Talk:Islamic State - Wikipedia


4 people in discussion

Article Images

Template:Pbneutral

Template:Syrian Civil War sanctions

:Composing footnotes using the WP cite templates
(Summary of WP:FOOTNOTES section 3.1.)
Please note that bare URL footnotes – i.e. footnotes that contain only the website http address – are susceptible to link-rot, which means that if the website moves to a new domain with a new URL, the link will be broken and readers will be unable to read the citation.
  1. First put the cursor at the point in the edit text where you want the footnote to go, then click "Cite" in the edit strip at the top of the Edit Page, then click "Templates" on the left, and a drop-down menu appears.
  2. Choose "cite web" or "cite news" (for articles and websites), "cite book" or "cite journal", click and a box comes up.
  3. Fill in the all details of the citation, then click "Preview" and "Show parsed preview" to see it looks right. (To correct anything, correct the box entries, then click the two "Previews" again.) In "cite book" remember to add the page number(s) of the book.
  4. Click "Insert" and the citation automatically goes into the edit text. (It may not go in at the exact point where the cursor is if you use Firefox or Chrome.)

NOTE 1: This talk page has a history of high levels of activity. Please make reasonable checks to see whether additional content can be added to existing threads and please make new section titles as general as may be practically helpful.

NOTE 2: Please complete citations attached to article content with fields such as Author, Title, URL, Date, Publisher/Work, Agency and Access Date. (See footnotes guide above.) (If you would like to copy the footnotes guide to your userpage, put this template in the Edit Page – {{User:P123ct1/My template}} – and it will display the guide.)

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

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

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

To me, "anti-ISIL" means criticism of ISIL placed prominently in the article. This was a problem before but is now resolved, except in the Lead, where to me the second paragraph looks like an attack on ISIL before the article has started. Others may think differently. Neutral presentation of facts has sometimes been seen as being "pro-ISIL", but being neutral must not be mistaken for whitewashing ISIL. Are there other views or is this subject not worth examining? P-123 (talk) 12:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
Pro-ISIL is presenting the ISIL narrative as factual - other then where we specifically say "ISIL claims xyz" or "so called" followed by appropriate qualifications. That starts with statements suggesting they are a sovereign state. As for criticisms - we can't accurately deal with ISIL without placing the criticisms next to the claims because 99% of the world does not like virtually every ISIL actions. Legacypac (talk) 18:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
Legacypac blindly undermining about anything they claim or say is just stupid and ignores the facts which wikipedia should mention without caring if its look like "pro-isil". facts are facts and they stay facts whether you are against the IS or not, and wikipedia should reflect those facts instead of the editor's personal feelings about some group. --Wheels of steel0 (talk) 21:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
Wheels of steel0 Infering that someone is blind and stupid is an abuse of talk page privilege. You should strike your personal attack. Please read and absorb the related content in policy. Please can all editors stand up to these abuses and help build a more collegiate approach to discussion on the page. GregKaye ✍♪ 06:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
[content above placed out of chronological sequence]
ha we need to state real facts, not ISIL fictions as fact. Legacypac (talk) 05:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
I agree with Wheels of steel0. Qualifying facts, that they are now a caliphate and Islamic state – this is what happened on 29 June, these are events – to me is "anti-ISIL" POV and flouts WP:NPOV. If I said something about a person named Jane, I would not say, "Jane - or she calls herself Jane, or she self-declares as Jane - did this." That would be crazy. To use "self-declared" with ISIL is as crazy as that, IMO! P-123 (talk)

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

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

  • The term "anti-ISIL" was first used to describe a phenomenon that appeared on the Talk page some time ago, a phenomenon that looked to me and some other editors like "anti-ISIL" POV. As usual, these are matters of opinion. I am not suggesting these two terms should be used, only that they should be examined carefully now that they have arisen. There is absolutely no doubt there is a clear divide among editors about what WP:NPOV means and those two terms appear to me to describe that divide quite well. P-123 (talk) 22:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
 
I personally think that the image placed on the right is a suitable encapsulation of clear fundamentals of WP:NPOV. NPOV is a guideline to ensure that article content is balanced and not skewed towards any one point of view. For instance, when there is disputed content we do not take a WP:YESPOV approach in article content and present opinion as facts. We quote what people say and let the reader decide. GregKaye ✍♪ 02:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
GregKaye: Why do you always call ISIL 'SIL? I think in the context of this discussion this is quite a relevant question. ~ P-123 (talk) 22:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
For similar reasons as we have covered on my talk page. The article states, "Many object to using the name "Islamic State" owing to the far-reaching religious and political claims to authority which that name implies". I am one of them. This group kills people who go to Mosques (sometimes who preach at mosques), who read the Quran and, from their own POV, are trying to be Muslim.
The word Islam is based on the word Salaam which has a generally understood meaning of peace. I am not anti-'SIL and certainly not so as a group of individuals. I wish them all happy and peaceful lives within a wish that they might live up to the root meaning of their proclaimed name.
Names mentioned in the article that have variously been recommend for use include, "Al-Qaeda Separatists in Iraq and Syria" or "QSIS", and 'Un-Islamic State' (UIS). I chose my own wording in the context of an article talk page, other people choose theirs. We all treat issues and editors with respect as we do so. GregKaye ✍♪ 02:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
GregKaye: You say, "If we stated in Wikipedia's voice that they are a caliphate then that would also be POV." Please explain exactly how. A fact is a fact, is it not? It is not for Wikipedia to decide whether facts are "true". All it can do is record them neutrally, and record the different views about those facts. To me that is what NPOV means. ~ P-123 (talk) 22:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
P-123 I really do not understand what you mean when you say: It is not for Wikipedia to decide whether facts are "true". Of course it is. Caliphate is an extremely loaded term. Please justify that your view that it is a fact that 'SIL, a group that many consider to be unIslamic, is a caliphate. Still such a view should only be used in Wikipedia's voice if accepted without qualification in the majority of instances in RS. I personally think that, in addition, it should also only be used if it is found to fulfil the various conditions that are ascribed to the formation of a caliphate yet Wikipedia rejects this as OR. As it is we go on balance on what is used in sources. We don't push POV. GregKaye ✍♪ 03:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
Please see: Results from (isil or isis or daesh or "islamic state") AND "not a caliphate" and WP:YESPOV "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts....". Please also note that 'SIL do not just claim to be "a caliphate" but the caliphate within the context of our time. They fight people who also have a Mohammedan based faiths and these people contest the groups claimed religious authority with bullets. Under the guidance of WP:NPOV we can't pick a side. See image above. In the presentation of article content no editor should side with one POV. GregKaye ✍♪ 03:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
The full quote from WP:YESPOV is: "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements." Which reliable sources make conflicting assertions about ISIL, being a caliphate, Islamic state, etc? All reliable sources speak out unanimously against ISIL and its claims. P-123 (talk) 10:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
P-123 I agree that reliable sources speak out against "ISIL" and its claims. As you know the majority of the times in which RS mention this group in conjunction with the word caliphate, they also relate it with word and phrases like declared, proclaimed, so-called or claimed amongst others. They do much as we do. 'SIL's claim of authority over Muslims worldwide has been roundly rejected by Muslims worldwide. In views of the example of RS and of Muslim opinion it would be a gross violation of NPOV to declare, in an unqualified way, the group as caliphate. GregKaye ✍♪ 19:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
But following RS on this is following opinion, isn't it? Surely WP should say "This is the fact, but RS sources question it", shouldn't it? To keep strictly NPOV? P-123 (talk) 20:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
P-123 In the lead we state the fact, as reported, that "On 29 June 2014, the group proclaimed a worldwide caliphate". We declare this fact, in this case through the use of the root word "claim", in much the same way as is done in RS. Caliphate is not just a word like dictatorship. There are far wider implications of its use. This is an area that is open to research and I would be interested in findings. I'd suggest a start might be via Scholar: (isil or isis or daesh or "islamic state") AND caliphate AND theology or just caliphate AND theology. (The neutrality of sources should also be checked where possible with regard to such things as academic critique). I do not think that we should merely rubber stamp the things that 'SIL are saying. However, if we were to do this then it imperative that we are clear on the implications of what we are saying. In the meantime it seems clear to me that the groups claimed authority over the Islamic world (which includes people that they are fighting) is not being widely accepted.
None-the-less, sources that Wikipedia labels as RS remain as our guide. If the majority of RS sources accept the group as being caliphate without giving qualification to the statement then fair enough. If not then we cannot push a POV. GregKaye ✍♪ 03:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)]Reply
To say that stating facts as facts is pushing POV turns all logic and reason on its head and is ludicrous, IMO. No amount of words will persuade me otherwise. I cannot understand why all this has to be made so complicated. WP has to state facts neutrally and RS should be used to show what the world thinks of those facts. That is the way WP normally operates. Why should a big exception to this rule be made here? P-123 (talk) 08:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
Gregkaye says, "I really do not understand what you mean when you say: It is not for Wikipedia to decide whether facts are "true". Of course it is." I cannot believe I have just read that, after all the many discussions among editors about what a Wikipedia article is. For the umpteenth time: Wikipaedia is an encyclopaedia. An encyclopaedia is principally a compendium of facts. It reports the controversies about those facts. Wikpedia is not a history-book. A history-book principally interprets events and facts. Deciding whether facts are "true", i.e. interpretation, is the domain of history-writing, not encyclopaedias. If this very simple distinction cannot be grasped, there really is no hope for this article making it as good encyclopaedic content. For the nth time, Wikipaedia states facts. The fact is that ISIL proclaimed a caliphate on 29 June 2014 and has renamed itself the Islamic State, thereby setting up an Islamic state. Those facts should be reported as facts. The near universal rejection of the newly-set up caliphate and Islamic state, as not being a "true" caliphate, is ;a judgment on that fact, and should be reported by Wikipedia as just that, a judgment, with Reliable Sources to back up that judgment. This is the umpteenth restatement of this principle, and I cannot believe it is still not getting through. P-123 (talk) 14:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
Gregkaye also says, "Please justify your view that it is a fact that 'SIL, a group that many consider to be unIslamic, is a caliphate." That is easy. Because in June they established themselves as a caliphate: fact. It was a news item, a fact, an event. Any judgment on whether it is a true caliphate is secondary to this being the basic fact. P-123 (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
P-123 One thing that I think is a very true statement is that a judgement would need to be made to be made to decide whether it is a true caliphate. If it isn't a true caliphate then Wikipedia cannot declare in Wikipedia's voice that it is a caliphate. All we can do is state the clear facts. The group declared themselves as caliphate and this declaration was reported in secondary sources. The fact remains that, when RS talk about 'SIL in reference to the word caliphate, they typically do so with some form of qualification such as declared or similar.
'SIL declared themselves as caliphate. So what? Wikipedia only uses WP:PRIMARY sources in situations in which claims have been substantiated and verified within secondary sources that are proven to be reliable. I could declare myself Pope but this would not mean that I was Pope. There is only one Pope. There is only meant to be one caliphate. Is that 'SIL? We may all have our opinions but as far as the making of direct statements to say either that 'SIL definitely is not caliphate or that 'SIL definitely is caliphate - this is not for you, me, editors or the group to decide. Within editing we have to see which claims are substantiated and verified and which claims are unsubstantiated and unverified. Its only the first category of content that we state to be factual in Wikipedia's voice and this, only if uncontested. Content comes from what here are called reliable sources. Many journalists use qualification when describing 'SIL in terms of caliphate and they do this even though, I suspect, many of them may not have had relevant theological training. To make a move to state in Wikipedia's voice that they either are or they aren't a caliphate we would benefit from strong neutral and unopposed theological comment as reported in reliable sources. So far notable comments given from Sunni as well as Shia believers is that the group are un-Islamic. GregKaye ✍♪ 18:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
There is no need to complicate a very simple situation with those kind of arguments. The very simple situation is that ISIL declared itself a caliphate, a caliphate was established, it declared itself the Islamic State, an Islamic state was established. Those are FACTS and EVENTS. When Wikipedia announces in its own voice those facts - think of them as items in a news bulletin - for that news bulletin it does not matter what the world said. What the world said, "They are not a true caliphate", etc, is a judgment on those facts, is commentary. What the world said has to be reported in Wikipedia as what they are, judgments and opinions and commentary on those facts that happened in June. How is this very simple point so difficult to understand? P-123 (talk) 19:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
It is not Wikipedia's place to discriminate between the differing views and see which are substantiated, which are unsubstantiated, and which ones to use for its own statements. That would be Wikipedia making judgments. That sort of discrimination is for historians to make, not encyclopaedias. Again, a very simple point. P-123 (talk) 19:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
There is no need to go beyond established fact, that the group proclaimed itself as caliphate, and then go into opinion so as to state that they either are or aren't a caliphate. We do not do this in Wikipedia's voice unless views are substantiated. Otherwise it is nothing more than editor's POV. One way or another there would need to be substantiation from reliable sources. I suggest that the sources that we should really look to should be those of WP:SCHOLARSHIP. P-123 my arguments are based on WP:Policy. This policy, as and when handled correctly, presents necessary complications. We all work by the same rules and they should be followed with similar measure in all situations. GregKaye ✍♪ 08:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
At last. P-123 (talk) 09:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
Yes at last. We don't use Wikipedia's voice to state that they are or aren't caliphate until this gets established one way or another. GregKaye ✍♪ 15:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
I just stumbled on this: "Some radical Islamists have criticized ISIS for declaring a caliphate without first obtaining the unanimous consent of the nation’s scholars of religion. If Baghdadi is to be a caliph for all Muslims, then is it enough for him to obtain the consent of all scholars of Iraq and Syria – assuming that even this could happen to begin with?"
"In turn, a member of the Abdullah Azzam Brigades weighs in. He told Al-Akhbar, “There is no good in declaring a caliphate under these circumstances; it is something that has evil consequences, which means it is invalid.”" Source: http://english.al-akhbar.com/node/20378 . GregKaye ✍♪ 18:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
Just like all the other criticisms of the caliphate, in the "Criticism" section. WP cannot pick and choose which view to follow. It should state facts, i.e. those events on 29 June. My point was clearly completely lost on you. P-123 (talk) 20:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
P-123 Please specify: what were the events on 29 June? GregKaye ✍♪ 06:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
Declaration of caliphate and renaming as Islamic State. P-123 (talk) 07:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
Exactly, we can quote them in that they declared themselves as caliphate. They have called themselves Islamic State but this does not mean that they necessarily are a state. There are international guidelines on this type of distinction and there are references in media, academic and governmental sources to consider. There are debates currently going on regarding the various designations that Wikipedia can neutrally use in its own voice. Neutrality must be observed. We cannot go beyond these bounds. We cannot state that the group definitely is something or isn't something until the related debates are resolved. Wikipedia policy in these cases is to state what is claimed or declared. GregKaye ✍♪ 09:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

The article still asserts in the "Criticism" section, "No nation recognises the group as a sovereign state." Whether or not that is true is not the issue, the issue is that an assertion like that in WP's own voice does need a citation, otherwise it looks like WP:OR by Wikipedia, which Wikipedia has to guard against. Can a Reliable Source be found to back up this statement? The wikilink to the diplomatic recognition article though useful does not help to prove anything, as it is only an explanation of the mechanism by which sovereign state recognition works. There was some discussion about this before and for the newer editors perhaps Legacypac could restate his reason for leaving this sentence uncited. P-123 (talk) 16:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Obviously this is linked to discussion #1 on sovereign states, which is why I brought it up. P-123 (talk) 17:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
a) its is an undeniably true statement - diplomatic recognition generally confers statehood and that is a big deal. No one has provided one source that suggests otherwise.
b) the US President sai it in an address heard round the world. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/09/10/statement-president-isil-1 4th paragraph. "ISIL is certainly not a state. It was formerly al Qaeda’s affiliate in Iraq, and has taken advantage of sectarian strife and Syria’s civil war to gain territory on both sides of the Iraq-Syrian border. It is recognized by no government, nor by the people it subjugates. ISIL is a terrorist organization, pure and simple. And it has no vision other than the slaughter of all who stand in its way."
c) Here is a legal scholor: http://warontherocks.com/2014/07/the-islamic-state-isnt-a-legal-examination/#_
d) When the head of the UN says “Un-Islamic Nonstate” why is anyone debating this?
Legacypac (talk) 17:17, 14 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for that. You say "its an undeniably true statement ... No one has provided one source that suggests otherwise." Absence of proof is not proof of anything. It is a classic logical fallacy. One cannot say something is true because it has not been proved to be false.You quoted Obama as though he were infallible on this point, but is he really? Has his department researched this? Whether or not, his statement could be cited to support the sentence, as the US's view on it. As for legal scholars, they notoriouly disagree on the interpretation of legal points! Ban Ki-Moon, again, is just stating the UN's position on this. The most that can approximately be said, using all those sources, is "Nations, international bodies such as the UN and legal experts do not recognize the group as a sovereign state". That would be accurate. I think the wording should be adjusted accordingly along those lines, perhaps with some more citations of the type quoted (countries that have specifically said this, for example) to back it up. P-123 (talk) 18:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
Legacypac has asked me to remove my above response, but I think this is an important point. I do not see how his examples verify the sentence "No nation recognizes the group as a sovereign state". The way the idea is expressed at the moment is an example of WP:OR by Wikipedia, in my view. P-123 (talk) 22:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
As a move forward I have added the second link to the text as follows: No nation [[Diplomatic recognition|recognises]] the group as a [[List of sovereign states|sovereign state]]. A link was already made to Diplomatic recognition and there are other sources on this topic available. Wikipedia also has a list of List of states with limited recognition and I presume that it would be perfectly possible to check the situations surrounding changes in recognition statuses. P-123, can I ask the extent have you checked through the issues surrounding this subject before raising the thread here? You previously said to me that you thought I would doubt that "the cat sat on the mat". There is certainly no indication of state like recognition. Can you demonstrate a form of circumstances in which a valid form of recognition, if those are the right words, may have occurred? If you can do this then this would help your argument. There has got to be some form of substantiation in this debate or we may just end up pushing opinions. GregKaye ✍♪ 01:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
My main point really isn't complicated, Greg. This isn't a "cat sat on the mat" issue. Forget for a minute the question whether they are or are not a sovereign state. Forget my quibble about the logic. Just concentrate on the wording. "No nation recognises the group as a sovereign state." Who says? Without a firm citation, WP does, and it cannot do that, per WP:OR. Either find some RS which say that categorically and report it accordingly, or rejig the sentence in the way I have said, with supporting citations. Am I making sense? P-123 (talk) 02:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Certainly we need a reliable source to express that sentence and as you know, we can't write our own conclusion and understanding from reading the sources. As P-123 said, "No nation recognizes the group as a sovereign state," needs a citation. But the question is that, what sources are eligible to say such a thing? Mhhossein (talk) 03:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

If a nation gave recognition to 'SIL as being a sovereign state then this, I think, would be an extremely newsworthy event. I think that there would be particular controversy amongst the Arab nations. Perhaps we can add a footnote to say something along the lines of "as reported". Any reader going to the list of states with limited recognition would look at an entry and be likely to say there are this many states recognising and that number not recognising.
The logical fallacy argument logically only goes so far. It may be difficult to say for sure that there is no masked intruder somewhere in an otherwise empty building. However, if the building was full of alert individuals with good communications or if there was an alarm system in an empty building then it would be obvious whether or not there was an intruder present. I think that the same is the case in this situation. (If it were a subject worth reporting we might even know whether cats were on mats. In comparison the issue of whether 'SIL has been recognised as a sovereign state is extremely reportable.
For instance WP:OR states that: the statement "the capital of France is Paris" needs no source. Similarly I think editors can justifiably write that, for instance, the airplane concord is not in service or that no nation recognises 'SIL as a Sovereign State. We check the news and know that concord has not been brought back into service and that there are still no nations giving recognition. GregKaye ✍♪ 06:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
[Comment added later]
  • Gregkaye: You say "the issue of whether 'SIL has been recognised as a sovereign state is extremely reportable." If it is, can we have some examples of countries or international organisations which have said they do not recognize ISIL as a sovereign state, apart from the US and the UN? Those are the sort of examples needed to back up this sentence (see below). I don't know how to search the web for this. How is it done? Don't want to keep asking you to do jobs we could perhaps do ourselves! I don't think for this particular sentence we need bother our heads whether or not ISIL are a sovereign state, do we? We just go by what the Reliable Sources say about it, i.e. "Country X says that they do not recognize ISIL as a sovereign state". No need for exotic cats on exotic mats in this particular instance, I think.   P-123 (talk) 18:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
This would not even be a debate except that ISIL calls themselves the "Islamic State" and asserts all other governments are void when the IS armies arrive. It is truly a crazy thing to say - and has been declared not true by POTUS, the UN Sec Gen, about 60 nations agreeing to destroy ISIL and by the legitimate governments of the countries in which they hold territory. The sources provided are beyond definitive on the topic. Legacypac (talk) 06:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
Yes, it is as simple as Legacypac says. Just a few more RS examples of countries that do not recognize are needed. As I said before, those along with the other sources Legacypac gave would be enough back-up, problem solved.
I shouldn't have brought up the logical fallacy point, as it was a red herring. I had little doubt "no nation recognizes", just took exception to the illogical assertion that because there is no evidence to the contrary, that must be true. Sorry to have been such a pedant about it.   P-123 (talk) 09:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

I certainly think that there is merit in the raising of the issue. I'd also broach the question as to whether the addition of a footnote may add qualification. An explanation of the permitted type of OR used may, I think show the extent of assumptions made. Yes I've mentioned assumptions and think that assumptions can fairly be made. For instance in an article on London Bridge it might be fair to say that there is a modern version of the bridge spanning the Thames and an assumption is that, since the writing of the article, the bridge has not fallen down. The "No nation recognises.." is dependent, at the very least, on press reporting. GregKaye ✍♪ 21:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

That is what I meant by RS citations to back this up. Some reliable press reports that Country X, Y or Z does not recognize the group as a sovereign state. But I don't think any assumptions can be made here at all. P-123 (talk) 22:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
Joint statement by 60 nations that they will degrade and defeat and will be "Exposing ISIL/Daesh’s true nature (ideological delegitimization)" .http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2014/12/234627.htm is approximately the opposite of diplomatic recognition.
One of the tests is "the capacity to enter into relations with other states" but when they captured Mosul, they took the entire Turkish consulate hostage - pretty much the opposite of entering into diplomatic relations. Legacypac (talk) 18:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. I don't dispute the basic accuracy of the statement. It is just that citations are needed for it. I think that one is probably enough for the countries not recognizing ISIL as a sovereign state. P-123 (talk) 21:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

I have no confidence that any nation would even give lip service to the idea of considering ISIL as a sovereign state. I wouldn't be surprised if Ban Ki-moon type comments covering the wider topic that they are not a state may have been used a number of times. To talk about being a sovereign states is an even more specific topic and I doubt that any government would touch it. GregKaye ✍♪ 21:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

You have quotes from Moon and Obama - add the cites and move on. Or how about Abbotts quote about not dignifying them? Legacypac (talk) 05:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

I am still unsure that citation are either needed or valid. WP:WHYCITE states: "By citing sources for Wikipedia content, you enable users to verify that the information given is supported by reliable sources, thus ... showing that the content is not original research". The No nations claim, however, is justified in effect as being verifiable content of a type not applying to original research objections which, as noted, comes in the context of Ban Ki-Moon and similar comments. Maybe, as an alternative, other related comments can transparently be added to the text. The only reason for the inclusion of the statement is that the group have called themselves "Islamic State". The article is just striking a balance in saying that they are not recognised as such. I don't object to the use of citations but think that other options are available. GregKaye ✍♪ 07:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
Rereading the citations given above, the only quote that could support the statement as it stands is Obama's, and possibly the legal scholar citation. The rest are not close enough. But being exact about citations is not a high priority in this article, so it doesn't matter. P-123 (talk) 08:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
The new text given to replace "No nation recognizes ..." is: "President Obama said that, ISIL is not “Islamic” on the basis that no religion condones the killing of innocents and that no government recognises the group as a state,[286]" That does not accurately reflect what Obama said, it is very approximate and alters his meaning. But hey-ho, approximate is good enough for Wikipedia, isn't it? P-123 (talk) 22:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
 

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

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

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

Please respond with Support or Oppose

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

GregKaye ✍♪ 15:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

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

In addition to supporting the removal of color in Golan Heights, after the outcome of this RfC, the following images should be deleted (or at least be agreed on not using, and leave them available due to their presence in talk pages/archives):
Comment: You're right, that Israel has nothing to do with Syria war. But saying just disputed obfuscates, that United Nations have condemned this annexation. It is irrelevant but what's the problem with mentioning the occupation? I suggest for clarification to use both (Disputed territory occupied by Israel)--Kopiersperre (talk) 21:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
Comment: Within the context of the Syrian civil war, Israel has absolutely nothing to do with the war, and has nothing to do with the map. If Israel played an active and direct (indirect role would be like Turkey or Iran) military role in the Syrian civil war, then they should get a color. Israel is not a combatant in the war, and so Israel should not be shown. Adding another color to represent Israel also adds clutter to the map/legend—SPESH531Other 21:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
Comment: And to your comment about the United Nations and Resolution 497, if Israel, Lebanon, Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Turkey all had different colors, then Golan Heights would be colored in the same color as the rest of Israel. The dashed border in Golan Heights should give enough information to show that it is a disputed territory.—SPESH531Other 21:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
Comment: "Israel should not be shown.".. Israel is already not shown. Golan is Syria, not Israel.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
Comment: To clarify, when I say "Israel should not be shown," Israel should be gray like the rest of the countries. Golan Heights' borders are dashed, already showing a dispute. If a Syrian combatant held territory in Golan Heights, then it should be colored. But a foreign country (represented in gray) occupies it, so it should be kept in gray.—SPESH531Other 21:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
Israel is already grey like the rest of the countries. The captions to the maps used for Syrian Civil War maps say "Military situation in Syria.", Whether Israel is part of the civil war or not, they are occupying part of Syria, so they are part of the "military situation in Syria".--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
If there was a page that said "Military Situation in Syria" that was not created for the civil war, then you may have a point. But, these maps are for the civil war, hence the name "File:Syrian civil war.png".—SPESH531Other 03:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
So how about this: We make the Golan Heights striped, Black/grey. And then we change the caption to all images: "Participants in the Syrian Civil War" - or something like that, then we can remove mention that Israel is occupying the GH, because it is not a participant in the Syrian Civil War. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 04:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
I agree that in images that deal exclusively with the Syrian Civil War captions on images should relate to "Participants in the Syrian Civil War". This is the only relevant content to the issue. There has been edit-warring over captioning. We can't let an area be given different colouration without an invitating continued disruption. GregKaye ✍♪ 06:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

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

  • Comment - we tried using the grey and brown striped for Golan Heights to emphasize the disputed area with the Syrian Arab Republic, in order to satisfy some users like Supreme Deliciousness, but it has just created more confusion and has not reduced edit-warring. Furthermore, Syrian Arab Republic doesn't control the Quneitra border areas (1967 cease fire line) with Israel any more, and considering that Israel is not significantly involved in the war - Israeli-controlled Golan should be made external color.GreyShark (dibra) 22:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
No I can support brown for Golan, but why cant it say in the infobox that brown is "Occupied by Israel" ? The 1967 line is not the border with Israel, the land to the west is part of Syria. Excluding it from the map mean "Golan is not Syria" Which is an Israeli pov and in violation of international community view. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
Because Israeli military occupation and later unilateral annexation in 1981 has nothing to do with the ongoing Syrian Civil War. The Israeli-controlled Golan is not an arena of the war and Israel is not a belligerent (so far), so it should not show on "Syrian Civil War map" images.GreyShark (dibra) 07:32, 22 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
Are you talking about only maps showing the military situation in Syria or also other Syria location maps showing places in Syria? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
About the two maps that include a white, gray, or brown striped Golan Heights that has to do with the civil war.—SPESH531Other 04:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

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

YeOldeGentleman to clarify I personally don't know but I have not personally heard of military activity for a relatively long time. I agree that the occupation of the Golan Heights is morally wrong but think that these issues are best dealt with elsewhere. We have to present encyclopaedic content here. These maps are used relevantly in connection to the current episode of Sunni-Shia conflict and in relation to the warring factions concerned. I think that this is the central issue that should be addressed in content with no more than warranted distractions of other issues. GregKaye 03:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
Hey, GregKaye. "Israel last bombed or otherwise intervened militarily in Syria" less than two weeks ago, apparently. This is by no means exhaustive:
Syria conflict: Israel 'carries out Latakia air strike', "believed to be sixth Israeli attack in Syria" in 2013.
Israel bombs Syria's Golan after blast, March this year.
Israel bombs nine military targets in Syria after ‘unprovoked’ cross-border attack kills Israeli teen, June this year.
Cheers! --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 23:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

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

When Lebanon, Jordan or KSA are occupying a part of Syria, we will ad their color in the map. But currently the only foreign country occupying part of Syria is Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 02:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
 
The map (added again for perspective) is used in relation to the activities of the militarily active factions in Iraq and Syria. We need to encyclopaedicly present relevant issues on the Sunni-Shia conflict which is the central issue presented in the articles in which the image is used. Israel is an issue relevant in many topics but not here. GregKaye ✍♪ 04:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

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

Oppose I already said, that Israel is not involved, but that's not true. See May 2013 Rif Dimashq airstrikes, January 2013 Rif Dimashq airstrike and Number of wounded terrorists treated in Israeli hospitals on the rise.--Kopiersperre (talk) 08:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
Other countries are doing airstrikes but on the map. Israel has not sought to control one sq ft of extra land. Turkey is taking in wounded too which surely does not make a country a belligerent.

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

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

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

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

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

  • SJK The map relates to the 2014 military situation in Iraq and Syria. As far as I am aware Israel has not attacked the Syrian government forces was a relatively long time. The low level aide that you are referring to relates to medical aide given to war wounded. Certainly some if not all of the casualties may have been fighters but, the nature of wounds received, will mean that a large number of them will not return to active duty. Israel has no motive in antagonising the Assad regime and I think that it is likely that this is a PR move with the rebels. Israel is not involved in military activity of any relevance to the articles in which this map is used. I don't think that this map is an appropriate place to attempt to WP:right wrongs. As I see it the only thing that will result from a highlighting of Israel will be an increase in antagonism and a distraction from a Sunni-Shia conflict which also needs to be resolved. There is nothing encyclopaedic in the current context in a mention of Israel. Please alter your decision. GregKaye ✍♪ 12:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
    • GregKaye, you say "As far as I am aware Israel has not attacked the Syrian government forces was a relatively long time". According to the Washington Post, Israel attacked Syrian government facilities earlier this month, I don't think that was a long time ago. Given that Israel has attacked the Syrian government and its allies in Syria on more than one occasion, I don't think it is right to label Israel a non-participant in the Syrian Civil War. Their degree of participation is at the lower end of the scale, but it isn't zero. SJK (talk) 08:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
 
      • SJK Thank-you. Having given more attention to ISIL related issues I was unaware of this significant handful of attacks on the Syrian government. However I don't see that this information is relevant the majority of ISIL related articles within which the map is predominantly used and viewed. Israel is not raised as an issue in these forums. There are maps available specifically related to the Syrian situation in the Syrian Civil War and these maps can equally be used in the one relevant article use there. GregKaye ✍♪ 09:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Why do we need six cites for this? There were six; I deleted four of them, then got reverted on the basis that "extraordinary" (whatever is meant by that) claims require "extraordinary" (i.e. "a great amount of") documentation. But what is this WP:ExtraordinaryDocumentation? Without wishing to sound like a pooh-bums, I only know WP:RS. It's no big deal—my only reason for deleting them was thinking it was overkill—but perhaps I might learn another thing about Wikipedia policy, procedures, or whatever, if further explanation is provided. That's all. Cheers! --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 23:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

I believe the ref is to WP:REDFLAG aka WP:EXCEPTIONAL. The actions described are very extreme (enslaving and selling women and justifying it), so heavily sourcing the statements seems very appropriate. I was thinking about putting back the refs myself. Hope that helps. Legacypac (talk) 02:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Heavily citing a report is necessary for other editors to verify whether the cited reports are necessarily summarized and saved on the page , only recurring article references need be deleted.thanks--Jason Foren Daniel(talk) 21:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

See also: Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/Archive 15#Israel should be added to the opponents' list

Israel is providing intelligence on ISIS to Coalition partners, according to a Western diplomat.

While a Western diplomat is a reliable source, the Israeli Ministry of Defence declined comment. Also, the Israeli PM said on CBS that “We are ready to support and help in every way that we’re asked, but these are things we don’t discuss necessarily on TV”.

So should we add Israel to the coalition countries list, on the section "Humanitarian and other contributions to identified coalition objectives". Felino123 (talk) 18:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

The Counter-ISIL Coalition is a fairly well defined group that includes a number of Arab nations. As far as I've seen, Israel has not been named as part of the Coalition, much like Iran has not been identified as part of the group. I really doubt that Israel would be invited in as few want to turn this into an Jewish-Arab conflict. I could maybe see listing Israel under Other Countries. Legacypac (talk) 18:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
Two things - one is that Israeli role in the Syrian Civil War, including against ISIL has so far been minimal (see talk:Syrian Civil War/Israel). The second thing is that the "Jewish-Arab conflict" or more correctly the Arab-Israeli conflict has been the conflict between Arab League vs. Israel; even if Israel joins the Arab League efforts against Daesh (which is doubtful), it still doesn't make it an Arab-Israeli conflict, but something completely different - an alliance with Arab League against a third force ISIL (which is not fully Arab, but mixed ethnicities). In 2013, it was decided that the Syrian Civil War is not significantly related with the Arab-Israeli conflict, and thus an entirely different scheme of tagging and sanctions has been utilized (see [2]).GreyShark (dibra) 12:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

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

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

GregKaye: This sentence you have removed was carefully decided upon by editors:
"The group's original aim was to establish an Islamic state in Sunni-majority regions of Iraq"
Gazkthul can put you right on the history of the group's Islamic state dream, but unfortunately he is away. There are several citations on this in the article which might help you on this if you care to look at them. I suggest you restore the sentence until this can be sorted out. P-123 (talk) 12:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
P-123, what exactly do we know about this group? They promote various lifestyle aspects of Sharia law; they threaten and terrorise citizens so as to force compliance to their requirements; they kill people that they think will be a threat and they torture and kill people who refuse to comply and they have declared an Islamic state and caliphate. A group of Muslims could buy an island from a government in a way that in which the government renounced sovereignty and declare an Islamic state. Clearly, unless an Islamist agenda is being pushed, it may be argued that the other issues mentioned may not be necessary. We cannot crystal ball with speculations regarding the group's original aim. At most we may be able to quote members of Jamāʻat al-Tawḥīd wa-al-Jihād as to what they say that their aim was. We have difficulty in crystal balling their aim at any stage in proceedings. I think we are better off quoting what they say and what they do.
I've notified Gazkthul of thread and edit developments and have invited contribution here. GregKaye ✍♪ 22:52, 21 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
I agree with you. Sources are needed for this. I think there may at one time have been an RS which backed up that sentence, even in the Lead. What about the other references in this article which back up that they have always aimed to found an Islamic state? (Don't be frightened of pro-ISIL bogeys, I honestly don't think there are any working on this article! You ask the right questions, but is the cat on the mat perhaps getting the better of you again?  ) P-123 (talk) 23:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
P-123 When you mention anti-ISIL and pro-ISIL the only issue involved is neutrality and unless in response to another editor, these are terms that I have never used.
Not just 'SIL but other similar groups may well have an aim to establish what they would describe as an "Islamic state" or what they would describe as an "(Islamic) caliphate". However to say that such was the aim of Jamāʻat al-Tawḥīd wa-al-Jihād would need confirmed citation. The fact is that the group have undertaken a wide range of War Crime type actions that are, by no means, required for the formation of either of the above. When there are citations saying that the group are targeting and killing the Shia, should we declare the groups aim to be the denuding of Shia populations? We can't crystal ball on these issues. We are not thought police. We can only present facts. GregKaye ✍♪ 08:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • GregKaye: I am not clear why you are making these points. It has already been decided that citations have to be found. I had an exchange with Gazkthul about this some time ago; the matter has to be taken up with him on his return. He is very knowledgeable about the history groups like ISIL as you probably know. Observation: your constant return to the iniquities of ISIL, brought in at every possible opportunity, is very telling about your attitude towards editing this article, IMO. P-123 (talk) 09:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
P-123 It is fine to raise question of motive but I find it curious, when you have repeatedly protested against perceived "thought police" on instance when the content of your edits have been challenged, that you raise this type of issue here. [See my comment removed by Gregkaye to collapse box below P-123 (talk)]
The first point I made was in reply to your mention of pro-ISIL bogeys. I responded.
The iniquities of ISIL are a major topic in relation to the group. In relation to article content there have been what you have described to be surreptitious attempts to edit the article which have had the effect to remove critical content; There are currently attempts to declare in Wikipedia's voice that the group are (Islamic) caliphate despite several "facts": that the claimed authority of the group is extremely widely disputed; that they are widely regarded to be un-Islamic; that, when RS use the word caliphate in connection to this group, they typically qualify the use of the term and that other groups with similar but less extreme claims to Islam are fighting against them. Accurate heading descriptions in relation section content have been disputed. I think that various issues are being pushed in the article and that they are telling, IMO. [See my comment removed by Gregkaye to collapse box below P-123 (talk)]
Thanks for mentioning the point about other references in this article. I was interested to see a primary source text dating back to 2005 (in the goals section) in which the establishment of a caliphate is mentioned 6 times and state is mentioned (in the context of becoming one) is mentioned 4 times. There is also an interesting justification of slaughter amongst other things. The Shia are mentioned 19 times. Again I have to wonder whether the aim was to build a "caliphate" or destroy the Shia. What do you think? GregKaye ✍♪ 10:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Refactoring muddle

Some major refactoring seems to have gone on here which makes nonsense of this part of the thread. My comment "I am a bad person to ask ..." was initially in direct response to the comment ending "What do you think?" My other comments have been moved about. P-123 (talk) 18:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC) Reply

  • (The big difference is that I never tell you what to think, Greg! Perhaps you don't realise you do this ...  . That has been on our Talk pages, not here, and has not been in connection with challenged edits. You must be careful not to misrepresent, though I believe (hope) this was accidental.) P-123 (talk) 11:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
[Content originally placed within my edit P-123 and moved as above. I have mentioned this a number of times and will delete content on the next occasion. GregKaye ✍♪ 16:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)]Reply
P-123 Again your WP:ASPERSIONS are misplaced here. Please cite instances in which I have told you what to think. Otherwise please stop badgering. You are welcome to edit on my talk page but please be ready to substantiate your claims. GregKaye ✍♪ 16:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
[Content originally placed within my edit P-123 and moved as above. I have mentioned this a number of times and will delete content on the next occasion. GregKaye ✍♪ 16:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)]Reply

P-123 Please do not focus on refactoring as being the problem here. Please do not edit within other editors edits. You could have easily refactored your content to give it more coherent sense. GregKaye ✍♪ 13:22, 24 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

As an involved editor and not an admin, you acted ultra vires in unilaterally removing another editor's comments to this box so that their sense is completely lost. I will report this. P-123 (talk) 22:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
P-123 I have previously stated clearly that I do not want you editing within my edits. Still you persist. Twice on my talk page I have asked, "You have repeatedly edited within my edits... Was this a deliberate provocation?" You have not answered. Here you say I moved the "comments to this box". I had nothing to do with this box which was your choice. You could have as easily refactored your intrusive edits to give them contextual sense and apologised. GregKaye ✍♪ 03:22, 25 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
GregKaye: I am a bad person to ask as I don't know too much about it, but I would say the aim was to do both. It is alien to our way of thinking, but I can see how for groups that seem to think like ISIL do those goals would not be incompatible. (One of the big problems in understanding ISIL, I think, and much of the Middle East for that matter is that the mindset is so completely different from the Western one. Sorry, this is not a WP:FORUM.) I am puzzled why that 2005 letter you refer to is cited in support of ISIL's caliphate/Islamic state dream, because I don't think it is from a member of ISIL (in a former incarnation) at all. I looked it up before and I think the person who wrote that letter, Abu Muhammad, is Ayman al-Zawahiri from al-Qaeda. That name is listed in the wiki article on him as one of his aliases. P-123 (talk) 11:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
Because ISIL=al-Qaeda at the time? P-123's understanding of NPOV is flawed and indeed is making him look like an ISIL cheerleader now. Neutral POV includes giving appropriate weight to RS - and in this case the overwhelming RS evidence is not pro-ISIL claims. Legacypac (talk) 19:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

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

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

  • Re: "X" I would suggest changing "extremist, jihadist" to "Islamist" as per search results in news:
(isil or isis or daesh or "islamic state") AND Islamist gets "About 1,100 results"
(isil or isis or daesh or "islamic state") AND extremist gets "About 839 results"
(isil or isis or daesh or "islamic state") AND jihadist gets "About 842 results"
I don't know of any objections to the group being described as Islamist.
Re: caliphate, other groups including al-Qaeda, the al-Nusra Front and various Kurdish groups that all hold predominantly to Islam based doctrines do not regard the group as caliphate. I think that the article should focus on what the group is and on its history without unnecessary focus being placed on its contested claims. Issues relating to the groups claim as caliphate are dealt with extensively in the fifth paragraph. I do not think that we should present a ham fisted preferential treatment between groups. GregKaye ✍♪ 10:52, 21 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • I think I speak for all editors if I say, "Oh no, here we go again!" The Lead has been discussed at great length by editors, analysed, quartered, diced, reconstituted, so many times. Pity the poor reader, who has been getting a different version of the Lead nearly every other week day, for months and months. An encyclopaedia that cannot make up its mind is a very bizarre thing. Gregkaye seems to be wanting to raise the vexed "jihadist" wording again, first raised by him at the beginning of October. I don't think there will ever be an end to this if matters are allowed to take their course. P-123 (talk) 11:29, 21 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
I agree. Stability in lead content would be advantageous. All the same it is better that editors raise changes to the lead here rather than just making changes without consultation.
P-123 That was what I wrote until I ran into edit conflict with your personalised redaction above. Given the context of the last three bids to change the lead, presented here, here and here were all proposed by you; that you have significantly supported my proposals re jihadism and that the comments above relate to clear prevalence of use in reliable sources I find this criticism quite surprising. GregKaye ✍♪ 12:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
GregKaye: My proposals led to a consensus (not always in my favour) and I believe those agreed changes should now not be altered. As you know, I supported a link attached to "jihadist", not removal of the word. You say, "I would suggest changing "extremist, jihadist" to "Islamist"", opening up the whole "jihadist" debate again, which was very disruptive and led to your AN/I at the end of October. No editor agreed with you on the removal of the word "jihadist" and now you raise removing it again. [Comment added later:] The AN/I was inconclusive and Gregkaye received no sanction. ~ P-123 (talk) 20:27, 21 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
TY P-123, yep I got away with that one, joking. It is certainly true that I was certainly soapboxing in the initial thread on the issue but on a subject that I thought had significant importance. Amazingly, even though the terminology "Islamist" was mentioned a number of times in the debate, the word itself was never suggested as an alternative description. With reference to the actual usage of words it is clear that Islamist is the more commonly used term in relation to the group. I think the description fits. Reference to earlier threads on this topic will demonstrate difficulties surrounding the description "jihadist" but I think that "Islamist" ticks all the boxes.
Digression, P-123 and I have also been known to disagree on a number of subjects but, to his/her great credit, during the difficult time of the AN/I s/he gave a generous, supportive communication lifeline within Wikipedia. I felt this to be a difficult time and the contact was appreciated. I think that this represents something that goes way beyond the standards of good practice in situations in which editors are being called to account. GregKaye ✍♪ 23:45, 21 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
In the previous thread you said, "For now I have edited so as to place the "Sunni-majority" reference within its relevant section and removed reference to the claimed singular aim here." Now you say, "All the same it is better that editors raise changes to the lead here rather than just making changes without consultation." Please make up your mind! P-123 (talk) 13:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
I think that WP:guidelines apply to different extents to different issues, The way I see it is that some things are debatable on issues such as, "do we put this content into the lead". In other cases I think that there are issues on which Wikipedia guidelines present a clearer level of guidance on a choice to be taken. My personal view is that, in these situations, WP:BOLD changes may be more validly made. GregKaye ✍♪

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

Btw, my earlier comments were not intended to shut down debate. Newer editors need to know the background to the "jihadist" debate, that is all. P-123 (talk) 20:27, 21 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
P-123 Re: Newer.. Why? All older and newer editors "need to know" is the topic of a debate. If at this stage you want to paint pictures of long past disruption I suggest that you add balanced comment on the various sides of the story. You very well know that I backed away from debates of my own volition despite what one administrator described as bad faith contributions within the threads. You also know that my proposal here is something new and not before mentioned. I take exception to argumentative wording "here we go again", "bizarre", "vexed" and "ever be an end". It would have been nice if the proposal had been able to run its course without being unduly and disruptively prejudiced against from the start. I would not like to "mirror" this raising of past issues in this way. I wonder how editors past would regard these approaches. GregKaye ✍♪ 17:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • I imagine they would agree with me. We all opposed your wish to remove "jihadist". The link I gave earlier to Talk page discussion on this, and the links from that discussion, demonstrate it very clearly. Yours is hardly a new proposal. You still wish to remove "jihadist", the common RS descriptor for groups of this type. P-123 (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
P-123 Please read carefully the above and related texts. Granite sands has proposed using a short description and I have highlighted the fact that the most common descriptor for groups of this type is "Islamist". This is also true for groups like al-Qaeda and other Islamist groups for which I have done similar checks as above. My original proposal (very briefly held) was to exchange "jihadist" (in relation to a group very disputably following jihad) for "extremist". When objection to this proposal was raised I responded and moved to an adapted proposal to make sure that qualification was given to the use of that jihadist terminology. Now it turns out that "Islamist" is the most common descriptor. The proposal raised here is new. Please do not evoke imaginary support. If support is given one way or another then fair enough. Please do not prejudice against an argument in the way that you have. If you can present that Islamist is less of a commonly used descriptor than jihadist in relation to this group then present your case. GregKaye ✍♪ 07:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • Gregkaye: I have read them. I am not trying to pick holes, but what search terms did you use for those Google results? Are they results from Reliable Sources? Apart from al-Qaeda, which other groups did you get similar results for? A survey of this sort (or any sort) is only as good as the questions asked. (An observation: for an editor to say criticism is disruptive and prejudices argument says an awful lot; it strongly suggests that editor is unable to take criticism.) P-123 (talk) 08:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
The "put up or shut up" attitude is needlessly aggressive. I made an unambiguous suggestion for a clean up of the lead, which everyone else seems to follow. What are you confused about? GraniteSand (talk) 10:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
GraniteSand, I am sorry that you feel that way although it may also be argued that the introduction of a thread with the wording "Ham fisted.." is also quite aggressive. Please also review your edit above in terms of aggression.
The truth is that references to caliphate as associated to 'SIL are far from dominant within general reporting which is demonstrated in the following search of news:
A mention of caliphate in the opening paragraph of the lead has only recently been added (without agreement) and, as I have mentioned, the claim is very widely "contested". The result of the previous discussion on lead content here supported the return of the "unrepresentative of Islam" statement back into the second paragraph of the lead. If the group's claim as caliphate is to be placed into the lead's first paragraph, then an increased need is raised for counter claims (as raised within the wider Islamic world) to be returned to the second paragraph. GregKaye ✍♪ 11:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
I dropped caliphate from the first paragraph and fixed it up. Some weird markup made several of the widely used terms including DAESH completely invisible. I don't think we can make it much more compact and still include the names commonly used by the media - ISIL, ISIS (which comes from two translations), DAESH, and "Islamic State"/"IS" which is usually qualified somehow. Legacypac (talk) 19:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
Wow. The amended second paragraph now says very loud and clear: "We, the editors of this article, are very critical of ISIL. Look what has been said about it. We are right to be." Not exactly NPOV, is it? P-123 (talk) 21:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
Why not throw in for good measure, "Over 60 countries are directly or indirectly waging war against ISIL", from the end para? P-123 (talk) 21:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
My, it has been done! The Lead now shows profound anti-ISIL POV and sets the tone for readers of this article. Whatever happened to WP:NPOV, one of the WP:FIVEPILLARS upon on which Wikipedia was founded? Are the current ISIS editors uninterested in upholding them any more? [Comment restored]

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

While I agree that the criticisms facts [entailing criticism, of course, "criticisms" there is misleading, sorry] have to be summarized in the Lead, as they are a major feature dealt with in the article, the condemnatory tone here in the Lead I think is too strong. The article on al-Qaeda manages to be completely neutral in the Lead and there are as many criticisms of al-Qaeda as there are of ISIL. There needs to be a more neutral way of describing these criticisms. An anti-ISIL bias in the Lead at the moment is very strong. One way to make the Lead more neutral would be to move the second paragraph to the end of the Lead. I think in fact this is why that paragraph was moved to the end in the first place, and it has slowly moved back up, which began with my moving up some parts of it to the top. (See Archive ##22 "Bold change of para order in Lead".) I did express doubts about what I had done at the time, because it has led to bias; I now think I made a mistake and am sorry I did it. P-123 (talk) 07:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
Legacypac: When adding your comment above you deleted my accidentally unsigned comment, which I have restored. I imagine this was a mistake. P-123 (talk) 07:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC) Yup - never saw it Legacypac (talk) 07:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
You should regret your last post P-123. Nothing in the paragraph is criticism (the expression of disapproval of someone or something based on perceived faults or mistakes) but hard verifiable facts.
Right now it says: "The United Nations has held ISIL responsible for human rights abuses and war crimes, and Amnesty International has reported ethnic cleansing by the group on a "historic scale". (Section 4) The group has been designated as a terrorist organization by the United Nations, the European Union, the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, Indonesia, Canada, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, India, the UAE, and Egypt. (Section 3) ISIL's actions have been widely criticized around the world (very weak part Section 5), with many Islamic communities judging the group to be unrepresentative of Islam. (Section 5) Over 60 countries are directly or indirectly waging war against ISIL." (part of Section 7) = 4 sentences dealing with 4 sections in a factual summary kind of way. "Neutral" is not the goal of NPOV - fair and proportional without bias reflecting significant views in RS is the goal. The proclamation of caliphate paragraph in the lead lacks any balance right now - no line that anyone opposes it.
I'd say AQ look like Boy Scouts compared to ISIL, committing a fraction of the total killings and few of the other war crimes documented to have been committed by ISIL. Between 1992 and 2008 the AQ terrorist network perpetrated 31 attacks with a toll of more than 4,400 lives outside Iraq and Afgahnistan [3] June-Sept 2014 5,500 killed in Iraq only by ISIL (plus Syria!). [4] Legacypac (talk) 07:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
Legacypac: Finesse it how you like, that paragraph displays anti-ISIL POV. The facts should be there, but everything is in how they are presented. That presentation does not show a neutral point of view. WP:NPOV says, "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Bias is there. As for "'Neutral' is not the goal of NPOV", that beggars belief. P-123 (talk) 08:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
There is no bias (look up the meaning). See WP:OUTRAGE. You did not identify an incorrect fact, or what is opinion. Instead you seem to be arguing for the fun of arguing instead of presenting a credible alternative. Legacypac (talk) 09:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
Again, you are failing to understand, I think because you do not recognise recognise bias here. Of course those are all facts (except the criticisms sentence, obviously). Can you really not see that presenting them so prominently in the Lead, on its second breath, sets a tone of criticism from WP? That is the only thing I am concerned about. I have already presented what I think is a credible alternative: putting that whole paragraph at the end of the Lead, where it was originally, put there precisely to avoid this bias. I don't think you were involved in those discussions. P-123 (talk) 10:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
[above edit refactored without striking]
Legacypac: Like Gregkaye, you show a disturbing tendency to return again and again to how evil ISIL are. That must affect your outlooks on editing this article, and possibly prevents you both seeing bias where it exists, I don't know. P-123 (talk) 10:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
P-123 Please see WP:NPA regarding your assertion "failing to understand", suspicion "you do not recognise", rethoric "Can you really not see..", judgement "disturbing". Please see WP:CIVIL. I have already mentioned the abusive use of "here we go again", "bizarre", "vexed" and "ever be an end". Please see: WP:IDHT. I view this type of interaction on talk pages to be unnecessarily aggressive and in contradiction to the aim of the collegiate atmosphere of which you have otherwise stated as being an ideal. Even in this thread things have progressively got worse.
This thread was started on one issue. I mentioned a related issue. You then weighed in with a range of content that made no direct contribution to this thread.
You presented the problem, '"Oh no, here we go again!" The Lead has been discussed at great length by editors, analysed, quartered, diced, reconstituted, so many times.' You were the editor raising many if not most of those discussions with some being baseless and with one clearly (had you checked) going against your own pushed consensus (as here) and yet with your admission of your breaking of consensus being deleted from the recent thread here. Your constant re-visitation on the same old issues comes to feel like an incredible waste of time. From time to time please let things alone. GregKaye ✍♪ 11:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
[content above placed out of (sequence edit conflict)]
"ISIL's actions have been widely criticized around the world, with many Islamic communities judging the group to be unrepresentative of Islam." = very factual statement, not opinion. Your proposal is not fair or proportionate because you are seeking to downplay the main defining characteristics of the group, what they are best known for. If you are cognizant of how evil this group then you need your sanity checked because I know you've read the article a few times. 10:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Collapse: Apology - followed by off topic content

hat: text collapsed due to content being even further off topic than previously. WP:ASPERSIONS are especially unsuited to article talk pages. Issues should either be raised at the point of infringement or be correctly referenced to permit defence and with this being done at point of User talk page. (note written by Gregkaye)
Apologies to other editors here, but why do you resort to what verges on WP:PA when addressing editors who disagree with you, Legacypac? Can we not keep civil in disagreements? I have been trying not to say this for some time, but enough is enough. P-123 (talk) 12:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
Now you are both at it! Gregkaye, I have repeated ad nauseam on this Talk page and ours that I acknowledge going against a consensus I had agreed to. I never "push" for consensus as you well know, I put things to editors to discuss and am happy with whatever consensus arises. You are too sensitive to tough language from editors who do not agree with you, you have a track record here. (If I refrain from citing on this, it will be criticized, as you hate "unsubstantiated" charges, if I cite, it will be seen as an attack, can't win.) This is now becoming really childish. "Constant re-visitation of the same old issues" is because I feel strongly about them, much to your discomfort, evidently. I have been bothered by the frequent revert edit summaries of late which say "goes against consensus", when often no consensus has been arrived at, the edits just happen to have stuck. I know you and Legacypac don't like opposition to your ideas, it is very plain, and I am a thorn in your sides, obviously. I knew this point would be reached eventually, in fact I have known it for a long, long time. Most of this comment is not for your benefits, but for the record, as I think it needs going on the record. P-123 (talk) 12:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
P-123 Thank you for editing so as to put this in the collapsed box. All of this is way off topic.
Both at what?? Please get the point. I am far from knowing that you do not push. In my view you push hard while employing a variety of tactics to undermine fellow editors with opposing argument. I am sensitive to what I consider to be unfair presentations of views and to the use of attack in edits. "Childish" is just one more additional attack. On fairness: you claim right to revisit previously discussed issues but, when I raise a completely new proposal regarding the jihadist wording, you present multiple edits in opposition. You don't push? Really?
If you see any editor make a claim in edit summary that you don't agree with then raise it on their talk page. Again, THIS is not the place for unsubstantiated accusations. I believe that proposals that I have made to be based on a neutral approach to editing and am fine about good straightforward opposition. Please, if you want to oppose any editors proposals, don't infer issues like lawyering, weasel type activity and the use of sophisms as, again, you did here. This is not the way not to push for consensus especially on an issue that you did not even support. Lines need to be drawn. Please do not add further unsubstantiated content to this threat that would force a further response. None of this is relevant here. GregKaye ✍♪ 13:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

[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)Reply

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)Reply
Never one to miss a chance at a side-swipe! Well done. Never got the ping, btw. P-123 (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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

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

It has been widely reported that PKK has taken positions in Maxmour [5] and controls areas in the Sinjar area in North Iraq [6], but those areas are marked as held by "Iraqi Kurds" on the map, which is incorrect. We should either add PKK to the map as another significant force or to mark PKK-held areas as Rojava's, as PKK is a close ally to a more dominant Syrian Kurdish administration, and they coordinate their efforts in many areas.GreyShark (dibra) 12:43, 21 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

The PKK (Turkish Kurds) are not exerting Turkish Kurd sovereignty over parts of Iraq, nor are they fighting against Iraqi Kurds, nor are the Syrian Kurds fighting against Iraqi Kurds with Turkish Kurd help. Rather they are all allies in this fight so it is inappropriate to show yet another side for the PKK. PKK should however be listed as a combatant in lists properly sourced.Legacypac (talk) 19:37, 21 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

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

The December 2014 section includes an entry for the Sydney hostage crisis. Although the perpetrator had pledged his loyalty to ISIL prior to the attack, my understanding is that the group did not acknowledge him as affiliated and that he was acting alone in the attack. Therefore it may be better to remove this item from the list. Otherwise we risk falling into the trap of portraying all civilian violence as acts of terrorism, and all acts of terrorism as international Islamist plots. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 17:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

ISIL has repeatedly called for just such attacks. ISIL does not send out laminated membership cards and permission slips to kill people-so what connection are you seeking anyway? There is clearly a difference between civilian violence like some guy beating his wife (never making the local paper) and a terrorism act broadcast around the world at the top of every news cast. It is also pretty easy to tell Islamic terrorism from other kinds. Legacypac (talk) 19:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
67.188.230.128 It seems pretty clear-cut. If it can be proved that the group did not acknowledge him as affiliated, then the entry should be removed. Do you have any hard evidence that ISIL have not acknowledged this? P-123 (talk) 10:17, 24 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
JThe guy responsible for the Sidney act was a mentally disturbed Shiite Iranian, who is considered an infidel in ISIL ideology. Of course his act may be considered as a Jihadist terrorist act, but his association with ISIL is ridiculous. There are enough Shiite Jihadists (Hezbollah, Muqtada al-Sadr's brigades) and other non-ISIL Jihadists in the world (Salafi al-Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood's Hamas, etc.), so linking everything with ISIL is roughly a misunderstanding of the acting forces.GreyShark (dibra) 10:22, 24 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
He converted to Sunni, even seems to have updated his religion on his own wikipedia page. I'd argue that ISIL people doing beheadings etc in Iraq and Syria are also likely mentally disturbed, but that does not excuse their actions. anyway, can you substantiate that he was mentally disturbed? Legacypac (talk) 17:22, 24 December 2014 (UTC)Reply