Jump to content

Talk:Islamic State/Archive 25

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27→Archive 30

Ham fisted lead

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)

  • 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)
  • 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)
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)
  • 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)
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)
  • 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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)
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)
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 [1] June-Sept 2014 5,500 killed in Iraq only by ISIL (plus Syria!). [2] Legacypac (talk) 07:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
[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)
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)
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)
[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)
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)
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)
comments on now removed collapse

Am tired of your growing attempts to lay down the law about how editors should behave and of your over-sensitivity to criticism. Those interpretations of comments, lawyering, etc, are typical of an editor who cannot handle criticism. There has been talk like this from you before when editors disagree with you.

Your attempts to control discussion and unilateral collapse of a discussion on a very important topic, NPOV, amounts to censorship and WP:OWN, in my view. It is serious. P-123 (talk) 14:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

P-123 I have withdrawn the collapse with this being done at the time I receiving the advice returned from an administrator that I had sought immediately at the time of the collapse. This discussion was not on the topic of NPOV but on the topic of the initial content of the lead, most specifically regarding splitting it into separate elements. GregKaye 18:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

[comment added out of chronological sequence]

Comment - Gregkaye has shut down this discussion by collapsing it. I have asked an admin if an editor is permitted to do this. P-123 (talk) 16:32, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

P-123 As you should know from a ping from an edit on the talk page of Lor, I had already written to "check whether ... the right courses of action" had been taken here. I collapsed the discussion after your 12:07, 23 December 2014 edit on the basis that the content was, as I saw it, entirely irrelevant to the the topic of this thread. Others may view this differently. You then added comment and then, in a separate edit, moved your additional content into the collapsed region of text. Which parent have you gone to this time? GregKaye ✍♪ 20:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Never one to miss a chance at a side-swipe! Well done. Never got the any ping from you, btw. P-123 (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
P-123 As you are fully aware it has long been in my habit to fully "miss" public confrontation on article talk pages. Instead I have more commonly followed a preference to raise issues such as guideline infringement directly with editors on their talk pages. This has been done so as to give editors control on whether they keep, archive or delete content. However, if content is targeted directed at me or at another editor in what I think is an unfair way I also have the right to respond directly. You went to Lor and have written extensively on this admins talk page regarding your perceptions of situations. I have also pinged Lor at various times related to my interactions with you and, as can be confirmed by going back on our communications, this was also done with the intention that I would not need to write on Lor's page directly and unnecessarily bring issues into public display there. In the context of your many messages on Lor's user page and in the context of your statement that you would not go to another parent I was surprised to find your comment above and that you did not continue with this admin. I am pleased that you only went as far as to going back to PBS. There was no side-swipe, just a response to content. Again, none of this content has anything to do with the thread. GregKaye ✍♪ 05:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
P-123 You make a display in regard to me collapsing content here, while make direct complaint to admin all without pinging me and, when I make my reply here, you do this. I take it that you agree with the appropriateness of the collapse. This has been an utter waste of time. GregKaye ✍♪ 12:53, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
GregKaye Never even thought to ping, my bad manners, apologies. I extended the collapse to keep further exchanges off the Talk page. P-123 (talk) 14:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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)

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)

Why was the Islamic States anthem removed from the page

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)

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)
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)

RfC close

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

Lead

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)

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:

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.

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)

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)
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)

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)

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)

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)

Pro-ISIL and anti-ISIL

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)

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

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

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)
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)
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)
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)
[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)
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)

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)

  • 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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)]
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
At last. P-123 (talk) 09:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
P-123 Please specify: what were the events on 29 June? GregKaye ✍♪ 06:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Declaration of caliphate and renaming as Islamic State. P-123 (talk) 07:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
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)

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)

Editor P-123 taken to AN/I

there is enough of this back and forth at the ANi. Let's keep it there. Legacypac (talk) 23:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Gregkaye has taken P-123 to AN/I on charges of, among other things, POV-pushing, canvassing and campaigning. That is the first time I have heard of straightforward attempts to edit being dubbed that. We have always had profound, and until recently amicable, disagreement about WP:NPOV in this article, and I suspect that this disagreement is at the bottom of this AN/I. The link is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. P-123 (talk) 17:25, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

P-123 POV pushing was an issue that I only added as the AN/I progressed. I think that the recent thread: Pro-ISIL and anti-ISIL acts as good reference on related issues. It is completely right for all editors to work towards the correct and application of all guidelines issues. Any issue of legitimate contention is rightly considered and, in this, WP:NPOV is rightly acknowledged as one of the WP:PILLARS on which this encyclopaedia must be built. GregKaye ✍♪ 18:09, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Gregkaye: [Added later: On NPOV,] in my view it is very simple: you and Legacypac have one interpretation of WP:NPOV, I have another. That is why as you will see I did not pursue the matter on that thread once I had made my point. I will obviously bow to any consensus that is reached on this, but I don't think it has been quite yet. Three of us have had our say and it is now for other editors to speak up. But mainly I wanted the issue of what is and what is not NPOV aired properly, both theoretically and practically for this article, since it never has been before, and I think we have done that now. I thought that important, because it strikes me as the fundamental perception problem underlying many of the arguments between editors on the Talk page over different issues, particularly recently. I grant you that my "anti-ISIL" and "pro-ISIL" terminology was a bit inflammatory in retrospect. Can we call pax on this one at least? (i.e. agree to differ, as we did before?) P-123 (talk)
see my comments at ANi Legacypac (talk) 22:51, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  • P-123 There is nothing "simple" about the AN/I situation. The AN/I covers a range of serious issues (that you have elsewhere dismissed as sundry) with those issues also including, "Canvassing and campaigning, aspersion,... editing in edits and editing to shame." They are all serious issues of contention. I have tried to tolerate them but that will has been broken. There is no related matter that is complicated. All editors should, preferably by their own volition, edit in accordance with WP:guidelines. It's that simple.
There has already been a good discussion on what is and what is not NPOV at Pro-ISIL and anti-ISIL. Editors are also able to trawl the archive for related material. Discussions can also be raised at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view. We have guidelines and, on a case by case basis, we can see how they are best applied. There is still an active thread on the NPOV theme above. GregKaye ✍♪ 17:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Gregkaye: I was explaining why I brought up the subject in the first place. I thought it might help editors who were interested. P-123 (talk) 17:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2014

nothing to do here Legacypac (talk) 23:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

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

The Islamic State is also referred to as MICE (Militant Islamic Caliphate Extremists) (cf. http://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/editorial/2014/09/21/exterminating-mice/16001821/) RGEckert (talk) 09:07, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done: I think we'd need more sources than a single editorial piece from the Democrat and Chronicle that seems to be trying to coin a phrase so they can draw rodent extermination parallels. Also, I have WP:COI concerns given the piece was written by a Robert Eckert Cannolis (talk) 14:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Jihadist" dropped from Lead, "Islamist" substituted

this debate is over between these editors Legacypac (talk) 01:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Gregkaye: You never answered my question in #Ham fisted Lead. What search terms did you use for the Google results you gave there, which you use to justify your substitute of "Islamist" for "jihadist"? 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. P-123 (talk) 20:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Your question wasn't in chronological flow and I didn't see the ping. The searches, all in news, are all in the thread. Islamist got 1,100 results I think it was in the last month. Extremist and jihadist each got ~850 results. I used a range of terms related to 'SIL in the search using the OR function. I have done similar searches on other groups and got even more extreme results and, from what I have seen, Islamist is the more commonly used term. All the same I think that even this is controvertially used as many people within the same broad religious bracket say that 'SIL has nothing to do with Islam. To me its still a mystery as to how people can consider it to be either jihadist or Islamist for Sunni's to kill Shia's. GregKaye 21:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Gregkaye: So events have helped you! What is the OR function? Just interested. P-123 (talk) 22:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

P-123 The only help has to be in editing the article. Your question was certainly helpful in highlighting an error in my last search. Operators go between search terms and appear as OR or AND. These are the ones that I used but I think there are others. I have regularly used consistent set of terms as: '(Isil OR Isis OR daesh OR "Islamic State") AND ...' but, at one time when I cut and paste this to a new search bar, the first section got transferred to lower case as: '(isil or isis or daesh or "islamic state") AND ...' and I thought, if that's what Google have done, so be it. Your question got me to review the searches as follows.

Admitting mistake, I have reverted the offending part of my edit here to the previously used wording al-be-it not with a return to the inserted terrorist wording which should not be used in Wikipedia's voice.

OR is just one of the search functions which I'll explain on your talk page. 08:41, 30 December 2014 GregKaye 13:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Further searches indicate:

This presents, I think likely, a predominance in authoritative usage in describing "ISIL" as an Islamist group. GregKaye 14:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye: Interesting. I wasn't trying to catch you out, btw. So it looks as though the trend is definitely moving towards "Islamist", led by scholarly sources. Hope you didn't feel I was breathing down your neck! May be worth checking news sources again in a month. I place a bet with you: by then news sources will have caught up and be using "Islamist" not "jihadist". P-123 (talk) 17:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Gregkaye: I don't understand. You have just reverted "jihadist" to "extremist" (30th 20.07), and your news sources say "jihadist" is more common. I thought news sources had to be followed for this sort of thing. P-123 (talk) 22:19, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
I can see that Gregkaye has backed his edits here. My question to P-123 is why do you say "I have no idea"? That's the opposite of "I know what I am talking about". Just trying to understand your objection. Thank you. 69.22.169.73 (talk) 22:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
69.22.169.73: It was not an objection. I thought news sources, as opposed to other kinds of sources, had to be followed "for this sort of thing", i.e. for citations to back up information of this kind. I did not know for sure and wondered whether that was true. That is what I was putting to Gregkaye. As a comparative newbie my knowledge of WP guidance and policy is limited. I hope that is adequate clarification. P-123 (talk) 22:54, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
That's fine. Thank you. 69.22.169.73 (talk) 22:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ISIS: Copy-editing

nothing to discuss. Clean up page. Legacypac (talk) 01:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

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

I will no longer be copy-editing this article. Please will editors make sure their new entries read properly and pay attention particularly to grammar and syntax. P-123 (talk) 11:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

  • I confirm that this notice reflects the announcement on my Talk page about no longer copy-editing this article which was made before I was brought to AN/I. The two things are not connected. P-123 (talk) 10:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
As a note regarding chronology, the announcement made above was not in response to the issue of the AN/I. It has a similar content to an announcement made previously by P-123 on 22 December here. The AN/I was issued on 27 December. Greg Kaye 10:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can a page be semi protected by a registered user

No, you have to be an Admin. but anyone can make a request here: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection Archiving as not the right talk page Legacypac (talk) 12:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Hey, I know that this is not the place to ask this question but can a register user semi-protect a page .I've tried reading all other pages about semi-protection and it's starting to confuse me, can anyone clarify it.Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.89.204.58 (talk) 04:44, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, IP. Welcome to Wikipedia. From the page on article protection here: WP:PP "Protection can be applied to or removed from pages by Wikipedia's administrators, although any user may request protection." As I understand it this means only administrators can change the level of protection, including semi-protecting one. However, if there is a page you would like to be semi-protected or have it removed as a user you can ask an administrator. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page User_talk:John_Smith_the_Gamer. However I'm pretty new as well. --John Smith the Gamer (talk) 05:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Propose lengthening the time before automatic archival of talk page threads

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)

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

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)

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)
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)

Allow only autoconfirmed users to edit the talk page

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)

Infobox problems

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

Boko Haram

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)

Request add : ISIL (yemachshimam) Sharia-FAQs on sex and slavery in regard to girls and women - honeypot for pedophiles -disgusting

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)

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)

ISIL or ISIS?

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)

  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
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)

Move toward DAESH term

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)
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)
No qualms about that. LightandDark2000 (talk) 05:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islamic_State/Archive_25&oldid=1256287187"