Jump to content

Talk:Islamic State/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 15

"Terrorist" in the Lead

Please will the editor who reverted and restored "terrorist" to the Lead here look at the long Talk page discussion on using the word "terrorist" in the article. Wikipedia cannot call ISIS a terrorist group directly as it flouts the WP:NPOV rule. I removed it with explanation in the edit summary but it has nonetheless been restored.

Gregkaye, are you aware that you have made three reverts within 24 hours? This breaks the 1RR restriction this page is under. Please read the warning at the top of the Edit page. I notice that your ISIL changes and footnotes have still not been checked either. --P123ct1 (talk) 21:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1, your link to the long Talk page discussion was very enlightening and I noticed that it was considerably lengthened by your numerous edits. Here are a couple of consecutive quotes along the way.


[I put in "terrorist" in as part of the qualified sentence beginning, "ISIS has been designated as a terrorist organization by ...", i.e. as an indirect statement. P123 ct1 4/8/14.]

ISIL have a number of defining characteristics and towards the top of the list are Sunni, Jihadist and Terrorist. Murderers and Thieves also fit. The group has driven people from their homes and killed innocents. It really makes me wonder: Who are you trying to protect? Gregkaye ✍♪ 03:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

We strive to maintain a WP:NPOV. Murderers, Thieves and Terrorists aren't neutral terminology. The page already mentions that the group is a designated terrorist organization by various countries. Gazkthul (talk) 05:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
What really needs to be protected most is the Wikipedia:Five pillars on which this project was founded.~Technophant (talk) 04:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Hmm.. the original title of that discussion was ISIS is officially a terrorist organization. I wonder what the need for changing the heading was. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 05:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Gregkaye NPOV is an overriding principle in Wikipedia. In that extended discussion I was trying to get that simple point across, which was extremely difficult. I still don't think I succeeded, despite my numerous attempts. Who changed the heading? That is unacceptable. --P123ct1 (talk) 07:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
@Supersaiyen312: Hmm indeed.
As far as associations of topics and concepts are concerned:
Terrorist is a relevant terminology.
ISIL/ISIS don't present themselves as neutral. Please read wikt:terror. Put yourself in the shoes of a non-Muslim in ISIL influenced areas. Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
You need to get your head round WP:NPOV and WP:FIVEPILLARS, which govern what editors do. I would read them if I were you and you would understand why you are meeting opposition. I agree, it is very distasteful to have to keep to NPOV here. --P123ct1 (talk) 07:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
While Gregkaye may be arguing his POV and you are right that notable institutions label ISIS as a terrorist group, I'd like to reconsider this as part of the leading paragraph. Is terrorism, a tactic, a defining characteristic or is it further description? Unlike al Qaeda, ISIS commands a conventional army and has established a de facto state. Like Libya under Gadaffi (sp?) it uses terror and even rules by terror (as did many totalitarian states). I'd argue that the essentials of ISIS are in the lead without reducing it to a terrorist group. I'd put that description in a subsequent paragraph in the lead section but not the lead paragraph. We're not denying this is widely accepted but we're not making it a defining attribute of a more complicated movement and functioning state. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
ISIS's caliphate ambitions make them much more than terrorists now and I agree that the terrorism aspect is over-emphasized in the Lead. I think all characteristics should be described in the Lead - terrorist, caliphate, army, rulers by terror, persecutors of minorities, perpetrators of genocide, human rights abusers, at least four of which are already there - giving them all equal weight. There used to be a sentence or two about the persecution of minorities and human rights abuse in the Lead; perhaps that should come back in précis form. As the Lead can't be much longer than it already is for an article of this size, a reworking of the Lead would have to be done very carefully, and never losing sight of NPOV, of course. I think is important for the history para to stay, for reasons I gave earlier. As for the interesting question whether terrorism is a characteristic or a tactic, that is for another section, I think, perhaps called "Strategy and tactics", as I suggested here. --P123ct1 (talk) 18:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
@Gregkaye: I honestly do not care about this argument. The heading was changed by User:Teoporta right here. I'm done, leave me out of this. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 21:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

New edit in "Analysis"

This para has appeared in the "Analysis" section:

While officials fear ISIS may either inspire attacks in the United States by sympathizers or those returning after joining ISIS, American intelligence agencies find there is no immediate threat or specific plots. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel sees an “imminent threat to every interest we have.” Daniel Benjamin, former top counterterrorism adviser, derides such alarmist talk as a “farce” that panics the public.

Are prognostications acceptable in an encylopaedia? Wikipedia should not act like a foreign correspondent or political commentator in this war; that is not what an encyclopaedia is about. The same could be said about Frank Gardner's opinion about the future of ISIS in the section "Territorial claims - Governance". As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia's job is to record events in this war, and various opinions about those events, not look into an unknown future. --P123ct1 (talk) 11:46, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL is the applicable policy. Probably the bit that says "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses. Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view." Dougweller (talk) 12:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I am very surprised, but thanks for that! (I had better not be so cocksure in future, as WP guidance is full of surprises!) --P123ct1 (talk) 15:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Actually I re-wrote that paragraph to properly reflect the New York Times article. When I did so I was going to put my doubts on the "edit line" about whether it should be in the article at all since this is an encyclopedia not a newspaper. I was divided but thought that at least it should reflect the debate as expressed in the New York Times news article. I'm glad you brought it up and glad to see Dougweller's review of the rules. Jason from nyc (talk) 17:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Be careful. I have been told that WP does not have rules, it only has guidance and policies. So there is plenty of room for manoeuvre - sorry, interpretation. (The WP:FIVEPILLARS excepted.) --P123ct1 (talk) 22:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Summary of material from split articles

I have summarized the material 9.1 & 9.2 under the history section, as these sections were split off into separate articles Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad and Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn. In the case of the later, there was 12 paragraphs of info that could be found verbatim on the split page. I was pretty drastic with the cuts, but I believe I captured all the key points. Feel free to add back portions considered important, just remember that all the removed info is available on the new pages. Gazkthul (talk) 01:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I have changed the heading of this section from "Origins" to "As Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad, Al-Qaeda in Iraq and Mujahideen Shura Council" so that they show up in the TOC, as readers having read about these three groups in the Lead may wonder where they are dealt with in the article. Also, if they see nothing on them in the TOC, they will click on the names in the Lead and be taken to the full articles on them, not realizing they are dealt with in this article. --P123ct1 (talk) 11:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theories

Why "Conspiracy theorists in the Middle East have advanced false rumors that the US is secretly behind the existence and emboldening of ISIS"? What indisputable reference is there to the rumors being false? I'm pretty sure it's standard for an article such as this to remain impartial... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.250.79 (talk) 18:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I am not interested, don't have the time, nor am I competent enough in speculative, often fabricated, conspiracy theories, but you may want to join this discussion [1]. Hope this helps. Worldedixor (talk) 22:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
@92.40.250.79: When this infomation came out we had an extensive discussion on it. You can view this discussion at Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant/Archive_4#Alleged_Snowden_leaks.~Technophant (talk) 23:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Your extensive discussions don't amount to proof for or against the claims. And if there IS any significant proof, it should either be on the page or the page should take an impartial view not making such claims either way. And Worldedixor, if you're not competent or speculative enough, you should surely just not contribute towards this section? 92.40.250.73 (talk) 11:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! You have stated the NPOV principle perfectly. --P123ct1 (talk) 12:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

There are dozens of reports [1, 2, 3, 4, &c.] indicating that the U.S. have funded ISIS/ISIL, and even regional leaders like Assad have stated so [5]. Why is all of this labeled as “conspiracy theories,” and not, as objectivity suggests, presented as a possible scenario leading up to additional, critical questions? Or, put differently, why doesn’t the article thoroughly refute these accounts? (On the other hand, if the editors here have proof that everything, without exception, what these sources and people say is false, then perhaps respective Wikipedia articles should be adjusted and supported with evidence first?) —j9t (talk) 14:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Well you see they call it a "conspiracy theory" because it is a theory about a group of people having secretly done something illegal and wrong... which is a valid name for this. Unfortunately people somehow automatically confuse "conspiracy" with "wrong" or "paranoid", so the true meaning is lost. Even police detectives can be conspiracy theorists... if there are a group of criminals planning a crime and the detective investigates it, they're theorising about the "conspiracy" to commit a crime. If they arrest them before the crime as happened (which isn't always the case as they can charge longer sentences by letting the crime happen and then arresting instead of just arresting them for the alleged planning of one) then they'll even say "we're arresting you for conspiracy to commit... blah, blah...". The claims against ISIS itself is a conspiracy theory, no matter whether it's right or wrong or whether it's the "official story" or not. What should remain open for speculation is whether the theory is of a conspiracy of ISIS itself or a government conspiracy. I'm sure we'll never truly know the "valid" evidence which indisputably proves either side of the story, but yes, the NPOV principle should be followed and all sides of the story should be considered just as plausible and presented for the reader to make up their own mind. 92.40.250.93 (talk) 14:13, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Curiosity on the map

The article contains a map of areas controlled by ISIL. But the map here contains a very curious occurrence of a small strip on the western border of the area near Jordan where the colour is that of the central government or what's left of it. The triangular strip also appears in this coloured map. What are the basis for this small triangular strip on the Iraqi Jordanian border remaining as central government-controlled territory? Are there some military presence there by the government to justify it? werldwayd (talk) 21:47, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

It's the area between two border posts that are not controlled by the Islamic State. Keep in mind that huge swathes of that pink coloured IS area in the map are actually unpopulated desert. Gazkthul (talk) 01:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Request to split some of this article up

This article is getting too big. Can we please break some of it off? Media and Propaganda could stand as a completely separate article. Thoughts? MeropeRiddle (talk) 15:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

In Arabic wiki we have a separate article for the former Islamic state of Iraq. 3bdulelah (talk) 18:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
It is the same length as the Wiki article on al-Qaeda and ISIS is arguably the more important group now. --P123ct1 (talk) 20:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

At this point I am just requesting that the propaganda section be separate.MeropeRiddle (talk) 22:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

There is already an article being developed on the al-Furqan Institute. I don't know how much of the "Media and propaganda" section could be transferred to that, leaving a brief resume in this article. Technophant? --P123ct1 (talk) 23:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand your answer? I'm saying it would be beneficial if this section was pulled out and stood alone so that other related content can grow from the media article as opposed to being redirected to this entire gigantic ISIL one. The talk page is getting really long. Then there could be a talk page that was just propaganda and media centric. Al-I'tisam Media Company, al-Hayat Media Center, also al-Furqan Institute... they could all have their own article and be linked to a main IS/ISIS/ISIL Propaganda and Media article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MeropeRiddle (talk • contribs) 01:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I think there ought to be a substantial section on media and propaganda in this article, since PR plays a very big part in this group's success. It is what has given them such a high profile internationally and so it deserves more than a brief mention. Gazkthul has just removed quite a lot of the history section to other articles after leaving a condensed resume, and there will be split proposal for the long ISI subsection, that most of it should be moved to an article of its own. I am not sure of the value of having a such a long timeline. The 2014 timeline has been moved over into its own article now, and I am not clear why it is being duplicated in this one. --P123ct1 (talk) 08:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Swapping around content in "Name and name changes"

I was wondering whether this section might start with the Index of names and then continue with a second subsection with a title such as "History of name changes" with content currently between the Name and name changes and Index of names titles.

In this case a title Index of names may become superfluous.
The current strap line reads: "These names are discussed above; links are to sections of this page."
Perhaps this could read: "Links within the following list of names direct to relevant sections of this page."

The result would be a presentation of a summary of names used followed by detail on the history of their use.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Also suggest change in section title to "Names and name changes". Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • What about this?
"Name and name changes"
1.1 Index of names
Links are to 1.2.
(the list)
1.2 History of name changes
The 1.1 and 1.2 would only appear in the TOC, of course. --P123ct1 (talk) 12:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


  • TY, also possible?:
"Name and name changes" (or)
"Names and name changes"
1.1 Index of names
Links are to "History of name usage" below.
(the list)
1.2 History of name usage

of course
Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Or:
Names
1.1 Index of names
Links are to names in "History of names"
(the list)
1.2 History of names
That keeps it simple. --P123ct1 (talk) 13:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Simple and strong! Great work. Gregkaye ✍♪ 18:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Why, thank you, kind Sir! --P123ct1 (talk) 21:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, before this was written up I was thinking the same thing. After section Name and Name Changes a short introduction saying that the group has had several names over many years, the index of names (in either alpha order, or preferably chronological order, then the detailed list of names.~Technophant (talk) 02:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 Done, as at: Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Names. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Use of bold text on talk pages

WP:SHOUT says "Avoid excessive emphasis: CAPITAL LETTERS are considered shouting and are virtually never appropriate. Bolding may be used to highlight key words or phrases (most usually to highlight "oppose" or "support" summaries of an editor's view), but should be used judiciously, as it may appear the equivalent of the writer raising his voice." Now I do see a bit of using it to highlight key words that may be considered appropriate, I think it's being overdone - I don't recall seeing it this much on other talk pages. And it actually makes the talk page harder to read, IMHO of course. Dougweller (talk) 16:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion (ref: IMHO). What does policy say about making changes to talk page comments and/or adding comments after other editors have responded to that comment in these diffs [2] and [3]? If this is permitted, I would like to know. Also, are reviewers exempt from following policy like other editors, or are their policy violations conveniently overlooked? Worldedixor (talk) 19:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
The Talk page is not the place to raise such matters. This page is for editors to discuss edits, not be distracted from their work by an editor raising WP policy on other matters. --P123ct1 (talk) 21:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Why are you policing my every move WP:Hound? Is your name Dougweller (talk)? He had the right to raise WP policy on the talk page and so did I. What policy provision prohibits us from doing so as you claim? The distraction comes when an editor engages in WP:EW and unilaterally does a 3RR on a well sourced content (this was not a simple first revert, this was a disputed revert), without consensus, albeit not within 24 hours. We already have a reliable source that proves that Israeli law definition for unlawful organizations includes terrorist organizations[4], and we have a reliable source that the Israeli Minister of defense designated the IS an unlawful organization [5]. 1+1 = 2. I recused myself and did not do a 4RR to revert your 3RR simply to avoid WP:EW. I am not the problem here. Worldedixor (talk) 21:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Please see "Israel (2)" for why I don't think that document (107) can be used. --P123ct1 (talk) 22:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
I completely disagree with your "thinking" without your adhering 100% to policy, and, before I respond, I will allow you to respond to: "Why are you policing my every move WP:Hound? Is your name Dougweller (talk)?" Worldedixor (talk) 22:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
By "such matters" I was referring to what was subsequently raised by another editor, which was unrelated to admin Dougweller's guidance. --P123ct1 (talk) 01:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Section title simplification: "Ideology" and "Propaganda" or "Propaganda and media"

Following edits of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Names (as discussed at: Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Swapping around content in "Name and name changes") I got to wondering about possible simplifications of other Sections/Section titles:

Propose changing Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Ideology and beliefs to "Ideology" (add: not supported yet below)

Propose perhaps changing Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Propaganda and social media to either "Propaganda" or "Propaganda and media" (add, also suggested: Public relations and propaganda)   with the addition of possible sub-sections such as "Use of social media" and "Media releases" or "Releases"

The result would be:

1 Names
1.1 Index of names
1.2 History of names
2 Ideology (and belief added back)
3 Goals
4 Territorial claims
4.1 Governance
5 Analysis
6 Propaganda             or: Propaganda and media   or Public relations and propaganda
6.1 Use of social media
6.2 Media releases       or: Releases   (or similar)
7 Finances
8 Equipment
9 History
9.1 As Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad, Al-Qaeda in Iraq and Mujahideen Shura Council (1999-2005)
9.2 ...

Its basically a suggested move towards single word or simplified titles.

Query: What's the best title usage at 4: "Territorial claims" or "Territorial claim"? (as in contextualised use: "The group's territorial claims are ..." VS "The group's territorial claim extends to ...")

Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I think "Territorial claims" plural is better, as the more territory the IS seizes, that can be added in. Ideology is not the same as beliefs, so I think both need to stay. "Public relations and propaganda" might be better, as their media-based PR is a key factor in their success (in recruitment and spreading fear to weaken the opposition. Have you looked their videos on YouTube? The 50 spiked heads in Raqqa? It is a perfect piece of propaganda to inspire fear in the enemy). Again, these are quite big changes, and you will need consensus first. The name and name changes section was always a bit of a mess and I don't think editors will mind the changes there. --P123ct1 (talk) 19:18, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
This is just something that I thought might clean up the article a bit but its no biggie. I've seen a few videos but haven't found a main channel. I just had another look at https://www.youtube.com/channels?q=islamic+state . Is there a particularly informative channel here? Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

About Baghdadi, the founder of ISIS

"In the same spirit, his greatest coup so far was to free around 500 of his most loyal supporters during a spectacular jail break last July at Baghdad’s Abu Ghraib prison, supposedly the most-heavily guarded facility in the country.", written here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/10891700/Iraq-crisis-the-jihadist-behind-the-takeover-of-Mosul-and-how-America-let-him-go.html So this man was a former prisoner who came back after founding ISIS and freed his former inmates? I think this is relevant to the article as a motive that drives this man named Baghdadi. He seems to be on a revenge mission. --217.82.158.50 (talk) 23:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The jailbreak is mentioned in the article, as the Breaking the Walls campaign that Baghdadi launched in 2012. Gazkthul (talk) 23:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

French distinction between the organisation and the state itself

What do you think about the distinction between the organisation and the state itself in the french version ? --Axeo (talk) 11:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

http://fr.wiki.x.io/wiki/%C3%89tat_islamique_(organisation) http://fr.wiki.x.io/wiki/%C3%89tat_islamique_(%C3%89tat)
I actually quite like both pages, they've done some good work Gazkthul (talk) 13:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
The French division makes sense. When I first read our article I was looking for an article on Islamic state (government). I found it confusing to read our article and keep track of whether it was taking about the movement or state. I find the French article [6] necessary. We have a brief section in our article called Governance that I wrote. I would have put it into Islamic state (state) if it had existed. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Have you looked at Islamic_stateMeropeRiddle (talk) 15:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
It is at that interesting neither fish nor fowl stage at the moment: an insurgent movement and a state/caliphate, neither being completely one or the other. Hence the vacillations between calling it the Islamic State and ISIS/ISIL The media put their finger on it when they call it the 'so-called' Islamic State, which unfortunately Wikipedia can't do! It is this hybrid character that is at the bottom of the name confusion everywhere. It is so French of the French to split it into two, but you really can't do that, IMO, it is too intertwined. The best way to describe them at the moment is as embryo empire-builders. That is certainly the way they see themselves. Isn't that how Ghengis Khan started, as a tribal war-leader? --P123ct1 (talk) 19:40, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Have just realised, that comment was a bit tangential and borderline WP:NOTFORUM, but I defend it as being helpful, I hope, in seeing how to treat the group in this article. Another growing difficulty I foresee is when to stop calling them a group and start calling them an organisation, if not a state. It didn't matter so much before, both could be used, but the more they establish themselves in their own territory, the more awkward it will become to keep calling them a group. I noticed this yesterday when copy-editing a new paragraph added which accurately called them an organisation, whereas the rest of the section, again accurately in the context, called them a group. They are growing like Topsy at the moment, but I trust we will keep up with it, not worry too much about definitions and muddle along satisfactorily. --P123ct1 (talk) 20:26, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Your discussion is helpful. But even short lived states with no or limited recognition get a Wikipedia entry. Look at Hungarian Soviet Republic. It has historical significance. I don't know what historians will eventually call the self-proclaimed Islamic State established across Iraqi-Syrian boundaries but this episode will have historical significance. It is a de facto state and even if it folds it will have regional (or greater) influence. The two are already being distinguished as a number of articles talk about the governance and functioning of the state. Government decrees (theirs or ours) should not define an encyclopedia. Scholars should. And journalists are the first draft of history. I think critical mass is gathering for a separate article on the state in and of itself. Let's keep this option open and not just declare it settled (as others, not you, tend to do.) Jason from nyc (talk) 12:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
The point about the Hungarian Soviet Republic is, as you say, although it was short-lived "it has historical importance" but that importance is qua state. Time has given this perspective. With Islamic State this is not yet clear. It has importance, but we can't yet say whether it is as a state, a militia, a terrorist organisation etc Only time will tell. DeCausa (talk) 12:30, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
That is what makes this page so interesting to work on. The "Islamic State" cannot be defined and may go in any direction. In trying to cover everything it does in this article Wikipedia is helping to record history in the making, though of course it is up to historians to make sense of it, not Wikipedia. The shape of the article will shift a lot I would imagine in the coming months and years to reflect what happens - who would have thought early this year that the PR and propaganda or human rights abuses sections would become so important, for example - and there is nothing wrong with that, and there may well come a time to split it into two parts, but not yet, I think, only when enough comes through about how they are running their "caliphate" and the need to split it becomes clearer. This is all the more reason not to change the name of the article yet, as well.. --P123ct1 (talk) 14:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Bosnia and Herzegovina

This country is not a member of NATO. It should not be listed in the information box with the other NATO countries. --82.118.123.6 (talk) 17:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Split section to Islamic State of Iraq

This article is still quite long and the As Islamic State of Iraq (2006–2013) section goes into quite a bit of depth. I suggest a split into an Islamic State of Iraq page. A summary section should be created, which describes how it was formed, the decline in it's fortunes around 2007, and how it's resurgence began under Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi around 2010-2011. Gazkthul (talk) 23:17, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I have created a new Islamic State of Iraq article with the contents from this one, feel free to edit and clean it up. I am not sure how to bring over old Talk page entries so if anyone can do that it would be good. I've created a summary for the Islamic State of Iraq (2006–2013) section, feel free to add any important points if I've missed them. Gazkthul (talk) 01:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Comment, According to page information the article has a "Page length (in bytes)" - "211,583". In comparison to Wikipedia's LongPages this is not excessively long.
Stats: The article contains 150,627 characters; The section History contains: 25,741 characters; The subsection "As Islamic State of Iraq (2006–2013)" contains 15,493 characters.
Alternative options:
  • Leave as is,
  • Split off the entire history section
Islamic State of Iraq was just another in a succession of names used by the same group. See: Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Names. The creation of an additional article title may be confusing.
Gregkaye ✍♪ 06:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
The length of the ISI subsection unbalances the history section. If that was reduced like the others were, readers would have the choice of a brief history in this article or a fuller history in the separate articles. This article needs at least something about the history of the group! --P123ct1 (talk) 06:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
This article has unnecessary repetitions of information in sections: History of names and History. One option would be to:
  • Promote subsection "Index of names" to be the first section of the article replacing "Names"
  • Develop subsection "History of names" with relevant history content and rename as: "History" at section level.
  • Move entire section "History" to a new article space.
In this case links from "Index of names" could connect to more complete sections of information regarding the history of the group at the time when any particular name was used. At editor's discretion names "Index of names" could contain more information on any significance on the meaning or significance of any particular name. An option would be enabled to potentially merge articles on historic uses of the groups name into the separate article on group history.
Alternatively maybe we can have separate articles for all name changers so as to create articles including: Cheryl Tweedy/Cheryl Cole/Cheryl (singer) & Cheryl Fernandez-Versini Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree there is duplication. The article must have a section on the group's history. I think the article would be damaged by having too many separate linked offshoot articles. I am beginning to feel like the Irishman who when asked the way to somewhere said, "Well, I wouldn't start from here." To be a good article the whole thing would need to be recast, IMO. At the moment it is a palimpsest. --P123ct1 (talk) 09:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Do editors agree with Gazkthul's suggestion, creating a new article for the ISI and leaving a short resume in this article, as he did for the other groups? --P123ct1 (talk) 20:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't object but would prefer alternatives. If a full set of articles are created for each naming in the groups then the resultant articles can be treated like episodes in drama. This approach might help the development of chronological links between time period articles. Gregkaye ✍♪ 22:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
What alternatives? It doesn't make sense for this article not to have a history of the groups ISIS/IS have grown from. That history section will be very short once the ISI is reduced in size. --P123ct1 (talk) 13:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Support, my other suggestion was to "Move entire section "History" to a new article space" but, as that hasn't been taken up, something else needs to be done.

"Core Coalition military action against ISIS" in Syria

ALL, If it not already created in some form, I would like to propose a new article about the US-led "Core Coalition" that launched action against ISIS last night. The article would cover who is in the core coalition, and some details about the bombings. There are reliable sources out there that say action against ISIS in Syria could last 3 years. Obama gave a speech on the core coalition on Sep 10, and there was a significant debate leading-up to the bombings as to whether it is legal under international law. Support? Oppose? Comments? What does anyone think? Peace, MPS (talk) 16:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

2014_military_intervention_against_ISIS covers this topic pretty well, and 2014_American_intervention_in_Syria (which needs a new name badly) goes into more detail. Legacypac (talk) 06:22, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Sequence of article sections

At the present the article reads (With TOC numbers and several subsections removed):
Current order

Names ..
Ideology and beliefs
Goals
Territorial claims
Governance
Analysis
Propaganda and social media
Finances
Equipment
History ...
Human rights abuses ...
Timeline of events ...
Notable members
Designation as a terrorist organization
Conspiracy theories

I'd like to suggest:
Suggestion No. 1

Names ...
Ideology and beliefs
Goals (made into sub-heading of "Ideology...")
Territorial claims (made into sub-heading of "Ideology...")
Propaganda and social media
Finance (shortened to the singular "finance" to match "equipment")
Equipment (Should "Equipment" be a sub-heading of "Finance"? Should both be sub-headings of "Assets"/"Material assets"?)
History ...
Timeline of events ... (moved up to follow "History")
Human rights abuses ...
Designation as a terrorist organization (moved up to follow "Human rights abuses". Remove "a"?)
Analysis (moved down to precede "Notable members")
Governance (moved down to precede "Notable members")
Notable members (made into sub-heading of "Governance")
Conspiracy theories

- I've added these - breaks to indicate what I regarded to be changes in content types. Others may differ in views of categorisation but I thought they might be useful regarding considerations of the ordering of content. Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree, the present ordering is problematical; the sections seem to have been thrown in higgledy-piggledy as the article grew. I would suggest this ordering, though only tentatively:

Suggestion No. 2

  1. Names
  2. Analysis
  3. Goals (with Conspiracies as a subsection?)
  4. Territorial claims
  5. Ideology and beliefs
  6. Human rights abuses
  7. PR & propaganda
  8. Finances
  9. Equipment
  10. Designation as a terrorist organization
  11. History
  12. Notable members
  13. Timeline of events ...

Logically "History" should follow "Names", but it is such a big section that it is probably best left at the end, although that might change if the long subsection on the ISI was given its own article like the.other groups in that section. The pre-2014 timeline would be best written up as a much briefer historical narrative for this article, I think, then split off and added to the 2014 timeline perhaps. I can't understand why the 2014 timeline is still in this article when it now has its own article. Why not just have a link to it for the interested reader? --P123ct1 (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

  • I definitely agree with the beneficial shifting duplicate info, timeline or otherwise.
I agree that it makes sense to keep the sections: "Goals", "Ideology and belief" and "territorial claims" together as they seem to cover motivations/why? type topics.
Google searches on terms related to "terrorist" and "human rights" and terms associated with "Islamic State" tend to get high results. I was wondering whether the "Designation as a terrorist organization" section might follow the motivations groupings or whether it fits best as an intro to History...? Otherwise I agree that having "Designation as a terrorist organization" precede "History" works well.
I also agree in a theoretical advantage of history following names. Most options with "History" will constitute an improvement. At the moment it follows "Equipment" which, to me, seems to make no coherent sense.
There are a few topics that I regard as Who?/What? subjects: "Governance", "Notable members", "Finance", "Equipment" and "Analysis". I think that these may go well together. In this order? I agree that the idea of "Conspiracy theories" following "Analysis" makes good sense. It seems to give a flow from fact to a short section on fiction, or at least into questionable "shades of grey".
Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Off the top of my head, "Names" first, as the group has had a bewildering number of names and it would be good to give a run-down right at the start. Then"History" (once it is pared down), then "Analysis" as that sets the scene for how the group now stands and what they are now. (I don't think merging "Names" with "History" would be a good idea, as it would make all that information at once fairly indigestible for the reader, I think.) Then "Goals" with "Conspiracies" as a subsection, then "Territorial claims" with "Governance" as a subsection because that is how they run the territories they claim/seize and this section will expand as they conquer new territory. Still can't think which is the best place for "Designation as a terrorist organization". "Notable members" perhaps straight after "History", since many of them are either dead or no longer in power, so part of history, and some of the names will be fresh in the heads of readers after reading "History". The "History" section will be much shorter if Gazkthul has consensus to do what he did with the other early groups, i.e. condenses the ISI history and gives the group its own article. (That isn't confusing and gives readers the option to read a short history on these groups in the article, or a longer history in the linked articles.)
The history of this group in all its different manifestations is quite confusing at first read, so I don't think it does any harm to have a little bit of repetition, although perhaps the history parts in "Names" could be cut down/condensed. Having "Names" right at the beginning with the inevitable mention of history will break readers in! I said earlier I thought this section was messy, but I know I found this section very useful to get my bearings on this group's different incarnations and their sequence in time.
What to do with the timelines is quite problematical. Perhaps that could be dealt with last, when the new shape of the article is clearer. Assuming other editors agree with these suggestions! --P123ct1 (talk) 20:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
So following my last para, perhaps this? (Underlined headings just show basic structure of article)

Suggestion No. 3

History
  1. Names (with most of the history part removed and added to "History")
  2. History (giving links to main articles for the groups)
  3. Notable members
  4. Designation as a terrorist organization
Not history - more about (a) what the group is now, as an entity (b) its motivations (c) consequential action
  1. Analysis (as the group stands now)
  2. Ideology and beliefs (keep together with goals as closely linked)
  3. Goals (with Conspiracies as a subsection)
  4. Territorial claims (with Governance as a subsection - how the group runs the territories it captures)
  5. Human rights abuses (follows on naturally from Governance - treatment of population in those territories)
The rest
  1. PR & propaganda
  2. Finances
  3. Foreign fighters (new section just started - see below)
  4. Equipment
  5. Timeline of events

Any comments? --P123ct1 (talk) 09:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 I'm glad there's a discussion about reordering the article. I like your first suggestion on for a new order. The whole topic of Foreign fighters has received a lot of attention and could be its own section or even article (in time).~Technophant (talk) 18:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Technophant: Which suggestion do you mean? I made two lists. Obviously I think the second list is better and gave reasons for it in the long paragraph just before it. Foreign fighters have hardly been mentioned in this article and perhaps there should be more on them as you say, especially with reports like this coming through. --P123ct1 (talk) 19:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I think the second list is much less problematic. It is important to include information on foreign fighters, especially if there is knowledge on them. The intentional withholding of that information would seem wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjayy138 (talk • contribs) 05:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I have started a section on "Foreign fighters", after "Propaganda and social media" and transferred there some text from "Analysis". --P123ct1 (talk) 06:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Gregkaye: I have given these lists headings in bold, so there is no confusion in discussion. What do you think of the second list I made (Suggestion No. 3) for reordering the sections? Is there anything you would like to change apart from removing "History" completely? The paragraph before it explains why I chose this order. --P123ct1 (talk) 14:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Late reply to P123ct1. Sorry m8, just seen it - and as far as I can see it is a vast improvement on existing sequence. I hope its OK to interpret "Suggestion No. 3" as a proposal, in which case:
Support, even if editors have further preferences from this suggestion, which seems to me to be extremely robust, it can be scrutinised in later discussion should further changes seem advantageous. Its a complex topic and this flow seems to present it with considerable coherence. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I have a suggestion. Let's take a look at a similar article, Al-Shabaab_(militant_group) and take a look at what works there and what we can learn from how it's organized:
TOC of Al-Shabaab
1 Name
2 Organization and leadership
2.1 Leaders
2.2 Foreigners
3 Terrorist designation
4 History and activities
4.1 Opposition
4.2 Timeline
4.2.1 2006
...
4.2.9 2014
5 Defections
6 Strategy
6.1 Media
6.1.1 Twitter account
6.2 Drought
6.3 Operation Linda Nchi
7 Merger with Al-Qaeda
8 Internal rift
9 Collaboration with AQIM and Boko Haram
10 Split with Hizbul Islam
11 Bounties
12 Support allegations
12.1 Eritrea
12.2 Somaliland

I'm not quite seeing a strongly preferred order. Can I see a new list proposal based on the strategy of Suggestion #3 with proper subheadings indented?~Technophant (talk) 16:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

A huge difference is that Al-Shabaab doesn't have such a long and complex history as the Islamic State has, and that article has nothing about ideology and beliefs which are a major driving force for this group, who are religious fundamentalists of the worst kind. Al-Shabaab is not a movement or insurgent group like this group either, but more a straightforward terrorist group. I am not so sure for these reasons that the TOC there is very helpful. Do others have a different view? --P123ct1 (talk) 19:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Al-Shabab is an insurgent group and for a few years they were ruling vast swathes of Somalia (including it's capital Mogadishu) where they implemented a form of Government quite similar to what we are seeing in Syria and Iraq now. Not that that makes the Table of Contents the best model. Gazkthul (talk) 22:39, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't realize there were those parallels. --P123ct1 (talk) 12:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Names section

Gregkaye: In "Names", the translations into Arabic are in very tiny print; can you make them a little larger? Just thinking of the readers. Also, I notice there are two different versions of the name al-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fī al-ʻIrāq wa-al-Shām in the section (spelling is different). --P123ct1 (talk) 17:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The text imported from the edit earlier this summer is: al-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fī al-ʻIrāq wa-al-Shām
The text from the article content on Daʿesh is: al-Dawla al-Islamiya fi Iraq wa ash-Sham
The imported text has the advantage of using diacritics in a similar way to other Arabic transliterations used.
P123ct1 has pointed out the discrepancy. Can anyone help bring resolution? @Suomichris:? @Worldedixor:?
The Arabic from the lead of the current page is: الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام‎ and this is the same text as used in June
Gregkaye ✍♪ 20:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

New RS by Alastair Crooke

A possible RS by an expert:

Brangifer (talk) 17:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Bernard Haykel, a scholar at Princeton, makes a similar point [7]. I have added both references to the article and add their theory of Wahhabist influence. Jason from nyc (talk) 03:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Recent statement

I realize we're limited by WP:OR her, and besides, I'm not competent for this kind of OR even if I were allowed, but this recent statement looks like something of a goldmine for trying to riddle out what this group's thinking is: [8] (found via [9]) This is mostly covered in the media for phrases like "Mule of the Jews" (Obama) but seems to give a sense of their actual ideology.

The words left the translator chose to render untranslated seem to indicate concepts we need to cover:

  • walā’ and barā’: After exhorting violence against Westerners (or spitting in their face if all else fails), the author(s) say that if you won't "You are in a dangerous condition because the religion cannot be established without walā’ and barā’." Just a few non-reliable sources seem to use this phrase on the web, and it seems to be some kind of religious duty to love and hate different people(?) for Allah?
  • nusayriyyah (alawites) and rāfidah (shiites): I'm not clear if the parenthesized terms are absolutely synonymous, or what the effect of not translating them is supposed to be apart from confusing. (The document says that America ignored the atrocities of these groups while making much more out of those of ISIS)
  • safavid: ("Iraq-safavid army") Not sure this is related, but there is the statement that "The only things that make blood illegal and legal to spill are Islam and a covenant (peace treaty, dhimma, etc.). Blood becomes legal to spill through disbelief. So whoever is a Muslim, his blood and wealth are sanctified." They say that "Furthermore, what did the sons of the Sunnis get out of joining that army other than apostasy from the religion of Allah, the destruction of their homes, and having their heads cut off?" So I'm getting the sense that they regard death as the punishment for apostasy, which alas doesn't seem out of the ordinary in itself, but then also decide that any Sunni Muslim who joined the Iraq Army is automatically an apostate, which will take some more explaining.

If anyone can find serious RSes for this, not just media outlets playing keep-away and getting some quick laughs, we really need them for the article. Wnt (talk) 13:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Wnt, I've taken the liberty of linking those terms to the relevant wiki articles. Al Wala' Wal Bara' is basically dividing everything into good and bad. The two terms are somewhat antiquated and derogatory names for Alawites and Shiites, and it is quite common for Jihadists to believe that Muslims who serve in the Army or Government of their enemies have committed apostasy and deserve death. Gazkthul (talk) 23:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your contribution. On a related note I found out what is meant by Rome in Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#cite_note-ISWDabiq-174. It says "“Rome” (generally interpreted to mean the West) ". The reference to "Rome" is no longer in the article however. ~Technophant (talk) 18:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
There's a documentary made last month by Vice here that shows what daily life is like in Raqqa, how IS is implimenting Sharia law, and how they are using propoganda. It's a rare find that the group allowed "exclusive" access to a film crew and allowed this documentary to get made at all. I think it may be a candidate for being a EL.~Technophant (talk) 02:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I have just watched this documentary and it should definitely go into the EL. Although it is almost propaganda, it is very revealing of what living in the new caliphate is like. --P123ct1 (talk) 17:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Capitalization of Al-Qaeda in Al-Qaeda in Iraq

I started a discussion on how to format names with al-Qaeda in the title at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Terrorism#Acronyms of groups with al-Qaeda in name.~Technophant (talk) 17:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Questioning semi-protected status

This article has been semi-protected for a while so that IP users are unable to edit it. I would like to propose changing it to having wp:pending revision protection instead. The downside would be that pending revisions could stack up and need to be approved by users have have the pending changes reviewer flag (which isn't hard to get). ~Technophant (talk) 04:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll try to answer. If I understood this correctly, I don't believe it's necessary for this article. We have not had many IP edits or vandalism, and most editors have strictly adhered to 1RR per 24 hours that's working well for the article. Hope this helps. Worldedixor (talk) 05:36, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
New ideas from IP users would be welcome obviously, but they can already suggest edits on the Talk page, can't they? However, it would certainly be more democratic to make it easier for IP users to edit the article. Was the pending revisions stacking up ever a problem? --P123ct1 (talk) 10:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
It has been at Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi however the editing activity there has died down. I don't think pending revisions was ever tried here. I asked for semi-protected indef. a while ago and got it. Being that reverting IP edits are except from 1R I would be willing to allow a trial of PR to see how it works.~Technophant (talk) 07:48, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Agree Pending revisions was here for a quite a while. I remember being annoyed that the "pending revision" tab kept obscuring one of the edit tabs! If reverting an IP edit is excluded from the 1RR restriction, I definitely think it should be tried out. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Sequence of article sections (2)

There has already been some discussion about reordering the sections, and I know consensus has not been reached, but I have changed the sequence, following the last proposal I made in the discussion above (Suggestion No. 3), to give editors something to think about and work on. The reasons for this ordering I gave in the long paragraph just before Suggestion No. 3 in the last discussion. --P123ct1 (talk) 09:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd move "Analysis" down further. This section has notable assessments and reasoned implications by authorities rather than the straight reporting of facts. It's clear that authorities disagree on some analyses. We are not stating the analysis with Wikipedia's voice but giving the readers well-cited conclusions of major organizations and important figures. I'd move this down before or after "Human Rights Abuses." I'd include "Conspiracy theories" as a subsection of Analysis as it is highly questionable analyses. Otherwise, the improvements look good as does all the work by the main editors of the article. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the title "Analysis" is misleading, making it look like WP's, so perhaps the section should be renamed, and I agree that "Conspiracies" should be one of its subsections. --P123ct1 (talk)
Gregkaye: TY for your support. I've already done the reordering! (See my comment above.) It is only meant as a draft structure for others to improve on. I really think the 2014 duplicate timeline should be eliminated leaving readers a link to the main timeline article, although the length has already been reduced quite a lot, now that the ISI subsection has been condensed. --P123ct1 (talk) 12:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
One reason I went ahead is that (a) the discussion had stalled somewhat and (b) it was becoming quite cumbersome discussing sequence on the Talk page; I thought it might be easier to discuss once a new structure was in place. Hope this hasn't offended. I am not going to argue that what I did is ideal. --P123ct1 (talk) 12:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Its a really great improvement. I have just changed notable members into a level 3 heading as part of history and placed in date information on the announcement of Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi's leadership. All others are dated as dead but perhaps the section can still counts as living history!? Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, great improvement! I was able to read the whole article all the way through for the first time. The timeline section has been incorporated into History and while it shouldn't be deleted I propose that the entire timeline be moved to the existing timeline article.~Technophant (talk) 19:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree I think the whole timeline should be moved to the existing timeline article, but without leaving anything behind in this article, except a link to the timeline article. I wouldn't know the best place to put that link, though. The last part of the "History" section isn't really a timeline, it just mentions some main events in 2014. The "2014 events" timeline is much more detailed. --P123ct1 (talk) 22:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

ISIS

Should ISIS redirect here? See Talk:ISIS. Red Slash 03:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

hatnote

@Hbdragon88: ISIS hatnote was there already when I first looked. Don't have a strong opinion on whether it should be (and haven't read policy) but if exists at all then it should be properly marked up/annotated for users like the Wikipedia app. --Jeremyb (talk) 05:31, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islamic_State/Archive_9&oldid=1090563074"