Talk:Islamic State/Archive 14

Fear of female fighters
Amazing:


 * http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/11110724/Isil-fanatics-fear-being-killed-by-a-woman-will-deprive-them-of-virgins-in-paradise.html


 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lro62AJ6e7M


 * http://www.westernjournalism.com/awesome-even-isis-admits-brave-woman-sending-terrorists-hell/


 * (ISIL OR ISIS OR Daesh OR "Islamic State") AND (scared OR fear) AND (female OR women)

I was wondering whether a section might be added as a final subsection of "Opposition" but other options might work. Titles might be: "Female fighters", "Fear of female fighters", Female fighters as an asset", other options?

See also: Houri

If anyone else want to join in a write up, pls do.

Gregkaye ✍ ♪  21:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This claim is pure propaganda. Notice that it is only a Republican politician and Kurdish PYD officials claiming this. Reminds me of the claim that burying Muslims with pigs leads to them going to hell Gazkthul (talk) 01:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Certainly it could only be true within the context of either: prejudiced interpretations of non-prejudiced texts; non-prejudiced interpretations of prejudiced texts or prejudiced interpretations of prejudiced texts. This is not to say that other religions are necessarily better and there are inequalities in the treatment of the sexes in many religious texts.  In this case Islam promises 72 houri to a male martyr but one man for a female martyr.
 * Its an issue that seems to be getting significant coverage. Its either anti ISIL propaganda or or the result of misunderstanding or its true. There is no accounting for the actual beliefs of front line ISIL troops.  They believe it to be the will of god to kill aid workers. Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  07:04, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As a Baha'i I practice tolerance of all religions. It can be difficult to understand a foreign belief system but I find it best not cast judgement.~Technophant (talk) 07:15, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The claim of female Kurdish fighters is that their male ISIL opponents react differently to them than to male Kurdish fighters. A clearer view of the facts of the matter may develop with research and/or time. Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  09:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

OMG. Wikipedia is not a place to spread propaganda! eather PYD or IS. This claim is a stupid propaganda. 3bdulelah (talk) 15:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Its interesting that Wikipedia's reliable sources will present this kind of information but they don't present the opposing view. The thing that is perplexing is that many of the Kurds are Sunni so they also should have opportunity to check through their claims.  It might be worth writing something up somewhere to set the record straight.   Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  03:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If added it could go in Critcism. All facts should be attributed to source. Should not be represented as verified fact. Remember, "verifiability not truth"~Technophant (talk) 04:28, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This article by RS AFP can be used in Opponents.~Technophant (talk) 04:48, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * have put the unisex YPG of whom YPJ are a part in the recently tidied "Opposition within Iraq, Lebanon and Syria" Gregkaye ✍ ♪  07:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Can we try to cite sources that don't require subscription (comment)
title edited from "Can we try to cite sources that don't require subscription" Gregkaye ✍ ♪  07:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC) please. Gregkaye ✍ ♪  16:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * We can and should. Paywall sources can usually be replaced by equivalent free ones. For example if you use the WSJ as a source try to also find a free source that has similar content to put along with it. There's no requirement to avoid paywall sources however. ~Technophant (talk) 11:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The Wall Street Journal is an RS, so shouldn't be avoided, and there is a way of bypassing its paywall. Search the article title on Google and it will bring up an unpaywalled version.  That is why I have put in WSJ footnotes:  "(Subscription required)  Available via Google." This doesn't work for the Financial Times, however, another paywalled source. --P123ct1 (talk) 14:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd far prefer we talk about reliable materials than reliable sources. I recently had a potentially epic fail in relying on the independent UK broadsheet (one of the normally more reliable sources in my POV) in my reliance on coverage related to .  There are plenty of contents and spins that may be added in "RS" for the sake of commercial needs of selling information and advertising space.  The two functions of citations are to validate Wikipedia contents and to provide readers with links for further research.  These functions are severely hampered by reference to sources that require subscription.  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  14:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The WP guidance is to provide an additional source when one has a paywall. Paywalled sources, especially RS ones, shouldn't be avoided as there will be readers who can access them.  I can't quote the WP policy on this, but this point has arisen before on this Talk page and that was the guidance given.  On the other point, the WP guidance cannot be bent so that reliable materials are used rather than Reliable Sources, just because an individual editor thinks they look biased.  They are called "Reliable Sources" for a reason - they have been judged so by WP as  whole - and to say that one function of a citation is to validate WP contents is to profoundly misunderstand what WP is all about  WP has to reflect Reliable Sources, not use them as evidence to support a particular way of presenting facts, as happened with the 126 Sunni scholars citation.  Btw, I see that para has just been moved to a prominent position in the Lead here which I strongly object to. --P123ct1 (talk) 17:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

About description
I think that the summary of ISIL isn't accurate. The main activity of ISIL is torturing and murdering christians and followers of other religions in the name of the Islam -- and this should be clearly stated. Even if they base on extreme interpretations of jihad. The statement "The United Nations and Amnesty International have accused the group of grave human rights abuses" might be interpreted like "they are just accused and maybe innocent". There are dozens of articles which describe the crimes. A quick google search shows a scale of it. Somebody who hadn't known what ISIL is could gain a very incomplete view.

We all know what ISIL is, and maybe "everybody" knows. But IMHO Wikipiedia shouldn't take that into account as a reason to not mention the most important facts, because it destroys a neutral point of view.

My proposition is to add a sentence "ISIL is responsible of such crimes like torturing men and women, rape and mass murder. This includes shooting to death, crucifixion, beheading and other forms of atrociousness.", at the end of the third paragraph. After that might be a bunch of references to various sources. Bypassing an essence of the matter is not neutral. -- gajatko 9.10.2014 01:30


 * Saying they are accused is fine if there is any doubt, but ISIL puts out videos bragging about most of these crimes. Since no one disputes that they are committing these acts, seems like we can state the facts. The only word that might be an issue is "crimes" but any civilized person knows what these are without us telling them. I'd add kidnappings, murder of POWs, and destruction of historic monuments. Legacypac (talk) 02:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The main activity of ISIL is torturing and murdering christians and followers of other religions
 * Actually they kill far, far more Muslims than Christians or other religious groups. Until 2014 they had almost exclusively killed Muslims, in fact. And we already have a Human Rights Abuse section that is specifically designed for the material you are talking about. Gazkthul (talk) 02:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Until there is a statement from the UN that goes beyond accusation this is all that we can present. We can only use what has been said.  There may be reason to check for new statements.  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  09:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Is the UN the only source we can cite? I think that it is not bad to cite articles from news websites, because they often contain photos which prove the accusations.


 * Report on the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict in Iraq: 6 July – 10 September 2014
 * http://www.huffingtonpost.com/evelyn-leopold/isis-isil-is-thy-name-is_b_5948208.html
 * http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=744_1377386471
 * http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/11111167/British-hostage-Alan-Henning-beheaded-by-Islamic-State-killers.html
 * http://www.iraqinews.com/iraq-war/urgent-video-isil-beheads-american-journalist-threatens-kill-another/
 * http://www.presstv.com/detail/2014/07/29/373281/video-shows-isil-shoot-teens-in-head/
 * http://www.almanar.com.lb/english/adetails.php?eid=165097&cid=23&fromval=1
 * Well, an official report of HUMAN RIGHTS Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and 6 different sources with photos or videos -- what else do we need? --Gajatko (talk) 11:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * How about ISIL justifying enslavement of women? ""One should remember that enslaving the families of the kuffar -- the infidels -- and taking their women as concubines is a firmly established aspect of the Shariah, or Islamic law," the group says in an online magazine published Sunday." http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/12/world/meast/isis-justification-slavery/index.html Admission and justification = we state it as fact.Legacypac (talk) 12:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Gajatko: That sentence about "grave human rights abuses" has been overtaken by events and you will see it has gone.  The UN and Amnesty have been actively investigating since then and their reports are coming through now, and being recorded in this article. --P123ct1 (talk) 18:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Sinjar massacres, and other massacres
As there is a page on Sinjar massacre, I wonder whether there should be pages on other major massacres perpetrated by ISIL during last months.

In one considers only massacres with 100+ victims, in addition to Sinjar and other massacres already described in the pages about the massacre of Camp Speicher and the battles of Tabqa air base and Shaer gas field, there were more at Khana Sor (100 Yazidis: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/IQ/UNAMI_OHCHR_POC_Report_FINAL_6July_10September2014.pdf), Hardan (250-300 Yazidis: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/IQ/UNAMI_OHCHR_POC_Report_FINAL_6July_10September2014.pdf), Khocho (400 Yazidis: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/IQ/UNAMI_OHCHR_POC_Report_FINAL_6July_10September2014.pdf), Tal Afar prison (200 Yazidis: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/IQ/UNAMI_OHCHR_POC_Report_FINAL_6July_10September2014.pdf), Mosul (670 inmates of Badush prison: http://www.iraqinews.com/features/isil-kills-670-prisoners-badush-prison-beings-campaign-turkmen-says-un/, http://www.iraqinews.com/iraq-war/urgent-400-bodies-found-mass-grave-northwest-al-mosul/ and http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/lauretta-brown/un-isis-massacred-700-turkmen-including-women-children-elderly) and Beshir (700 Turkmen: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/lauretta-brown/un-isis-massacred-700-turkmen-including-women-children-elderly and http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/170899/women-and-children-among-massacred-iraqi-turkmen.html); in addition to the massacre of 700 members of the Shitat tribe in Der ez-Zor province in the first two weeks of August (http://www.almanar.com.lb/english/adetails.php?eid=166032&cid=23&fromval=1). This (without counting several more massacres with dozens, but less than 100, victims) according to the United Nations; in the mentioned articles and reports there are some details, maybe somebody could create the pages if they are to be considered encyclopedic (some of these are even bloodier than the Sinjar massacre that already has a page). --2.35.58.16 (talk) 21:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * At the very least they could/should be written up in the "Human rights abuses" section of this article. --P123ct1 (talk) 05:01, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I have added it in the "War crimes accusations" section, though some pages about the more bloody ones/those for which these are some information about what happened (I would say at least Khocho, Mosul prison, Beshir and the al-Sheitat tribesmen; also Hardan, Khana Sor and Tal Afar prison, but there is not much more known about those than the number of people killed) may still deserve to be created.
 * At the same sime, about the Sinjar massacre page: from the page and the comments I can't quite understand if the pages deals only with one massacre in the town of Sinjar, or with all the massacres of Yazidis in the Sinjar district. If the latter case is correct, there would be need of a) moving the number of Yazidis killed indicated in that page from 500 to 5,000, as UN sources state (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2792552/full-horror-yazidis-didn-t-escape-mount-sinjar-confirms-5-000-men-executed-7-000-women-kept-sex-slaves.html), and b) to describe in that page all the massacres of Yazidis in Sinjar region (Quiniyeh, 70-90 killed; Hardan, 60 killed; Ramadi Jabal, 60-70 killed; Dhola, 50 killed; Khana Sor, 100 killed; Hardan, 250-300 killed; al-Shimal, "dozens" of dead; Khocho, 400 killed; Tal Afar prison, 200 killed; Jidala, 14 killed; plus the hundreds who died along the roads and while fleeing to the mountains, the abductions, and the killings with less than ten dead) with the details contained in the OHRCHR/UNAMI report (http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/IQ/UNAMI_OHCHR_POC_Report_FINAL_6July_10September2014.pdf) and therefore the other massacres of Yazidis mentione above should be described there, without separate pages, while new pages could be done for the massacres that did not target Yazidis (Mosul prison - Shia inmates -, Beshir - Turkmen shia - and Ghranij/Abu Hamam/Kashkiyeh - al-Sheitat tribesmen -). --Olonia (talk) 13:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Olonia: Thanks for your edits. I have split them and put one half with "War crimes" and the other half with "Religious and minority group persecution", but have not removed anything you said.  It is good to have hard data on this in the article. --P123ct1 (talk) 23:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk page too long

 * See later discussion: Talk page too long (318,000)

I changed the "MiszaBot/config| algo=old" to from default 30 days to 48 days a while back to keep older discussions alive. This page gets up to 1.6M pageviews/day (!) and discussion has been lively. I think it should be set back to 30 days, or even as low as 21 days. ~Technophant (talk) 11:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: After 7 days of no response to the above archived proposal I went ahead and changed the algo to 30 days.~Technophant (talk) 05:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Since I wrote this, the algo has been changed (without discussion) to 14 days, then 7 days here. This is too short. I understand that this talk page is quite long, however not everybody contributes or checks every page on a weekly basis. I'm changing it back to 14 days. I don't support any shorter length of time. ~Technophant (talk) 03:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The Page info currently indicates "Page length (in bytes)	132,716" which isn't in itself overly excessive. In lieu of technical objections I support Technophant's view that "it should be set back to 30 days" but have no objection to settings between 30 and ~17 days 30 and 14 days but preferring something more than 3 weeks if practical.  (Give people at least a little over two weeks).  There would certainly need to be a very valid reason for the settings of less than 14 days.  I'm not saying that anyone should necessarily be bothered but, in the case of clearly concluded discussions, manual archiving is also possible.  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  04:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * When a page is getting about 20K a day of throughput 7 days gives about 200K which is more than large enough for a talk page. Before I altered it the page was in excess of 450K that is totally unreasonable for anyone with a slow band width or a pay per byte tariff, or for that matter a small memory on device. So 7 days is a compromise between leaving something on view for long enough and simultaneously keeping the page to a reasonable size. This is not just in the number of bytes on the page but also the number of entries in the TOC. when the page was of a size of over 450k there were 117 section to the page, Currently there are 33. I suspect the size of the page was one of the reasons for so many overlapping conversations that when on and on as few bothered to look through a very lage TOC or decided that if a conversation was in the middle of the page on one else would look at it. so while the the number of postings to this page remains so large I suggest that it is left at 7 days (the same time as is allocated for a WP:RM or an WP:AFD)-- PBS (talk) 16:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I have slow bandwidth with throttling and I don't mind that the talk page is long. If you are worried about bytes then the animated gif should be archived or hyperlinked (done). The need to properly discuss this topic supersedes minor technical issues such as large page size.~Technophant (talk) 18:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not just about the size but also the number of sections on a page. The fact that two RMs could be open simultaneously and several other discussions about the name of an article in progress at the same time is a sign that the page was way to big. I did not bother to check, but it is likely that other subjects were being discussed in several places. Such large pages cause problems with assessing what the consensus is on any given subject as a new reader has to read the equivalent amount of text as would be found the average novel, (at the moment the page size is at between 24,000 and 25,000 words).
 * If desired one can always look at the archive to check for any recent sections one is interested in and resurrect them by providing a convince link to it in an introduction to a new section, that way editors can still see what has been said to date on the topic if that topic needs further discussion. Also note that it is not seven days from the start of a section but seven days from the last comment added to the section. With more than 20K a day being added to the page, seven days without a comment to a section is plenty long enough for it to be considered closed (as I said seven days it the length of the usual AfD, and anything not disused for seven days here in not going to be as critical as an AfD). When the volume to posts to the page decreases so the time to archive sections can be extended. -- PBS (talk) 21:59, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There's some good points in that argument, however please don't edit war with me like you did here and change the algo without consensus. I'm holding firm on no shorter than 14 days and that's also the shortest time period the current consensus supports.~Technophant (talk) 23:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that good points have been made all round (although, with slight tongue in cheek, I'd like to propose the term "edit jihad" - or would that provide an unwarranted justification for actions). The problem that I see is the navigability of the TOC and PBS's insightful comments got me to thinking on the potential benefits of the editing of headings.  At risk of adding a new heading, a related proposal is added below.  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  07:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) PBS: The way the Talk page works has become very chaotic over the past month or so. Editors open threads for topics when there are already ongoing discussions about them. Editors do not keep to the topic of threads and branch out into other topics (with a plethora of subheadings), which are then continued by other editors. It is very hard to keep track of discussions on particular topics now. Shortening the time to seven days would make it even harder, as it would mean constantly having to look back at the archived discussions to see what was said before (and frankly I can't see that many editors would make the effort, simpler to open a new thread). For these reasons I think seven days is unreasonable. There is a far better chance of following a discussion on a topic if the block to scan for it is 14 days long. --P123ct1 (talk) 08:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * For the moment the length for archiving can remain at 14 days since the last edit to a section. However if the page grows to be large than 300K or contains more than 70 sections then as an administrative action I will put it back to 7 day, for the reasons I have explained before. If that clear the backlog then we can revisit the number of days. For example perhaps 10 days if 14 days have proved to be difficult to manage. -- PBS (talk) 21:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * PBS Alternate proposal: If the talk page gets above 300K or contains more than 70 sections the manually archive discussions that haven't been edited for more than 7 days to get it down to size. Changing the algo against overwhelming consensus is disruptive and displays an ownership attitude. Having the sysop flag does not make you exempt from the same rules other editors must follow. ~Technophant (talk) 05:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


 * My proposal is far more modest change than would occur if the recommendations of the talk page guideline were to be followed "It is recommended to archive or refactor a page either when it exceeds 75 KB, or has more than 10 main sections" (WP:TALKCOND), as I said above 7 days since a section has last been edited is the same length as the standard AfD and RM and seems to me a reasonable compromise. The reasons why manual archiving is a bad idea, is because when there are lots of disputes on the talk page, it is not unknown for people to question how accurate the archive is when the archive is carried out by an interested party, and for anyone disinterested in the content of the talk page it is needlessly time consuming when the same can be achieved with the use of a bot. -- PBS (talk) 10:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * PBS I agree that manual archiving can create problems. However guidelines are just guidelines. We have a clear consensus here to have the algo set no lower than 14 days and that should be followed.~Technophant (talk) 07:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Caliph - Caliphate - "Worldwide Caliphate"
1. This article was giving a link to Caliphate, a former (historic) supreme post for all Muslims. (I changed it to "Worldwide Caliphate", which seems to be a new-born concept that responds to the projects of these ISIS terrorists. Please do be careful to use the concepts not to hurt anybody's feelings. 2. The article also gives a link to Caliph where we see a photo of the last Ottoman-Turkish Caliph Abdülmecid II. The last Caliph was a man of arts, a painter. Please see his photos and those of his daughters at this Google link. Does this family look like that of the so called "ISIS Caliph"? (Have any of you seen a photo of a "woman" from that family?) Please do not confuse our readers on these institutions like The Caliphate and Islam and what, how and who the Muslims are. Begin by calling terrorists by their name: "Terrorists", I mean ALL Terrorists. The so-called "political correctness" of Wikipedia only causes the masses that read it to confuse a Muslim with a TERRORIST, as we use concepts like Islamist, Jihadist etc both in religion and terrorism articles. Any questions? Thanks for reading. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 16:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Despite the use of "Worldwide Caliphate" in the article I would prefer to use "worldwide caliphate" as suggest at Talk:Worldwide Caliphate.~Technophant (talk) 22:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Didn't see this. I've already changed it to "worldwide caliphate", but keeping the same wikilink, of course.  --P123ct1 (talk) 22:54, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've changed my views. I think it should be caps but also be in quotes. Proper name. ~Technophant (talk) 07:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That will mean nothing to uninformed readers and will baffle them - that is why I changed it. There is still the blue link for the curious.  --P123ct1 (talk) 08:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not sure how the original caliphates, which actually fitted into the definition of "caliphate", were not equally worldwide caliphates. Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  13:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Animated GIF showing territorial evolution
We should have an animated GIF showing the territorial evolution of this group over time, similar to this one for the Rashidun caliphate here:

File:Mohammad_adil-Rashidun_empire-slide.gif

It wouldn't be that hard to do, we could just blend all the maps we've posted so far as slides, adding dates in the corner as show. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 23:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * God help us all if ISIL sees that kind of success. People keep debating what color the desert should be on the maps ... Legacypac (talk) 08:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Here, the expansion of the Caliphate is pretty much solely at the expanse of two entity's, Persia (which was totally conquered), and the Eastern Roman Empire (which set them on their historic course of consolidating around Anatolia and the Balkans). Both of these had been weakened by decades of fighting among each other as well. This was also a time period when it wasn't exactly uncommon for "barbarian" nomads with greater fighting spirit to utterly destroy civilized neighbors when combined. ISIS, on the other hand, is heavily contained by the existence of several very powerful militarizes in the region that would make short work of them, Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Egypt. They can only really exist in a small web of weak and/or fragmented states, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon. They've also shown little ability to expand outside of their Sunni base. As well, if you'll remember, they are only a descendant of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, and AQI, at it's height, had a lot more extensive control in Iraq itself, holding roughly half of Baghdad and penetrating deeply into Shi'a areas in the south ISIS has mostly stayed out of.108.131.5.152 (talk) 07:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I am sure that they are not short of statements regarding any areas progress that may have been achieved. Success is an interesting word.  Some of them will regard their own military deaths as signs of success.  I don't personally have an opinion one way or the other with regard to the inclusion of these maps.  We are not here to Censor and one advantage of publishing the time framed maps is that it might provide a clearer indication of ways that historical incursions into the related territories may have fucked up.  ISIL HAVE HAD a rapid expansion which I believe has slowed and in some places been reversed but the actual nature of the facts is an irrelevance.  I don't see an intrinsic problem with maps.  "God", however, may be a different story.  It may be argued that he or she has caused enough problems already.  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  16:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

IS' territory changed in daily basis so i believe animation is inapplicable in this situation. kazekagetr 17:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Gregkaye&User:KazekageTR The French wiki has a table of images made each month showing the terrotorial expansion. I think we should steal it!~ (talk) 17:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've translated the gallery into my sandbox below.

~Technophant (talk) 18:01, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * :-)  It looks like really good encyclopaedic content worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia. (BUT, see concern below)  A potential difficulty is the tonal/shading differences between the images but, who knows, perhaps the creator, fr:User_talk:Absalao777 or someone else may be able to process the images to achieve a bit more consistency.  All the same, in my personal opinion, the images are a great find and you'd be performing a real service by putting it together.  I hope other editors can comment. Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  21:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Well it's the french wp team that put it together. It would be nice if the maps were adjusted, and if the creator were to be informed that they were being displayed this way he/she would probably be happy to adjust them. Even without adjustment they put together a visual story of their progress that isn't found elsewhere. Let's discuss which section to put it in (new one?) and what the introductory and concluding text will be. Feel free to edit my sandbox.~Technophant (talk) 22:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * One problem that I have just spotted with regard to the French map is that it only covers Syria.
 * What do you think about a use of File:Territorial control of the ISIS.svg it covers Iraq and Syria (images 6 January 2014 - 16 June 2014 currently in red and yellow, 17 June 2014 - 23 June 2014 currently in red, yellow and white and indicating areas claimed in 2006 and 28 June 2014 - present in ~burgandy, lighter shade and white.


 * If you agree with the use of the File:Territorial control of the ISIS.svg images it may even be possible to ask Spesh531 to edit earlier images to bring more consistency of claimed areas and colour tones (if files were kept.
 * As far as positioning is concerned, one option would be to place the animated version in the country infobox and to place this infobox (as may be indicated in contents such as establishment) at a corresponding point in of the history section.
 * Gregkaye ✍ ♪  08:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem with File:Territorial control of the ISIS.svg is that there's several versions in January then the next revision is in July. While the map does include both I and S and is more clear it doesn't show the evolution properly due to the time gap.18:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Fundamentalism
ISIL are Islamic/religious fundamentalists, yet this description is absent from the article. Should there not be something on it somewhere? It would probably belong best in the section on "Governance", where this characteristic is very apparent. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Its indicated in the link to Islamic extremism. Influential materials related to the topic may be found at: what are the fundamentals of islam.  Let's be sure we apply relevant words and as they are applied by truly reliable sources.  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  12:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Just thought that link needed fleshing out in the article, only briefly though. --P123ct1 (talk) 12:59, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * We do better by describing exactly what type of fundamentalism they are: Wahhabi. The Wiki article on Islamic fundamentalism has a lead which ends with: "Wahhabism is often described as the main cause of Islamic fundamentalism." Thus we go right to the source and spell out which branch of fundamentalism applies to ISIL. The worst choice would be "Islamic extremism" which is essentially a disambiguation page that gives "Islamic fundamentalism" as one of the 3 choices. Why be vague when you can be exact? Jason from nyc (talk) 13:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Criticisms of ISIL are reported to relate to ways in which the group deviates from or misapplies the fundamentals of Islam. Please see the fatwa and open letter.  I agree that Wahhabi terminology can be gainfully used.  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  15:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * In that case, it would best go in "Ideology and beliefs", where Wahhabism is mentioned. --P123ct1 (talk) 18:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Fundamentalism (in any religion) leads to problems and conflict. I think that this term can be introduced into ISIL, but not in the first paragraph of the lead. This type of fundamentalism is extreme, ie "extremist" so using the word fundamentalism actually dilutes the degree of beliefs but is a more commonly used term that can also accurately describe their ideology. Most people in the US are aware of the problems that Christian fundamentalism can cause (ie Anti-abortion violence) but may incorrect views on the meaning of Wahhabism, Salafi jihadism, Islamic extremism. Fox News (#1 TV news source in the US) has it's own spin on these terms, and uses anti-extremist rhetoric incessantly. ~Technophant (talk) 18:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Second map position
The article contains two excellent maps both of which are produced by User:Spesh531. First things first: I've just awarded a barnstar at: User_talk:Spesh531 and would be more than happy for anyone else to edit the message and add their signature :)

I was also wondering about the best use of the second map. The first map is in the first infobox and the second map is currently positioned in : Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant

Is this the best location for it? Other possibilities include: following either of the infoboxes with the key information being placed as a caption; following the history section; some other position. What think ye?

Gregkaye ✍ ♪  17:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I made this diff to propose moving it the infobox war faction in my new proposed infobox positions. I think it looks good there and provides an overview of the conflict. Comments? ~Technophant (talk) 05:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I personally think it looks amazing, a major improvement over the way the beginning of the page used to look. :)
 * Its a big but positive change with knock on effects. Gregkaye ✍ ♪  10:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of File:Syria and Iraq 2014-onward War map.png and key from original position

Is this now duplication? Would deletion help? The map is now in a very locatable position.

Gregkaye ✍ ♪  10:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Gregkaye I'm not sure what you meant in your last comment. I think the map with legend should be made into a template since it is being used in multiple pages. That way updates can be done at the template page and be replicated on all pages that it is used on.~Technophant (talk) 23:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I was trying to say that, if the File:Syria and Iraq 2014-onward War map.png is placed in the very locatable top corner of the page maybe a straight repetition of the content might not be needed later in the article. In my view a better use would be to follow suggestions as at  in one of the two locations.  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  05:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is best to close this thread and continue to talk about what maps to use on above thread. 18:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Italy on military operations list
Italy has been added to "Military operations in or over Iraq and/or Syria".

It's correct that Italy is on this list, as it has offered to assist coalition partners in air-to-air refueling and ISR operations with one KC-767 and two UAVs Reapers.

But the source should be updated, as it doesn't say anything about that. It's the old source from the "9 allies" on the NATO Wales summit, where the roles had not been established yet. Then, other countries joined the Coalition after this summit, and before and after the Paris summit.

I just think the source should be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felino123 (talk • contribs) 09:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

ُEnough is enough! stop misleading readers! (re: first infobox "Establishment" dates – discussion still open)
It's been months and I'm waiting for someone to change this misleading information in the box that says (Islamic state of Iraq and the Levant was established in 2014. everyone knows that the accurate date is in 2013 as it mentioned in the name section. regarding the sources that use the date in January 2014 this was a misunderstanding because when they entered the city of Fallojah they said it's one of the Wilayat of ISIS which was liberated. they didn't declare anything new! while at that time they had presence in many cities in Syria including Raqqah, Jarabouls and Azaz. please correct the date! 3bdulelah (talk) 19:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess its been ✅. I'm not surprised that the parallel effort wasn't made to reply.  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  17:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Editor was informed on his talk page. --P123ct1 (talk) 21:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

NOT THIS AGAIN. This matter has already been discussed. This is not misleading. The 2014 date is used because that is the date they took Fallujah. 2014 Was also the date that they broke ties with All Qaeda and the Syrian Opposition. They now had an established territory and were no longer associated with other groups. This date is used not because it is the date that the GROUP formed. It is used because this is the date that they took control of of sections of Iraq. This isn't misleading. There are two sources which backing this up. I will add more if that isn't enough for you. The key here is determining the difference between an INSURGENCY and an UNRECOGNIZED STATE, and when ISIL crossed that line. Why do you think that there are two different infoboxes? I will add the date the Group was formed to the other infobox. In the meantime, please stop beating a dead horse. Quite frankly, I'm growing tired of this arguement. Toolen (talk) 15:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Toolen: That is writing history and WP:OR. WP is supposed to record facts, not interpret them as historians do. They announced on 8 April 2013 that they were re-forming under the name Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and establishing themselves as an Islamic state in a new region: "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant".  This is a clear fact, which WP is bound by WP:NPOV to record neutrally.  Is WP really going to say, "Oh, they didn't really mean it" and bend their words?  Also, trying to set a date for when they might actually have become an Islamic state, and determining when they stopped being an "insurgency" and became an "unrecognised state", are matters of interpretation for historians to make, which is plainly beyond WP's remit. You did not have consensus for your change last time, and you certainly don't now, so you will have to work for it, I'm afraid. This is far from a dead horse! --P123ct1 (talk) 20:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * [Wording adjusted by P123ct1 (talk)]
 * The group started in 1999. Changes in name and territory controlled do not reestablish the start date. They are an insurgent group that controls territory, not a state, recognized or not. 06:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC)  [Is this you, Gregkaye?]
 * I had added the JTJ 1999 reference but this was unhelpfully removed by Toolen. Gregkaye ✍ ♪  11:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There are three editors here who disagree with Toolen about the date the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant was established: Gazkthul, 3bdulelah and myself.  To be fair to Toolen and to prevent an edit-war, I think consensus should be determined before accepting/rejecting his edit.  Are there others who agree or disagree about this?  Gregkaye and Technophant, do you have a view? The previous discussion on this is here.  Please read before deciding.  Toolen, you mention two sources which back up your date and say you have others to help you. Can we see them, please?  You only quoted one source in the last discussion, I believe. --P123ct1 (talk) 14:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I have some sympathy with Toolen's argument regarding the entity's establishment as being linked to the capture of new territory and with a splitting of association with another group but I don't so much see this as establishment but as re-establishment and/or additional establishment. However I see the group to have been established at some time perhaps that time was nineteen ninety-nine.  They adopted some level of affiliation with al-Queda but still, themselves, declared state in 2006.  I don't see any great significance in the 2013 date other than that this is a time that they expressed relationship with a larger territory.  I think that ISIL have had a relatively fluid history and object to both 2013 and 2014 as being the only dates mentioned regarding establishment.  I think 1999 and 2006 are the more significant dates.  Either they were "established" at these dates or they are not "established" at all.  They are still "unrecognised".  The establishment issue is also fairly crucial in regard to the .  Please also give comment there.  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  15:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)  courtesy ping: Technophant :)

ISIS controlled cities alone in Syria in 2013 including Jarabulos and Azaz after their battle with FSA (North storm) if this is your reason. we have millions of sources that indicate their occupation of cities before Falujah. also in Faluhah they were not alone at January and they just clashed with Jaysh al mujaheddin last month. So GO AND READ. 3bdulelah (talk) 15:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I can give u million's of sources http://bigstory.ap.org/article/jihadis-capture-northern-syrian-town-near-turkey 3bdulelah (talk) 15:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * RU saying that you need to have a city to have a state?
 * http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/state
 * On what is this based?
 * If a country at war, for a time, lost control of its capital, perhaps because its troops or troop were or was elsewhere would it cease, for that time, to be a country?
 * The fact is that they have long been a political entity with territory. All they lack is international legitimacy and, as this still isn't forthcoming, they arguably continue to fail the requirements of country, nation, state and, in the context of infobox country, "establishment".
 * Gregkaye ✍ ♪  16:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I have added "Originated as	Jamāʻat al-Tawḥīd wa-al-Jihād (1999)" into the war.. infobox which may cause a conflict as the box's perhaps superfluous first line of content text which reads: "Active 8 April 2013–present". I think that this may be a nonsense line of text as different sub-groups and associations may have been active for any length of time.  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  12:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Islamic State (2014 - Present)
how balanced is the following statement, when all, with exception of one, of the corresponding citations - are directly from Iraqi-Muslims, here:

"The declaration of a caliphate has been criticized and ridiculed by Muslim scholars and rival Islamists inside and outside the occupied territory.[116][117][118][119][120][121]"

I really want to see more -non I/L sources- citations if one can find those to offer, as it seems as if (albeit not in an explicit manner) the text is a bit.. once sided, or more clearly, an unbalanced claim (though not misinforming) for the amount of the following citations, five of which are Iraqi sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.109.37.236 (talk • contribs) 11:47, 18 October 2014
 * I don't see anything wrong with Iraqi sources. I'm pretty sure the subjects close to them would know best what they're talking about. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 04:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If you object to the balance, find some sources you do approve of and bring them here for editors to put in. --P123ct1 (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

"Al-Qaeda in Iraq" or "al-Qaeda in Iraq"?
This article has both spellings. The Al-Qaeda in Iraq/Tanzim article has gone over to "al-Qaeda in Iraq". After a long period of stability with "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" being the spelling, a discussion was opened last month on the Talk page of the Al-Qaeda in Iraq article here about what the spelling should be, but in usual fashion no decision was reached, and editors now do what they like. This chaos has to stop. Can it be decided here, or on the other article's Talk page, once and for all, what the spelling should be, please? --P123ct1 (talk) 19:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Australia is not a member of NATO


Australia is not a member of NATO, so it should be off the list of NATO members.

Where should it be then? "Other state opponents"? Or on the section "—Military operations in or over Iraq and/or Syria – (US-led)—" but off any list?

What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felino123 (talk • contribs) 11:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

✅ and thanks, that's hilarious. (Pic added). Australia, being positioned between the Indian, Pacific and Southern Oceans is about as far away from the North Atlantic as it is possible to get. Gregkaye ✍ ♪  12:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * However they got dropped out of the US-led group, I've put them back in the right place. Listed but without a bullet point under NATO or GCC. Legacypac (talk) 08:50, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

"If you can kill a disbelieving American or European...
...''especially the spiteful and filthy French – or an Australian, or a Canadian, or any other disbeliever from the disbelievers waging war, including the citizens of the countries that entered into a coalition against the Islamic State, then rely upon Allah, and kill him in any manner or way however it may be. Smash his head with a rock, or slaughter him with a knife, or run him over with your car, or throw him down from a high place, or choke him, or poison him''". This was Abu Mohammad al-Adnani, the ISIL spokesman, a month ago. Now this happens. Should such "incidents" (in addition to this, also the beheading in Oklahoma City in September, and the recent shootout in Ottawa if it also turns out to be ISIL-inspired) be mentioned somewhere?--37.116.57.244 (talk) 21:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Not sure, we'll have to see what happens. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 00:21, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Prime Minister Harper was very clear tonight linking the "run over" event with ISIL and calling the Parliament attack terrorism. Both dead perps had their passports confiscated as travel risks. Legacypac (talk) 03:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Category:Islamic terrorism shows plenty of examples of article formats. One option might be to create templates for article lists that could fit into collapsable boxes on topics such as 2014 Islamic terrorist incidents.  Terrorist however becomes a loaded and an even more subjectively applied word when certain military targets are involved.  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  11:21, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

grammar terrorists
@ 20 October: villages not willages
 * Just a stupid typo of mine, no terrorist threats now.--Olonia (talk) 16:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Can this go straight to archive? Gregkaye ✍ ♪  17:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes! Though The joke is good, but in very poor taste. --P123ct1 (talk) 23:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Maps
'''Changing colors in second map for red-green colorblind users ==

In the second map ("Map: Current Military Situation"), the colors used for ISIS and Iraq are virtually indistinguishable to me and (presumably) many others with red-green colorblindness. I have to look very closely to find the borders between the two. At a glance, the map makes it look to me like all of Iraq is held by the same ISIS.

For greater legibility, I would recommend making whichever one of the two is green significantly bluer, as is done in many traffic lights.

Since I don't know anything about editing Wikipedia, and since I fear messing things up, I leave the decision for this change to other users' discretion.

2601:E:1C80:2EA:2C3A:7372:7AD7:EB36 (talk) 18:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll ping the Spesh 531 ial one to try to raise the issue. Gregkaye ✍ ♪  20:11, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Maps

I asked the person who does the maps if he could mark in the Syrian/Iraq border, and his reply is here. He says he can put in all borders in the region if wanted. I think some borders might be a good idea are essential, to help readers unfamiliar with the region. All media maps and diagrams show them when reporting on this conflict. Should he be asked to provide an example, so that editors can decide on this? Obviously the maps must not be too crowded, so perhaps they should only show the Syria/Iraq border. --P123ct1 (talk) 15:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Deafening silence. I have asked him to provide a few examples. --P123ct1 (talk) 23:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Arabic name of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
There are two different spellings for this name in Arabic, one in the Lead and one in the "Names" section, ad-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fīl-ʻIraq wa ash-Shām and al-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fī al-ʻIrāq wa-al-Shām. They need to be the same. Which is the best? --P123ct1 (talk) 08:48, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Ping   Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  14:40, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Ping  and also try using the talk pages of some of associated WikiProjects (ie Islam, Arab World, Terrorism) ~Technophant (talk) 14:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, can also check ar.wikipedia.~Technophant (talk) 14:56, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Judging by several edit summaries in the past where the Arabic spellings have been changed, I think WP has an Arabic transliteration standard it uses, but I have no idea which one it is. --P123ct1 (talk) 15:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Worldedixor, can you help here? --P123ct1 (talk) 09:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

As "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" (2013~)
Why have you altered the date in the "History" section here Gregkaye? Your edit summary gives no explanation. The ISIL section is how headed "As Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (2013~)", and the Islamic State section is headed "As Islamic State (2014 - )". Are these two bodies running concurrently? Wikipedia has uninformed readers who need clear information and they will be puzzled by this. --P123ct1 (talk) 13:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I see your point. I was thinking simply in regard to names of which there are several running concurrently.  Various names are presently running concurrently and thought that the tilde might indicate this situation.  Either option has its strengths but I have no problem with the (2013--14) text.  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  13:29, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, it's a messy situation. Probably best to keep to (2013-2014), I think, for the readers' sake! --P123ct1 (talk) 23:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Have changed it to (2013-2014). --P123ct1 (talk) 08:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I had made a similar change to Template:History of the Islamic State (caliphate) which has not been returned to: (2013--14) text. Its been busy.  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  12:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2014
There was an update from the BBC page quoted on [487][488] correcting the claim listed above reading: Correction: An earlier version of this article wrongly referred to the contents of the airdrops in Kobane as "US weapons". The weapons were in fact supplied by Kurdish authorities in Iraq. Source http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-29715044 about 2/3 down the page. Thank you.

97.73.240.17 (talk) 07:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia article still seems consistent with the BBC report to me. The clarification was who owned the weapons, not who dropped them (whih still remains the US). Stickee (talk) 09:12, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Logos at the "Designation as a terror organization" section
On Israel, you put the logo of the Israel Defense Forces to refer to Israel's Ministry of Defense. This is wrong, as the Ministry of Defense has.

This should be corrected, but I think it's not necessary to put the logos of the national institutions that designated IS as a terror organization. Felino123 (talk) 05:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. It makes the infobox look like a page from a children's colouring book!  It also looks frivolous, IMO.  --P123ct1 (talk) 14:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

An RM to ISIS? (moves now prohibited)
title change from "An RM to ISIS?" Gregkaye ✍ ♪  11:11, 16 October 2014 (UTC) Obviously it would just be a request which could then be debated but I thought it best to check provisional views. Gregkaye ✍ ♪  16:07, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No. Please stop. There is no need to be constantly debating the title. Leave it well alone. We've had enough move requests already. RGloucester  — ☎ 17:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

See my comment when making the last RM close. I suggested that there is a moratorium on requested moves for 3 months (until the new year). There comes a point where continual debate over the name of an article becomes DISRUPTIVE and I think that now there have seven requests this year with four requests in the last two months, and many other sections taken up with discussions about the name, that point has been reached. It becomes disruptive when editors time is taken up in endless debates over the name, when the limited time that editors have can better be spent improving this and other articles. Consensus can change, but it is unlikely to change in such a short period, so wait until after the new year then if an editor thinks that usage in reliable sources justifies a request then make one. In the mean time If I think that editors are being disruptive over this issue then I will take administrative action under the general sanctions that apply to this page. -- PBS (talk) 18:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I was one of the ones making an RM request, but now ( and before reading the above the suggestion) I do think there needs to be a 60+ day moratorium on move requests. WP:TITLECHANGES says "If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed." One good reason not to change it is because all previous attempts have not gained consensus. This moratorium should only apply to article renaming, not uses of names in the article itself.~Technophant (talk) 03:55, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Usually the name used in an article title is used within an article (because the MOS favours consistency). In this case there has been a recent discussion held "" over whether to use "ISIS" to "ISIL" within the article. I suggest that you add your view to that section. -- PBS (talk) 13:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * PBS I never ever saw that conversation. I was archived prematurely so I restored it to the talk page. I don't disagree with the change of the acronym from ISIS to ISIL. I added my views the more recent thread . ~Technophant (talk) 14:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's what I suggest for this moratorium. A sticky notice should be put below the header. If somebody brings up a RM it should be archived and the nominator notified on their talk page. No need to punish anybody unless there's repeated violations.~Technophant (talk) 17:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it would be beneficial for this thread to be archived. Just saying :) Gregkaye ✍ ♪  14:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Table of contents
Prominence when collapsed

When collapsed, the TOC has a box saying "Contents [show]". Could that box be put in a more prominent place - for example, straight after the Lead on the left? It is easy to miss hidden away on the right under the infobox. --P123ct1 (talk) 06:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * (tangent: It might be an idea if Wikipedia placed a collapsed TOC or link to a non-collapsed TOC as standard at a set position on pages).
 * I didn't find anything relevant at Help:Section or at Template:TOC right and am uncertain whether content will help much via Category:Wikipedia table of contents templates. Sry. Gregkaye ✍ ♪  09:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Width

Is it possible to adjust the width of the TOC (as at Template:TOC right) so that the width is matched to the width of the war faction infobox above. So far I have also started to look at results of WP search Template:infobox width but these results seem to work on a different format methodology. Gregkaye ✍ ♪  09:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, the style parameter of width can be set. Right now it's auto-width. Alternately the width of infobox war faction may be able to be changed. (no, seems to be set at 315px). I'm a html "hacker" meaning I know enough to change a few things but not proficient in HTML or CSS. I consider myself to be "advanced" level regarding Wikimarkup. After I get done dealing with all the discussion issues I can try fiddling with it and post a diff to see if it looks better. How does the movement of the TOC right here compared to how it was previouly here look? It gets rid of the blank spaces. Since the infobox is soo long it does make the TOC slightly lower than expected. A link to the TOC can be put anywhere including a collapsed TOC link TOC hidden in the standard position. A lot can be done with TOC templates. Keep in mind that TOC limit does not work with mobile browsers. I submitted this as a bug and it's been promoted to a feature request.~Technophant (talk) 15:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ I set the TOC width to 315px (here), aligned the infobox with top of page by moving disambig down, and put a wlink to the Contents at the place it would normally be found.~Technophant (talk) 16:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's how the page looks on a mobile tablet: The way the MobileFrontend extension generates the TOC is different than just calling _TOC_ like in normal view so adding the Content wlink creates a duplicate. Also, it just doesn't look right. I'm going to take the wlink out.~Technophant (talk) 16:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure all of you meant well, but as it is today the article doesn't look well. The table of contents stands too low in the article: when on full screen, I see first the lead section, then section 'Names', 'Index of names', 'History of names', and only then on the right the table of 'Contents'. That table should appear immediately after lead section, I suggest. --Corriebertus (talk) 11:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Corriebertus, I agree, I may have also been wrong to ask for the TOC to have the exact dimensions of the infobox above. It may not now seem sufficiently distinct from above when scrolling down the page. Tweak?
 * Also the war... infobox currently contains sections: Active, Ideology, Area of operations, Strength, Originated as and Battles and wars. Any and perhaps all of this information could be amalgamated into the article so as to raise the TOC into a more accessible position.  Battles and wars may fit well above See also as this would efficiently allow the removal of repeated entries.  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  13:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It could be tweaked to be slightly larger by changing with to be >315px or if the width is removed then it goes to auto-width and is wider also. I think it looks good being the same width, however it is too low. I had a link to the TOC added ( Table of Contents or Table of Contents) but I removed it because it duplicated the TOC in mobile view (trivial matter). I'll add the link back. I wanted to have a second TOC right below the lead collapsed TOC hidden but it didn't seem to work. There seems to be only one call for TOC allowed and the first one is displayed and subsequent ones ignored. Another solution could be shortening Infobox war faction so the top of the "float right" TOC right is visible at the bottom of the lead. That would involve removing some information (such as battles and wars) or even use a wp:collapse box.~Technophant (talk) 05:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * In consideration that several options are available I had an experiment with this edit
 * I took br breaks out of a couple of lines ("Ideology	Anti-Shiaism,[1], Salafist jihadism, Takfiri, Wahhabism" and "Area of operations Iraq, Syria, Lebanon[2][3]), and removed entry: "Active	8 April 2013–present" (I have added text: Originated as	Jamāʻat al-Tawḥīd wa-al-Jihād (1999)) and entry "Strength" (I thought that this numerical info might go into another part of the article).  I also wondered whether we might place a more complete listing of names here.  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  12:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

One possible solution to the TOC size would be to reduce the number of subheadings, e.g. use bold text rather than further subheadings. Do the separate subheadings of September and October 2014 really need distinguishing? It is especially confusing because the October 2014 timeline is immediately followed by a paragraph starting "In March 2011...". In other cases, perhaps "Index of Names" and "History of names" could be subsumed into simply "Names", or combining the sections "Ideology and beliefs" and "Goals". This would of course require editorial skill, creativity, and discretion, and perhaps more deference to summary style. --Animalparty-- (talk) 21:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The original problem was not so much the size of the TOC but just that it appeared half way down the page. The names section is one of the longest in the article but I think it would go well under the one heading.  I also think that the first section of History, 2.1 Foundation of the group (1999–2006), would be better named as something like 2.1 Early history (1999–2006).  The length of time required for the founding of a group is not prescribed.  See: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/08/isis-a-short-history/376030/ uses JTJ: The Early Days and AQI: The rise and fall. (ISIL OR ISIS OR Daesh OR "Islamic State") AND "history"  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  12:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As per --Animalparty-- I've edited out the === subheadings from names. I was also wondering about the Timeline template, and whether anyone could take out the month subtitles.  With the new layout, length of toc doesn't necessarily help.  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  22:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Should "Criticism should on the criticism section, not on the Lead"?

 * See later discussion: Should we add this line to the Lead?

WP:LEAD makes it clear that "The lead should define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight." So, if criticism is trivial, it probably doesn't belong in the lead. If it not trivial, it does belong in the lead. It is certainly not true that as a general case "Criticism should on the criticism section, not on the Lead." as Felino123 seems to think. Dougweller (talk) 13:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * His criticism was trivial and a disruption. Felino123 (talk) 13:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It certainly looks neccessary here. I'm not sure what the trivial or disruptive criticism Felino123 is referring to is. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 04:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * World leaders speak with passion against ISIL and this is matched by strongly voiced opinion of a large section of the second largest religion in the world. It is a highly criticised group and article content should faithfully reflect this. The criticism are not trivial, they are certainly not mine alone and if Felino has been paying any attention to the content above xhe knows this well. Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  16:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I think criticism by Muslims and Islamic scholars should be mentioned in the lead as it is a criticism from within the Islamic or Muslim world against ISIS. Mohammed al-Bukhari (talk) 16:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This criticism is important enough to have a mention in the Lead, and the Lead is meant to cover the main criticisms. I suggest this sentence should be added to the last Lead para: "Muslims have criticized ISIL’s actions, authority and theological interpretations."  --P123ct1 (talk) 19:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Jason from nyc has suggested in a later thread "Some Muslims ...", which is more accurate. --P123ct1 (talk) 14:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * [Have moved proposal that there should be consensus on this before further edits are made to the thread headed "Should we add this line to the lead" (see link in title of this section). In order to stop the parallel discussion on this, please add comments there and not here.] --P123ct1 (talk) 14:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Suggest move Template:History of the Islamic State (caliphate) to Template:History of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
The new template was created with some good looking content.

Propose move to "Template:History of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant"

The title may need to be formatted to span two lines of text.

Gregkaye ✍ ♪  18:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Support If we need the template we should definitely have it match the agreed article title  09:01, 23 October 2014


 * Another question then is whether the template is beneficial. Gregkaye ✍ ♪  11:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

✅ and tidied. Gregkaye ✍ ♪  07:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Oddly the main heading link of the template leads directly to history in the ISIL page. It now reads:

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant History

Gregkaye ✍ ♪  09:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Minor edit request
Please link the "US-led military operations" nations, to their respective Wikipedia pages.

They're also technically coalition forces...

--JT2958 (talk) 16:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Lede could use some trimming
The discussion of its history alone is as long as some ledes. --BoogaLouie (talk) 01:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * An editor just inserted this in the last paragraph of the lead, with a source behind a paywall. I'd like to see some quantitative data to back up this claim. I think that we have found a variety of terms used in the English media.


 * "As of mid-September 2014, many of the most prominent English-language news media groups, including the BBC, New York Times, The Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, Reuters, and the Associated Press used the name the "Islamic State", while others stuck with ISIS and ISIL. "


 * Legacypac (talk) 04:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The Lead is becoming rather long. I am wondering if the last para on names really belongs in the Lead; perhaps it should be added to "History of names".  It won't lose prominence, as this is the first section of the article.  I don't think the extra edit is needed at all. --P123ct1 (talk) 07:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * If we could keep it to a sentence it should stay in the lead, but some editors dont like it, add to it, insist on more detail etc. I try to think of the uninvolved reader looking for info. Does the reader care about the 25 names the group has used over 15 years and the sequence?  Likely not, and therefore there is too much in the lead about it.  Many readers have got to be wondering why CNN, the POTUS and their morning paper dont call ISIL the same thing, and might turn to WP for the answer. They should not need to read through long lists of arabic names and history that frankly few car about to find out why the variety of current names used.Legacypac (talk) 08:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Any subject like this simply has to deal with the history, and the variety of names is very much part of it in this instance. I don't think we can assume what readers might be interested in.  However, I agree that the history paras of the Lead could be condensed considerably.  I will see if I can do it and put it on the Talk page for agreement.  I don't see how readers would have to plough through all the "History of names" subsection, if the current name controversy was clearly marked in it.  Readers don't read everything and they can skim and skip the earlier parts. Perhaps as you say there should at least be a sentence or two about it in the Lead, but no more than that.  What do you think about moving the names business away from "Criticism of the "Islamic State"" and into the "Names" section?  It would give it the prominence it deserves if was at the beginning of the article. --P123ct1 (talk) 09:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes we need history which includes the names, just brainstorming a way to be more concise. Moving it into Names might be ok, but as a reader the heading "Criticism of the "Islamic State"" jumps out as interesting, while a detailed history of group names (do they have Obsessive Compulsive Disorder over the group name?) seems tedious to read. Legacypac (talk) 09:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If it does go into the "Criticism of the "Islamic State"", I think it will need highlighting. Perhaps under its own subsection?  Readers don't have to read what they don't want to read, and believe it or not, the "Names" section has already been pared down! (I did it some weeks ago.)  From the beginning I found the "Names" section very useful, for getting a grip on ISIL's history, for at each stage of its development it has had a name change. --P123ct1 (talk) 11:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Legacypac: I see that last para in the Lead has been summarily removed, in mid-discussion about what to do about it! --P123ct1 (talk) 11:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I have cut down the history paras as much as possible to reduce the size of the Lead. There is a limit to how much can be cut out, as the Lead is supposed to be a summary of the article. --P123ct1 (talk) 13:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I saw that too - with an edit summary that it duplicated material in the body. With that logic why do we need anything in the lead exactly. Legacypac (talk) 05:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The 2nd and 3rd paragraph of the lead could be combined with the final paragraph to read:
 * The group's original aim was to establish an Islamic state in the Sunni-majority regions of Iraq, and following ISIL's involvement in the Syrian Civil War this expanded to include controlling Sunni-majority areas of Syria. A caliphate was proclaimed on 29 June 2014, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi—now known as Amir al-Mu'minin Caliph Ibrahim—was named as its caliph, and the group was renamed the Islamic State. As caliphate it claims religious authority over all Muslims. Muslims around the world widely reject its claims and condemn its actions. The group has been described by the United Nations and the media as a terrorist group, and has been designated as a foreign terrorist organization by the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, Israel, Turkey, Indonesia, and Saudi Arabia. The United Nations and Amnesty International have accused the group of grave human rights abuses.
 * The blue text is the original last paragraph. The black sums up the Islamic criticism in the body of the article. The green is the 3rd paragraph summing up worldwide criticism in general. This could trim the lead substantially and leave the full exposition to the body of the article. Jason from nyc (talk) 18:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The blue text differs substantially from the second paragraph and seems of similar length. It read: "In its self-proclaimed status as a caliphate, it claims religious authority over all Muslims worldwide, and aims to bring most Muslim-inhabited regions of the world under its political control, beginning with the region of the Levant which approximately covers Syria, Jordan, Israel/Palestine, Lebanon, Cyprus, and part of southern Turkey."


 * To what extent are ISIL acting as a liberation army? A lack of mention of other governments but just of Sunni majorities may be taken to indicate that this is their role.  Also, in the west when we speak of majorities and minorities we do so within the general understanding of equal rights and equal opportunities for all.  This won't be the case under Baghdadi's regime.   Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  14:16, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. I put one too many sentence is blue (now fixed). The two sentences "As caliphate it claims religious authority over all Muslims. Muslims around the world widely reject its claims and condemn its actions." was meant to replace "In its self-proclaimed status as a caliphate, it claims religious authority over all Muslims worldwide, and aims to bring most Muslim-inhabited regions of the world under its political control, beginning with the region of the Levant which approximately covers Syria, Jordan, Israel/Palestine, Lebanon, Cyprus, and part of southern Turkey." The last paragraph already mentioned "a caliphate was proclaimed" so that means we can leave out the duplicate "As self-proclaimed status as a caliphate" in the second paragraph that I suggest be removed. The last paragraph mentions "aim was to establish an Islamic state in the Sunni-majority regions of Iraq, and following ISIL's involvement in the Syrian Civil War this expanded to include controlling Sunni-majority areas of Syria" which covers some of "aims to bring most Muslim-inhabited regions of the world under its political control, beginning with the region of the Levant which approximately covers Syria, Jordan, Israel/Palestine, Lebanon, Cyprus, and part of southern Turkey." This seems to condense and remove repetitions. Perhaps we can avoid duplication in the lead in another way. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I removed the Arabic script from the intro here with the edit summary (removed Arabic script from intro. It's included or available elsewhere and makes the intro hard to read.~Technophant (talk) 20:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Suggest trimming nation names
text reads:

The group has been designated as a terrorist organization by the United Nations, the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, Israel, Turkey, Indonesia, and Saudi Arabia.

Suggest:

The group has been designated as a terrorist organization by the United Nations and by various nations.

that last link could be composed various nations.

Gregkaye ✍ ♪  11:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No. That is a step too far.  In all terror groups articles in Wikipedia, the custom is to name all the countries in that sentence in the Lead. --P123ct1 (talk) 09:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Use of "Islamic State" at least in the infobox
I disagree with this revert by Legacypac of my edit changing the infobox header to the actual name. Yes, the title of the article has been discussed many times, but I only see a few mentions of the actual infobox header when I search it, and I disagree that it makes Wikipedia look "foolish" and all that other nonsense. The name presented in an infobox does not need to reflect the article's title, and I do not see why some people think otherwise. Just as many country articles use short names for titles and actual names in infoboxes, I don't see why we shouldn't use long names in the title with the short, self-given name in the infobox. Maybe there were some discussions specifically about the infobox title, and I managed to overlook them somehow, and if so, some links would help, but I still don't get the reasoning here. Dustin ( talk ) 00:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a tricky one. In comparison the parallel article at ar:الدولة_الإسلامية_في_العراق_والشام has an article text that starts with the equivalent wording to "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" and an inforbox text that starts with the equivalent wording of "Islamic State".  The English article has this the opposite way around.  I have said all that I can say on actual request move possibilities.  In current form the article also makes consistent use of the abbreviation ISIL.  There are objections to the use of "Islamic" as in the "not in my name campaign".  A shortening of the name makes the "Islamic" reference less specific while the actual reference still clearly remains. Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  10:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. The infobox name should be the official name. It's not the same has the title name. For example, the Muslim Brotherhood uses the offical name in the infobox. So does many countries, rather than using the common name, which is rather ambiguous in this case. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 23:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry Dustin  ( talk ).  I have not seen you in the discussions so guess you may not be aware, but we have debated changes to the article name to death. At least 5 attempts to change the article to "Islamic State" have failed in the last several months, plus debates on related articles trying to use Islamic State. Renaming the group in the infobox just does an end run around the discussed to death title. See the various discussions on why Islamic State is an inappropriate name as well.  This is also why the lead clearly qualifies the "self declared Islamic State". Please do not change the name in the infobox.  Legacypac (talk) 10:10, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Consistency in regard to the lead is also in question. I suggest using:


 * The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL ) also translated as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS ; الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام ad-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fīl-ʻIraq wa ash-Shām), also known by the Arabic acronym Daʿesh (داعش), and self-described as the Islamic State (IS; الدولة الإسلامية ad-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah),...


 * This edit (minus references) presents the article name at the beginning of the text; adds the conjunctive link "also translated as" in place of "or" between the "ISIL" and "ISIS" names and discards the bulky "which previously called itself" text prior to "ISIL". "The self-declared" is swapped with "and self-described as" proceeding "Islamic State".  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  12:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Bingo! I think that is the best suggested wording for the first sentence in the Lead we have ever had, Gregkaye. I support it. --P123ct1 (talk) 00:30, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * We have a winner! I love it. I bet it lasts 12 hours. Legacypac (talk) 06:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

In the name of further consistency between to the lead I suggest editing the infobox "native name" entry to :

ad-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fil-ʻIrāq wa ash-Shām (self-described as the "Islamic State")

Even if the "ad-Daw.." line is placed in small it won't fit onto one line. Writing "(self-described as the "Islamic State")" in small fits within the span quite comfortably.

Gregkaye ✍ ♪  20:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Proposal - use names that are contextually appropriate:
 * 1) When referring to the group after 29 June 2014 use (the) Islamic State ( sparingly shortened to IS).
 * 2) When referring to the group between 8 April 2013 and 29 June 2014 use Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).
 * 3) When referring to the group between 12 October 2006 and 8 April 2013 use Islamic State of Iraq (ISI).
 * 4) When referring to the group with an indefinite time period or through multiple time periods use Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). Example: "Throughout ISIL's history...."
 * 5) When referring to the group before ISI use the name of corresponding article title.


 * I tried to change the name in the section Islamic State (2014–present) it was reverted here with a rather stern edit summary. This doesn't need to be a battleground. I don't think that readers will be confused by this naming strategy. There's actually times where using ISIL is confusing. We don't use the acronym ISIL in the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant section, so why are we using it in the IS section? ~Technophant (talk) 13:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * If you want to use "Islamic State" or "IS" in the article you might as well initiate a RM, but be careful - it may be seen as disruptive editing. The edit reverted was a whole string of instances of changing ISIL (which matches the title) to Islamic State, which matches a title that has failed five times here.  Legacypac (talk) 17:05, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No I'm not suggesting an RM. I support a moratorium for against further RM's until the end of the year. Legacypac repeated posting of the "Requested moves to date" (which is in the top of the page) appears to be disruptive. The small number of editors that do not wish to use "Islamic State" are overly involved emotionally in my opinion. Those who support it are just trying to follow the guidelines of being encyclopedic and using the correct name in the correct context. The case against RM isn't just the name, there's technical issues involved with it as well (ie. existing article Islamic state. There's many articles that do not use the article title as a consistent name in the article. See Melek Taus and Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn are examples that come to mind.~Technophant (talk) 17:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Many editors have participated in the discussions - not a small number. The name debate was decided based on policy, not emotion, so stop assuming bad faith please. I fail to see why anyone wants to keep pushing for "Islamic State" here. As User:PBS and others said, it is disruptive. And I reposted the RM history in on the two different pages where this editor is pursuing the same exact discussion simultaneously. That is forum shopping. The latest is the group is calling themselves the State. Will we call them the State too?  Legacypac (talk) 17:51, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Legacypac you are conflating two things, the RM and usage of "Islamic State" in the article. Technophant is talking about the latter.  Where did PBS "and others" say it is disruptive to want to use "Islamic State" in the article?  You mean disruptive to keep proposing RMs.  The ISIS to ISIL discussion and consensus had nothing to do with  "Islamic State", btw.  I can't see any bad faith or forum shopping going on, just an attempt to rationalise the use of "Islamic State" in appropriate parts in the article, which makes sense to me.  --P123ct1 (talk) 21:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * procedural comment also relating to terminologies used'- Technophant, This discussion started in relation to the title placed in the first infobox to which I presented related info on the parallel arabic Wikipedia and its use of first word of lead and title in info box. When it seemed to me that this topic had been aired I then followed it up with a suggestion, not introduced with a bold title or some such, that covered the parallel topic of the first words of the lead.

Your discussion, relating to mid article content, could have begun elsewhere or with acknowledgement of the suggestion made above.

I am regularly involved in RM discussions and can report that more editors have contributed to the ISIL related RM discussions than to many others. Many of the contributions here have been based on ethical arguments (both ways) related to the situation. Significant content has been related to value judgements related to the importance and relevance of sources. Who has the most important say? The rebranding of the group as the "Islamic State" is arguably an issue that has considerable direct affect on the Islamic world. It is also of relevance to surrounding populations at risk of losing liberty or life as a result of the groups interpretation of Islam and on various ground forces whose troops may lose their lives while trying to address the situation. The international community also has a say. These are not merely emotional considerations. Gregkaye ✍ ♪  21:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Gregkaye. While this discussion isn't about renaming the article (and per my proposal the current title is most appropriate) there is something in WP:TITLECHANGES that is relevant to picking and using proper names: "In discussing the appropriate title of an article, remember that the choice of title is not dependent on whether a name is "right" in a moral or political sense." I'm well aware that the UK government and others refuse to use or recognize the name "Islamic State" to refer to the group for their own political, ethical, or moral reasons. However, Wikipedia is not censored and these considerations should not become part of our reasoning for what name to use in infoboxes or subsections. ~Technophant (talk) 05:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * There have been extensive discussions about which words we use in both the title and the content. What is the point of titling the article Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (not Islamic State) if we then ignore the ISIL decision and use Islamic State in the infobox, lead and 100+ times elsewhere in the article? How is that not disruptive and against the previous decisions on the title and content? I must be missing something here.  Legacypac (talk) 22:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Similar discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:American-led_intervention_in_Syria#RfC_-_Name_of_ISIS.2FISIL.2FIS where Technophant made the same proposal as above, which I suggested could be consodered forum shopping. Legacypac (talk) 22:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * To be fair Legacypac the discussion about using ISIL rather than ISIS did not involve "Islamic State". It wasn't even mentioned in the discussion, I think, or only tangentially.  The consensus reached was to move from ISIS to ISIL in the article and nothing more. Also, there were no decisions on the title, that was the whole point of the RM moratorium.  (Unless you mean the decision about "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" way back.) --P123ct1 (talk) 00:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Anyway, getting back to the main topic, using Islamic State in the infobox. The first infobox (country) is almost exclusively about the Islamic State in its current state so Islamic State is the name that is most appropriate for first infobox. The second infobox (war faction) is about the group historically, so per my proposal ISIL should be used. ~Technophant (talk) 05:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

As you know it is about the group that is widely known by the terms ISIS and Islamic State in the media and which uses a name that causes a widespread offence. This is not to say that the name should not have relevance in the infobox but just that there are legitimate options.

Re: Technophant's additional proposal I don't have any direct personal objections but think it important to consider how names are presented.

Its also worth noting the actual usage: ISIS has long been the most widely used term and this is still true in most recent news. I was surprised at the high level of results for ISIL. Islamic State is used. It is an optional terminology disliked by many primarily on the basis that they are not the Islamic State.
 * a search on ISIS got to "Page 67 of 669 results" in G.news for the last week
 * a search on ISIL got to "Page 61 of 606 results" in G.news for the last week
 * a search on "Islamic State" got to "Page 52 of 515 results" in G.news for the last week

The proposal is basically that the names "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" and "ISIL" should be used relating to time periods 8 April 2013 to 29 June 2014 and when no period of time is defined and that time specific terminologies be used elsewhere. The main contentious period relates to the latest renaming. In response there have been some news agencies like reuters that seem to have determinedly pushed a rarely qualified use of: Islamic State. On other occasions when sources use: Islamic State, it can be presented terminologies such as: the so called Islamic State, the self-declared Islamic State etc. or in quotation marks.

In summary: the term Islamic State is used in the media and yet it is disliked by the people that the group most effects. Gregkaye ✍ ♪  06:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * "Islamic State" has repeatedly been rejected as the title here. If we are not going to use it for the title, why are we even discussing its use in the article?  Where is the compelling evidence to modify how Wikipedia terms the group? Is it an ideological issue where the editor supports ISIL? Is it an attempt to rebattle the name? If it is just a "I like that name better" than please consider the time this debate is wasting, the fact no country in the world recognizes the Islamic State name, the fact the name is confusing and generic, and that people are dying right now because these terrorists insist on being called the "Islamic State" - a position that some editors here are fighting along side the terrorists for. Legacypac (talk) 07:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The reason why this discussion is separate from Requested Move discussions is because it's like comparing apples to oranges. The reasons for non-consensus in the other RM's varied from technical reasons (ie. conflict with Islamic state and other redirects), to recentism, to scope and other issues. Essentially this is the invalid Other stuff exists argument. The results of requested moves should not be used to decide other matters such as this issue. There's also the reason given that "no country in the world recognizes the Islamic State name" but that's not proven. I'm requesting that Legacypac please come up with another valid reason not to use the name and get off the soapbox and quit using battleground tactics. Repeated duplicate objections are disrupting the talk page.~Technophant (talk) 13:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * @Gregkaye- NPR radio uses the phrase "the so-called Islamic State" in its news reports. That's a possible compromise from using quotations but not should not be overused.~Technophant (talk) 13:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Technophant, I appreciate and respect that you have stuck with this. My view is that whatever takes legitimate human concerns into consideration and that works is fine.  While Messrs Cameron, Obama and their friends seem to tread very carefully to make no reference to Islamic State whatsoever, many Muslims will start with some kind of "so-called", "self-declared" or "self-proclaimed" reference which may be continued or repeated but then may present Islamic State either in or out of quotes.  They may also use words like group and the like as well and my view is that quotes would be best used.
 * I think that I have previously been more zealous than needed in removing Islamic State references. The article previously used ISIS throughout and after the change was made to ISIL I took carte blanche.  I still think that consistent use in terminologies is an advantage where possible but this should be balanced with other needs.  I think that as long as recognition is reasonably given that the term Islamic State is not universally accepted then various presentations (in my view) are fine.  I'm still not keen on IS personally speaking that is.  Many publications have used both Islamic State and either "ISIL" or "ISIS" and the extra two letters in the acronym aren't that exorbitant.  The article makes a strong statement by presenting ISIL related terminologies early on.  In the context of the practice of publishers like Reuters, this is relatively extreme.  Also well done NPR.  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  19:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Gregkaye's reasoning here on using the name "Islamic State" in the article. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

For guidence see this discussion closed by Technophant   We need to follow the title. What is the point of setting the title and than using the rejected terminology in the article? Legacypac (talk) 19:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree about rejected terminology but it is still possible to talk about Hitler and reference the word Führer with no suggestion of him having relevance as leader. A lot will depend on presentation.  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  21:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * LOLOL Godwin's law! ~Technophant (talk) 23:30, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Technophant, as a justified personal attack: you are honestly being pretty sick/ out of touch in bringing "laugh out loud" terminology into play. No insult is meant to Baghdadi in comparison to Hitler and, if anything, the insult would work the other way around.  The current situation  according to amnesty international is ethnic cleansing at a historic scale.  Just because Caucasians (of which I'm one) aren't centrally involved does not make it better.  People are dying.  There is nothing here to laugh about.  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  06:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * @Gregkaye I didn't mean that to be my only comment - I was working on a longer reply but didn't get around to it. I have a personal history with Godwin to see his stupid law come in to play cracked me up. I'll strike the comment and apologize for being insensitive and violating notaforum. I didn't understand how your comparison to the relationship of the terms "Hitler and reference the word Führer" was relevant but I think I see your point now. @Legacypac, you've made your point. Saying the same thing over and over in different words is disrupting the flow of this discussion. Please knock it off. ~Technophant (talk) 09:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There's a similar naming dispute at Kobani. Some of the cited policies are WP:OFFICIALNAME, WP:COMMONNAME, and WP:UCN. This isn't an article naming dispute (right?) but there's some lessons to be learned by reading the talk page.~Technophant (talk) 11:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Whether it be included in or out of a more extensive content my view on your comment remain. Gregkaye ✍ ♪  08:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Proposed new arrangement of infoboxes - I made a series of diffs that made some bold changes to the position of the infoboxes, putting infobox war faction at the top of the page and added the to it and "floated" TOC right. Then I moved infobox country to ISIL and changed the header to "The Islamic State" because that's what the section and infobox is about. This is a significant redesign to the look of the page and I hope it's a positive one. Please, please, do not revert these changes until there's been sufficient time to allow multiple editors review the new changes and discuss them here. I hope y'all are having a good weekend. Cheers! :-) ~Technophant (talk) 06:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Much of the following text was moved from when once I saw that this was the more relevant thread location. Gregkaye ✍ ♪  12:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Its a big but positive change with knock on effects. Gregkaye ✍ ♪  10:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of File:Syria and Iraq 2014-onward War map.png and key from original position

Is this now duplication? Would deletion help? The map is now in a very locatable position.

Gregkaye ✍ ♪  10:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Gregkaye The use of maps is now being discussed at the animated gif thread so let's not bring it up here. What did you mean by "knock on effects" above?~Technophant (talk) 18:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Position and content of Infobox country
The positioning of the box can be taken to be extremely suggestive of a transition point of ISIL becoming a country

To me the four potential categories of time references that could be considered:
 * Achievement of autonomy in a situation that has not, at any particular time, been removed by outside influences. (The Principality of Sealand has done this which, in this case, was achieved with a small territory with, as it happens, zero land acquisition).
 * The declaration of autonomy as might be commemorated by an Independence day.
 * The declaration of the formation of a state, "country, nation, land, sovereign state, nation state, kingdom, empire, republic, confederation, federation, body politic, commonwealth, power, world power, superpower, polity, domain, territory; fatherland, motherland; realm" (synonyms of state) or other.
 * A date of recognition by other states (not achieved)

Contents within the infobox have origins over a range of time frames. The flag, the coat of arms and the motto all have all been in use for unstated lengths of time. A capital that has been under the groups control for an unstated length of time is presented. It gives an establishment date as an Islamic state that does not concur with its date of the group's rebranding as the "Islamic State". The box presents a status of "unrecognised state".

As the first parallel that came to mind I did a search so as to ask ["when did the united states become a country". Results given related to the date of independence and one date of recognition.

I also dispute the unqualified use of Islamic State in the title box. No other state recognises the group by this name so I suggest a move of the box to an earlier time frame and a renaming of the topic.

Earlier on this talk page, and in the context of reference to the use of:

"Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" I suggested the use of:

ad-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fil-ʻIrāq wa ash-Shām (self-described as the "Islamic State")

(In "infobox country: Even if the "ad-Daw.." line is placed in small it won't fit onto one line. Writing "(self-described as the "Islamic State")").

I suggest that something similar, either with or without the transliterated text, be used consistently in both infoboxes. Obviously possible text sizes will be dependent on the possibilities made available within each infobox.

Gregkaye ✍ ♪  08:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Content of Infobox warring faction
I had previously removed the ISIL flag from the bottom of the infobox on the basis of repetition and that a flag as a last item looked odd. Now with the infobox coming into pole position and with the underpinning of the TOC maybe flag and if pos the coat of arms might be added back.

again suggest opening similar to:

"Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant"

ad-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fil-ʻIrāq wa ash-Shām (self-described as the "Islamic State").

Gregkaye ✍ ♪  10:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Legacypac (talk) 10:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * And ✅ here Gregkaye ✍ ♪  16:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)