:NPOV says, "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Bias is there. As for "'Neutral' is not the goal of NPOV", that beggars belief. P-123 (talk) 08:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no bias (look up the meaning). See WP:OUTRAGE. You did not identify an incorrect fact, or what is opinion. Instead you seem to be arguing for the fun of arguing instead of presenting a credible alternative. Legacypac (talk) 09:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you are failing to understand, I think because you do not recognise recognise bias here. Of course those are all facts (except the criticisms sentence, obviously). Can you really not see that presenting them so prominently in the Lead, on its second breath, sets a tone of criticism from WP? That is the only thing I am concerned about. I have already presented what I think is a credible alternative: putting that whole paragraph at the end of the Lead, where it was originally, put there precisely to avoid this bias. I don't think you were involved in those discussions. P-123 (talk) 10:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[above edit refactored without striking]

(I don't know who added that note, but it is not mine.) P-123 (talk) 18:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Legacypac: Like Gregkaye, you show a disturbing tendency to return again and again to how evil ISIL are. That must affect your outlooks on editing this article, and possibly prevents you both seeing bias where it exists, I don't know. P-123 (talk) 10:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P-123 Please see WP:NPA regarding your assertion "failing to understand", suspicion "you do not recognise", rethoric "Can you really not see..", judgement "disturbing". Please see WP:CIVIL. I have already mentioned the abusive use of "here we go again", "bizarre", "vexed" and "ever be an end". Please see: WP:IDHT. I view this type of interaction on talk pages to be unnecessarily aggressive and in contradiction to the aim of the collegiate atmosphere of which you have otherwise stated as being an ideal. Even in this thread things have progressively got worse.

This thread was started on one issue. I mentioned a related issue. You then weighed in with a range of content that made no direct contribution to this thread.

You presented the problem, '"Oh no, here we go again!" The Lead has been discussed at great length by editors, analysed, quartered, diced, reconstituted, so many times.' You were the editor raising many if not most of those discussions with some being baseless and with one clearly (had you checked) going against your own pushed consensus (as here) and yet with your admission of your breaking of consensus being deleted from the recent thread here. Your constant re-visitation on the same old issues comes to feel like an incredible waste of time. From time to time please let things alone. GregKaye ✍♪ 11:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[content above placed out of (sequence edit conflict)]

"ISIL's actions have been widely criticized around the world, with many Islamic communities judging the group to be unrepresentative of Islam." = very factual statement, not opinion. Your proposal is not fair or proportionate because you are seeking to downplay the main defining characteristics of the group, what they are best known for. If you are cognizant of how evil this group then you need your sanity checked because I know you've read the article a few times. 10:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Apologies to other editors here, but why do you resort to what verges on WP:PA when addressing editors who disagree with you, Legacypac? Can we not keep civil in disagreements? I have been trying not to say this for some time, but enough is enough. P-123 (talk) 12:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now you are both at it! Gregkaye, I have repeated ad nauseam on this Talk page and ours that I acknowledge going against a consensus I had agreed to. I never "push" for consensus as you well know, I put things to editors to discuss and am happy with whatever consensus arises. You are too sensitive to tough language from editors who do not agree with you, you have a track record here. (If I refrain from citing on this, it will be criticized, as you hate "unsubstantiated" charges, if I cite, it will be seen as an attack, can't win.) This is now becoming really childish. "Constant re-visitation of the same old issues" is because I feel strongly about them, much to your discomfort, evidently. I have been bothered by the frequent revert edit summaries of late which say "goes against consensus", when often no consensus has been arrived at, the edits just happen to have stuck. I know you and Legacypac don't like opposition to your ideas, it is very plain, and I am a thorn in your sides, obviously. I knew this point would be reached eventually, in fact I have known it for a long, long time. Most of this comment is not for your benefits, but for the record, as I think it needs going on the record. P-123 (talk) 12:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P-123 Thank you for editing so as to put this in the collapsed box. All of this is way off topic.

Both at what?? Please get the point. I am far from knowing that you do not push. In my view you push hard while employing a variety of tactics to undermine fellow editors with opposing argument. I am sensitive to what I consider to be unfair presentations of views and to the use of attack in edits. "Childish" is just one more additional attack. On fairness: you claim right to revisit previously discussed issues but, when I raise a completely new proposal regarding the jihadist wording, you present multiple edits in opposition. You don't push? Really?

If you see any editor make a claim in edit summary that you don't agree with then raise it on their talk page. Again, THIS is not the place for unsubstantiated accusations. I believe that proposals that I have made to be based on a neutral approach to editing and am fine about good straightforward opposition. Please, if you want to oppose any editors proposals, don't infer issues like lawyering, weasel type activity and the use of sophisms as, again, you did here. This is not the way not to push for consensus especially on an issue that you did not even support. Lines need to be drawn. Please do not add further unsubstantiated content to this threat that would force a further response. None of this is relevant here. GregKaye ✍♪ 13:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Oppose main proposal as presented. The group's claim as caliphate are covered amply within the fifth paragraph of the lead and within the article both at appropriate points in the group's chronology. The article should present balanced content on the features of the group and not give disproportionate favouritism in presentation of religious assertions that affect surrounding Islam based communities. It is not a topic that is asserted strongly in RS. GregKaye ✍♪ 14:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in addition to being the most commonly used description for "ISIL", Islamist (as Sunni Islamist) has also been the first listed Ideology in the infobox since 27th November thanks to slight edit development by Emperortikacuti. GregKaye ✍♪ 18:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.theage.com.au/comment/we-are-helping-extremists-win-the-propaganda-war-in-syria-and-iraq-20141006-10qp82.html http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/18/politics/pentagon-now-calls-isis-daesh/index.html http://www.wam.ae/en/news/international/1395273411563.html http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-islamic-state-name-20141206-story.html

That's not a complete change, and ISIL is still the most widely used term at the government level, so we're going to stick with ISIL. LightandDark2000 (talk) 19:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not proposing a change in terms here, only supporting the addition of DAESH to the lead and a small insert that notes the DAESH term inserted in the article, which I added some days ago. Thanks Legacypac (talk) 23:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No qualms about that. LightandDark2000 (talk) 05:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a first time reader of the article's LEAD, I struggled to read the first sentence; specifically it reads like a fragment and is just hard to follow along without going back to the beginning multiple times. I get that this is a major topic and has a large summary, but should it be that complex? There are also many parentheses that confuse the flow of the LEAD, and I'm wondering if I should fix this or if anyone else is planning on fixing/addressing it. --Buffaboy (formerly Dekema2) (talk) 05:45, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Buffaboy, Thankyou. I just loged on to check for any developments on the page and saw your valuable point. I also find it difficult to see how the initial content is divided. The initial text currently reads:

• The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL /ˈaɪsəl/),(Arabic: الدولة الاسلامية في العراق والشام) is also translated as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria or ash-Sham referring to Greater Syria (ISIS /ˈaɪsɪs/),) ad-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fīl-ʻIrāq wa ash-Shām) The group is also known by the Arabic acronym Daʿish or DAESH (Arabic: داعش Dāʻish). Since June 2014 it calls itself the Islamic State (IS), a name widely rejected by non-members. ISIL is a Sunni extremist, jihadist rebel group based in Iraq and Syria, where it controls territory.

I'd propose:

• The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL /ˈaɪsəl/) also known by the Arabic acronym Daʿish or DAESH and self-proclaimed as the Islamic State (IS), a name widely rejected by non-members, is a Sunni extremist, jihadist rebel group based in Iraq and Syria, where it controls territory.
•  Done GregKaye 19:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would further change the wording, "Sunni extremist, jihadist.." for "Sunni Islamist" as per most commonly used description in RS and as per content of infobox.

•  Done GregKaye 19:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that all editors can take responsibility for the copy-editing of content like this and be ready to amend edits that make no grammatical sense.

Content had previously been edited stripping back the Arabic text and transliteration on the basis that this information is already in the lead as in the heading of the primary infobox. Would a consensus for this permanent removal be of use? GregKaye ✍♪ 10:47, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the lead was missing a period just before the words "The group...". The pronunciation guide for "ISIL" is just silly because there is no standard way people say it yet. Happy to drop the arabic as it is in the infobox and names section. Legacypac (talk) 17:35, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grammatically speaking, yes this new version does seem to flow better; however, Arabic translation IMO should still be considered, I didn't really see it as an issue. --Buffaboy (formerly Dekema2) (talk) 20:33, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Buffaboy, My thoughts were that the article lead might leave the Arabic to the infobox which currently contains the text:

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام (Arabic)
ad-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fil 'Irāq wa ash-Shām (transliteration)

I personally like the use of other language scripts and diacritics in articles but not all editors agree.

The article still retains information in a specific sub-section on "names" even though there had been debate regarding merging this information into the main history chronology. I think an option may be to add Arabic text and transliteration within either content. At the moment the Arabic text is repeated at the top of the document appearing both in the lead and the infobox and yet no Arabic script appears later on. GregKaye ✍♪ 13:11, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GregKaye, now I understand how this makes sense for simplicity. Since this is the English Wikipedia, English would be the primary language for the article while the Arabic translation would be in the infobox. That would make it much easier flowing for first time readers who may be caught looking at the translation instead of the lead. --Buffaboy (formerly Dekema2) (talk) 04:30, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow editors, unfortunately I was compelled to revert the latest change by Legacypac as it was adding bias to a lead that was already non-NPOV. I decided to be bold Could I suggest that you try to change the syntax to make it more readable but at the same time maintain the current level of bias at least. I am very sorry for the inconvenience. Thank you. Mbcap (talk) 23:54, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should remove "a name widely rejected by non-members".

I don't think this name is rejected by non-members of ISIL, that turn out to be most of the world's population with exception of some thousands of people! This name is used everywhere, specially in the media and among world leaders. There is some criticism by some Muslim communities, and this is already noted on various sections, it even has a section under the criticism section.

So I don't think "a name widely rejected by non-members" should be here because this is not true or accurate, and it gives a bad impression to the reader. Felino123 (talk) 19:05, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the "a name widely rejected by non-members" wording was added relatively recently but, none-the-less, it is accurate. In many cases groups use wording such as "so called Islamic State". 20:08, 25 December 2014 GregKaye ✍♪ 03:25, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

as noted the rejection of the name "Islamic State" by nearly all Muslims, nearly all residents of Iraq and Syria, the UN and every world leader I've read etc is so notable it gets its own section. I've never seen any group name rejected like this before. At Wikipedia editors have rejected naming this article "Islamic State" repeatedly. Legacypac (talk) 02:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose Felino123's suggestion per former discussions. Mhhossein (talk) 07:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources may call this group ISIL, ISIS, or Dāʻish. But that's mainly because "Islamic State" is a name readers find confusing. We can't conclude that anything has been "rejected." NotUnusual (talk) 16:56, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is WP:OR. I suggest reading the section of this article about rejecting the name, and the list of failed moves at the top of the talk page. Legacypac (talk) 22:48, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This argument turns the concept of OR on its head. There needs to be a source for the "widely rejected" claim. Given how much material has been published on this group, an off-hand remark in a single source would not be enough. I must say that it is quite amusing that Mullah Obama can proclaim that the group is not Islamic, while at same time calling it ISIL, i.e. the Islamic State of whatever. NotUnusual (talk) 00:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, your argument is original research. I'll drop in a few sources already in use in the Entire Section about this point. Legacypac (talk) 00:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh gee, last wordism. If you don't have a point to make, you don't have to reply. If you talk in generic cliches like this, I can't tell what point you are trying to make. Are you saying that because some clerics have rejected the Islamic pretensions of IS, the IS name has been "rejected"? But whether the state is Islamic and what name to call it are two different issues. The names ISIS, ISIL and Dāʻish also acknowledge the state's Islamic pretensions. NotUnusual (talk) 01:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NotUnusual: Bringing up the Obama stuff really raises your credibility (sarcasm). Stick to the point. Dustin (talk) 07:10, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the wording "a name widely rejected..." is certainly substantiated. I cannot think of any organisational name that has been as widely rejected as this one. Whether the wording should continue with ".. by non-members" of with something else may also be up for debate. GregKaye ✍♪ 17:18, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See previous discussions: Talk page too long (318,000) and Talk page too long

The talk page used, as the previous thread name suggests, been 318,000bytes long. It now has a length of 131,790 bytes. Its still a substantial length but the time length before a thread may get archived if inactive is only 8 days. I personally think that this may often be too short for the establishment of sound consensus. Personally I think 14 days or more would be good. GregKaye ✍♪ 22:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. There was a big surge of editor interest in the article when various countries started intervening in Iraq, but things are less busy now. Legacypac (talk) 22:54, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I did it correctly, its at 21 days - we can see how that goes. Legacypac (talk) 23:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As an administrative action I have reset it to 8 days. 21 days is much too long given that the current 7 days has created a page of 144k or still about 20k a day which about is what the average has been for the last couple of months. 21 days would give a size of much more than 420k as people keep old threads alive with the odd random comment. -- PBS (talk) 18:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PBS My concern is that sometimes important issues are getting passed through the talk page system quickly with some editors maybe missing a chance to contribute. Is there a higher value that could be acceptable. 10 days? 12? 14? 16? I have always thought that 8 days was problematically short. GregKaye 20:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not while the page is receiving around 20k a day and there are well over fifteen live sections. 20k a day gives a page size of between 150-200k that is large enough. Also we know from experience as the size of the page goes up the number of sections goes up by more because people add "me to" comments to otherwise stale sections. -- PBS (talk) 20:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is evidence and official confirmation of direct military action against ISIL by Iran http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/islamic-state/11269353/Iranian-jets-join-allies-in-the-fight-against-Islamic-State-in-Iraq.html http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/12/iran-confirms-strikes-against-isil-20141277759104238.html

Listing Iran as 'Other state opponents' along with Russia is misleading, I believe Iran should be listed under the category: "Military operations in or over Iraq and/or Syria airstrikes, air support, and ground forces performing training" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12usn12 (talk • contribs) 09:10, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Iran has long been listed as an opponent, and you can read 2014 Iranian-led intervention in Iraq, however Iran is decidedly excluded from the US led Global Coalition to Counter ISIL, the countries of which are organized within the table you are referring to. I appreciate the first cite, which specifically says "Iran is not part of the formal coalition drawn up to take on Isil in Iraq and Syria, in which France and several Gulf nations are flying sorties as well as Britain and the US. The British and American governments have always been keen to stress that there is no direct co-ordination with Iran." Hope that helps Legacypac (talk) 23:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone's got any opinion about it please post your comments in this section as to why the IS anthem was removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason foren daniel (talk • contribs) 12:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not touch it, but I've got questions. I believe it was added by an editor that was subsequently banned. Since ISIL is not a country, they can't have a national anthem. Since they have banned music, it seems strange for them to have an official song. Is there sourcing that this song is official? And was the audio properly licensed under cc? Legacypac (talk) 17:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jason foren daniel There is no valid reason for its removal or and I checked the issue at Village pump. I also wonder about its value as not a 'SIL recording. What is your view? GregKaye 19:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see them using the IS flag? See: http://www.news24.com/Africa/News/Cameroon-says-kills-41-militants-20141229 Does anyone have info they may now be an integral part of it? --78.1.73.42 (talk) 17:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• 78.1.73.42 'SIL use the flag of al-Shabab and different groups (and individuals?) use different versions of the Black Standard. Its worth keeping an eye on though. GregKaye 19:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• That is not to be a surprise. ISIL's current flag is actually the one of the most popular variants of al-Qaeda's Black Standard, quite possible al-Qaeda's war flag. Many other jihadist terror groups also use this flag, so it's actually somewhat popular among jihadist terrorists. LightandDark2000 (talk) 02:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have just arrived on this article, having read the lead I am shocked about the POV pushing that is apparent from reading it. Please could someone correct it. The criticism of the group/self-declared state starts from the get go before the article has even started. "A name widely rejected by non members" - seriously? This obviously needs to be in the article to give a balanced view of the issue but it has no place in the opening paragraph. In fact I am going to go ahead and delete it for the sake of having a NPOV article. Other editors are welcome to add it in somewhere more appropriate in the article.

The lead starts with 2 paragraphs of criticism and then moves on to the history and timeline of major events. That should be reveresed. Yes I am also going to go ahead and make that change too. Please discuss further. Mbcap (talk) 19:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mbcap: If you search "NPOV" or WP:NPOV on this Talk page and recent archived Talk pages, you will find that the question you raise has been hotly debated for a very long time. I have protested about what I regard as the POV-pushing you see in the Lead for some time, but the editors who agreed with me have disappeared. This is why the Lead appears as it does now. P-123 (talk) 20:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This issue has been heavily debated. Your opinions are welcome but undiscussed changes to the lead are not going to be appreciated here. Please post your proposed wording for discussion first here. WP:NPOV requires a balanced presentation and in this case the group has been so widely condemned that a presentation without the condemnation or noting rejection of the name is inappropriate. Legacypac (talk) 02:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mbcap The issue regarding criticism that I personally think is of most importance is that the reference to designation as terrorist (which I view as a form of international name calling) should remain in the context of comment/criticism of the actual atrocities and abuses actually performed by this group. Beyond that I see arguments on both sides but, with due consideration to WP:NPOV I think that there is call for what I would regard to be a representationally strong presentation of world criticism in the early lead. Is there any moderately sized to major group that has had its name as widely rejected as this one? Is there a group that has received such an extent of criticism and condemnation? GregKaye 09:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mbcap, P-123 I would ask you to please take note of the new thread on this page relating to the BBC article and video on the sex-slavery trauma of Yazidi women at the hands of ISIL. Please take a look and reflect on the content as you decide on the relevant prominence of criticism within the article and the lead. GregKaye 14:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the prompt reply, I thought I would have to wait a while but alas I have been proved wrong. lets firstly start with their name and starting the first sentence by saying the name is widely rejected by all others. That is not NPOV. We have to accept the name that they ascribe to themselves. For example the Ahmadiyya's are universilly considered as non-muslim by all other Muslims but still we group them into the Islam here because they self identify as Muslims. But you may say that all non-members reject the islamic state name but with the Ahmadiyya there are some Muslims who disagree with the view outlined above. Again that would be false. The Muslims can not agree on what day Ramadan starts or when the moon is first sighted but 75 scholars from all denominations came together in Saudi Arabia in the 70's to designate the Ahmadiyya non-Muslim. Did wikipedia bend and classify then as Non-muslims, no it did not. Wikipedia must retain its integrity in spite of all the commotion that is going on regarding the ISIS issue.

Moving on to you Legacypac. I have to agree with you regarding the widespread condemnation. The group has gathered the most controversy that I have ever seen and the condemnation is also equally severe. This needs to be in the article of course and a lot of it. However the lead should start by giving background information on the group as it stands now, a brief history, major time points in their evolution towards a militant group controlling territory. Then a paragraph about:

• It's effect on geopolitics in the region and internationally
• The regional and international response to the situation
• Majority view of the situation (includes the condemnation, UN position, majority muslim position, sexual slavery, head chopping, the list really goes on does it not?)

In regards to the sexual slavery of Yazidi women, it is quite proven and also notable I would say. I think we should create a seperate article for that. I was going to read the ISIS journal that was published recently which states their theological reasons for commiting such an act but it was declared illegal. Therefore I was unable to read it. Even still the topic deserves attention and there is plenty of material out there that talks about the sexual slavery situation.

Also Gregkaye, I think you suggesting I read the article on the bbc and then telling me to reflect on the prominence of criticism suggest you may have an emotional bias towards the subject. I think it is best when writing about such an issue, to be behind a veil of ignorance and then to scout for information in order to build an article that is NPOV. As I have already suggested, the sexual slavery thing needs to be mentioned in detail in the article, and it may get so big that it may require its own article. I do not make it my business to reflect on a news story but simply to access its credibility and whether it warrants insertion into wikipedia. Mbcap (talk) 18:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions that editors are bias against terrorists here for pointing out the widespread criticism is disingenuous. Please carefully read WP:NPOV. Compare to Jim Jones and Peoples Temple where the crimes are in the 2nd line and 4th line respectively. ISIL is best known for its atrocities and acts of terror. That should be one of the first things the article lead talks about. Legacypac (talk) 20:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, no it is not disingeneous. You are more than welcome to point out criticism and ask me to have a look. But do not ask me to reflect. Reflect means to think deeply or carefully about something. It is disengenous to assume I have not reflected. I think it is clear that there is an agenda being pursued with the lead. Please could you look at the articles about Nazi Germany or Adolph hitler who were the embodiment of absolute evil. They massacred and cleansed 6 million Jews and others they did not like. Their actions elucidate heartfelt disgust to this day but the article is so well written and unbiased. It gives the information in a way that an encyclopaedia should and leaves it to the reader to make their mind up. No one would read those pages and think Nazi Germany was great. We here at wikipedia have to strive towards consistency and as I mentioned before assume you are behind a veil of ignorance. This best reflects the reader that will stumble upon the page, most will not be aware of the full extent of the information available on IS. Hopefully, just like the articles on Nazi Germany or North Korea, if the information is presented in an encyclopaedic manner, the reader will come to their own conclusions. I am still very new so I will back to contribute on this article when I am more familiar with guidelines. Mbcap (talk) 20:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at Hitler and Nazi Germany before. I think the situation there is a little different. Hitler was the recognized leader of an actual country with millions of residents etc. Without excusing their acts in anyway, there is more to the story then the atrocities. Plus anyone coming to the those articles who has taken any history in school is going to know basically what they are famous for, while I continue to be shocked at how many people I find in real life who don't know much about ISIL. Legacypac (talk) 21:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lets take it one step at time then. The starting sentence has reference about the name being rejected by others. Let us take this out forthright because as I explained before their name is self-ascribed so we take it at face value. If you disagree and insist on leaving it, then you should also put a reference on the starting line of the Ahmadiyya page saying their attribution as Muslims is rejected by all other muslims.

Moving on to your comment about, you being shocked at how many people do not know much:

• This is the exact reason why we must act as if we are behind a veil of ignorance because the average viewer will be in that same position. We do not need to push a POV in the lead because if the article is written well, the reader will come to their own informed conclusion. The informed conclusion bit is important, it respects the reader and affords him/her a modicum of respect in regards to the competence of his/her fronto-temporal decision making. Why is their so much condemnation in the media about the propaganda that is spewed out? It is because that propaganda is pushing a POV. What sets this wiki apart from the propaganda is the neutrality of the articles. Mind you as I have said before there is a plethora of criticism which does have its place in the article but the way it is in the lead is biased.

=>Reply: Neutrality means presenting both the claim and the wide spread rejection of the claim close together. Just presenting the claim is not neutral, its very bias.Legacypac (talk) 19:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC) )[reply]

In regards to your comparison between hilter/nazi germany articles and this article:

• I did not mean to say the situation is the same but I was asking you to look at the style in which them two were written. I was highlighting the need for consistency across different articles. Just because ISIS is not a state does not mean we can pursue a POV and automatically force the reader to adopt a position on the issue. I will repeat again, if written well the reader will arrive at their own conclusion, it does not need to be spoon fed to them.

Lastly could I ask "self-proclaimed title" to be removed. This is also clearly a POV. Who's name is not self-proclaimed. Al-Qaida, Taliban, Muslim brotherhood, Al-Shabab, Boko Haram, AQIP, AQIM, Houti's these are are self proclaimed titles. They self-ascribe the name Islamic State so that is enough. There is no need to push a POV. Why not instead have a criticism section or contemporary opinion section and talk about the impact of the name and its acceptance or non-acceptance by the masses. In fact a lot can be found on their naming alone and this would provide an opportunity to discuss the significance of their name in a lot more detail later on in the article.

In summary, could we take the first step and remove the attribution in the first sentence about their name being rejected or that it is self-proclaimed. We can then move on to discussing how to solve the remaining issues. I would like to make clear beforehand, I am not against having criticism in the lead. It should be towards the end of the lead after giving background information on the group first. Mbcap (talk) 11:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

=>Reply: While all the orgs you list are problems, their names are not contested by the world (and in Boko Haram's case, that name was given to it by its opponents). The name "Islamic State" itself is a huge issue. Many experts say they are not Islamic. Everyone agrees they are not a State. Plus they are not claiming to be an "Islamic State" but The "Islamic State" as in the only one, with worldwide religious, political and military authority [4] The RS usually qualify it as self-proclaimed, or put it in quotes. Legacypac (talk) 19:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC) )[reply]

I just had a look at the criticism section and feel that it is poorly structured. The criticism section should be arranged into subsections and a lot more content needs to be added. Subsection I would reccomend are:

• Islamic criticism
• Criticism and world reaction to its name
• Takfir of groups and individuals which will follow nicely by;
• Beheadings
• Mass executions
• Sexual slavery

=>Reply: The last three points are covered under War Crimes and Human Rights abuses. Are you suggesting moving those points from that section to Criticisms? I hope not because those three topics are core to the definitions of war crimes. Go for expanding these sections, or even spinning off an article. There is tons of material and much of it has been seriously summarized here in the interest of keeping this article a reasonable length. Legacypac (talk) 19:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think in the end the section may even warrant its own article because there is a lot of information on these issues. Also an unrelated question: when referring to other editors how should I use the pronouns relating to gender. Should I use him/her or is there an alternative? Thank you Mbcap (talk) 12:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mbcap: You can use "they" or "s/he". P-123 (talk) 18:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have not been sock-puppeting. P-123 (talk) 18:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. What are you talking about? Mbcap (talk) 18:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mbcap Because your views on this article are so close to my own and I am very unpopular here for expressing them. See WP:SOCKPUPPET. P-123 (talk) 19:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hope no one would go as far as to accuse you or me for that matter. That is a very offensive allegation. If you have concerns why don't you air them so we can improve the article. So far I have got nowhere. I do not know if I should just go ahead and amend the introduction or wait for a reply to my points above. Who gets to decide the final format of the introduction? Mbcap (talk) 19:20, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mbcap: As I said at the beginning of this discussion, I have argued about this for some time. Have a look at this Talk page and the discussions in #1 Pro-ISIL and Anti-ISIL and #Ham fisted Lead. Edits are made by consensus among editors and in this case the consensus was against me. P-123 (talk) 20:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've =>Replied inline, hopefully to make the reply clearer on each point. There are some unique challenges with ISIL because they make so many claims that are so widely rejected. It is acceptable to diminish claims right in the beginning of the lead in WP. Intelligent design for an example I don't agree with but am not going to fight.Legacypac (talk) 20:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Legacypac I would much prefer you answer in one go without intersecting my points but I accept that you may prefer to reply like you have. Please could you in the future reply to all the points I have raised. Your end point about war crimes and so forth I agree with. If you feel it is fine the way it is then I defer it to you.

You say write the claim and objection together. I disagree with absolute volition. As I mentioned before we should also put the objection into the Ahmadiyya page as well in the first sentence in regards to the widespread rejection of their claim to be Muslims. The Ahmadiyya claim to be Muslims and yet they are not considered so, universally by Muslims. We however do not put the objection with the claim in the first sentence because we take their self asserted attribution at face value even though they face 'widespread rejection' from Muslims. I would say the Ahmadiyya article is unbiased in its current form without that objection in the first line or paragraph. You can not have double standards. You could always talk about the widespread rejection later on in the article or maybe at the end of the lead. Other points in regards to leaving the name on its own without objection in the first sentence:

• They ascribe the name to themselves, it does not matter if the whole world objects. This is an encyclopaedia and not an opinion piece where we lean towards a certain side. The objections are all welcome but they should be somewhere else in the article. Most Muslims object to having pictures of Mohammad on the related article page but wikipedia maintained policy and kept them in. Here, in this article we have maintain NPOV and the article as it stands is very biased.

You also failed to address:

• Maintaining consistency in style across articles with reference to the Nazi Germany and Hitler articles

Let me know what you think. Mbcap (talk) 20:24, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah intelligent design is not a person, group, state, or any other animate object (or group of objects) that have the necessary neurocognitive ability to ascribe itself with a name. Mbcap (talk) 20:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no experience with Ahmadiyya but it sounds like you want to do there what you don't think we should do here. Wikipedia has rejected calling the group "Islamic State" based on a number of criteria including WP:COMMONNAME - see the move moratorium on top of this talk page. Its very hard to find a contemporary parallel example, so I'll resort to making one up. Henceforth, I declare myself The Pope, my properties the Vatican, my group the Roman Catholic Church and my religious, political and military authority to cover all Catholics and Catholic containing countries worldwide. Further, the governments of Italy, Spain, and everything South of the Rio Grande are void. I'll also start the Inquisition for good measure. If you call me Legacypac anymore I'll cut out your tongue or beat you. Please write a Wikipedia article about me using your version of the NPOV criteria. Remember all the RS call my claims total BS, 60+ countries declared war on me and I've accumulated more terrorist designations than al-Qaida. How will you word the lead exactly? Legacypac (talk) 20:54, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plese I impore you to take this seriously Legacypac. The ahmadiyya example was simply for comparison just like the Nazi germany or hitler article. Regarding your example, lets starts with the first problem; you do not have defacto control over the Vatican. But I wish to restrain myself, I will not play a game with a serious issue such as this. Please could we realign the discussion so we do not go off on a tangent into the hypothetical unknown. Mbcap (talk) 21:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm dead serious. ISIL surely does not control Sinai or Algeria but it has not stopped them from declaring governments there. Legacypac (talk) 21:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right, where would I be able to get another editors input who holds no bias. It is clear from you comments that you have a bias that is conflicting with your work on this article. I am dead serious about this assertion as well. I think someone who is uninvolved needs to have an input to arbitrate this issue. So far I have faced opposition from yourself and Greg. Myself and from what I gather by the comments here and by my conversation with, I think P-123 also agrees with me. You do not answer the points I have raised specially in regards to the self assertion of their name and also the lack of consistency in style as compared to other article across wikipedia. You seem to be quite hurt and emotional about the ISIS declaration of sovereignty over other regions of the world. I am here to discuss how to make the page NPOV and your reply to my points is:

"ISIL surely does not control Sinai or Algeria but it has not stopped them from declaring governments there."

This does not help the discussion and it seems you want to debate the politics of ISIS. If I wanted a debate I would go and find a forum elsewhere on the internet. You have already tried to use an analogy which speaks more about your bias about the group than anything else. Having said that I agree with your analogy but I choose to distance myself from that way of thinking so that I can contribute to the article in an unbiased fashion.

Another point is that you equate your rejection of the name by saying "Wikipedia has rejected" the name. The two are not synonymous. Here I think you are being disingenuous. I read the link you posted to WP:COMMONNAME which talks about the title of the article and not the issue which we are discussing. Please could I ask why you did this? I would really like an answer because I feel you have decided to play on my naivety as a new editor. An answer would be appreciated because the WP link has no relation to the discussion we are having which by the way is not about the article title.

I implore you again to realign the discussion onto the issue at hand which involves the editing of an encyclopaedia. Also I just reverted you edit which I felt was an attempt to add further bias to an already biased lead. Mbcap (talk) 23:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stop assigning emotion and bias to me. You don't know me. I'm trying to answer your questions. RS say that countries, muslims and others have rejected the name. Wikipedia editors have rejected the name=fact. See the list of requested moves at the top of the page. You didn't like the wording in the lead, so I adjusted it with a link to the details in the article. I'm starting to think you are here to defend ISIL. Please post your suggested wording and stop criticising me. Legacypac (talk) 00:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said time and time again, the wording is fine but the line "name is rejected widely by others" or whatever it is needs to go away and can be discussed later in the page or at the end of the lead. Funny you should say I am here to defend them when I have shown no leaning either way. I have constantly said the criticism whould be there but the lead is biased. I feel we can no longer go over this impass as you are unwilling to consider my call for a change to the first sentence. As I asked before, could you advise on how I could get an unbiased un-involved editor to help resolve the situation? It can no longer go on like this where you do not engage with my points. I have talked about your WP:COMMONNAME statement which you have not replied to. You have equated your rejection with wikipedia policy rejection. You also use meaningless analogies and loaded statements like the one about declaring Sinai and algeria as their territory. I ask you, how can we work constructively if you continue to disengage from my points? Mbcap (talk) 00:58, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Until we resolve this issue I thought it would be best to have a POV lead template on the article which I have just put in. Hopefully it will attract other editors and once we resolve the issue it could then be removed. Just to clarify what I am disputing at the moment is the first sentence. I will elaborate shortly. I initially was also against the biased nature of the entire lead in that the criticism comes first before the characteristics and context of the group. Since I am new, I did not think I would be able to take on the monumental task of changing the whole lead. Therefore I have decided to stick to the first sentence only and hopefully after that is resolved I will move on to the entire lead. So in regards to the first sentence this is what I think should be change to be NPOV:

• The phrase "self-proclaimed title" - since which person or group does not self attribute their own name

• The phrase "a name widely rejected by non-members" - for the sake of maintaining NPOV the first sentence should not start with criticism. There is plenty of space that follow where that could be discussed with more detail. If you start the sentence with the phrase you immediately inform the reader about which position wikipedia adopts. Wikipedia is neutral but since I read the WP links that my fellow editors posted I appreciate and have even before reading, that the majority view needs to be included in the article. I am all for this but feel in the first sentence it would not be appropriate. Elaborate on the name rejection further down the article.

My fellow editor Legacypac posted a link for WP:COMMONNAME. I studied it in depth but it only referred to the title of the article which I do not dispute at all. I appreciate that the most widely cited name should be used.

I also went and read WP:LEAD which said the lead should be structured in the following manner:

1. Define the topic

2. Establish context

3. Explain why the topic is notable

4. Sumarize the most important points

5. Include any prominent controversies

As you can see here or by reading the link this lead does not follow this format. The lead first criticizes (i.e. name widely rejected) then moves on to depine topic and extablish context by using a 2 sentences before moving on to further criticism:

"is a Sunni Islamist rebel group based in Iraq and Syria, where it controls territory. It also operates in eastern Libya, the Sinai Peninsula of Egypt, and other areas of the Middle East,[24] North Africa, South Asia,[25] and Southeast Asia."

Also WP:LEADELEMENTS says about the introduction:

• "articles should start with introductory text (the "lead"). The lead should establish significance, include mention of consequential or significant criticism or controversies..."

It seems to me that the first thing to be done is to define topic and establish significance then move on to criticism. The lead first criticizes then does very little in defining the topic and establishing significance before criticizing again. I would like to make it clear that I am all for criticism and I would prefer even more of it with the way things have been going recently. However I have to make sure the article is NPOV so I hope other editors will help me resolve this situation. Mbcap (talk) 14:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mbcap You misrepresent WP:LEAD which does not say that "the lead should be structured in the following manner ..." and it does not then present numbered points in the way that you have presented. It simply states that, "It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." There is nothing proscriptive here and it is the responsibility of Wikipedia editors to present relevant content in relevant ways. To this effect WP:LEAD had previously stated that "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects." With this in mind presentation is decided on by consensus. GregKaye 23:01, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your turn to policy. Is the 2nd paragraph detailing designation as terrorists, war crimes etc "criticism" or "context"? Does it not also explain why the group is notable and summarize important point (important enough to have whole sections on them?) These topics that are much more important to the reader then history (which details atrocities too in the text) and name changes going back to 1999 right? "Prominent controversies" would seem to cover other stuff that happened that is not core to the existence of the group, like how the lead of Red Cross reads. Anyway think about that and respond. Legacypac (talk) 23:07, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on actual wording

Well Legacypac, I thought if we work towards a single point of reference, we both may get what we want. I know interacting like this does not help convey the real intonation or emotion behind said words but I could not help but smile by your response ('nothing proscriptive here') Gregkaye. I mean this in a friendly sense. It reminds me of that scene from pirates of the carribean where Elizabith tries to invoke 'parle' but the captain laughs it off and says they are not really rules but more akin to guidelines. Sorry got carried away. First I could not get any consideration in regards to the POV nature of the article. After much discussion I decided to resort to guidelines. Now you say even that is not 'proscriptive' but up to other editors to present information in relevant ways. That just leaves me nowhere and leaves us with no point of reference. If we can not agree under normal circumstances (like before) and we also do not agree when I present wikipedia policy then we do not really have a point of reference to work towards to, do we.

Regarding the second paragraph, I will leave that till the current issue regarding the first line is resolved. I apologise Legacypac, I am not trying to be rude. This would be a bit too much for me at the moment to juggle all at once since I am just 25 days old. That is my wikipedia age I mean. Must be frustrating discussing with a newbie on an issue like this but I hope you guys can be patient with me. The first line in not NPOV. Before even defining the topic it starts criticiszing. I would like the first sentence to be neutral with no 'self-proclaimed' and no 'name widely rejected' statements in it. I have to take few weeks leave from wikipedia to concentrate on my medical finals. I thought of an alternative start to the article to reach an interim solution before I leave. We can continue the discussion after I return. The interim solution would be the following (it may need copy-editing to read as encylocpedic:

The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL /ˈaɪsəl/) also as known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), by the Arabic acronym Daʿish or DAESH, and by title of the Islamic State (IS) is a Sunni Islamist rebel group based in Iraq and Syria, where it controls territory. It also operates in eastern Libya, the Sinai Peninsula of Egypt, and other areas of the Middle East,[24] North Africa, South Asia,[25] and Southeast Asia.[26] ISIL have self proclaimed themselves as the "Islamic state" (link this to the concept of islamic state article) meaning they would hold political, religious and military authority over all lands belonging to Muslims, past and present. This assertion has been widely rejected by all non-members.

Sorry about the bit 'hold political, religious and military authority over all lands'. I took this from you legacypac. I hope you do not mind. I think it best describes the sheer audacity of the claim. I think the link to the islamic state (or caliphate article) is important because the average reader would be able to read more about the normative 'Islamic State' and know the absolute gravity of the claim and the significance of the widespread rejection. To be honest I would be quite pleased with this version once it is copy-edited. I hope this is acceptable to you Gregkaye and Legacypac. Please let me know what you think. Mbcap (talk) 00:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we understand each other now. It's been a long day - let me think about your proposed wording and see if others chime in. I promise I'll get back to the thread ok? Legacypac (talk) 04:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad we are understanding each other. We still have a long way to go with the lead. Yes that is ok, I shall wait. Take as long as you need. When I get some more time, we will need to qualify the statement "by all non-members" as it is ambiguous and does not explain what is meant but I will leave that for another time. Lastly we need to make it clear in the first sentence that the name they have chosen for themselves is Islamic State but I did not know how to do that. There are 4 different names for the group in the first line and it is not immediately clear which one the group has chosen as its name. Mbcap (talk) 15:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Lead: The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) is a Sunni Islamist rebel group that controls territory in Iraq and Syria and also operates in eastern Libya, the Sinai Peninsula of Egypt, and other areas of the Middle East,[24] North Africa, South Asia,[25] and Southeast Asia.[26] The group's Arabic name is الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام or ad-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fil 'Irāq wa ash-Shām (transliteration) leading to the Arabic acronym Daʿish or DAESH. The name is also commonly translated as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria or Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS). In June 2014 the group dropped the words " of Iraq and the Levant" from its name and now refers to itself as The Islamic State or IS. At the same time they proclaimed a Worldwide caliphate saying they hold political, religious and military authority over all lands belonging to Muslims, past and present. The new name and the assertion of a caliphate have been widely rejected by Muslims scholars and adherents, nation states and world leaders, and the United Nations.

Current Lead: The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), by the Arabic acronym Daʿish or DAESH, and by the self-proclaimed title of the Islamic State (IS), a name widely rejected by non-members, is a Sunni Islamist rebel group based in Iraq and Syria, where it controls territory. It also operates in eastern Libya, the Sinai Peninsula of Egypt, and other areas of the Middle East,[24] North Africa, South Asia,[25] and Southeast Asia.[26]

Legacypac (talk) 00:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. I will consider the wording and get back to you. I also promise. Mbcap (talk) 01:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BBC News by Paul Wood (22 December 2014) published ISIL (yemachshimam) Sharia-FAQs on sex and slavery in regard to girls and women. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-30573385 The document appears to be genuine. It was posted on an jihadist (yemachshimam) web forum and, apparently, given out after Friday prayers in Mosul. Christians, Jews and Yazidi women can all be taken as slaves, it says. Women can be bought, sold, and given as gifts; they can be disposed of as property if a fighter dies.

The pamphlet's Q&A format includes the following: Question: Is it allowed to have intercourse with a female slave who has not reached puberty? Answer: You may have intercourse with a female slave who hasn't reached puberty if she is fit for intercourse. IS itself has not tried to hide what it has done. As well as the pamphlet and the video, its official publication, Daqib, records what happened:"After capture, the Yazidi women and children were then divided according to Sharia [Islamic law] amongst the fighters of Islamic State who participated in the Sinjar operations…

"Before Satan sows doubt among the weak-minded and weak-hearted, remember that enslaving the kuffa [infidels] and taking their women as concubines is a firmly-established aspect of Sharia." The figure of 3,500 women and girls still in captivity is not a rough estimate. A Yazidi committee has names of all the missing. Of those who have returned, some are pregnant. --85.178.244.177 (talk) 13:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is extremely disturbing, but it is important information and should be added into the article in the "Sexual violence and slavery" section, if the information hasn't already been introduced. LightandDark2000 (talk) 03:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another user has pointed out to me that, I quote " "Template:Infobox geopolitical organization" does not exist. It is just a REDIRECT to the country template." Perhaps we should just stick with the "infobox country" in this case, or is there another reason why this article chooses to stick with the redirect?--BoguSlav 17:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I remember that we used to have what I regarded as a very bitty situation with two infoboxes for all of the information. When I looked at the contents there didn't seem to be a way to get all the info into either of the boxes. GregKaye 20:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The template definitely exists and is used on a few articles like Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf and European Union. Just the guide is on the same page as the guide for Template:Infobox country (hence the redirect). The templates are similar but there are critical differences. ISIL is not a country and does not fit well in the country template as it forces a bunch of inappropriate fields on us. The geopolitical organization template is a lot more flexible designed to deal with a range of organizations, offering many extra and customizable fields that allowed merging the 2nd info box we used to use into one box. Legacypac (talk) 20:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have been having a similar conversation at Talk:Donetsk People's Republic, saying that DPR is not a country, similar to ISIL. However, I was wondering if there was some kind of discussion where this was agreed upon, or some kind of policy or convention you were following.--BoguSlav 23:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok cool - I feel your pain. There is a clear decision that ISIL and Donesk are not countries. This article used infobox country for a long time but it lead to all kinds of inappropriate inserts. ISIL acquired official languages, multiple currencies, a capital, a government type, a national flag, and other such nonsense because the box has blanks for all these. We also had a war factions box with some overlapping info but some stuff that would not fit (like a second map) in the infobox country. I went looking for a way to fix the country box and found the geopolitical organization box on the same guidance page, which fit so much better. 3 hours of editing in my sandbox to get it ready and looking much the same as the old box. One or two people reverted it right away without any good reasons, but we were able to get the change to stick and the box has been much more stable ever since. I presume geopolitical org was created for things like EU (the example given in the guide) but it fits pretty well for ISIL and should work well for the two pro-Russia breakaway regions where editors would be facing many of the same issues as here. One of the really useful features is 9 establishment dates and events. Legacypac (talk) 00:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bogu can I also ask you to try to make sure you've had a decent look at previous discussions related to topics such as the uses of "self-proclaimed" and other terms in the opener of the lead. Many of these issues have been extensively discussed. Issues can be reconsidered but I would hate to go over the same ground for the sake of it. GregKaye

It's cool - he came looking for advice on another article. Legacypac (talk) 22:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have closed an overdue RfC here. Formerip (talk) 21:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am completely uninvolved here, and plan on remaining so, but I do have a question. It seems to me (purely subjective original research) that I hear the term "ISIS" used more than "ISIL". Has anyone done any research to see which is the more common name? Looking at the "Requested moves to date" box at the top of this page, I see that other than a couple of early move requests all the requests have been for other moves, not ISIS --> ISIL or ISIL --> ISIS. I really don't want to restart those later discussions. I am just asking about ISIL vs. ISIS. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Guy Macon Its a tricky one. The title Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant has been adopted by the article as a major designation. ISIS is a more widely used term than ISIL but a decision had previously made to use ISIL for the sake of consistency. I know that ISIS is used as the article name in at least one language version of Wikipedia. GregKaye 10:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• ISIS is used more often in the media overall, but ISIL is used officially by both the government and by the US-led Coalition. Given this, and what Greg stated above, we should stick with ISIL for consistency. LightandDark2000 (talk) 19:06, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• The choice has confounded the media. We had at least one RfC that decided ISIL over ISIS based mainly on it being short for the article name chosen. The two acronyms are alternative translations of the same Arabic name. The translation of the last word is where there is variation - al-Sham (no translation), Syria (denoting Greater Syria) and Levent with all three being roughly equivalent. Legacypac (talk) 23:22, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in any case, ISIL should be the default, for the sake of consistency and its usage at the government level. However, both ISIL and ISIS are okay to use as acronyms. LightandDark2000 (talk) 03:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked on my talk page by two regular editors to his talk page to consider protecting this page from IP edits. I have looked through the last 1000 edits of this page (from 2 Jan 2015 back to 1 Dec 2014). There are about half a dozen edits in the first 500 edits and about the same it the second five hundred, by IP addresses. This mean that between 1-1.5% of the edits to this page were made by IP addresses. In my opinion this is not enough to warrant page protection. -- PBS (talk) 20:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the second map on the page as at File:Territorial control of the ISIS.svg was originally developed as part of a misunderstanding. I currently displays the area of occupied territory but this is otherwise presented in the File:Syria and Iraq 2014-onward War map.png.

The map was originally used with a third colour marked as in this version. The third colour gave reference, as far as I later learned, to a one time 'SIL twitter announcement related to a listing of territorial areas in which the group then claimed to have a presence or control. This was interpreted within Wikipedia as 'SIL's territorial claim which was misleading. As far as I am aware ISIL have not made any specific territorial claim beyond non spokesman members saying things like the black flag will fly on Buckingham Palace and that kind of thing.

At the present the map is in two locations, in the infobox at the top of the article and in article section #Goals and territorial ambitions.

I would support removal of the map from both locations (or at least one) as superfluous and wondered what other editors thought. GregKaye 16:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That map has definitely changed a few times. Not too long ago it showed red controlled, pink claimed, and white for the rest. Right now on my screen it does not show a light pink for "claimed" just white. The one thing it does show that the multicolor map shows is Derna, but the extent of ISIL control in Derna is geographically limited as the Libyan Army has taken villages within a few km of the city and has announced an assault on the center. I don't think we need it twice, so I' ok with taking it out of the infobox for sure. Legacypac (talk) 17:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I'd agree that the info box map may be the one to lose as depending on broswer and screen I also think that the infobox may be getting proportionately long compared to the TOC. More thoughts? GregKaye 19:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the map - Honestly, the second map does have areas that the battle map does not go over, and so it should be kept for this reason. Also, they are updated at different rates, and even though it may be somewhat of an annoyance, I believe that the benefits make it worth the trouble to keep them both. LightandDark2000 (talk) 03:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS, I have no idea who removed the pink coloration for the ISIL territorial claims, but either way, the countries with official land claims (including the Gaza Strip, Jordan, and Turkey) should be re-highlighted as pink. LightandDark2000 (talk) 05:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(If one were to go on the history, one would see that I removed the pink) The pink is not needed there anymore because the entity of ISIL has expanded its claims into the white countries of the map. The map should be used on the ISIS page, not necessarily on the Syrian Civil War pages anymore, the reason being that the ISIS now seems to contain a part of the smaller Syrian civil war, as opposed to ISIS being a part of larger civil war. The pink became redundant.—SPESH531Other 08:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Star72 created a sorted list. I like the data, but the inclusion of flags suggests official permission by the countries and there is no prose on the topic. In some countries it is a crime to fight for ISIL, many fighters have done videos burning their passports, and penalties for joining ISIL can include loss of citizenship. Ideas for a more clear presentation? Also "fighting with" could mean "warring against" or "joining alongside" so a clearer heading is in order. Current presentation (I've removed the refs so they don't clutter the talk page):

Number of nationals fighting with ISIL:

•  Saudi Arabia:7,000
•  Tunisia: 2,400-5,000
•  United Kingdom:2,000
•  Russian Federation:1,000
•  Turkey:1,000
•  France:500
•  Germany:550
•  China:300
•  Belgium:250-400
•  Sweden:150
•  Canada:130
•  United States:100<
•  Australia:70
•  Israel:40-50
•  Spain:40
•  Japan:9

Legacypac (talk) 17:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this supposed to be a comprehensive list? It gives the impression that there are no Iraqis or Syrians fighting with Isis. That can't be right. Formerip (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or Jordan, Turkey, Yemen, Egypt... Legacypac (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no way of knowing if this is substantiated but some editors here talked of maps slowing things down. Additionally I have to wonder how many of these people will be flying any flag who's primary colour isn't black. The most important information is in the numbers and, if anything, I think the flags detract from this. I'm also wondering whether this information is more relevant for the military of ISIL article. GregKaye 19:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is lots of material in news articles country by country but nowhere I've seen is it brought together. Maybe an article on International response to jihadist fighters? Then list Country by Country - Canada has been revoking passports leaving "Canadians" like the idiot who bragged about playing soccer with severed heads in Syria or the ones who filmed themselves burning their Canadian passports stranded unable to return to Canada or go anywhere else. Hope he bought a one way ticket. Legacypac (talk) 23:18, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In whatever context it goes perhaps a numbers then nation format might work such as "7,000 from Saudi Arabia • 2,400-5,000 from Tunisia • 2,000 from the United Kingdom etc." In the current context the content under the heading "=====Number of nationals fighting with ISIL:=====" comes in the context of the section and text: "====Foreign fighters in Iraq and Syria==== There are an estimated 15,000 from nearly 70 countries in ISIL's ranks. According to an UN report." My first thought is that the numbers are of at least as much importance as the countries concerned but this is just a provisional view. GregKaye 10:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]