Talk:Islamic State/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Bold change of para order in Lead

I am not sure if this goes against consensus, but I have moved the terrorist designation part to near the beginning of the Lead. To me the Lead looks more balanced this way, but I will happily revert if others disagree. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 16:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 This is absolutely fair. In addition to the designation by the political organisations mentioned RS have also independently described the group as terrorist. The term is used in the context of quotation and has more validity than other of the content of the first paragraph.

I am also looking to place the same information in the "Status" section of the first infobox. In this case the entry could read: "terrorist organization" as designated by the UN, EU and individual nations.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• I think it was good to move the terrorist designations to near the beginning. Well done! Thank you. But I think to put criticism near the beginning along with terrorist designations is messy. We should not mix things that have little to do. It doesn't fit. I think the lead should be arranged. You duplicated the criticism phrase both at the beginning and at the end so I removed one of them. Felino123 (talk) 17:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
• Of far more relevance to the early part of the lead is the Islamic criticism. It is a self declared Islamic State facing a torrent of criticism from its own religion. This is a far more relevant topic in connection to the subject "Islamic State...". Gregkaye ✍♪ 20:29, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
• This is an article for an encyclopaedia and encylopaedias have to speak in a neutral voice. This article must not be allowed to turn into a piece of anti-ISIL propaganda, which with the new suggested labeling/change of emphasis in the Lead it is in danger of becoming. Do editors not care about this any more? The torrent of Muslim criticism is well encapsulated in Gregkaye's proposed new wording for the last Lead paragraph. Any more in the Lead about it, in prominent places, will tip the balance the wrong way. I will go on repeating this ad nauseam for as long as this article's neutrality is challenged, and editors should not confuse neutrality with attempting to whitewash the subject. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 21:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC).

Neutrality includes appropriate weight to views. It would be generous to say ISIL has a million supporters globally, vs the entire rest of the world. Compare to wikipedia's treatment of evolution which is 100% one sided, even though large numbers of people have another opinion. Legacypac (talk) 23:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• It does mean appropriate weight. That is why I moved up the terrorist designation part, instead of hiding it down at the bottom of the Lead, and why I agree that the Muslim criticism should be expanded on in the last Lead para in the way proposed by Gregkaye. I think a mere "notably among the Muslim community" does not give due weight. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 00:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
• P123ct1 All I was saying was that if there was a choice of either having Islamic criticism in early mention related to an organisation calling themselves Islamic state or having UN criticism in early mention related to an organisation calling themselves Islamic state then I would choose the Islamic criticism as of more relevance. It gets to the heart of issues related to the group. The UN quote the Islamic criticism. The Grand Muftis etc. don't quote the UN. The important voices are the ones close by both in distance and in root belief. This is content with even higher priority. Gregkaye ✍♪ 03:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
• No, you also mentioned that you were looking to put "terrorist organisation" under "status" in the infobox with all the countries listed there. The criticisms by the UN, Amnesty and Muslim communiities I think should be kept together, not favouring any one in particular. Perhaps they could go near the beginning, as they were originally, before the history part and after the terrorist designation part. I cannot remember now why they were moved to the end. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 07:29, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
• I quite agree that the criticisms should best go together. What I would say though is that, if one aspect of criticism should be placed in a forward position in relation to a group calling itself the "Islamic state ..." it should be the part that relates to Islamic criticism. I made my other comment about putting a cited reference to "terrorist organization" as the "status" entry at a time when this contained the content Unrecognised state which was also tagged "how" and which is unused in connection to ISIL by anyone but Wikipedia. The new wording is a great improvement. Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
• In another bold edit, I have moved the criticisms para up and joined it to the terrorist designation part to make one large paragraph. Editors can debate how the information in that para is ordered. Of course, I can and will revert my edit if editors do not agree with it, as I don't want to edit against consensus. I agree that the new "status" description is much better. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 11:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
• I think that puting criticism on the first paragraph, before any info about ISIS (just a very litle intro) is a mess. It gives a very bad impression to the reader and it's not arranged. So I suggest to put criticism where it was (at the end of the lead) and to join the intro to the terrorist designations in order to get a large paragraph. Terrorist designations may be on the first lines, but criticism don't. There's no consensus, P123ct1, so I think you should revert your edit. Felino123 (talk) 18:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
• I invited other editors to comment, Felino123, you are the only one to comment so far, so there is no consensus yet. Have I missed something? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 18:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
• The article has been well written in an extremely coherent style through the able and thoughtful contributions of many editors. It starts as many equally coherent news articles have been presented. The article first identifies a highly criticised group, responsible for ethnic cleansing and disowned by much of their own religion. From this point most news pieces will then fill in the details from there. As discussed it would be wrong to split up the criticism section of the lead and there was general support for placing information on terrorist designation in the first paragraph. It would be a mess to split up the critical content. Gregkaye ✍♪ 19:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
• Copy-editing this article has become an uphill battle recently. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 23:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
• I think criticism and Amnesty and UN reports should be at the end of the lead. And terrorist designations on a first, long paragraph along with the intro. I have edited it the way I think it's ok, as you did. I think we should not separate the beheading incidents and UN and Amnesty reports about ISIL's violations of human rights. I don't like the phrase "with many Islamic communities describing the group as not representing Islam". I think it's too particular. I don't think its necessary. It's obvious that if Muslim communities are criticizing ISIL is due to the fact that they don't regard ISIL as representative, so I think that phrase is extra info. Felino123 (talk) 02:27, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
• I think that the current edit is far from OK and extremely dangerous. See Google: game AND "play a terrorist". The most relevant criticism of a group that calls itself "Islamic State..." is criticism from the Islamic community. Many prominent members of the Islamic community including many Grand Mufti's have condemned the group in a whole variety of ways. The UN quotes the Muslim's not the other way round and, within the religious community, there can be comparatively little concern as to what the outside world thinks. It makes no sense to mention terrorist at the beginning of the lead (within what would be considered to be the voice of outsiders) and not also present other valid content on criticism at the same point. P123ct1 previously made this edit in line with above discussion which now needs to be restored. Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
• Gregkaye, terror designations are not criticism, but legal/official designations by governments. What makes no sense is to put criticism at the beginning of the lead, before everything, before even knowing anything about ISIL. Criticism is not the most important thing about ISIL. Actually it gives a very bad impression to the reader to see that; it's unarranged and gives the impression that the article is a mess, and it doesn't invite to read more. I don't think there's anything wrong with putting terror designations at the begining. In fact, I support it. But we can make a deal in order to reach consensus: I don't think criticism should be at the beginning of the lead, and you don't think terror designations should be at the beginning. So I suggest to put both criticism and terror designations at the end, as it was before and we all agreed. There was no need to change it. Want do you think, P123ct1? Felino123 (talk) 22:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
• An official terrorist designation is one of the highest most official criticisms the a government can give. When the UN, EU and major and smaller countries are saying they are terrorists - that is a big part of the story. Legacypac (talk) 03:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
• Felino123 I changed my mind and prefer the paragraph to be at the top. This is what I suggested and how I originally edited the text to read:

ISIL has been designated as a terrorist organization by the United Nations, the European Union, the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, Canada, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, the UAE and Israel. The United Nations and Amnesty International have accused the group of grave human rights abuses, and Amnesty International has found it guilty of ethnic cleansing on a "historic scale". The group's actions, authority and theological interpretations have been widely criticized around the world and notably within the Muslim community.

But I think Gregkaye's later adjustment of the wording about Muslim criticism is better, and this version was:

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

I still think this paragraph, however it is worded, is best as the second paragraph in the Lead. As there is continuing disagreement and perhaps some confusion about what was previously agreed, could the involved editors please repeat here what they think should go where from this paragraph, so that so a consensus can be determined and the constant reverting can stop? It would be helpful if editors could answer the question simply, without repeating their reasons for their choice. I think this is the only way forward to settle this. Felino123, Gregkaye, Legacypac? Anyone else? (I think it is best to stick to bullet points as it makes the thread easier to follow.) ~ P123ct1 (talk) 10:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support P123ct1 action moving of criticism and terrorist designation summary to paragraph 2 position. then the 3 paagaphs covering 15 years of history follow. Legacypac (talk) 10:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
• As Gregkaye seems to want the whole of that paragraph to stay at the top where it is, as I and Legacypac do, I am afraid the consensus goes against you, Felino123, so if you revert again, you will be considered to be edit-warring. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
• I think terror designations may be on the second paragraph, but not Amnesty reports and criticism by Muslim communities'. Criticism by some religious communities and human rights reports have little to do with official designations. I think it's better to put it all at the end of the lead. I suggest to put countries' "criticism" (terror designations) first, then UN and Amnesty reports about human rights and then criticism by Muslim communities. I mean, it's more serious and important official designations by governments. To put criticism by some religious communities before anything, before even knowing that ISIL is commiting human rights abuses and is considered terrorist organization by many countries, is a mess, it's unarranged and gives a very bad impression to the reader. It's not ok to put criticism of actions before even talking about the actions.

So my suggestion is:

"ISIL has been designated as a terrorist organization by the United Nations, the European Union, the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, Canada, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, the UAE and Israel. The United Nations and Amnesty International have accused the group of grave human rights abuses, and Amnesty International has found it guilty of ethnic cleansing on a "historic scale". The group's actions have been widely criticized around the world and notably within the Islamic community/by many Islamic communities." (I think "by many Islamic communities is better").

This paragraph may be the second one of the lead. But terrorist designations and human rights reports should be first for the reasons stated above. Felino123 (talk) 22:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• So you agree concede, do you, Felino123, that those three sentences should be kept together in a paragraph at the top? I think Gregkaye's wording about the Muslim criticism is better, but would prefer the order that you have put the paragraph in: terrorist designation, UN/Amnesty criticism, then Muslim criticism. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 23:34, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

In relation to a group that kills Muslims and which calls itself "Islamic State ...", Islamic criticism should come first also for reasons stated above. To get things in further perspective, the few western lives that have been lost are not more important than the great many Muslim and local minority lives that have been lost. Until recently the article on beheading incidents listed all the westerners first and the unknown number which, depending on the method of death chosen may have been the great many, Iraqi and Syrians were listed last. These are gross examples of POV. We can't take a "God Bless America" attitude in regard to the west. In addition to other lives, other issues, values and authorities are also of relevance. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Ordering of sentences in this paragraph

• P123ct1 I don't agree with puting it together, but if it's kept together, then this is the best way to do it. I think the way it's now is not correct. Terror designations should go first (no last), human rights reports by international organizations then (not first) and criticism on the third place (not in the middle). I mean, you agreed with this, P123ct1. There's no consensus for the current order of this paragraph. It's unarranged and gives a bad impression, you can't separate official designations by governments from official reports by international organizations, and puting criticism in the middle of it all. It seems messy. Gregkaye, I agree we can't take a "God bless America attitude" while editing, but we can't also take a "Allahu Akbar" attitude (for example giving more importance to what an iman says over what UN and international organizations state in official reports, or puting criticism by Muslims before anything). This is a gross example of POV, too. But the thing is that Westerners killed by ISIL have been just a few while Arabs and Kurds have been thousands. Of course that should pointed out, but you can't name thousands of people in Wikipedia (there's no list of names, anyway). Felino123 (talk) 13:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Felino123 If you have spent any time reading the Islamic criticism section of the article or if you have followed any portion of the many connected stories in the news then you will recognise the utterly falacious and misrepresentative nature of your "giving more importance to what an iman says" comment. The comments, if we were to add them all in come from, amongst others, many Grand Muftis and significant Muslim associations. The voices represent a great outcry and they are echoed in the words of United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon stated: "As Muslim leaders around the world have said, groups like ISIL – or Da’ish -- have nothing to do with Islam, and they certainly do not represent a state. They should more fittingly be called the "Un-Islamic Non-State"."

Please do not misrepresent content. Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye, you're getting me wrong. I never said or meant that only an imam critiziced ISIL. I meant that governments' designations and official reports by international organizations are much more important from a historic and encyclopedic point of view than what imams, priests or rabbis might say about anything. Felino123 (talk) 15:02, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Felino123 Based on your stated wording, I don't see that I am getting you wrong and I request that you strike or refactor your misrepresentative statement. Different interest groups record history in different ways. The important thing for this article is that it presents a faithful rendition of history. Thinking back I remember that at the of time of the 9/11 attacks there was a great and notable and just outcry of condemnation amongst Muslim communities. There is now, as far as I can see, not a trace of this reference in the Al-Qaeda article. This is not a faithful recording of history and I think it to be revealing regarding an extreme POV bias amongst editors on Wikipedia. As your reply was to my comment I have altered its indentation to suit a reply. Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

[Edit conflict: comment above placed out of time sequence]

• Yes, I agree with you Felino123, I think the order should be terrorist designation, UN/Amnesty criticism, Muslim criticism. Can we do the same thing again here to see what the consensus is? You and I are for this order, Gregkaye is against (he wants Muslim criticism first, then UN/Amnesty, then terrorist designaton). What do you think, Legacypac? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 14:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
• If the WP:LEAD is to reflect article content then this should reflect content that states "By 2014, ISIL was increasingly being viewed as a militia rather than as a terrorist group." Yes they incite terror tactics in their propaganda and yes they do what they can to intimidate their enemies but the group essentially remains a militia, a militia that kills a large proportion of its captives. These captives are most frequently Shia muslims or Sunni's that raise objections to the 'SIL's questionable behaviours.

In "Designation as a terrorist organization" the last nation to be added was Israel on 3rd September and this country, with its three citations, seems to have used the designation "unlawful". The terrorism accusations have significant notability but I think that we should keep them in perspective. Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• For earlier ISIS Talk page discussion on the Israeli designation and details (now archived) see my exchanges with GregKaye on my Talk page in "#23 Hebrew Israel citation/Israel inclusion". ~ P123ct1 (talk) 20:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

.

Wording in lead: with many Islamic communities making various judgments of the group as not representing Islam

header added above in line with new discussion content. Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• Gregkaye has changed what I thought was agreed wording for the Muslim criticism, "with many Muslim communities describing the group as not representing Islam". His wording now has been changed to something much stronger, "with many Islamic communities making various judgments of the group as not representing Islam". I am not sure that it is acceptable to say this in WP's voice; the wording has now lost its neutrality. [redacted] ~ P123ct1 (talk) 14:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• True. There's no consensus to change it. This "disuption" should be reverted. Felino123 (talk) 15:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

[content above placed out of discussion sequence]

• P123ct1 I am just reading a content, “Their savage acts don’t coincide with the name of Islam,” said Sunni cleric Hameed Marouf Hameed, an official with Iraq’s Sunni religious endowment. “They incite hatred, violence and killing and these acts have no place in any real Islamic state.” Please see: wikt:judge. Its not an extreme word. I am in good company to regard this group as un-Islamic. The wording, "with many Islamic communities making various judgments of the group as not representing Islam" is representative of content. Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
• Gregkaye, this is just the opinion of an Iraqi imam that other imams share, not the official Islamic stance, as Islam is not a monolithic bloc. ISIL has imams, too, that support all ISIL is doing. This is just your personal point of view. This article should be neutral, not the loudspeaker of the opinions we like to hear and read. Please don't edit again against the consensus. Felino123 (talk) 15:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
• Again, it is not a matter of whether those facts are right, but the way this part of the sentence is said. To parrot it again, anything said in WP's voice has to be said neutrally, particularly in the Lead.. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 15:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
• Now another consensus has to be sought, on whether Gregkaye's adjustment of the wording is acceptable. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 15:25, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
• Can anyone think of a milder alternative to "judgment"? That may solve it. The statement is general, Felino123, and does not specify any particular group of Muslims. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 16:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
• Have only just spotted that "accused" is too strong and POV in the sentence about the UN/Amnesty criticism, so altered it to "have held responsible for", more neutral as WP should be. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you P123ct1, My main objection was that the Islamic criticism, which tends to be amongst the most strongly worded, was presented proportionately less strongly to other content in the lead. I also think that it would be important to check the Amnasty wording to see how they presented things. Ideas would indeed be welcome. Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• Gregkaye My removal of "accused" has been reverted by Signedzzz. One citation says that the "UN report accuses". ~ P123ct1 (talk) 20:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• Have slightly adjusted Gregkaye's Muslim "judgment" wording and altered "guilty" of ethnic cleansing, as that word is not used in Amnesty's report at all. (Their report is cited in the "Human rights abuses" subsection.) I think everything may be evened out now. Is my rewording of those sentences acceptable? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 18:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
• I don't think "accuse" is too strong, but I think we can choose another "weaker" word. What about "stated" or "reported"? If the source says "accuse", then we should keep this word, but if anyone can find an alternative valid source that doesn't use this word, then we can change it. "Judged" is too strong. And about the Islamic criticism, it was "good" (although I didn't agree very much) as it was before and the consensus agreed. I have changed the order of this paragraph, as it seems most users agree with puting terror designations first, then human rights reports and then criticism. I have also removed the word "judging" to a previous version as there was no consensus for that edit. Also, there are silent links from both criticism and Islamic crticism. Are both necessary? They lead to almost the same section. So I think only one is needed. Felino123 (talk) 22:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
• Felino123, do you know what consensus means? There is no consensus yet, either on the wording for the Muslim criticism, or on the order of the sentences in that paragraph. Because there is no consensus yet, your edits have to be considered disruptive, I'm afraid. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 22:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
• P123ct1, I thought I could change it because those edits were made with no consensus. Those editors just put this wording without asking for any consensus (they asked for it after). So if my edits were worng and disruptive, then the edits of other editors were wrong and disruptive, too. I am sorry, I have reverted my edits, that are not disruptive, so problem solved. Felino123 (talk) 03:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
• I agree with Gregkaye's wording on Muslim criticism, "judging", but agree with the ordering Felino wants, terrorist designation, UN/Amnesty criticism, then Muslim criticism. A consensus of sorts has been reached now, albeit with only three editors wanting to participate in this discussion. Edit it how you will. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 19:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

How about just mirroring the article content order in the corresponding lead paragraph:

2.1 Human rights abuses

2.1.1 War crimes accusations and findings

2.1.2 Religious and minority group persecution

2.1.3 Treatment of civilians

2.1.4 Sexual violence and slavery allegations

2.1.5 Attacks on members of the press

2.2 Islamic criticism

2.3 Criticism for use of the name "Islamic State"

2.4 Other international criticism

2.5 Designation as a terrorist organization

But I'm not too worried about the exact order of the paragraph as long as it covers the article contents.Legacypac (talk) 05:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• In that case I am happy that the current ordering should stay. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 08:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• Legacypac, I really like your suggestion, but I think terrorist designations are very important and should be before Islamic criticism. The order f the paragraph should be terrorist designations/UN and Amnesty criticism/Islamic criticism. It's the most correct and arranger order. Gregkaye, P123ct1, I don't like the word "judging". I think it's too strong. I suggest "claimed" or "stated". It's more neutral and means the same. Felino123 (talk) 05:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
• Felino123: Gregkaye and I agree that "judging" is acceptable, you do not, so I'm afraid the consensus is against you. I think the strength of Muslim criticism has to be reflected in the Lead and that a strong term like "judging" is justified. The Lead is a summary and that term summarises the very strong Muslim criticism in 2.1 "Islamic criticism". ~ P123ct1 (talk) 09:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
• Yes, P123ct1, it should be reflected, but it can be reflected without using so strong terms. You don't need strong terms to summarize anything. And what about the order of the paragraph? I think we have reached consensus to change it to terrorist designations/UN & Amnesty criticism/Islamic criticism. Felino123 (talk) 11:31, 29 November 2014 (UTC)]
• Felino123: Please read! I said I now agreed with the current ordering, UN/AN, Muslim criticism, terrorist designation, which is Gregkaye's - see my comment after Legacypac's above . In other words, I changed my mind, because of what Legacypac said about "mirroring". So again, the consensus is against you. Don't take it badly, this has happened to me before, and it just has to be accepted. Joint decisions by editors, per WP:CONSENSUS, have to override individual editor's views. Not very pleasant, but that is just how it is. If you revert later, you know what will happen! It doesn't mean that you can't challenge these edits later on and ask other editors on the Talk page to give their opinions (without reverting first!), but until then these edits have to stay, I'm afraid. :( ~ P123ct1 (talk) 12:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
• P123ct1, so you agree that this has to be "mirrored", but don't agree with the current ordering per se. Anyway, I get it, and I agree that it should be "mirrored". What if we change the ordering of this article? I don't like it, either. I think terrorist designations are not criticism, as they are official designations by governments. I also don't like other issues about it. I'm not taking this badly, but as you said, it's not pleasant. I won't revert, but I don't like that other users (I don't remember which ones) reverted and changed it and then asked. Friendly greetings. :) Felino123 (talk) 07:44, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Size of article

According to Technophant, the size of the article is much smaller than thought. These are his stats:

"Document statistics:

• Prose size (including all HTML code): 111 kB
• References (including all HTML code): 24 kB
• Wiki text: 204 kB
• Prose size (text only): 57 kB (9328 words) "readable prose size"
• References (text only): 1760 B

The readable prose size is the "article size", 57kB only."

I cannot answer any questions on this as I am simply passing the information on. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 20:03, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Article Maps

Two maps were removed with this edit claiming they are original research and pointing to this discussion which was not linked to from this talk page. I consider the removal of long standing very useful maps to be a problem. They should be restored immediately by Onefireuser and left until a broader consensus is reached with editors who are working on the article. Legacypac (talk) 21:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Maps been restored. Please unsure proper sourcing. --Onefireuser (talk) 22:23, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Please recite any (in classical Arabic) verses that might support the ISIS position about Islam and I'd take it into account, in my editions. I've met a lot of Turks and Moroccans, and several Portuguese Muslims (and in the media, eg Maajid Nawaz, Irshad Manji, and some absolutelly pragmatic Portuguese Muslim leaders (Abdool Vakil and Shjeik David (a Jewish name) Munir, etc). The point about Portugal is that, either given to our peripherical position or that during the Moorish rule, we didn't virtually have any discrimination between Jews, Muslims and Christians. And that was what was called here as a caliphate (a Ummayad caliphate). I condemn everything that ISIS is doing against Kurds (in general) Sunnis that don't agree with them, Shias and and Christians. But this is not a religious war for me, since I'm agnostic, I've listened from moderate Muslims like Maakid Nawaz or Irshad Manji (and from my Turkish friends, either ethnic Kurds or etnic Turks). I condemn any for of Islamophobia as I condemn any for of Israeli-apartheid or any form of "Islam" based phobia against other peoples! Amd I've notices that the Kurds, generally condemn it too. I'm for a Kurdish state in Northern Iraq, Western Iran, Southeastern Turkey /thou I had admired a lot Turkey) and in Northeastern Syria. I supporty tolerance most of all, and I've sensed that that is what the Kurds are about! THEY FOUGHT FOR THEMSELVES, NOT AGAINST ANYONE ELSE! And that's what I admire, because Americans always fight against anyone else! I've learnt to have a huge admiration about the Kurds. (video, if you wish: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6i3bM3I9hE ). Those guys are not Muslims, they're pagans, adoring Capliph!

Mondolkiri1 (talk) 22:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• Like Onefireuser I have questioned the validity of the maps. Maps of ISIL's territorial control are not regularly produced in the media but, when this happens, they have not presented as inflated expanse as presented on the Wikipedia maps. The second map also seems to present content in a much more balanced way. The second map, for instance, also presents the area controlled by the elected government of Iraq in a strong colour. The maps may also come into question in that they show the Iraqi government as being in control of highly populated areas in which case control is confirmed but they show ISIL as being in control of relatively empty areas in which, I suspect, control might be disputed. I think that the main advantage in the first map is that it shows ISIL's territorial claim and I think that the map has most valid use in the section of the article: Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Goals and territorial claims. If the map is in a way to actually contribute information in the upper section of the article and not just to act as a fluff image then it should be placed next to the map in the War factions box so as to enable compare and contrast so as to add in information on territorial claim. Otherwise the first map serves no purpose here. Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:18, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I've come to agree that the map with more colors is better for the infoboxes. The other one is perfect for the claim territory section as it actually shows what they claim nicely. Legacypac (talk) 18:28, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

@Weegee12: I don't know if you were aware of this discussion but you re-added the map here.

This also relates to content in #Suggested Trimming of Infobox Info, as was split from this thread. Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:11, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

It would be great if we resolve this argument and restore the map soon --Weegeeislyfe (talk) 12:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Weegeeislyfe The repeated map is currently restored, mainly due to new format used but it would be helpful if you actually presented reasons to support your opinions. Gregkaye ✍♪ 06:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Notice to editors

I have been in touch with Legacypac who has inadvertently saved an edit onto an earlier version of the article, so some editors may find their edits missing. Unfortunately a straight revert isn't possible, so it means putting the subsequent edits back in one by one, I'm afraid. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 23:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I think I've restored everything correctly except a couple issues in the infobox, where some critical info seems to have been deleted and needs to be studied a little more. Legacypac (talk) 00:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

War crimes accusations and findings: section 2.3 in newly restructured article

How are issuing orders to women on how to dress (2.3.2) and instituting a sharia school curriculum (2.3.2) war crimes? Have they been found to be war crimes? Why has "War crimes accusations and findings", once a subsection of the human rights abuses section, been turned into a main section heading? What is the difference between war crimes and human rights abuses? Where is the distinction made between these in this section? The term "human rights abuses" – the many examples of which have been transferred to the new section from the old "Human rights abuses" section and are now called "war crimes" – is only mentioned once in this new section 2.3, in connection with Libya. The structure of this new section is very muddled. The structure of the original section headed "Human rights abuses" while not ideal was much clearer than this. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 14:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The text right under 2.3 is all about war crimes, acting as a a summary introduction for the subsections. All the subsequent section headers fit into war crimes.The examples picked out are less serious points under Treatment of Civilians, only grouped within that subheading for convenience. Compare Human_rights#Substantive_rights to this list from the War crimes article:

"A War crime is a serious violation of the laws and customs of war (also known as international humanitarian law) giving rise to individual criminal responsibility. Examples of war crimes include:

• murdering, mistreating, or deporting civilian residents of an occupied territory to slave labor camps (including girls into sexual slavery)
• murdering or mistreating prisoners of war or civilian internees
• forcing protected persons to serve in the forces of a hostile power (this area could be covered better - they do that a lot)
• killing hostages
• killing or punishing spies or other persons convicted of war crimes without a fair trial
• wantonly destroying cities, towns, villages, or other objects not warranted by military necessity

The order of the sub-sections almost mirrors the list above: 3.3 War crimes accusations and findings

3.3.1 Religious and minority group persecution

3.3.2 Treatment of civilians

3.3.3 Child soldiers (we should also include forced military service)

3.3.4 Sexual violence and slavery allegations

3.3.5 Attacks on members of the press (who they consider internal and external spies)

3.3.6 Beheadings (we should add other summary executions to this)

3.3.7 Destruction of cultural and religious heritage

Legacypac (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• Are the areas ISIL controls strictly speaking "occupied" territory? Can a rebel group "occupy" territory?
• It would have been useful for editors to have that information when you made those edits, so that they could understand your restructuring. Editors should not have to ask to have your restructuring explained to them. ~ P123ct1 (talk)

Usually States occupy territory, while rebel groups control, but to the locals the effect is the same. It is well established that rebels can commit war crimes, like this gentlemen Joseph Kony. Legacypac (talk) 22:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• While I think that the content on enforcement of clothing styles and the a removal of options of free education can fairly be viewed in the context of "War crimes", I think that, if more descriptive headings can be used with clarity then they should be. In the context of changes that I think were generally helpful, this edit was made to unilaterally remove previously previously heading: "Diktats, influences and pressures". Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The very next edit inserted the whole section, minus he title, under Treatment of civilians - which seemed an appropriate heading as well. Legacypac (talk) 02:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Caliphate constitutional documentation

Does it exist? Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Does it matter? Are there not more pressing things to deal with in this article? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 16:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you suggesting there is a legal basis for any of this? Legacypac (talk) 02:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 Of course it matters.

Legacypac nice choice of words. Legitimacy, by definition, requires legality. I am not suggesting, just asking. Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

When I said does it matter, I meant for the purposes of this article. It may be very difficult to find the answer to this question and I am not sure it needs to be answered for this article. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 07:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

First paragraph places

I was tempted to entitle this: "..and the Levant and, and, and.

The title of the article is "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" and I was wondering about the importance and the notability, at this stage in history, of other place names in the opening paragraph.

This is the text as it currently appears

(Version 1) The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL /ˈaɪsəl/), also translated as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS /ˈaɪsɪs/), also known by the Arabic acronym Daʿish, and self-proclaimed as the Islamic State (IS), is a Sunni, extremist, jihadist rebel group controlling territory in Iraq, Syria, eastern Libya, the Sinai Peninsula of Egypt, parts of Pakistan, and parts of India.

Alternatively I thought it might read:

(Version 2) The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL /ˈaɪsəl/), also translated as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS /ˈaɪsɪs/), also known by the Arabic acronym Daʿish, and self-proclaimed as the Islamic State (IS), is a Sunni, extremist, jihadist rebel group with main controlled territories in Iraq and Syria.

This covers "Iraq and the Levant." In comparison how notable are the other groups and areas? I have not heard much of them in the news.

I'd suggest that a better option for other areas would be to put some clearer refs or links in the infobox. Given the change another option would be to convert the words "controlled territories" into an in page link to the section detailing territories in territorial claims.

A worry of mine is that, given the current state of the article, any editor may come along with any preconception of what content should be added and make major changes to the first paragraph. I think it's safer to limit inclusion here to conjoined areas of territory the group's hierarchy can directly control.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 18:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Support: Best to keep to Iraq and Syria in that sentence and put the rest in the infobox with links. (Especially as it is clear now that the information in the infobox is in fact a part of the Lead, as you showed in the WP link you gave.) ~ P123ct1 (talk) 19:37, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your point - Iraq and Syria=clear control, Libya=pretty clear control Egypt=not so clear control Pakistan and Afghanistan=part of the lawlessness? and India=not that I've read about yet... The current lead also ignores KSA, Yemen, Algeria. So let's use some catch all geographic wording. Look at See MENA as a geographic descriptor too. So I suggest:

(Version 3) The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL /ˈaɪsəl/), also translated as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS /ˈaɪsɪs/), also known by the Arabic acronym Daʿish, and self-proclaimed as the Islamic State (IS), is a Sunni, extremist, jihadist rebel group based in Iraq and Syria where they control significant territory. They also operate in eastern Libya, the Sinai Peninsula of Egypt and other areas of the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia. Legacypac (talk) 21:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

(Version 4) :Legacypac I think the first option keeps things simple but with links to the necessary information. Your option provides a clear cut off at the Iraq and the Levant stage as differentiated from the other groups/areas. How about, instead of "they also operate" having "they also have operations". The relevant groups have sworn loyalty to the group and maybe even to some new non-local leadership members but thes groups are still new additions that ISIL have acquired. Semantics. Gregkaye ✍♪ 22:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Ya, agreed on that wording. I think it is important to diff between the vast swaths in Syria and Iraq and the other situations and this wording allows all kinds of developments even in new countries without modification. Legacypac (talk) 22:29, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• Legacypac It was only just in the thread above that Suriyaan mentioned the inappropriate addition on content on India. My problem here is that interpretations of control are subjective. At times when I have been in activist groups that I joined occupied a number of locations but in our various situations, we only remained in "control" because the full potential might of the British establishment kindly did not choose to "crush" us. To an extent the same principle may apply to any group that took "control" in a country like India. Any editor can come in with good faith and add new content to the first paragraph of the lead and added, or subtracted information may not always represent prevailing views. Gregkaye ✍♪ 06:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

An indian that fought for ISIL was arrested and there has been recent political and media focus on this. Not sure who added India but I'd attribute it to misunderstanding. A few editors actively watch this page and should be able to keep it accurate. Legacypac (talk) 06:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Apparently I misunderstood Gregkeyes changes to my suggestion to be support. For clarity I just inserted (Version 1-4). Now I don't like version 1 because it is quite inaccurate re Pakistan and especially India. Before those countries were inserted (call that Version 0) it was fine in my opinion (and I think I was the last editor to touch it). Version 2 " with main controlled territories in" reads clumsy and suggests there are other areas without being specific. I suspect that editors will want to add Libya etc to that, as I did earlier, so I don't think it will stand for long. While the infobox does get into detail, it is collapsed detail. Could others please articulate their opinions clearly. Legacypac (talk) 07:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Existing text was "... based in Iraq and Syria where it controls territory. It also operates in eastern Libya, the Sinai Peninsula of Egypt". How did the text "and other areas of the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia" get added? Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

That is part of my Version 3, modified by your Version 4 which I pasted in. Some editors keep insisting they control territory in Pakistan, while others are asking for a cite on Egypt. Going with the suggested text should solve both these issues. Legacypac (talk) 02:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• I loke the current wording, so I think we should not change it. Felino123 (talk) 08:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

ISIS ally in Egypt and killing of US Oil Worker

• See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/01/william-henderson-oil-worker-killed_n_6246202.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.242.65 (talk) 14:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Ramadi

Does anyone here know a good web source that can provide a map of Ramadi? There is a major battle going on there considering ISIS's offensive.--Arbutus the tree (talk) 00:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

"Pair of armed anti-American insurgents from northern Iraq"

I have a problem with this picture: what does it add to the article? Is there any evidence that the photo is even taken in Iraq? I see no reason to keep it. zzz (talk) 22:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Even after seeing the image a lot I never considered its lack of WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE. The person that added the image also uploaded images of the far east. Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Positioning of "Terrorist designation" infobox

See also Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/Archive_22#Bold change of para order in Lead

I think this subject deserves a Talk page section of its own as it is causing trouble. I moved this infobox from "Criticism" to the beginning of the article after "History", as a new section, which seemed to me logical as this is official information which is a part of ISIL's history. This was my only reason for moving it. Gregkaye does not agree with this and thinks it should remain as the last item in the "Criticism" section, so I have reverted my edit to see what other editors think. What is the opinion of other editors on where this information should go? Felino123? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 16:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• There are groups that have been well and perhaps primarily defined by terrorism. Al-Qaeda is a good example of this to the effect that this group were "designated" as terrorist by 21 nations/intra-national organisations. This is not surprising as al-Qaeda directly carried out several terrorist attacks. ('SIL have been designated terrorist by the UN, EU and 8 nations).

See: Terrorism. The lead of the article states: "Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts that are intended to create fear (terror); are perpetrated for a religious, political, or ideological goal;.."

In comparison, content in the Analysis section of the ISIL article states:

• "By 2014, ISIL was increasingly being viewed as a militia rather than as a terrorist group. As major Iraqi cities fell to ISIL in June 2014, Jessica Lewis, a former US army intelligence officer at the Institute for the Study of War, described ISIL as "not a terrorism problem anymore", but rather "an army on the move in Iraq and Syria, and they are taking terrain."

[comment added out of time sequence]

• That is only opinion. Other commentators may have disagreed about this at that point in time. You cannot use "opinion" to support your view, to be fair. That is like cherry-picking sources to suit a particular point of view.  :) ~ P123ct1 (talk) 18:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

[returning to main comment]

This was, of course, in a time when the group was taking terrain but content about emphasis of activity stands. They are a group that wages war, kills and tortures captives and conducts a range of human rights abuses. All of these actions are performed by a group that claims to be Islamic. The majority of the victims are also people that claim to be Islamic and significant voices within Islam have strongly condemned the group for its many abuses. This goes beyond a level of terrorism that barely exists. The group does not perform ethnic cleansing because it wants to terrorise. It conducts ethnic cleansing because it wants to wipe out opposition. There is a difference and our content should present issues within the context of the relevant importance of the terms. The terrorist issue is not central to the topic. Many more nations have directly joined the fight against this militant group than have described it as terrorist. Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• Gregkaye: You quote the wiki article on Terrorism: "Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts that are intended to create fear (terror); are perpetrated for a religious, political, or ideological goal;.." That is selective. The article goes on to say immediately following that: "and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (e.g., neutral military personnel or civilians)." All three sound like ISIL to me. The article also says that the international community has found it very difficult to define terrorism, and quotes several definitions of the word from scholars and experts. One of them is:

"By distinguishing terrorists from other types of criminals and terrorism from other forms of crime, we come to appreciate that terrorism is :

• ineluctably political in aims and motives
• violent – or, equally important, threatens violence
• designed to have far-reaching psychological repercussions beyond the immediate victim or target
• conducted by an organization with an identifiable chain of command or conspiratorial cell structure (whose members wear no uniform or identifying insignia) and
• perpetrated by a subnational group or non-state entity."

Again, that sounds like ISIL to me. I would say ISIL are easily identifiable as terrorists. Management of Savagery, the so-called terrorist's handbook, specifically recommends terrorist acts as a way to subjugate and weaken the enemy, so that it can then move in and control its territory and population. Exactly what ISIL has been doing. Terrorism is a means to an ends for ISIL.

And when you say, "The group does not perform ethnic cleansing because it wants to terrorise. It conducts ethnic cleansing because it wants to wipe out opposition. There is a difference ...", can you not see that that is only your personal opinion and your judgment, not fact? Who can second-guess how ISIL thinks? One can only look at their actions, not ascribe motives to them, except in the form of opinion given in Reliable Sources, of which Jessica Lewis' is one, and even as mine that ISIL follows the recommendations in Management of Savagery is just another opinion. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 18:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 in a search on terrorist define the synonyms are bomber, arsonist, incendiary; gunman, assassin, desperado; hijacker; revolutionary, radical, guerrilla, urban guerrilla, subversive, anarchist, freedom fighter; rareinsurrectionist, insurrectionary. It doesn't normally relate to unopposed situations wherein the rebel group controls territory. I think that the criminals reference you give would normally have a different context. Gregkaye ✍♪ 18:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye: Not once it controls territory, no, but as the means to achieving and maintaining control of territory, yes. What about the reports of the horrific treatment of the inhabitants of Ar-Raqqah, for example, who do not toe ISIL's line, from public crucifixions onwards? I would say a crucifixion was a terrorist act par excellence; it is meant to instil fear in the enemy, one of the features of terrorism both you and I quoted above. And remember this article has to reflect not just one moment in time, i.e. the immediate present, but the overall pattern of behaviour of ISIL over a period of time, starting c. 2004, which is when these terrorist designations started to be made. Once again, WP is an encyclopaedia, not a collection of news reports from RS sources. It has a different set of priorities from the press, pundits and political commentators who are more concerned with the immediate. (Greg, this is like Question Time, isn't it!) ~ P123ct1 (talk) 19:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 questions, questions . As far as I have been able to find, the term was coined in 1975. In general, whenever the word has been used, my understanding is that the general understanding of the term was of an attack of a limited few on an as large a group as possible. The effect is on bombings, suicide bombings and flying planes into large office blocks. On occasions when the al-Qaeda separatists have had a victory or when they hold dominion over a population. As much as anything the role is of oppressor, persecutor, bully, tormentor, subjugator, git. This is old fashioned unpleasantness. For sure an unhealthy dose of terror is often involved but, as many victims will testify, when there's no hope there can be no fear. The goal of terror is to scare people into making certain political choices. Prisoners have no extent of choice for their captors to be bothered with. The term terrorism is far from being the best descriptor for many of 'SIL's unsavoury activities. Gregkaye ✍♪ 23:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye: As we've said before, this all boils down to semantics, doesn't it? Without an agreed definition of terrorism by the experts, what hope is there for us here?

Anyway, the main question here is: where should the terrorist designations go in this article? Other views? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 23:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

ISIL meets every definition of terrorism, plus the designations too boot. Holding hostages and saying they die unless the US/UK stops bombing = terrorism. Beheading Syrian soldiers and placing their heads in posts to intimiate the locals = terrorism. Car bombs, beheadings, snatching media=all terrorism. The Jessica Lewis quote above is not saying they are not terrorists anymore, rather that they have moved beyond being just a small terror group into being a militia on the move.

I see two possible routes to being labeled a terrorist. There are lots of freedom fighters/rebels/guerrillas etc that have been called terrorists by the government they are fighting (rightly or wrongly). That is more a controversial political label. Then there are groups like AQ, FLQ, IRA and ISIL that are objectively terrorists by any definition of the word. More then any previous objectively terrorist group, ISIL has sought successfully to take territory, becoming also a rebel group, a new breed of terrorist rebel group committing war crimes the world has never seen before. Terrorist designations need to go high up as they are an essential defining characteristic of what ISIL is.Legacypac (talk) 00:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with your changes, P123ct1. Terrorist designations are not criticism, but official designations by governments. It's not 100% clear where terrorist designations should go, but it's clear where they shouldn't. Also, terrorist designations are extremely important, infinitely more important than criticism by imams or individuals. I agree with Legacypac, these designations should go high up as they are essential. They should go before any kind of criticism. The correct order of that paragraph is terrorist designations/UN & Amnesty reports/Islamic criticism (I think Islamic criticism should not be at the second paragraph, but that is not the issue now). Felino123 (talk) 03:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Felino123 Are you aware that when you say "terrorist designations are ... infinitely more important than criticism by imams" you are basically stating that the criticisms of grand muftis in Islam are of no importance at all. You have previously been challenged on the fact that some of the criticisms come from groups and yet you still present "individuals". This seems to me to be a wilful level of misrepresentation. Gregkaye ✍♪ 06:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye, please don't manipulate my words. I have always said that criticism is important, and you know it. But official designations by governments are infinitely more important than opinions, whoever they come from. Official designations determine the policies of governments and opinions are just that, opinions. I don't care if they come from groups or individuals, and I have never been challenged for that. Anyway, groups are formed by individuals, right? "This seems to me to be a wilful level of misrepresentation" > You're wrong. Felino123 (talk) 08:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac when you say terrorists by any definition of the word, what range of definitions are you referring to. We are in effect supporting a redefinition of terms. War crimes and human rights abuse have always been called war crimes and human rights abuse. The word terrorist activities does not stretch this far. If we are to go about 'SIL bashing we should go about it in encyclopaedic ways that do not add danger and irrationality to the situation. Gregkaye ✍♪ 06:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• I have added the text to "Designation as a terrorist organization" : "NOTE: Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts that are intended to create fear (terror)". This text is taken directly from the terrorism article. Terrorism, by standard definition, constitutes some of the groups more peripheral activities and I am sure that editors here understand this. Gregkaye ✍♪ 06:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

[comment added out of sequence]

Peripheral activities? Did you not read what I said? This article has to reflect ISIL as a whole, over time, not just how they are now. This an encyclopaedia article, not a topical newspaper article. You say editors wilfully misrepresent. It seems to me that you wilfully mishear what editors say! ~ P123ct1 (talk) 11:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye, your edit was against the consensus, so please revert it. Ask for a consensus and then edit. I think we don't need that, but maybe a link to the terrorism article. Felino123 (talk) 08:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Felino123, I wanted to express my agreement with your reasoning and note my support for the changes that P123ct1 had made. I also believe that the edit by Gregkaye ignores the consensus. Terrorist designations are more important than criticism by imams or groups of individuals and these designations should be placed high-up in the article, well before discussions of "criticism(s)". Cheers. Azx2 10:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Felino123, what edit are you talking about. Please see WP:NPA and strike your comment. User:Azx2 Please either justify your comment that I "ignore consensus" or strike. Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• Would editors please be careful when they use the word "consensus"? Gregkaye is right, there was no consensus at this point. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 12:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Felino123, Az, for the second time, strike your unwarranted content.

I don't think the added text is necessary either and I believe that terrorism is at the very core of the groups strategy to expand and control. There other activities are peripheral to facilitating the terror strategy.

Everyone has a good idea what terrorism is, though for political purposes the labeling of specific groups or acts may be debated and there are many variations on the definition. I suggest reading Definitions of terrorism where there are dozens of definitions each perfectly covering ISIL. Someone suggested the term was invented in the 1970's but that is not true at all - terror is a latin word that for over 2000 years has meant exactly the same thing. An interesting quote - which works perfectly here "The terror cimbricus was a panic and state of emergency in Rome (Syria and Iraq) in response to the approach of warriors of the Cimbri tribe (ISIL) in 105BC (2014)." and "According to Dr Myra Williamson: "The meaning of “terrorism” has undergone a transformation. According to Dr Myra Williamson: "The meaning of “terrorism” has undergone a transformation. During the reign of terror a regime or system of terrorism was used as an instrument of governance, wielded by a recently established revolutionary state against the enemies of the people. Now the term “terrorism” is commonly used to describe terrorist acts committed by non-state or subnational entities against a state." In areas they have good almost state-like control they use terror to maintain control. In areas they lack control they use terror in the more modern sense.

They are committing war crimes, human rights abuses, terrorism, and a host of other crimes. No point in sugar coating this mess.

Legacypac (talk) 10:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Tactics to expand and control are ancient and fit well under the war crimes banner. Our duty is to present encyclopaedic material that accurately presents content. I'd suggest a wiktionary definition on terrorist|terrorism and a link on "terrorist". However, the making of a connection between terror (broad concept) and terrorist (description that has often been described relating to small groups attempting to terrorise many) is a bit like having a connection between jihadist (typically agressive) and jihad (theologically defensive). At least in one case we should fairly present definitions. The UN have recently produced a report on 'SIL's use of terror but, unless we are to change definitions of words, actual terrorist activity remains something specific. We are not here to sugar coat. We are here to accurately describe and, with this in mind, my edit added accurate factual content. Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

While I still hold that judgements and criticisms from a range of sources and on a range of more relevant issues are of relatively high importance, I have previously only referenced the List of terrorist incidents connected to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant which presented just two incidents. The List of terrorist incidents, 2014 presents 13 incidents. This total still remains small in comparison to other atrocities but is bigger than I had previously thought. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Both those lists are very incomplete. Hostage taking and beheading = terrorist attack but not on that list which is mostly bombs. Legacypac (talk) 11:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

This depends on whether a definition of terrorism extends to atrocities perpetrated within the area of territory controlled by the group. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

historically all terrorism was government on civilians, but today nearly all governments have stopped terrorism, leaving non-state actors as the only ones currently engaged in terrorism. So yes, a group can commit terrorism in an area it controls - from one airplane to a whole region. Legacypac (talk) 18:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

al-Bagdadi on terrorism I think he is being sarcastic actually..., so if you flip it, all the terrorism against muslims he cites around the world is matched by his on terrorism in Iraq and Syria. Legacypac (talk) 00:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye: Can we get back to the main point, a definition of "terrorism" for the purpose of this article? This is important as it will influence where the terrorism designation infobox eventually goes. I am resuming this because of something you said in the #"Declaration of an Islamic State and reactions" and criticism" thread. I said, "Gregkaye: Why do you think "Analysis" and "Designation as a terrorist organization" naturally go together?" and you replied, "They are clearly a horrendous terrorist organisation but with facets more monstrous still. If I were to judge what the group were guilty of I would place human rights abuse and war crimes at the top of the list terrorism somewhere after that. The analysis text [you were referring to the "Analysis" section] acknowledges the terrorism and also highlights bigger issues." In light of that answer, I really think you need to define what you mean by "terrorism" when referring to ISIL.

Forgive me, but it does seem to me from that answer that you not only want to separate ISIL's terrorism from its human rights abuses and war crimes, but think it is a lesser characteristic that should somehow be downplayed. Public crucifixions, beheading and placing the heads on spikes with the bodies below them to terrorise the locals in Ar-Raqqah, holding hostages and saying they will die unless the US/UK stops bombing are all acts of terrorism, and such acts of terrorism really cannot be separated from their human rights abuses and war crimes, as this article demonstrates:

1. "There have been many reports of the group's use of death threats, torture and mutilation to compel conversion to Islam, and the killing of clerics who refuse to pledge allegiance to the Islamic State."
2. "The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights warned of war crimes being committed in the Iraqi war zone, and disclosed one UN report of ISIL militants murdering Iraqi Army soldiers and 17 civilians in a single street in Mosul."
3. "After ISIL released photographs of its fighters shooting scores of young men, the United Nations declared that cold-blooded "executions" by militants in northern Iraq almost certainly amounted to war crimes."
4. Quote from the UN: "[ISIL] seeks to subjugate civilians under its control and dominate every aspect of their lives through terror, indoctrination ...".
5. "On 29 May, ISIL raided a village in Syria and at least 15 civilians were killed, including, according to Human Rights Watch, at least six children."
6. "On 1 June, a 102-year-old man was killed along with his whole family in a village in Hama province."
7. "ISIL uses beheadings to intimidate local populations and has released a series of propaganda videos aimed at Western countries. They also engage in public and mass executions, sometimes forcing prisoners to dig their own graves before shooting lines of prisoners and pushing them in."

You must have a very special definition of "terrorism" if you believe all those ongoing human rights abuses and war crimes are not acts of terrorism, if you believe the three things are separable, and if you believe that terrorism is no longer an important defining characteristic of ISIL. Sorry to pin you down, but How can you square this circle? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 15:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Well it could be that I have been pinned? I will let you decide.

A potentially useful article that I found is Definitions of terrorism. Early definitions include: "League of Nations... late 1930s, ... defined "acts of terrorism" as "criminal acts directed against a State and intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons or a group of persons or the general public". Article 2 included as terrorist acts, if they were directed against another state and if they constituted acts of terrorism within the meaning of the definition contained in article 1."

Later definitions include: "...2004, United Nations Security Council Resolution 1566 condemned terrorist acts as: "criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or taking of hostages, with the purpose to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act, which constitute offences within the scope of and as defined in the international conventions and protocols relating to terrorism, are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature,""

All I can say is that terrorism has had, as far as I have been aware, specific meanings related to entry into areas mainly populated with non members of a group so as to cause damage amongst other groups of people. Do you want to list every streetside interrogation in Al-Racca and Mosul under one of Wikipedia's lists of Terrorist incidents, every slitting of a throat...? This question is asked seriously, do we rewrite history to describe the Mongols and similar groups as terrorists.

If I may can I try some pinning of my own. Earlier I commented on the addition to the designation content of a quote from the article on terrorism and this was roundly rejected. Why? We are not here to push views but to present balanced information. If Daesh, I'll try that name for variety, are to be prominently defined as terrorist then I think that there should be clear notice given on definitions.

When 9/11 happened most everyone described this incident as a terrorist attack. Car bombs infront of embassies have also been regularly described as terrorist attacks. As far as I have gathered. I haven't seen sources describing every beheading in similar terms. Gregkaye ✍♪ 23:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

• Gregkaye Thanks. Back to the question at the beginning of thread: where should the terrorist designations go? I think they should be placed higher up in the article (for reasons given). Felino123, Legacypac, Axx2 think that as well, Gregkaye disagrees. So the consensus is I think is now to move it higher up in the article. I do not think the infobox needs to be accompanied by a qualification of the word "terrorist" either. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 09:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 as per the question as to whether, I think those acts listed are acts of terrorism, or that "terrorist" is still an important defining characteristic of ISIL" I would ask, which acts listed? and that it depends on the definition of "terrorist" being used. We don't have a full picture of the actions of this group or the manner in which they are dispensed. Yes I think that terrorism is an "important defining characteristic of ISIL". However, I do not think that it is a primarily important defining characteristic of the group and, from my perspective, I am yet to see a convincing argument against this view. As far as I can see their motive is, first and foremost, to wipe out opposition. I think that a lack of provision of a clearly presented definition of either or both terms terrorist and terrorism is unencyclopaedic. Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks again. That is really what I was asking. The acts listed are those listed in my previous comment and question, sorry. Are there any wiki articles on terrorist groups that have a definition of "terrorist" and "terrorism" in them? I hope this isn't going to turn into a semantic saga like "jihadist", though I admit I am guilty of encouraging it. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 12:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 TY, articles with relevant content include Terrorism, Definitions of terrorism, wikt:terrorist and wikt:terrorism. I'd either suggest a quote as previously presented or a link to the wiktionary articles and making some of the wording into a link to either article. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:20, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• Gregkaye: Like an efn footnote, you mean. I cannot see any objection to that. I think it would be best attached to "terrorist" in the wording underneath the terrorist designation infobox rather than anywhere else. It seems the most appropriate place. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 13:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

An efn link would be something. My suggestion had been to either add a quote definition directly into the text to give a brief account of definitions or terrorism (this is something I had previously added) or for a link to the wiktionary articles to be added coupled with making some of the wording into a direct link to either article. An efn link would also be a positive. The text from the article terrorism that I had used is "Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts that are intended to create fear (terror)" This is good encyclopaedic content. Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• Gregkaye: The problem with the last definition (creating terror) is that it would only fit with ISIL's current and recent activities. At the time when the group was AQI and ISI it was a different kind of terrorism, more like "terrorism" as it is generally understood today (car bombing, suicide bombing, etc.). The definition would have to cover terrorism by the group generally, from c, 2003 until now. As for a standalone definition in this article, I don't think editors would wear it. A link would be better, IMO. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 19:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Whatever, happens, happens. At least there is a lot of content here that is fully encyclopaedic. If war crimes are to be redefined as terrorism with nothing but a footnote to give clarification, so be it. To an extent it is fair. The British government uses its terrorist legislation to stop radicals travelling to Iraq. Definitions are getting mixed up. Gregkaye ✍♪ 19:30, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

On a 5-year plan, ISIS is claiming territories on at least 80 countries in the world!

See also: #Claim, contrary to the article's claim, that 'SIL's territorial claim may never have been exclaimed

I mentioned this on ISIL territorial claims. I'm still not to edit in this page, but could someone else add that information? The source is in that article that I edited, and the source is there, but I'm sure that if an eventual better source is needed, I can look myself for it.Charrock (talk) 03:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The problem with the first source is it is a tablod and this source refutes it, however they clearly have designs on a lot more places. Let's look for better sources? Legacypac (talk) 08:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, suggest one, please! Charrock (talk) 08:36, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Charrock I don't know of any reliable source reference to any specific territorial claim made by the group. I suggest, if anything, we return to RS. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Now pay attention 007, according our information, Doctor No has an evil Five Year Master Plan to take over territories on at least 80 countries. Really, does all this BS sound more like something out of a (sub-standard) James Bond film? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.219.74 (talk) 21:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Inaccurate Citation

The section under "Military of ISIL" reads:

"Estimates of the size of ISIL's military vary widely from tens of thousands up to 200,000 fighters, with the latter estimate being the most recent, as of November 2014" citing http://online.wsj.com/articles/jessica-lewis-the-terrorist-army-marching-on-baghdad-1402614950 as a source. However the article itself reads: "According to 2013 estimates, the Iraqi army contains 14 maneuver divisions, roughly 200,000 soldiers in addition to 40,000 federal police and 300,000 local police"(Paragraph 6) The estimate refers to the population of Iraq's army, not the army of ISIL. I don't have editing privileges for this article so I hope someone can correct this.

Thank you @Adeutry: I have always been dubious of the 200,000 figure which was provided by Fuad Hussein, Senior Kurdish figure as per "War with Isis: Islamic militants have army of 200,000, claims senior Kurdish leader" in the Independent. The article quotes a "large pool of potential recruits" but doesn't mention that the job mainly involves killing Muslims or minorities. The article presents the figure as "Kurdish claims". I would be interested to know if there is anything citable to question conflict of interest here. This is an example of Kurd-led influence which can be viewed as a bid for more military intervention from multi-national forces. I think that Wikipedia should remain careful regarding potential misinformation. See: territorial claim and state above.

Adeutry, to be a WP:AUTOCONFIRMed user you need to have made 10 edits on Wikipedia and I think that this can be on any content. Contributions will be welcome. Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The figure 200,000 Gregkaye is talking about is from The Independent. It is about ISIL, and it is dated November 2014, so this would be the right citation for the text, which says latest estimates (November) are 200,000 for ISIL. But the editor is referring to a different citation altogether, from the WSJ, where the 200,000 figure is for the Iraqi Army, not ISIL. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 14:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• This is the second citation this week that has been found to be inaccurate. The other was the citation for "aims to bring Muslim-inhabited regions across the world under its control" in the Lead. (See #Unsourced opinion in lead section" in which zzz was involved.) A few weeks ago I found in this article a citation that directly contradicted the statement it was supposed to support; I noted this in the edit summary. I have found many inaccuracies and misreporting of citations in the Timeline article. In the ISIS article, since the reorganisation and addition of phrases to original sentences made in an attempt to combine and reduce text, I have found some of these additions not backed up by the original citations that are still attached. How much more of this is hiding in the article? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 11:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• The inaccuracy raised by the editor over the 200,000 figure has a revealing history.

(1) The current version has:

Military of ISIL

Main article: Military of ISIL

Estimates of the size of ISIL's military vary widely from tens of thousands up to 200,000 fighters, with the latter estimate being the most recent, as of November 2014."

The source for 200,000 is Jessica Lewis's article in the Wall Street Journal. (a) as the editor pointed out, this figure is not for ISIL, but worse still (b) that article is dated 14 JUNE, 2014, and it is being quoted for the "most recent" estimate in November. The WSJ article quotes 4,000 for ISIL in Iraq in June, nothing for Syria.

(2) The 13 November version of the page has: