Talk:Islamic State/Archive 15

History of names, take away (template etc. discussion)
I made this:


 * Jamāʻat al-Tawḥīd wa-al-Jihād, 1999 - October 2004
 * Tanẓīm Qāʻidat al-Jihād fī Bilād al-Rāfidayn, October 2004 - 12 October 2006 (with names including: "al-Qaeda in Iraq" and "Jamāʻat al-Tawḥīd wa-al-Jihād" also being used).
 * Islamic State of Iraq, 12 October 2006 - 8 April 2013
 * Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, 8 April 2013 - On 29 June 2014
 * Islamic State, On 29 June 2014 - present, but with many governments and Islamic groups prefering previous terms of reference.

Its something that I thought might be of use in: List of wars and battles involving the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant .... and then I got to wonder!!

Can it be used in other articles?

Could it form the basis of a template?

Are there other templates that could be beneficially made?

Gregkaye ✍ ♪  11:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Nice - I suggest adding "also translated as Islamic State in Iraq and al Sham or Syria. Legacypac (talk) 02:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Doh, Gregkaye ✍ ♪  12:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I have lightly edited this template (for consistency), so the wording here will not be quite the same as it is now. --P123ct1 (talk) 09:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Caliphate as territory or power structure or both?
Following reference from the Independent (UK newspaper) the text at Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant reads:

On 29 June 2014, ISIL ... began to refer to itself as the "Islamic State", declaring the territory under its control a new caliphate

https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=(ISIS+OR+ISIL+OR+%22Islamic+State%22)+AND+caliphate+AND+(government+OR+territory+OR+land+OR+system)

I would have thought that "Islamic state" serves more as a reference to territory (and everything there in) while caliphate may refers more to the governmental/command structure. A part from the Independent headline I have yet to see an anchor point of caliphate to government/ territory or other term. Any thoughts?

Gregkaye ✍ ♪  10:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ISIL or "Islamic State" is a self-declared Caliphate (a geopolitical entity), a body with governmental system with control over a territory.GreyShark (dibra) 15:59, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * TY GreyShark, I have edited the text to:
 * "On 29 June 2014, ISIL removed "Iraq and the Levant" from its name and began to refer to itself as the "Islamic State", simultaneously giving itself the governmental status of caliphate and naming Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi as caliph."
 * This chooses different wording from content in the independent but I think it to be more accurate. Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  16:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Moved the footnote away from "simultaneously ... status of caliphate" as it does not reflect that statement. WP needs to reflect sources, not introduce "improved" versions of sources.   --P123ct1 (talk) 08:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Prose instead of flags?

 * See later discussion: Logos

Should the Opposition section of the article be presented in prose rather than a bunch of flags? I've already changed the "Other non-state opponents" subsection so it is a paragraph. David O. Johnson (talk) 23:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It could, however the current column format is more compact. I made a series of edits that reformatted the columns so they take up less space. I think they should stay as is. Further information about the opposition can be added as prose.~Technophant (talk) 04:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. David O. Johnson (talk) 05:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The question doesn't have to be "flags vs. prose"; it could be "does this section need flags at all". Flags are not necessary for bulleted lists and my position is that per WP:ICONDECORATION (which is referenced by MOS:FLAG), we do not need them here. It's especially distracting in this case since some entries have flags and others do not. I do not see how they are useful here. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 16:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I personally think that the flags add value. I used to work in psychometric testing and one of the differences that was demonstrated between people is that some people absorb information better from visual inputs and others from verbal.  A reader can scan the page without reading and absorb that the nations that are involved.  At a glance the list is just a bunch of words.  With the flags it clearly becomes a list of nations.  There is an instant visual clue regarding where the list of nations or groups starts and stops.  Also, if a "reader" is looking for a nation and knows the visual appearance of the flag, that reader is given a choice as to whether to look for the name or the flag.  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  15:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That is interesting. For this very good reason I think the flags should stay. There is a lot of information to take in in this section.  --P123ct1 (talk) 15:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2014
Undo edit by user that removed the Recent History section.

140.153.68.94 (talk) 18:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Not sure how far back that is. Can you provide a version of this recent history section that you want restored? It is likely the information was just reorganized Cannolis (talk) 19:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * To interpret the IP's request for Cannolis, the IP wants the timeline section to be restored to this article. It has just been removed as it duplicated some of the Timeline of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant events article.  Links to this article have been provided in the "History" section.  --P123ct1 (talk) 22:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Index of topics

 * See earliest discussion: Archive 14#Talk page too long
 * See previous discussion: Talk page too long (318,000)

@P123ct1 you have expressed a desire to have an index of topics. This is not something to be done by hand (it is too much work), there are two options available (see Help:Archiving a talk page):

Change the archiving bot to User:ClueBot III (see User:ClueBot III) and for examples see here, and an example from that list: Talk:DOS and Talk:DOS/Archive index -- I am not sure if it is still active.

Or to add User:Legobot but it reports that is not active for this function at the moment. I will set up the template request anyway so that if it becomes active an index will be generated in /Archive index. -- PBS (talk) 12:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * PBS: I have seen the examples, but wouldn't it be simpler just to have the current and latest archive's TOCs side by side at the beginning? That would make searching easier and then the number of days could be reduced to 7 or even less without any problem, I would have thought.  --P123ct1 (talk) 13:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Using Cluebots archive index feature would help, but it wouldn't retroactively index previously archived threads. The only way to do that would be copy/paste ALL old threads into the talk page right before it makes it's automated pass (or manually trigger a sweep somehow). Lots of work, but lots of work to make a manual index also. ~Technophant (talk) 02:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposals for a heading editing and cross referencing practice on this talk page
PBS has commented above concerning the potential problem of the large number of headings on this talk page and of problems in judging consensus if issues are raised simultaneously in more than one occasion. I suggest that the majority of this problem relates to navigation. I suggest that, at the very least, editors should be at liberty to change headings on any threads that they start and that other editors should be able to add notes under headings perhaps in Small text with signature to suggest title changes. Alternatively perhaps bold title changes could be made especially with the addition of explanatory suffixes such as: (present consensus reached) or (enacted) and similar. When a new discussion opens on a similar theme a previous discussion, in some cases a note may be added at the end of one discussion so as to direct editors to the other. Cross referencing notes might also be added under headings. In the most part I guess a lot of this is common sense but I thought it worth a mention. Gregkaye ✍ ♪  07:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * @P123ct1: "Editors open threads for topics when there are already ongoing discussions about them."
 * Again I think sometimes the headings may be at least part of the problem. There was at least one occasion where a thread was started with an NPOV heading.  My response, probably wrong, was to start another thread on much the same topic just below.  In a case like this a proposal followed by an edit of a heading would have worked just as well.
 * (I also think that sub headings may be less of a problem than new threads. The topic will be kept in one place and in some cases the use of sub heads will assist in the clarification of subtopics).
 * In other cases where new topics are started I would suggest that editors be bold and cut thread content and paste it into a more relevant location. The redundant heading could be left, perhaps being altered with a suitable explanation and a note with any additional explanation could be left with the signature below.  Once relevant editors had "picked up the thread", the new and redundant title could be deleted.  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  11:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * It is a very difficult problem, isn't it, and you are right Gregkaye, it is about navigation. What about encouraging editors to put in brackets beside their new section headings/subheadings which broad category/categories they belong to, in CAPITAL letters?  For example, ("ISLAMIC STATE" NAME) or (LEAD WORDING) or (CALIPHATE) or (LEAD INFOBOX), etc.  Or encouraging any editor to put in these broad-bracket categories later (maybe several, if several topics are covered), if editors have not put them in?  (Complicated cross-referencing and cut-and-pasting will just lead to more confusion, I think.)  At least that way, when scanning Talk page discussion to find what has been said before on a particular topic, the topic will jump out and quickly lead to what is being looked for.  Or is there is a flaw there? --P123ct1 (talk) 12:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * +1 to P123ct1's comments. Also, just because there's a lot of discussion at the moment doesn't mean that this always will be true. As some of the lingering issues get resolved I suspect that other related pages may become more active while the content in this article will become (and has become) more stable. In other words, we're having growing pains, however that's not a reason to bypass consensus and limit discussion.~Technophant (talk) 14:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You are very optimistic! I think this article will remain unstable for some time yet. There are quite a few major unresolved issues, and there is a core group of edits that are constantly being challenged, as they have been for months. --P123ct1 (talk) 16:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think and hope that things will be on a general trend to settling but probably with blips along the way. Back on topic, yep, cross refs prob won't help much.  Clarifying titles and shifting contents to prevent the same discussion occurring in multiple locations will.  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  20:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, P123ct1, I did not reply to your suggestions re heading text. I'm more than open, if that is the right word, to an advocation of a bracketed format. Caps could also be good. As a starter I think it is important to encourage the use of less threads with clear general titles. To this end I have boldly added a note at the top of the page (just beneath the "Requested moves to date" colapsable box) to say:
 * "NOTE: This talk page has a history of high levels of activity. Please make reasonable checks to see whether additional content can be added to existing threads and please make new section titles as general as may be practically helpful."

I am more than happy for this text to be amended or removed but also thought that we might build on something like this. A similar text could even be converted into a title of its own collapsible box which might contain any further brief guidelines/suggestions. From what I've done which direction should we take? The general feeling is that more order is needed - what level of standardization should be advocated? Gregkaye ✍ ♪  08:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The note is a very good idea, and the more prominent the better. Anything to bring more discipline to the Talk page.  Try the note and if that doesn't work, a collapsible box with more guidelines. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think there should be some leeway to move comments made in a new duplicate section to an older discussion that is more or less the same topic as long as you notify the user on their talk page or edit summary what was done and why. One person could say it's illegal refactoring, however if done properly should be viewed as a beneficial type of moderating. Also P123ct1 has made comments about not liking === subheadings within threads but it's not uncommon or inappropriate from my experience. ~Technophant (talk) 11:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I have put the hatnote above the TOC in boldface, to make it stand out and have a better chance of getting editors' attention. I hope this is acceptable. --P123ct1 (talk) 14:21, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The notice has been ignored. Felino has opened a new section on a much reworked topic. This long thread has been a waste of time. --P123ct1 (talk) 13:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Technophant Agreed and, as there is a clear hatnote request that editors check for similar threads, I don't think that editors will complain about moved text. My earlier suggestion was: "In other cases where new topics are started I would suggest that editors be bold and cut thread content and paste it into a more relevant location.  The redundant heading could be left, perhaps being altered with a suitable explanation and a note with any additional explanation could be left with the signature below.  Once relevant editors had "picked up the thread", the new and redundant title could be deleted."  With the hatnote there should be less new topics generated and the rest may be just details.  (Some bracketed comments on headings have been added). Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  15:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Probably the best thing to do is take the new redundant section, change the == level to === level and tack it onto the end of the sister thread. That way no text is lost, and # wlinks aren't broken. It's the "least harm" method of doing this. Prob. no need to notify the OP outside edit summary because they can look in the TOC or Ctrl-F and find their post. ~Technophant (talk) 17:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

If an editor who creates a new section, or uses unusual indentation, has his or her contribution altered and (s)h reverts the change, unless the changes were made by an uninvolved administrator, then no editor is to revert the revert (See Refactoring). The last thing that is needed is an edit war over the content of talk pages. -- PBS (talk) 21:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think editors moving around Talk comment would be a recipe for disaster. It could easily lead to (a) muddles and confusion and (b) as PBS says disputes between the original editor and whoever does the moving. I also think it would be unreasonable to expect an uninvolved admin to oversee this, but maybe PBS disagrees. --P123ct1 (talk) 04:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * All of the "refactoring" proposals mentioned above fall under Non-contentious cleanup and Restructuring which are allowed as per WP:REFACTOR. There's no need to restrict these changes to "uninvolved admins" as long as they are done with care, per guidelines, and per consensus agreement. ~Technophant (talk) 05:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Technophant I think you are Wiki-lawyering. There is a strong tradition that if an editor objects to an edit of their talk page contributions by another editor then the edit is reverted see for example the guidance at the start of WP:TPOC. It has nothing to do with consensus, but is a simple device to avoid edit wars on talk pages and fairness—because it is too easy for members of a local consensus to "override community consensus on a wider scale". If an editor is behaving in a way that other editors consider disruptive then there are the usual channels available to deal with such editors and those do not involve modifying that editor's edits over the objections of that editor. Editors who edit war changes to other editors contributions to a talk page over the objections of the editor are likely to find themselves on the wrong side of an ANI. I think one only has to consider what you would think if someone, with whom you are debating an issue in the article, insisted on altering one of your own contributions to a talk page, to see that you would probably object strongly, and for that reason the general community consensus is do not edit other people's contributions to a talk page over their objections. -- PBS (talk) 10:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Can you please provide a list of uninvolved admins who are willing to moderate Syria/ISIL pages?~Technophant (talk) 05:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


 * There is no need to, that is what WP:AN is for, but I doubt that there will be many volunteers as moderating this page has all the appearance and appeal of pushing a rock up a hill. My simple solution of using 7 days to do the job automatically has generated a section of 3,300+ words of about 20k. Why would an uninvolved administrator want to take time every day to adjust the page sections if each change has the potential of generating this sort of discussion?


 * There is nothing in the talk page guideline or refactoring that says that the proposals discussed here for rearranging the page are forbidden, just that when a dispute over that refactoring occurs then revert the change, or by extension if other editors think that changes to the format (restructuring) are undesirable then stop making such changes. -- PBS (talk) 10:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * PBS Since I started working on this page in June I've put in anywhere from 2 hours to 12+ hours a week curating, researching, and discussing this topic. Before August there were zero (none) user problems, edit wars, or consensus problems. I've very much enjoyed being a part of this project and have had good relations with other editors. Your heavy-handed approach has created resentments among several established editors here including myself. If you dislike moderating this article so much I would suggest you go find some other project to contribute to. Like you said, if we need help we can go to AN. ~Technophant (talk) 19:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I can vouch for that: before August there were no edit wars, user problems or consensus problems. The working atmosphere on this page has transformed completely and I believe it has driven some editors away.  --P123ct1 (talk) 18:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The sole (involved) admin that had been active in this page hasn't edited here for a while. P123ct1 and I have been hesitant to go to ANI with user problems. One user that was problematic here had a RFC/U started and that editor has since stopped editing. I prefer to deal with things in a collaborative way. While some editor here could be called "POV pushers" they are also mostly constructive editors, so WP:CBANS are a last resort for dealing with intractable problems. Content disputes that can't be resolved by consensus should go to Dispute Resolution so they don't fester here as endless debates.~Technophant (talk) 23:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly. No-one here deserves that.  I think failure to reach consensus is mostly our faults, for letting discussion drag on getting nowhere.  Perhaps there should be a more concerted effort to reach consensus after long debate, instead of letting stalemate set in.  It could be done by "vote", as with the ISIS to ISIL discussion, which seemed to work well (although I think a couple of editors mistakenly thought "Islamic State" was part of that discussion).  There was a clear decision and everyone knew where they stood.  Only when that doesn't work would outside dispute resolution (opinion from uninvolved editors/admins) be needed, and I can't see that happening except in possibly one or two areas. --P123ct1 (talk) 00:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sometimes getting outside opinions (like through RfC) isn't ideal because the general public isn't as knowledgeable on the topic as those who edit here regularly. Dispute Resolution is different. I believe it's a type of arbitration where all sides put forth their arguments and an mediator sorts them out and offers a resolution.~Technophant (talk) 07:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * (That RFC/U was never concluded, btw - the editor was not forced to stop editing.) --P123ct1 (talk) 14:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've requested an admin close. There's a consensus for User:Worldedixor to be topic banned from Syrian Civil War/ISIL broadly construed (indef) due to his lack of cooperation.~Technophant (talk) 20:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * @PBS - Please ask this vindictive person, who drove me away from editing Wikipedia, one question: "Local" consensus by who? The (very) small number of people who actually drove me away from editing this article? I have not edited Wikipedia for over a month, and ALL my previous edits to the "article" were supported by reliable sources without violating policy not once. I also fixed problems that no one else knew how to fix. Anyway, let him enjoy his life behind a computer screen.  I will not be sucked into this matter once again... Now, they're doing the same to Gregkaye, a good editor. I am no longer interested in editing Wikipedia at all!... Worldedixor (talk) 22:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That is a biased statement, I'm afraid. --P123ct1 (talk) 13:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Worldedixor not casting judgement on any specifics of your case but at this point your editing skills with or without relation to your arabic proficiency would be very welcome here and I have seen P123ct1 express similar views. Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  09:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Badoush Prison
In case a page on the massacre of Badoush prison inmates will be written in the future, I would like to make aware of this Human Rights Watch report on the massacre: http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/10/30/iraq-isis-executed-hundreds-prison-inmates. --93.65.4.84 (talk) 23:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Israel should be added to the opponents' list
According to Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel is ready to fight ISIL in any way it's is asked to. He didn't want to tell more, but presumably is due to the fact that Arab countries are part of the Coalition. This is the same stance Israel had on the Gulf War. Also, according to Israeli officials, Israel is ready to militarily help Jordan fend off ISIL militants. And also, Israel is providing the Coalition with intelligence on ISIL.

Sources:

http://mfa.gov.il/MFA/PressRoom/2014/Pages/PM-Netanyahu-on-Face-the-Nation-5-Oct-2014.aspx http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/08/mideast-islamicstate-israel-idUSL5N0R93CH20140908 http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/04/us-iraq-security-jordan-israel-idUSKBN0F91FR20140704

So I think Israel is clearly an opponent, and as such it should be on the opponents' list, specifically on the "other state opponents" section. I have added the flag and the sources. Felino123 (talk) 13:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Felino123 is there any reason for adding three citations to Israel's opposition? Many nations are added to the list with no citation or perhaps just one. Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  17:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes. I added three citations because I could not find a citation which stated all the info, as happened with other nations such as Spain. I thought it was better to quote all the info. If you can find a source with all the info (I couldn't) I'd be grateful if you updated it. Thank you. Felino123 (talk) 17:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Felino123, I think that you are working according to a misunderstanding of citations and their purpose in Wikipedia. You can make further checks but from what I've seen WP:CITE doesn't go beyond stating: "Wikipedia's Verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations".  See also content of WP:WHYCITE further down the page.  Citations are used to attest to the verifiability of information on the page.  Which of the citations do you think gives the clearest attestation?  Wikipedia is not a directory. Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  12:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I think I haven't misunderstood the citations purpose. There are also three citations to United States opposition, just to name am example. I don't know which one gives the clearest atteststion. If I knew, then I would have removed one or two. What do you think? Felino123 (talk) 20:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Felino123 The single piece of information presented is a single word, "Israel" within the context of an article about ISIL. My view is that if ISIL made an issue about any of Israel's questionable practices (such as its internationally illegal West bank settlements or any other of its many arguably controversial issues) then certainly we can and should write content so as to highlight any and all of the relevant issues.  However, as it is we have three citations to verify a single word of content text.  The involvement of Iran (an Islamic state that has joined in with the support of an arguably jihadic type defence against the arguably wayward ISIL sect) is arguably far more notable than the somewhat more predictable involvement of Israel.  In essence Iran has joined the same side of a military struggle as the United States.  The placement of three citations on Israel simply to say that it is involved is uncalled for and unjustified.    Can you cite any WP guideline to support this type of use?  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  14:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Felino123 You attempt to justify your unnecessary triple citation of Israel's (non-military) opposition with the statement, "There are also three citations to United States opposition, just to name am example." You will have seen that the US is the sole nation that has been given three citations while there are ~20 genuine opponent nations that are given no actual citation at all. Your actions on this talk page and in the article push for a minimisation of the presentation of Islamic criticism of ISIL while seemingly wanting to hype up a presentation of your alleged Israeli opposition.  Can what brings you to push both of these issues?  See Legacypac's comment below.  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  07:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * We only include countries as opponents who actually take military action, supply weapons or humanitarian aid. We don't include words only. I'm not aware of Israel doing anything beyond talking against ISIL. Legacypac (talk) 17:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This section is about actions, not intentions. What is Felino's motive in pushing for this?  --P123ct1 (talk) 09:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Good question. Felino123? Gregkaye ✍ ♪  13:08, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I added Israel because it's providing important intelligence support and says it will fight ISIL on the ground if they reach Jordan. I think that makes Israel an opponent. Before there was a list of conditions below the opponents' list, but there is not anymore. So I may have committed a mistake. If I have, and there is a consensus, then let's remove Israel; I don't care if it's on the list or not. My only intention was to improve this article. I'm not minimisating criticism by Muslims, I just don't want ANY particular criticism on the lead. I am not the one pushing my subjective POV aggressively. Stop defaming me. Felino123 (talk) 13:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What the hell are you talking about "defaming" you. I presented a factual list of your edits which demonstrate that, while all other editors are editing to add criticism into the lead, you are the one person continually reverting their edits and I asked you a question regarding the way you were presenting a controversial topic in a very visually prominent way.
 * Felino123, the question regarding your motivation not only remains unanswered and must remain in context. Your repeated baseline argument stated in The word "jihad", criticism and disruption "The Lead is not for stating any criticism from any source".  None of your statements have been retracted.  When I pushed POV, which I still contest is in tune with the POV of a large section of Islam, I indicated my motivation as being against "feeding radicalism" and gave my clear statement that "A further radicalisation of Islam that results from the false endorsement of murderers as being "jihadists" will result in a perpetuation of needless death."  This is an example of openness related to motivation.  You want to remove Islamic and, at preference, other criticism of ISIL from the lead and also attempt to unnecessarily highlight the involvement of Israel in relation to a conflict in which it is not engaged.  Why?
 * Gregkaye ✍ ♪  07:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

[In answer to Felino] I drafted the wording limiting the opponents list based on consensus. If someone removed that, shame on them, and it should be replaced. Intelligence support should not qualify a country as an opponent for purposes of our list. Intelligence support is hard to verify by its nature, and we could add maybe dozens of countries to the list because of routine intelligence sharing. Willingness to fight does not equal fighting. If ISIL moved into any other country (say Egypt or Cyprus to pick a near neighbor) that country would fight them. If Israel tied future intervention to an attack on Jordan, that is weird because Jordan is already fighting in the air and Israel is not a guarantor of Jordanian sovereignty. Would Jordan even what their help? Legacypac (talk) 02:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You may not want any criticism in the Lead, but a Lead is supposed to summarise an article, and a strong feature is the "Criticisms" section which needs to be summarised. This has been said more than once recently and it seems you are ignoring it. --P123ct1 (talk) 15:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not the only one who opposes to put criticism on the lead. But as I said before, if criticism is on the lead, then it should be general and not partial or paricular. Felino123 (talk) 15:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Legacypac The final paragraph of the section still contains the long standing wording:
 * Note: The opponents list is restricted to: (a) States and non-State actors with military operations past, present or pending against ISIL in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon; (b) States directly supplying weapons to ground forces fighting ISIL; (c) transnational organizations coordinating or supporting such States.
 * Felino123 can you please remove inclusion of Israel from the list. Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  07:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Removed! Felino123 (talk) 09:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That was the wording I was talking about. It used to be in the infobox, now in the text. Very good Legacypac (talk) 16:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The word "jihad", criticism and disruption

 * ''See earliest discussion: their actions are "not jihad at all, but rather, warmongering and criminality"
 * See previous discussion: Logical Order in Lead

The criticism of IS should be on the criticism section. Is that difficult to understand? Me and most users (with one exception) have made it clear.
 * HAT: in this opener Felino123 unjustly presents that there are no supporters of criticism being added to the lead other than me. This is very far from the truth.  Editing practices are displayed elsewhere that demonstrate that several editors have been consistently attempting to replace valid criticisms into the lead only to be consistently reverted by this one editor.  The following misrepresentative text has been on display uncontested for over a week now.  I have bent over backwards to present an olive branch in which I also presented the option of correcting misrepresentations.  It is now fair to set the record straight.  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  23:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ANSWER: Gregkaye, I was wrong when I said that most editors didn't support criticism on the lead. I have already told you I am sorry. As everyone can clearly see, I'm willing to reach a consensus and I'm willing to agree with criticism on the lead in order to reach this much needed consensus. Let's end this pointless dispute and stop fanning the flames. I want to get along with you and everyone. Felino123 (talk) 00:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: Many editors, as well as not being willing to just wipe out other people's edits, would have seen content, such as is presented below, was with error and retracted. They may have also done so when the olive branch was offered. It was your rightful responsibility to have added corrective hatnote here.  That should not have been difficult to understand?  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  00:57, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

So the "Muslims have criticized ISIL’s actions, authority and theological interpretations." has no place on the Lead.

By Muslims? Ok, which Muslims? Islam and Muslims are not a monolithic bloc. Some agree with IS, many don't. IS has also been criticized by Christians, Jews, Buddhists, atheists, etc. Do we state it on the Lead, too?

Criticism of IS by Muslims is clearly stated on the criticism section, along with all other criticisms, and where ALL criticism should be (the section exists for that!)

I have removed it from the Lead. Let's keep this article clean and arranged. The Lead is not for stating any criticism from any source.

And about the usage of the word "jihad", there is a lot of debate between Muslims -and non-Muslims- and Muslim clerics and scholars about the meaning of this word. So that what IS is doing "is not jihad" is a subjective personal opinion and not a fact. Most sources use this word to describe IS' actions, and it's the word IS itself uses, along with its supporters and other Muslims.

There have already been long and strong discussions about the usage of this word on this article, and the conclusion was that the usage of this word on this article is not incorect at all.

So this word should not be removed, as a user is doing again and again, and there shouldn't be small notes along with this word on the Lead reading that some argue IS is not a jihadi group.

Disruption can't go on. This user has been warned several times, and he keeps disrupting the article. I think something should be done.

This is an encyclopedic article, not propaganda or an opinion piece. Wikipedia is not a platform for expressing personal opinions. This article should be objective, clean and arranged.

Felino123 (talk) 12:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Current criticisms in the lead include: "The United Nations and Amnesty International have accused the group of grave human rights abuses and Amnesty International has found it guilty of ethnic cleansing on a "historic scale"." Do you want these critical comments to be cleaned out as well?  If anything the Islamic criticisms are of more relevance than anything that organisations like the UN have to say.  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  12:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear this, I believe, is the edit in question.  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  13:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not criticism or opinion, but human rights reports by international organizations. Don't you know the difference? Really? So according to you the opinion of an imam has more value than the FACTS stated by the UN and Amnesty on their human rights reports? After saying this, don't expect us to believe that you're editing in good faith and objectively. This is no more than your bizarre, subjective personal opinion. I won't buy your distortions and manipulations. No one will. Felino123 (talk) 14:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Felino123: Please remember WP:CIVIL and WP:PA. Editors on this page are strong-minded, but we don't resort to that kind of talk here.  --P123ct1 (talk) 18:57, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * NOTICE: has repeatedly reverted or reinserted edits that violated NPOV and talk page consensus. The is an open discussion on AN/I. If you want to participate in this discussion please go to the discussion at the discussion at this link and please refrain from discussion here. It is against WP:talk page guidelines.~Technophant (talk) 00:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Technophant, You have just present a conclusion regarding a matter and have even done so prior your presentation of the link to the related discussion. You have rightly indicate that your comments along with the canvassing comment by Felino123 are against WP:talk page guidelines.
 * On what grounds do you say that editors should "refrain from discussion here"?
 * Gregkaye ✍ ♪  05:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

It is imperative that criticisms are included in the lead. They are a big part of the topic. Legacypac (talk) 02:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is, but only in summary form, without footnotes, and not giving individual examples of criticism.  There is a difference. --P123ct1 (talk) 13:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * In a perfect world, but anything critical that goes in the lead that is not footnoted to death gets challenged and deleted. Legacypac (talk) 08:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Footnotes should not be put in the Lead just to appease editors. This article is for Wikpedia readers.  They can find the footnotes for statements in Lead elsewhere in the article.  That is the normal practice in Wikipedia. It is also normal practice in Wikpedia to put the country terrorist designations near the beginning of the Lead and to call groups like this "jihadist".  But I can't see why it is objectionable to put in the small footlet that keeps being removed which links "jihadist" to the "Criticism" section where that word is questioned.  It is an unobtrusive way of calling attention to the fact that there is this debate about whether the word is an accurate descriptor, and the word is still there in the text  to comply with RS usage which WP has to reflect.  [amended comment as have changed my mind on this]  --P123ct1 (talk) 19:20, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * But every word can be objected by someone. "Islam," "Sunni," "caliphate," etc. are challenged by adherents who abhor ISIL. Every religion has disputes about language with different branches taking different views. We can't give selective disclaimers to appease every faction. The word is use in a restricted sense and we have a Wikilink to lead the reader to an article on that restrictive sense. The Wikilink is enough. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:26, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) True, except that in this article the terms "jihadist" and "caliphate" are more disputed than most in connection with this group, aren't they? Perhaps there should be a similar footnote for "caliphate" in the Lead. --P123ct1 (talk) 14:53, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * site:http://www.aljazeera.com/ (ISIL OR ISIS OR Daesh OR "Islamic State") AND "jihadist"
 * Al-Jazeera make fairly consistent use of "self-declared jihadist" and "self-proclaimed jihadist".
 * Sunni Media - ISIS Its NOT Jihad | Sheikh Monawwar Ateeq
 * Minhaj-ul-Quran, Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri, Jihad, The perception and the reality
 * Islamic Supreme Council of America, Jihad: A Misunderstood Concept from Islam - What Jihad is, and is not
 * take the time to consider the content!
 * Gregkaye ✍ ♪  14:47, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The unobtrusive [b] footnote definitely works but alternate wording could read:
 * ...is a Sunni, extremist, unrecognized state and self-proclaimed jihadist caliphate, in Iraq and Syria in the Middle East.
 * this makes efficient use of the Al-Jazeera qualification which is already applied to "caliphate".
 * Gregkaye ✍ ♪  15:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Gregkaye, a jihadist caliphate? Is there such a phrase and thing? Jason from nyc (talk) 16:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Jihadist is an adjective, caliphate a noun. ISIL describe themselves in terms of jihad and they have declared themselves caliphate.  English grammar works with adjectives preceding nouns.  The phrase is fine.  Caliphate, to my understanding, is meant to be widely supported by Islam if it is to have legitimacy and jihad is, at most, related to defence.  The phrase works. That may be as far as it goes.  The phrase might alternatively read:
 * ...is a Sunni, extremist, unrecognized state, self-declared as jihadist and caliphate, in Iraq and Syria in the Middle East. Gregkaye ✍ ♪  17:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Gregkaye, we have already had a discussion about this. So stop pushing your subjective, personal POV. They are jihadists, according to most sources, and the word jihad will not be removed. The same about caliphate. Felino123 (talk) 16:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * We know your views. Give other editors a chance to weigh in on the proposed "footlet" solution. Gregkaye is trying to offer alternatives to removing "jihadist" and qualifying "caliphate". --P123ct1 (talk) 20:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * An editor has made an important edit and the edit summary and diff for it are invisible. I have reverted it. In the "Criticism" section, some of the words in the quotation from the Islamic scholars' letter of criticism – namely "not jihad at all" – were cut out.  On what grounds?  I simply can't understand why "not jihad at all" was excised.  (I can think of only one reason, a determination that Gregkaye's point on "jihadist" should not be made anywhere in the article, which seems unreasonable; this is an appropriate place for it to be made.)  Could the responsible editor explain, please? --P123ct1 (talk) 10:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * P123ct1 It was removed by Felino123 in his continued undisclosed POV push Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  21:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Felino123: You owe it to editors to explain your bizarre edit.  Why were those words removed? I set up the "Criticism" section specifically for, guess what, criticisms.  --P123ct1 (talk) 21:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * It was removed days ago by mistake. I was editing the criticism section trying to improve it, then I thought it was fine as it is and forgot to put that part again. Of course "not jihad at all" should be on the criticism section, and it should not be removed. I am really sorry for my mistake. It was not my intention to hide anything as was wrongly claimed above. I am not an expert on Wikipedia, I am new here. And Gregkaye, please don't defame me, I am not the one pushing my POV aggressively. Felino123 (talk) 21:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * @defame, I have directly presented verifiable facts and asked legitimate questions. I am not the one wiping out other editors contributions.  You seem remarkably adept at multi change edits as is demonstrated by your editing pattern shown at Reducing Islamic criticism and highlighting the involvement of Israel.  The very fact that you even considered removing this key part of the text raises serious questions.   Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  00:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC) edited
 * Guys, don't you think this should be moved to criticism section?: "Sunni critics, including Salafi and jihadist muftis such as Adnan al-Aroor and Abu Basir al-Tartusi, say that ISIL and related terrorist groups are not Sunnis, but modern-day Khawarij—Muslims who have stepped outside the mainstream of Islam—serving an imperial anti-Islamic agenda. Other critics of ISIL's brand of Sunni Islam include Salafists who previously publicly supported jihadist groups such as al-Qaeda, for example the Saudi government official Saleh Al-Fawzan, known for his extremist views, who claims that ISIL is a creation of "Zionists, Crusaders and Safavids", and the Jordanian-Palestinian writer Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi, the former spiritual mentor to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was released from prison in Jordan in June 2014 and accused ISIL for driving a wedge between Muslims." This is on the section "Ideology and beliefs", but this is no more than criticism. So I think it should be moved to the criticism section. What do you think? Felino123 (talk) 22:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it really belongs in the "ideology and beliefs" section where it is. There is a special link for "Khawarij" in "Criticisms", which when you click on it leads directly to that passage you quote from "Ideology and beliefs" and I think that is probably enough.  Btw, as you are new here Felino123 and many of your edits touch subjects that have been much debated and disputed before you came, often at great length and for weeks, I think it is best to suggest your edits on the Talk page first, rather than editing straight away, and I think that should apply to everyone from now on.  Nothing was resolved before the AN/I on words like "jihadist", etc and I think it is better to actively drive to determine consensus now, so that some proper progress can be made in developing this article.  At the moment it is stuck in a mire of disagreement and this can't go on. --P123ct1 (talk) 23:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There is now another link in the first para of the "Criticism" section, which leads directly to criticisms in the "Ideology and beliefs" section. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 09:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Issuing of Passports
The Islamic State seems to be issuing passports over the last month or so in order give itself an air of legitimacy. 

Perhaps it should be mentioned somewhere in the article. TRAJAN 117 (talk) 23:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * TRAJAN 117 I got caught out by a false news story just recently and this may be similar. According to pictures from UK "RS"ish, the Daily Mail, the passports have the writing: "islamic state of al khilaf".  A limited number of references so far have called this wording into question.  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  07:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * TRAJAN 117 This is untrue . The IS doesn't even accept the concept of nations or borders. Gazkthul (talk) 04:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * From what I understand they don't believe a muslim shouldn't need a passport to travel to another country in the caliphate. On a related note I've heard they are pressing their own license plates.~Technophant (talk) 02:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If the sources are unclear on this matter then I say it shouldn't be mentioned. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 06:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries, just thought I would ask :) TRAJAN 117 (talk) 13:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2014
Please, add the first book on the islamic state :

Oliver Hanne and Thomas Flichy de La Neuville, The islamic state, anatomy of the New Caliphate, Bernard Giovanangeli editions, 2014

http://www.amazon.fr/L-Etat-Islamique-Hanne-Olivier/dp/2758701294

Daménie (talk) 18:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Daménie, can you specify where you want to add it? Supersaiyen312 (talk) 03:25, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Where did you find that book? My search for it resulted in a not-found. If it is not published by a known publisher (as in a vanity press) we can't use it as a reference or a "see also."  HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk page too long (318,000)

 * See previous discussion: Archive 14#Talk page too long
 * See later discussion: Index of topics

''For reasons of this talk page being too long, I deliberately put this posting in this new section. For the foregoing discussion (2 Sept–20 Oct2014), see Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.'' Colleagues, the Talk Page today seems excessively long (318,000bytes). Sections are now automatically archived after 14 days without new posting, but that apparently results in this too long Talk page. There was some resistance (P123,Technophant) to shorten it to 7 days (PBS advised 7 days), therefore I propose now to first shorten it to 10 or 12 days, because the situation now causes too much problems for too much visitors. I’ll be bold and now immediately change it into 12 days: just to see whether it gives a satisfactory result. P123 said on 16 October that the Talk page is also being used chaoticly; I agree, but that is, unfortunately, common practice on every Talk page in Wikipedia, and probably can’t easily be improved. I don’t see too much disadvantage or hardship however in having to start again a thread on a topic that has also been discussed 13 days earlier and has been replaced to an archive: if one of the discussants considers that older discussion still very relevant, he can easily include a wikilink to that archived discussion in his new posting (like I did in the beginning of this posting): that is really not too much to ask then, I believe. --Corriebertus (talk) 15:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Just as a comment, from June (when I first came here) to around the beginning of September this Talk page was very orderly! There were no problems at all going back to find discussions and threads.  --P123ct1 (talk) 16:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I am not at all sure how you came to that conclusion at it was very orderly because the end of August there were 98 sections (excluding another 17 subsections) and the page was 302k in size. On that day you added just over 1K to the page. As I said before the average novel contains about sixty-four thousand  words at the end of August this talk page page contained forty-one thousand words not far short of Slaughterhouse-Five! In fact your first edit to the page was on  13 June 2014 when the page was only 55k in size and had 30 sections. The first archiving took place on 11 July 2014 with an archive date of 60 days. At that time the page was 180k (about 8-9 days at current input) but then there was on average only 3k a day being added. On the 31 July it was changed to 14 days and 1 August it fell from 240k to 138k or put another way about 10k a day was being added to the page. On 11 August Technophant changed the time from 14 days to 48 days. That was bound to lead to problems as even then the page was about 5k a day so that would give a projected size of at least 257k with more than 70 section headers. But the amount of talk doubled in August to 10k a day. On 6 September Technophant  changed the page size to 30 days so the page was "only" 300k in size with 110 section! By the last week in September the page was growing at 15k a day which gave a size of about 450k (which is about what it was when I changed it to 14 days on 1 October, but that left the page at 300k, so I reduced it to 7 days on on 3 October because the amount being added to the page was 22k a day. On 15 October Technophant changed it back to 14 days without apparently considering how big that would make the page (either in size or number of sections).--PBS (talk) 14:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * PBS I didn't "conclude" it, I was here and I experienced it: it was much easier to find content then. Probably because editors used to comment in an orderly, not haphazard way as they do now.  For example, inserting comments into threads out of sequence was rare then, but it has become almost the norm now.  Apologies for adding 1K that day.  Did I do something wrong?  --P123ct1 (talk) 17:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think you did anything wrong. -- PBS (talk) 10:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I did the maths on the 20th:
 * 19 23:36, 19 October 2014‎ 257,214 14k
 * 18 19:52, 18 October 2014‎ 243,020 28k
 * 17 23:50, 17 October 2014‎ 214,212 14k
 * 16 23:30, 16 October 2014‎ 200,191 27k
 * 15 23:30, 15 October 2014‎ 172,795 40k -10 (from archive) 30K
 * 15 01:29, 15 October 2014‎ 131,823 last archive
 * Average of 22K a day (my previous guess/estemate was accurate and it means that 22K a day is fairly stable)
 * At 01:29, 15 October there were  31 sections
 * At 23:36, 19 October there were  42 sections
 * An increase of 10 new sections (less one pulled back from the archive). Which is an average of 2 new sections a day
 * By date stamp (and known edits to sections without date stamps) four sections would have been archived with 7 days set:
 * Apologies to editors
 * Lede could use some trimming
 * Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2014
 * Suggest amalgamating second and last para of lead
 * The number deleted is not the same as the number added because many editors are still commenting on the sections that are already there.
 * So with 14 days we can expect there to be 2*14 28 new sections and 8 will be archived making a pool of about 50 headers
 * The size of the archive will be about 14*22 = 308k (it is 10K larger because of the section pulled back from the archives).
 * If the archive length changed to 7 then the size will be about 42-4 (archived)=38 sections and the size will be about 7*22 - 154k.
 * As I said before this is twice the size of the recomended size in the guidline and also your comments on consensus has to be weighed against the wider consensus.
 * -- PBS (talk) 17:09, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Suggest: the archiving of sections such as:

1 Proposed move from "ISIS" to "ISIL" in the article text

4 Lede could use some trimming 4.1 Suggest trimming nation names

5 their actions are “not jihad at all, but rather, warmongering and criminality” (See related discussion at #Logical Order in Lead)

9 Syria army still free (resolved)

10 second para, first sentence. (notification of change)

11 Logical Order in Lead (See related discussion at #7 their actions are “not jihad at all, but rather, warmongering and criminality”)

13 Discrepancy

15 Official website external link and accurate flag

16 placing Terrorism,

There may be more. Gregkaye ✍ ♪  17:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * It is a bad idea to hand archive sections, for two reasons. The first it is a high manual maintenance issue (it never ends) and selectively choosing what to archive has non-NPOV issues which leads to disputes. It is much better to allow a bot to automatically archive sections. -- PBS (talk) 18:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 8 days?. Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  20:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it was recently moved from 30 days to 14, so still pretty early. However, I wasn't really following the previous thread. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 22:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It was over 450k when I adjusted it from 30 to 7. So no it is nothing to do with the 30 days. When I changed it to 7 it fell to about 22*7 = 154k  (see here),  it was then changed to 14 days (by Technophant). As on average about 22K is added a day there will be a page size on average of about 14*22 = 308k if it is left at 14 (See the maths in my previous posting to this section). If one assumes that editors continue to contribute on average 22k a day and  sections:
 * At 14 days, 308k average size and at least 50 sections (there were 58 sections before the most recent archive a day or two short of 14 days)
 * If it remains at 12 days (set yesterday), 264k average size and at least 45 sections (there were 53 sections after the most recent archive and a size of ).
 * At 10 about 220k and at least 37 sections.
 * 8 is about 176 and at least 30 sections.
 * 7 about 154k and at least 28 sections.
 * However one additional factor that has a disproportionate affect on the numbers is that the longer sections are left on the page, the more chance there is that editors add a "me to" to the bottom of a section and then it hangs around for yet another time out period. So the larger the time for archiving the more zomby sections remain on the page, so those numbers will expand disproportionately the longer the sections remain on the page to archive.
 * -- PBS (talk) 14:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

P123 starts talking(25 Oct) about ‘very orderly…’, but that seems to me not the main point of this section. For that reason, I also didn't read PBS’s directly-underneath-reaction of 26Oct,14:05 (I dislike such later ‘in-between-placing’ of postings: please post always on the bottom, or go into a private discussion with P123 on his talk page). Gregkaye suggests manual archiving, but like PBS I see too many disadvantages in it. Supersaiyen(25 Oct) reacts beside the point too. PBS makes then an interesting calculation, expecting with 12 days delay a page size 264 (nevertheless it is at this moment, after archiving this morning, 331k!); with 10 days delay a page size of 220k, with 7 days size 154k. I see nobody objecting to the idea that a page longer than 100k—and the more so longer than 200k, longer than 300k—is unacceptably troublesome for many users. Therefore, I now again reduce the archiving delay after last new posting, from 12 to 10 days, and if necessary—which I expect—in one or several days we can or should reduce that further to 8 or 7 days. I assume, if a discussion—on this hot-item-article—didn’t get a new posting in six days, we won’t do much harm by archiving it. If necessary, someone can always reopen a discussion that has been held before, and if he chooses so he can include a link to the archived discussion. --Corriebertus (talk) 18:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Slightly off-topic, wouldn't it be a good idea to provide links between discussions that are related? I don't mean just title links, but actual "anchor links", as I believe they are called. (See "Names section.) Gregkaye is good at those.  "Anchor links" could perhaps even link discussions on the current Talk page with archived discussion.  I don't know how feasible this would be.  Should this comment perhaps start another thread/discussion/section, rather than be mixed in with this one?   --P123ct1 (talk) 21:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * What anchor provides are alternative hidden section headers where section headers exist or provide hidden section headers to specific paragraphs (for example I have added an anchor at the top of this page to ). So for clarity what one usually wants to use for links are the section headers, because that is what people see on the page and are usually the most obvious names to use. If not then the pipe trick can be used  TPTL. It is unusual on talk pages to need to use the anchor template -- PBS (talk) 09:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The way you linked this to the other section is so obvious, didn't spot it until you pointed it out! (Am only familiar with very basic wikicode.)  Then I think all related discussions should be linked to each other in that way, for easy reference to other discussion either on the Talk page or in the archives, because just having the name means laboriously trawling through the TOC and/or the archives.  I was simply thinking about navigability retrievability. Digression over.  --P123ct1 (talk) 11:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I find a certain amount of irony that this discussion about "TPTL" is making the problem worse however it does need to be discussed. I propose a change from algo=14d to algo=10d. Rationale: the weekend contributor. I'm not one, but concessions need to made for the Wikipedian who only has time to contribute on their days off, and that day may not be same from week to week. For example, weekend editor sees a talk page thread they are interested in on a Friday afternoon and adds a remark. The following weekend they login on a Sunday evening and can't find the post. Consensus discussion is one of the core values of WP, and limiting it going to get some of the same reactions as limiting free-speech, including outrage, confusion, resentment, etc. It will also increase the likelyhood of repetition of previously discussed ideas. I would rather not have it changed, but if it must be then I can see that a 4 day change could make a considerable improvement over 14d with a reduced impact of a miserly 7d.~Technophant (talk) 22:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Technophant makes a good point about weekend editors. I think 7 days is too short and 14 days will be too long, so 10 days seems a good compromise.  For editors to keep track of where discussions are, would it be an idea to have a second TOC, placed at the top of the Talk page, after the regular TOC, which includes the discussions in the current Talk page and the last archived Talk page, placed side by side?  (perhaps in smaller print to accommodate page width.)  It could be made collapsible so that it does not take up space.  I think a handy reference like that would be useful, as clicking on the archive to see its TOC and then going back to compare it with the current TOC is cumbersome and extra hassle, especially for those with less powerful computers.  If all linked discussions are clearly labelled as such in the TOCs, it would make scanning for discussions easier as well. I am just thinking of ways to make searching for earlier discussions on a particular topic easier.  --P123ct1 (talk) 09:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 7 days will cover weekends as the minim time a section will be on a page is 8 days and that assumes all the conversation about it takes place the first day (this is the reason that the length of RMs were changed from five to seven days a few years ago). -- PBS (talk) 14:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I consider the discussion about links between discussions (P123,26Oct) off-topic here, and disturbing because such technicalities will deter people from entering the discussion what this section was meant for. So please do that somewhere else. Techno (27Oct) advises to change from 14d to 10d, that is impossible because since 26 Oct it is 10d. Shortening from 14d to 10d did not improve the situation much: on 25Oct by 14d the Talk page was 318k, today after shortening and three days archiving, the page is 314k. As I said 26Oct, I assume long talk pages—longer than 150k—to be (unnecessary) troublesome for many users, and the (possible) disadvantages of an archiving delay of 8 days, or seven days, or even 6 or 5 days, seem to me less weighty than the disadvantages of talk pages of 200k or 300k for probably many of our visitors. Techno comes with the weekend contributor (WC) who should not be disadvantaged. I don’t see that as a strong argument here. The first purpose of talk page is: solve encyclopedical problems. It is totally unlikely that someone starts a really important encyclopedical discussion here, then 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 days not one other editor reacts on it (because the only other Wikipedian interested in it is WC) and it gets archived before our WC has his day off and time to visit this page. If none of the thousands of other editors visiting this page in 6 days considered that discussion relevant, the chance that it really is relevant, is very very small, and to my opinion not good enough reason for the concession to allow the page to get 200k or 310k long and annoy thousands of other visitors every day. Other scenario: a discussion is running since some time, WC has at least one time contributed, then suddenly 5 or 7 days no new posting is added and it gets archived. WC sees the section disappeared, will understand that ‘his’ discussion is ‘ended’ and archived, and he is very well capable to look up the end result of it in the archive, and if he is unsatisfied he is very well capable and authorized to re-open that (un)'finished' discussion. Yes, that situation can occur, perhaps in one out of 20 archived discussions. It seems reasonable then to let WC go through the ‘trouble’ to re-start that discussion, rather than leave also those other 19 correctly-finished discussions longer on the page for no other reason than facilitate just this WC, at the cost of hindering hundreds or thousands of other visitors day after day with a (needlessly) very long talk page. I think P123’s idea (of 28Oct) of that extra Table Of Contents referring to the last archive is a good supplementary facility. At this point, I understand that Techno favours 10d but is unaware that 10d is already in action and didn’t help much. P123 follows Techno, and doesn’t seem to care for those (assumed) many readers who will continuously be disadvantaged with a talk page of over 200 or 300k. PBS advises a delay of 7 days. I advise a delay of 7 days or even shorter (6, 5 days — I don’t see (much) harm in that, if with delay 7 days the page is still over 200k). Two against two: I’ll be bold again and now reduce the delay to 8 days. I very much hope that new discussants will join in this discussion. --Corriebertus (talk) 20:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't want it to go as low as 7 days if possible but 8 - 9 sounds great for people taking the week off or weekenders. Gregkaye ✍ ♪  21:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * @Greg: Ofcourse I respect your opinion, but you don’t react on my arguments. Yes, it surely may facilitate a (supposed) user who is away for 7 or 8 or 9 days to leave discussions here 8-9 days after last new posting; but is that then worth the price of those thousands of other users having to cope continuously with the troubles of a page of 271,000 bytes (as it is now, with archiving delay of 8 days!)? Why can’t we ask of the ‘Weekend Contributor’ (etc.) to go and look in the archive? We have archives, so we can expect and ask of users to use them occasionally, can’t we? The 'normal' every-day-user of this page every time has to wait (unnecessarily) long for the page to load -- this is simply not complying with our own guidelines. So, I once again plea to shorten the delay to 7 days (and if necessary perhaps after that to 6 days). --Corriebertus (talk) 07:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Ten days minimum. Looking for previous discussion in the archives is cumbersome and a big hassle. It is obvious that navigability is at the heart of this issue. To overlook this is peculiarly short-sighted, IMO.  Is anyone keeping track of consensus here? --P123ct1 (talk) 09:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If Corriebertus really believes that editors are going to laboriously search through the archives for previous discussions on a particular topic to read them before commenting then he has more faith in human nature than I do. The most they will do is look at discussion on the Talk page in front of them, and sometimes not even then, as some of the new threads opened and edits made by some of the newer editors here amply demonstrate.  It is quite depressing.  The more there is on the Talk page, the more likely editors are to at least notice what has gone on before.  --P123ct1 (talk) 17:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * @Corriebertus, if you want a reply, in my case, I would appreciate an actual ping. I don't regularly check every thread (or archive) for previous content.  I object to your "doesn’t seem to care" comment which seems argumentative although I think the following content may be valid.  I think that for the importance of the argument of page size between 9 and 5 days would need some validating information regarding the number of users that this would seriously effect.  One idea is perhaps a comment can be placed in the header of the page mentioning the issue so as to allow people to comment if genuine problems are experienced.  I would also suggest that a hatnote be placed on this thread to particularly request comment from users that are actually experiencing access problems and that future threads on this topic might contain this prominent content perhaps even in the title.  I see no special advantage in equals 7 days (for the sake of a sexy/familiar number) and would equally support 6 or 5 days if these figures would be an advantage for users.  Please also note that I had already suggested 8 days above.
 * On a separate point the page currently uses the setting minthreadstoarchive=2. Can this be set to 1?
 * Gregkaye ✍ ♪  06:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * the purpose of the minthreadstoarchive value is to prevent disruption caused by the archival bots' moves clogging the page history and watchlists. Given how busy this page is right now, that probably is not a major concern so reducing the value to 1 is a good idea. VQuakr (talk) 07:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

My worry and the reason I started this discussion, is: this talk page being far over 100k and over 200k (today it is 288k, takes about 10 seconds to open the page) is cumbersome for many every-day-users and less-frequent-users, and that trouble seems avoidable with relatively little disadvantages, by archiving old threads earlier. Today, sections are archived if for 8 days no new posting was added – my proposal and that of PBS is to shorten that to 7 days. Ofcourse that has a possible, or hypothetical, disadvantage, for a user who has only once in seven or ten days the time to come visit here (‘Weekend Contributor’, WC). (P123 sees that disadvantage also now old threads are archived after 8 days.) I don’t mean to say such WC users are unimportant, on the contrary; but I’ve explained several times that that hypothetical disadvantage is relatively small: if thousand visitors in a week time consider a discussion not worth reacting on, the chance is very small that it is still a relevant discussion, and for me that small chance doesn’t weigh up to the continuous discomfort for most of us to have to deal dayly with an excessively long page. P123 yesterday brought up a new argument: users have to be well informed about previous discussions on this page before they comment in a running discussion, therefore the talk page must contain as many old sections as possible. Sorry Mr P123, that is nonsense, excuse me my blunt speech. It is quite usual, and no problem, to restart a discussion that has been held two or six weeks earlier. Conditions may have changed since then. If some new discussant isn’t aware of that older discussant, another colleague can bring it to his attention, that is no hassle but normal Wikipedia discussion ethos, usage, and efficient. And ofcourse, apart from that, it is irritating if someone starts a thread about something that is discussed already in a section a bit higher on the page: just friendly say to him that the discussion is already running in that other section. (It is doubtful if that user would have acted otherwise if the page hadn’t contained 37 sections but 70.) We should strive towards pages under 110k if possible without great disadvantage, that is simply a technical necessity on Internet, which is also why we have made it our own guideline. --Corriebertus (talk) 07:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Corriebertus says it is quite usual, and no problem, to restart a discussion that has been held two or six weeks earlier. It is a very big problem!  It can mean going round in circles over the same points and endless repetition of arguments that have been made before, because there are newer editors on board who don't know what has gone on before and edit and people just say, "Oh, we've talked about this ad nauseam before.  What do you think you are doing?" Much time can be wasted.  In the past week or so there has been a lot of this on the Talk page.  If it was easier to even just glance at previous linked discussion a lot of this could be avoided, and if well signposted that discussion doesn't have to be on the current Talk page and bloat it. --P123ct1 (talk) 21:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Recent article: Military wing of ISIL
Military wing of ISIL looks to have been possibly split from this article. Just directing knowledgeable editors to make sure it's in line with WP policies and existing articles.--Animalparty-- (talk) 21:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "Military wing of ISIL" gets "2 results"
 * (ISIL OR ISIS OR Daesh OR "Islamic State") AND "military wing" gets results that generally refer to the military wings of groups that are in conflict with ISIL.
 * Gregkaye ✍ ♪  05:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It does look like a split, but i'm not aware of any discussion about doing this. It also comes close to ORIGINALRESEARCH in drawing a distinction between the military wing and the rest of the group. Gazkthul (talk) 05:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I also don't see a "military wing" as the whole organization is a military operation including occupying forces and the media wing (Psyops). The content, however, is good and could be expanded. Maybe a better article name? "ISIL operations"? Legacypac (talk) 08:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Ping  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  08:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that a big question is whether the article should be kept or deleted. In the meanwhile I suggest a stopgap title Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, military.  Military wing may imply a defined structure perhaps with a hierachy that is distinct from other areas of authority.  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  11:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If we want to keep it then perhaps:
 * Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, military capability? Military capability of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant? ISIL, military capability? Military capability of ISIL? (ISIL OR ISIS OR Daesh OR "Islamic State") AND "military capability". See Military capability
 * Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, military capacity? Military capacity of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant? ISIL, military capacity? Military capacity of ISIL? (ISIL OR ISIS OR Daesh OR "Islamic State") AND "military capacity"
 * All the searches really say is that these terms are used in connection with ISIL but not saying whether the capabilities / capacities are for or against them.
 * Gregkaye ✍ ♪  11:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Reference: Usage of terminologies

 * "ISIL militants" OR "ISIS militants" OR "Islamic State militants" gets "About 80,700 results" in news
 * "ISIL fighters" OR "ISIS fighters" OR "Islamic State fighters" gets "About 51,800 results" in news
 * "ISIL extremists" OR "ISIS extremists" OR "Islamic State extremists" gets "About 20,700 results" in news
 * "ISIL terrorists" OR "ISIS terrorists" OR "Islamic State terrorists" gets "About 12,600 results" in news
 * "ISIL jihadists" OR "ISIS jihadists" OR "Islamic State jihadists" gets "About 7,150 results" in news
 * "ISIL military" OR "ISIS military" OR "Islamic State military" gets "About 1,580 results" in news


 * "anti-ISIL military" OR "anti-ISIS military" OR "anti-Islamic State military" gets "About 159 results" in news


 * "ISIL troops" OR "ISIS troops" OR "Islamic State troops" gets "About 498 results" in news
 * "ISIL operations" OR "ISIS operations" OR "Islamic State operations" gets "About 471 results" in news
 * "anti-ISIL operations" OR "anti-ISIS operations" OR "anti-Islamic State operations" gets "About 127 results" in news


 * "ISIL soldiers" OR "ISIS soldiers" OR "Islamic State soldiers" gets "About 487 results" in news
 * "ISIL militia" OR "ISIS militia" OR "Islamic State militia" gets "About 362 results" in news
 * "ISIL ground troops" OR "ISIS ground troops" OR "Islamic State ground troops" gets "4 results" in news
 * "ISIL armed forces" OR "ISIS armed forces" OR "Islamic State armed forces" gets "2 results" in news


 * Please place any additional terms that you would like to have searched here or below, sign if you want to, all terms welcome:


 * Gregkaye 08:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The military wing can't really split from the owners using it. Maybe a rename to "ISIL's military" or "Military of ISIL" would suffice. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 22:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Not wanting to close the discussion but ✅. Change as suggested performed manually but this doesn't mean that another title can't be chosen.  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  18:58, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Not a very useful name

 * I may have found one use of "Military of Isil". One reason we have WP:COMMONNAME is to have article titles that people might actually search for. This seems one of the least likely names. I'm not even sure it was a good idea to create it. Nice piccies but that's not a good reason. Dougweller (talk) 15:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Dougweller I agree. As stated above "I think that a big question is whether the article should be kept or deleted".  The other problem is the confusion of designations WP:BEGIN, begins: If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence". In the current state of the article  The title reads: Military of ISIL; the lead begins: The Military of the Islamic State and the head section of the infobox presents: Islamic State Army.  I edited to the use of consistent wording but was reverted.  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  16:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm really just keeping a watching brief on these articles, I cannot divert more time to them and in any case have a new unrelated Wikipedia project in mind which may take a lot of time. Dougweller (talk) 16:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

let's change the title of the article

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


 * ''See notice: Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
 * ''See also: Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

Soldiers of IS call themselves as ad dawlat al islaamiya so we need to change the title. Ad dawlat al islaamiya means "the Islamic State" so why don't we change the article's title? We can use "the" which helps us to distinguish the article from Islamic state. They now do not call themselves as ad dawlat al islaamiyah fil eiraaq wa ash shaam. So we need to change the title. --119.64.240.163 (talk) 14:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, but we are going by what the government calls them, not media. Therefore ISIL -- not ISIS or IS. I'm not sure if WP:COMMONNAME applies anymore, but we need to disambiguate the "Islamic State" as a too ambiguous name. I don't exactly agree with it, but unfortunately that's the way it is. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 21:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Let's not. This is the ENGLISH Wiki and we go by the English name referenced in the Sources. HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)