Talk:Islamic State/Archive 26

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20 ← Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 → Archive 30

RfC: File:Syria and Iraq 2014-onward War map.png not used to highlight Israel

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)

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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

  • 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)
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)
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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
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)
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)

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)

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)
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)

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)

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)
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)

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)

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)
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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

  • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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)

  • 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)
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)
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.

Collapse the Ref Section?

its not allowed basically Legacypac (talk) 09:22, 4 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.

Would it be ok to put the whole reference section of the article in a collapse box? It's longer then the actual article, takes forever to scroll through just to get to the content below, and would take a page or so to print. Legacypac (talk) 20:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Wait and see - I honestly don't think it's that bad yet, but if it gets too long to navigate, when compared with the rest of the article, then go right ahead. LightandDark2000 (talk) 03:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm wondering if there is a policy or standard practice on this. Legacypac (talk) 17:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Got a couple good answers here at Help Desk. The answer is do nothing per standard practice. Legacypac (talk) 19:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

One thing I've seen done in some other articles is to group multiple citations for a single fact or statement into a single footnote. This works best when each source is only cited once. When that's the case, you can create a single "< ref >" with a bullet list of sources within it. I don't think it makes sense to do that, because the article is still in flux. But once it's settled down a bit, that might be something we could consider doing. (did not get signed due to ref tag)
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.

Source countries for fighters presentation

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:

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

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)
Or Jordan, Turkey, Yemen, Egypt... Legacypac (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
 Done GregKaye 22:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Propose removal of second map

  Areas controlled  (as of 31 December 2014)
  Countries in which ISIL claims to have presence or control
Note: map includes uninhabited areas.

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
LightandDark2000 Can you give any reference to 'SIL's territorial claims? GregKaye 20:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
There are plenty of references in the article itself, and assuming that it is still there, there was one in the lead stating that they basically claimed the entire area of Greater Syria, before extending that claim to the entire world. But basically, the "claimed" countries should be the ones in which ISIL currently has a presence, which aside from the obvious ones, are the countries I listed above in my last post. And there are plenty of sources in Military of ISIL to suggest ISIL presences in each of those countires. LightandDark2000 (talk) 03:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
LightandDark2000 I do not see that: 'the "claimed" countries should be the ones in which ISIL currently has a presence'. Like anything else we would need reference for this. I think that either ISIL/ISIL sympathetic forces are in control of an area or they are not. It is as simple as that. Any other claims have to be referenced. To my understanding, countries in which ISIL have a presence are marked as white while other countries are marked as grey. What justification is there for presenting any specified indication of "claim"? GregKaye 11:16, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Barn door POV pushing in the lead

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)

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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
Mbcap Your misrepresentation of my content above must be addressed. I had requested, "Please take a look and reflect on the content as you decide on the relevant prominence of criticism within the article and the lead." The only issue here is to ensure that the article is written according to Wikipedia's clear content of NPOV. I request that you argue the point and not the person. I was making fair point regarding one facet of the reliably sourced references to the groups activities. From my doing so you publicly infer bias. I was requesting reference to one example of news coverage to provide context of group activities. Of course, like any editor, you can conduct your own research into this group's activities which will reveal a great deal of similar content. I did not tell you to do anything. GregKaye 07:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
[content above placed out of chronological sequence]
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)
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)
Mbcap Noone has assumed that you have not reflected. You are relatively new on this particular page and I don't see a reason why people would make assumptions on what you have or haven't done. GregKaye 07:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
[Comment above placed out of chronological sequence]
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)
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) )
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: 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 [2] The RS usually qualify it as self-proclaimed, or put it in quotes. Legacypac (talk) 19:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC) )
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)
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)
Mbcap: You can use "they" or "s/he". P-123 (talk) 18:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
No, I have not been sock-puppeting. P-123 (talk) 18:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. What are you talking about? Mbcap (talk) 18:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)

Discussion on actual wording

(continued discussion) inserted heading changed from level 2 ==, to level 3 ===, so as to maintain link to content above. GregKaye 22:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)
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)
Mbcap The lead is something that we have worked through many times and I do not agree with your previously expressed perspective that we have a long way to go with it. The simple fact is that it is a group that condemns and attacks all those around and that is highly criticised.
None-the-less Legacypac's suggestion seems to me to read well.
A few points can be made. As previously mentioned, the Arabic text is in the infobox and, if included just for the sake of the acronym, perhaps the transliteration can be sufficient. I think that the last sentence ending might end with "... world leaders." The United Nations is mentioned in the second paragraph.
With regard to the claim as caliphate, if we chose to add this here, I think that it may be important to check facts. I have never seen the original claim despite having looked and would appreciate it if anyone could help with this. Was the emphasis on declaring a caliphate or, as I think more likely, in the appointment of a caliph. As far as I have understood its more of a claimed return of the authority of a prophet and the impression I have got the authority is over the Muslims that the group/caliph consider to be faithful. I have not seen anything that refers to a claim over land but a lot to indicate a claim over people. Reference to caliphate is currently made extensively in the fifth paragraph which fits in with the chronology of events. GregKaye 20:46, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

While I supported dropping the Arabic, when I tried to write a readable paragraph that explains the different common names it made a lot of sense to include the Arabic so we can say it translates to ISIS and abbreviates to DEASH. Anyway, just throwing it out there for discussion.

To answer your other question Greg - here is the official source document and an exceprt of the important parts. The three concepts of caliph, caliphate and The Islamic State go hand in hand. When we say stuff like "authority over all muslims" and around the world this comes from ISIL's own declaration "We clarify to the Muslims that with this declaration of khilāfah, it is incumbent upon all Muslims to pledge allegiance to the khalīfah Ibrāhīm and support him... The legality of all emirates, groups, states, and organizations, becomes null by the expansion of the khilāfah's authority and arrival of its troops to their areas."

Revised 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 transliteration is or ad-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fil 'Irāq wa ash-Shām 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 abbreviated ISIS. On 29 June 2014, the group renamed itself the Islamic State (IS) and declared itself to be a worldwide "caliphate".[31][52][53] "Accordingly, the "Iraq and Shām" in the name of the Islamic State is henceforth removed from all official deliberations and communications, and the official name is the Islamic State from the date of this declaration." This name and the idea of a caliphate has been widely criticized, with the UN, various governments, and mainstream Muslim groups refusing to use it.

The last sentence is pulled from the last point in the names section where it has 9 sources. Legacypac (talk) 21:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Greg, whilst I appreciate your disagreement about me saying we have a long way to go, I feel it is necessary to deal with a non-neutral lead if one stumbles upon one. Especially on a topic such as this where the extent of the actions taken by a group has led to so much. Understandably there is a lot of emotion and utter disgust towards the group so it can be easy to get carried away. Because of that, it is my impression that over the last year, some editors who contributed to the lead did not strictly follow wiki policy on neutrality. My impression is simply my opinion and it is only worth as much. Even still, I appreciate the fact that you are an experienced editor so once time is more plentiful, I will trawl through the archives to see if I have missed anything that would suggest this is neutral. I doubt it as I have come across P-123 a while ago who seemed to share my views as well regarding the lead, and he gave the impression that there were other editors who felt the same way as well. To help speedily resolve this I have attached the disputed neutrality template which I hope will attract other editors to this talk page.
Legacypac, Thank you for the new version. My initial impression is that it is a lot better. Some immediate points that come to mind:
  • "The name and idea of a caliphate has been widely criticized" - why the change from rejected to criticized. I would have thought the sources indicate that the caliphate as a concept or as a sovereign state was rejected outright by the UN and others. To say criticize when it has been rejected by UN and all other nations would be cut slack for the group I would have thought. Out of the two words criticize is softer in my opinion. I think if sources agree, we should say rejected. Would it be better to say. "The name, the concept of a caliphate and their claimed sovereignty over (do we need to qualify?) has been rejected by, the UN and various governments, and criticized by mainstream Muslim groups who refuse to use it.
  • Is there any way to incorporate their name into the first line. ISIL name should come first for reasons already discussed followed by mention of IS somewhere in the first sentence as it is the name they have chosen for themselves. This current version mentions their name in the fourth line.
  • The link to the caliphate article - for such a big issue to have such little information on a caliphate is not ideal.
Let me know what you think. Mbcap (talk) 23:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I just copied a sentence from the names section. Rejected is better. I'm fine with your wording.
  • Not really if we want the text to flow. It is POV to use the Islamic State name without immediately qualifying it. We are already bolding it and using in the first paragraph. It's high enough it will be picked up in previews and summaries.
  • Yes, link to worldwide caliphate

As for your other comments, please do not take non-mainstream view of WP:NPOV and don't disparage the efforts of the many editors who have struggled to write a high profile article while cyber-terrorists come to wikipedia to push a POV. We are not here to debate the merits of views expressed by a topic banned editor who can't comment on the debate. That would be disrespectful. Legacypac (talk) 01:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

We agree on 2 of the 3 points I have mentioned. The point that we disagree on is the name being in the first sentence. Let me think it over please. I will also read WP:NPOV again and try to ascertain what you mean by non-mainstream view. Sorry if this is a stupid question but what do you mean by, "It's high enough it will be picked up in previews and summaries"? What are previews/summaries?
I did not disparage any editor. I was referring to non-neutrality being introduced which bears no semblance with the disparagement of an editor. We could agree for example that a worthy piece of writing that is simply ordered in a wrong manner could introduce bias but still retain its value. What I said was that some editors got carried away and I alluded to the fact that I though it was done in good faith. Those were interesting links to some questionable edits. Unfortunately, people do come to push a POV (I would have thought that was common). They obviously need to be dealt with but I think we must not be too hasty when branding people as terrorists. As to me mentioning a topic banned editor, I will not elaborate since I get the impression that I am not allowed to.
I also would like to put something on the record Legacypac. I have been doing a lot of wiki policy reading lately and I came across guidance that said something along the lines of, you should always dispute or attack the words and not the person who wrote them. In light of this and my accusation of yourself of bias sometime ago in our discussions, I would like to apologise for my obvious indiscretion. It will not happen again. Mbcap (talk) 02:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Do you want the IS name to stand alone without qualification? "...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." Would that be proportional - accepting ISILs decree without immediately noting the widespread rejection of the decree? Legacypac (talk) 04:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Legacypac please do not delete the tag as it should not be until this dispute is resolved. I understand that you said this is a high traffic article with lots of editors viewing the talk page, but this discussion regarding the neutrality of the lead has only consisted of myself, yourself and Gregkaye. As we have had no outside input into this dispute, there is a need for the template to stay so that automated requests for comments continue to be sent to signed-up editors talk pages. Mbcap (talk) 06:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The lead has been under dispute since the start of the article and its been rewritten hundreds of times. Your concerns, while important, do not justify the tag which implies that there is a big issue that needs to be fixed and that is a disservice to the reader. Your concerns are just over the placement of sentences, which is pretty minor. Click "Page information" under Tools on the left and you'll see this talk page has over 400 watchers and over 50 contributors in the last 30 days. This talk page gets 100-300 viewers a day. The article gets 15,000 viewers on a slow day, nearly 600,000 views in the last 30 days, and even more editor involvement then the talk page. If there was widespread support for your concern about NPOV there would be more editors jumping in this discussion. With this kind of editor involvement and massive readership (monthly exceeding the population of dozens of countries) tagging the article to try and improve editor involvement is not reasonable. Legacypac (talk) 07:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I do understand what you are saying. Whilst it is not ideal for the reader to see the banner for an extended period of time, I would not say it is a disservice to the reader. I think there are serious concerns about the lead which we here as editors have a responsibility to address. So serious in fact that I have dedicated a considerable portion of my time (about 10% of total) to this issue. The seriousness of the situation takes precedence over reader comfort. The reason why our journey towards a resolution has been so protracted is because of the stiff resistance that I have received from yourself and Gregkaye. I was initially unable to get any consideration until I resorted to taking on the the lead line by line and then you were kind enough to allow any mention of change. I hope we can get through the lead quickly so that we can remove the tag. It is simply not possible to delete the tag at this moment in time as No consensus has been established here regarding the dispute. I have also clearly stated my contentions regarding the lead in earlier posts, together with an explanation as to why I dispute the lead. As I promised to do in an earlier post, I have managed to read some posts from the archives and very quickly saw that the same contentions had been raised before with good reason which suggest that my concerns are not completely without merit. The state of the lead has compelled me and it obliges us to put serious effort to move towards a neutral version. It is my hope that the tag will continue to send out invitations to signed up editors to comment and this will help provide much needed insight.
Whilst writing this I noticed you have removed the tag. Since I am not allowed to revert for 24 hours, I request that you re-instate the tag. Alternatively, I shall wait till 07:16 on 6th January 2015 before I add in the template again. You are not allowed to remove the template for the reasons I have just mentioned. I will clarify again just so you know why you cannot remove the tag:
  • There is no concensus here
  • I have made the neutrality issue clear in my earlier post - this is not an objection over one sentence (please read first paragraph of this post to see why we are working on one sentence)
  • The neutrality issue which I have raised, I have also provided satisfactory explanation as to why I dispute the neutrality
Regarding you words about viewing stats for the page, although on the surface they may seem impressive, in essence they bear no weight regarding this dispute as it has consisted on me disputing with you two. 3 editors in total does not equal the kind of editor involvement that you statement alludes to. To be honest, the viewing figures suggest that we need to solve the neutrality issue as there are a considerable number of people who are using wikipedia to inform themselves of the issue. This only increases the burden of responsibility to address the bias concerns which many others have raised before. I have been told they are in the archives if anyone wishes to look it up as reference. I want to state again that the statement about this dispute simply being over the placement of sentences is a misrepresentation of the issue at hand.
Finally I would like to point to this edit which you did not one hour ago:
Not only have you undone my revert despite it not being allowed per guidance but you also failed to mention the removal in the edit summary. Please could you explain? I also feel as if I am being constantly over-ruled, and I hesitate and dread to even consider editing the ISIL article for fear of being reprimanded by you or GregKaye, whereas you both edit all the time. I do not think I deserve to be treated like I have been. I have been more than reasonable and open to learn from both of you. I have used a lot of your advice to help other editors on other pages but my appreciation for your help can only allow me to tolerate so much. I shall await your response and also for the re-inclusion of the tag. Mbcap (talk) 08:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I have just noticed that you have edited the article and your proposed wording which I never agreed to has been incorporated in a way that was not even discussed in the talk page. The proposed wording was for the first paragraph and you have split then into two and inserted them at two separate ends of the article. You stated at the start of this dispute;
"Your opinions are welcome but undiscussed changes to the lead are not going to be appreciated here."
This is what I mean. You just changed the lead in a way that was not discussed. Why is my undiscussed change not appreciated but yours is allowed to stay without the need to discuss. After your heavy rebuke by the quoted statement from your earlier post, I simply can not believe what has just transpired. Mbcap (talk) 08:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

You are being listened to, you are welcome to edit, and no one is shutting you down. I inserted the stuff that was discussed and we pretty much agreed to. I then realized that there was considerable duplication between the new wording and another lead paragraph so I modified as best as I could to reflect your concerns and keep a NPOV. If you have more concerns, please be specific here.

The tag can't stay - and I've explained why. If you want the tag start an RFC on it and get consensus, but every time someone tags the article others strip the tag quickly using the reasons I gave you. The article is factual, not POV, and arguments that the positioning of a phrase on line 4 vs line 1 or whatever are clearly not what the NPOV tag is about. The page gets lots of input - w Sith 124 distinct editors changing the page in the last 30 days, surely any unreasonable POV in the lead would have been addressed by some of them if there was a serious concern. Legacypac (talk) 09:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

A significant level of support has previously been given to the prominent position of the critical content of the second paragraph but objection has been raised over time by at least three editors. There is now a new context in which, I think, an important representation of the criticism of the use of the name "Islamic State" is placed in the article's first paragraph. I still have a moderate preference for retaining the prominent positioning of the second paragraph content. I personally think that NPOV in regard to this particular group can now be achieved either way and that this issue may beneficially be left open for editor comment. GregKaye 23:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
As I have been informed that there are currently 414 page watchers, I would like the record here to reflect an extension of the current discussion which has taken place here [3] on my talk page. Mbcap (talk) 04:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I skimmed through it, and was pleased to see an effort to maintain/restore good faith from editors, though I'm not too sure how much of it relevant. This should hopefully mean less arguing and accusations and therefore greater productivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Smith the Gamer (talk • contribs) 05:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank-you, and this was certainly the intention of the User talk page thread. GregKaye 13:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


The current discussion has covered a number of issues with a recent return to the topic of the placement of the content of the second paragraph. GregKaye 13:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Portrayal of ISIS in American Media

Just found this article - wanted to put it here for other editor input. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portrayal_of_ISIS_in_American_Media&action=history Legacypac (talk) 01:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

TY Legacypac for this important notification. To me it seems to be a well written article that seems to have primarily been generated by a single first time author. For the time being I have posted responses on the editor's talk page. GregKaye 11:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
It was an orphan (no links pointed at it) Interesting topic. Legacypac (talk) 03:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Is it an Encyclopedic topic? It seemed totally a WP:OR to me! Mhhossein (talk) 12:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
There are a number of precedents for articles like this:
A couple of things strike me. It might be better titled something like "Media coverage of ISIL" or "Media represenation of ISIL", but that's a relatively minor issue that can be easily fixed at some point. Also, we can expect more reflective studies of the media coverage to become available over time. There will also inevitably be those who question they way the media have characterized ISIL. We should add all of this in when it becomes available. But precedent would suggest that this is a completely legitimate subject for Wikipedia. EastTN (talk) 16:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Those articles also seem problematic. I think they can't survive as stand alone articles per WP:NOT#OR. Mhhossein (talk) 17:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Several of those articles have been around quite a while (e.g., Media coverage of the Iraq War back to 2003 and Media coverage of the Arab–Israeli conflict back to 2004), and have received a fair amount of editorial attention. The community consensus would seem to be that they pass muster. EastTN (talk) 20:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
There is a discussion relevant to this issue at Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Are_these_topics_encyclopedic.3F. EastTN (talk) 16:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

To give justification based on religious text a seperate section.Discuss.

This user was indef blocked at SPI as a SOCK of Update stormtrooper who is also indef blocked after contributing the section in question Legacypac (talk) 20:13, 12 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 "justification based on religious text" deserves a separate section because not only sexual violence is justified, so does all the acts of violence against shia Muslims ,its civilians, attacking members of the press,organ trafficking,destruction of non-Muslim cultural heritage,beheadings and child soldiers, and also because these acts of violence are covered by the media on a widespread scale to the general public which obviously increases the traffic to this page, so we need to provide Wikipedia readers a better understanding of their actions.I request all editors to consider expanding the above mentioned section by adding extra content we need to provide a better understanding to the readers and cause of their actions and finally I want to give a shout-out to all the editors for their tireless editing work on this article.The Islamic state claims justification for all its action on the basis of Islamic religious text.If you don't know what I'm talking about, I suggest you read all the citations near the claims listed under human rights abuse section.Thanks........Jason foren daniel (talk) 14:42, 8 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.

Possible new flag?

Confirmed to be old flag Legacypac (talk) 20:15, 12 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 saw the above discussion on this group formerly changing its name and wondered if that has extended to their flag? I have started noticing variations of the current flag which bear an extra inscription at the bottom which looks similar to this [4]. I'll post them below:

[5] (warning, graphic content)
[6] [7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ritsaiph (talk • contribs) 01:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC) [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]

Any thoughts on this? --Ritsaiph (talk) 22:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Interesting, I'm seeing a variety of versions in the photos. Remember that the group used the Black Standard which is noty exclusive to them, very old, and comes in many variations. Anyone know what the text at the bottom of these versions says?Legacypac (talk) 02:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes I could do it. It says; "Al-Dawla Al-Islamiyah Fee Al-Iraq wa Al-Sham". It translates to "The Islamic State in The Iraq and The Levant". In Arabic the Al or al signifies the definite noun. They must be old photos as they do not use that name any more. The cloth may be different but they all read the same apart from one which I think is a billboard. Mbcap (talk) 03:15, 10 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islamic_State/Archive_26&oldid=1045764763"