Talk:Islamic State/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30

Ham fisted lead

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

• Re: "X" I would suggest changing "extremist, jihadist" to "Islamist" as per search results in news:

(isil or isis or daesh or "islamic state") AND Islamist gets "About 1,100 results"

(isil or isis or daesh or "islamic state") AND extremist gets "About 839 results"

(isil or isis or daesh or "islamic state") AND jihadist gets "About 842 results"

I don't know of any objections to the group being described as Islamist.

Re: caliphate, other groups including al-Qaeda, the al-Nusra Front and various Kurdish groups that all hold predominantly to Islam based doctrines do not regard the group as caliphate. I think that the article should focus on what the group is and on its history without unnecessary focus being placed on its contested claims. Issues relating to the groups claim as caliphate are dealt with extensively in the fifth paragraph. I do not think that we should present a ham fisted preferential treatment between groups. GregKaye ✍♪ 10:52, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• I think I speak for all editors if I say, "Oh no, here we go again!" The Lead has been discussed at great length by editors, analysed, quartered, diced, reconstituted, so many times. Pity the poor reader, who has been getting a different version of the Lead nearly every other week day, for months and months. An encyclopaedia that cannot make up its mind is a very bizarre thing. Gregkaye seems to be wanting to raise the vexed "jihadist" wording again, first raised by him at the beginning of October. I don't think there will ever be an end to this if matters are allowed to take their course. P-123 (talk) 11:29, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Stability in lead content would be advantageous. All the same it is better that editors raise changes to the lead here rather than just making changes without consultation.

P-123 That was what I wrote until I ran into edit conflict with your personalised redaction above. Given the context of the last three bids to change the lead, presented here, here and here were all proposed by you; that you have significantly supported my proposals re jihadism and that the comments above relate to clear prevalence of use in reliable sources I find this criticism quite surprising. GregKaye ✍♪ 12:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

GregKaye: My proposals led to a consensus (not always in my favour) and I believe those agreed changes should now not be altered. As you know, I supported a link attached to "jihadist", not removal of the word. You say, "I would suggest changing "extremist, jihadist" to "Islamist"", opening up the whole "jihadist" debate again, which was very disruptive and led to your AN/I at the end of October. No editor agreed with you on the removal of the word "jihadist" and now you raise removing it again. [Comment added later:] The AN/I was inconclusive and Gregkaye received no sanction. ~ P-123 (talk) 20:27, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

TY P-123, yep I got away with that one, joking. It is certainly true that I was certainly soapboxing in the initial thread on the issue but on a subject that I thought had significant importance. Amazingly, even though the terminology "Islamist" was mentioned a number of times in the debate, the word itself was never suggested as an alternative description. With reference to the actual usage of words it is clear that Islamist is the more commonly used term in relation to the group. I think the description fits. Reference to earlier threads on this topic will demonstrate difficulties surrounding the description "jihadist" but I think that "Islamist" ticks all the boxes.

Digression, P-123 and I have also been known to disagree on a number of subjects but, to his/her great credit, during the difficult time of the AN/I s/he gave a generous, supportive communication lifeline within Wikipedia. I felt this to be a difficult time and the contact was appreciated. I think that this represents something that goes way beyond the standards of good practice in situations in which editors are being called to account. GregKaye ✍♪ 23:45, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

In the previous thread you said, "For now I have edited so as to place the "Sunni-majority" reference within its relevant section and removed reference to the claimed singular aim here." Now you say, "All the same it is better that editors raise changes to the lead here rather than just making changes without consultation." Please make up your mind! P-123 (talk) 13:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that WP:guidelines apply to different extents to different issues, The way I see it is that some things are debatable on issues such as, "do we put this content into the lead". In other cases I think that there are issues on which Wikipedia guidelines present a clearer level of guidance on a choice to be taken. My personal view is that, in these situations, WP:BOLD changes may be more validly made. GregKaye ✍♪

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

Btw, my earlier comments were not intended to shut down debate. Newer editors need to know the background to the "jihadist" debate, that is all. P-123 (talk) 20:27, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

P-123 Re: Newer.. Why? All older and newer editors "need to know" is the topic of a debate. If at this stage you want to paint pictures of long past disruption I suggest that you add balanced comment on the various sides of the story. You very well know that I backed away from debates of my own volition despite what one administrator described as bad faith contributions within the threads. You also know that my proposal here is something new and not before mentioned. I take exception to argumentative wording "here we go again", "bizarre", "vexed" and "ever be an end". It would have been nice if the proposal had been able to run its course without being unduly and disruptively prejudiced against from the start. I would not like to "mirror" this raising of past issues in this way. I wonder how editors past would regard these approaches. GregKaye ✍♪ 17:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• I imagine they would agree with me. We all opposed your wish to remove "jihadist". The link I gave earlier to Talk page discussion on this, and the links from that discussion, demonstrate it very clearly. Yours is hardly a new proposal. You still wish to remove "jihadist", the common RS descriptor for groups of this type. P-123 (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

P-123 Please read carefully the above and related texts. Granite sands has proposed using a short description and I have highlighted the fact that the most common descriptor for groups of this type is "Islamist". This is also true for groups like al-Qaeda and other Islamist groups for which I have done similar checks as above. My original proposal (very briefly held) was to exchange "jihadist" (in relation to a group very disputably following jihad) for "extremist". When objection to this proposal was raised I responded and moved to an adapted proposal to make sure that qualification was given to the use of that jihadist terminology. Now it turns out that "Islamist" is the most common descriptor. The proposal raised here is new. Please do not evoke imaginary support. If support is given one way or another then fair enough. Please do not prejudice against an argument in the way that you have. If you can present that Islamist is less of a commonly used descriptor than jihadist in relation to this group then present your case. GregKaye ✍♪ 07:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• Gregkaye: I have read them. I am not trying to pick holes, but what search terms did you use for those Google results? Are they results from Reliable Sources? Apart from al-Qaeda, which other groups did you get similar results for? A survey of this sort (or any sort) is only as good as the questions asked. (An observation: for an editor to say criticism is disruptive and prejudices argument says an awful lot; it strongly suggests that editor is unable to take criticism.) P-123 (talk) 08:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The "put up or shut up" attitude is needlessly aggressive. I made an unambiguous suggestion for a clean up of the lead, which everyone else seems to follow. What are you confused about? GraniteSand (talk) 10:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

GraniteSand, I am sorry that you feel that way although it may also be argued that the introduction of a thread with the wording "Ham fisted.." is also quite aggressive. Please also review your edit above in terms of aggression.

The truth is that references to caliphate as associated to 'SIL are far from dominant within general reporting which is demonstrated in the following search of news:

• (isil or isis or daesh or "islamic state") AND caliphate gets "About 806 results" in news.

A mention of caliphate in the opening paragraph of the lead has only recently been added (without agreement) and, as I have mentioned, the claim is very widely "contested". The result of the previous discussion on lead content here supported the return of the "unrepresentative of Islam" statement back into the second paragraph of the lead. If the group's claim as caliphate is to be placed into the lead's first paragraph, then an increased need is raised for counter claims (as raised within the wider Islamic world) to be returned to the second paragraph. GregKaye ✍♪ 11:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I dropped caliphate from the first paragraph and fixed it up. Some weird markup made several of the widely used terms including DAESH completely invisible. I don't think we can make it much more compact and still include the names commonly used by the media - ISIL, ISIS (which comes from two translations), DAESH, and "Islamic State"/"IS" which is usually qualified somehow. Legacypac (talk) 19:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Wow. The amended second paragraph now says very loud and clear: "We, the editors of this article, are very critical of ISIL. Look what has been said about it. We are right to be." Not exactly NPOV, is it? P-123 (talk) 21:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Why not throw in for good measure, "Over 60 countries are directly or indirectly waging war against ISIL", from the end para? P-123 (talk) 21:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

My, it has been done! The Lead now shows profound anti-ISIL POV and sets the tone for readers of this article. Whatever happened to WP:NPOV, one of the WP:FIVEPILLARS upon on which Wikipedia was founded? Are the current ISIS editors uninterested in upholding them any more? [Comment restored]

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

While I agree that the criticisms facts [entailing criticism, of course, "criticisms" there is misleading, sorry] have to be summarized in the Lead, as they are a major feature dealt with in the article, the condemnatory tone here in the Lead I think is too strong. The article on al-Qaeda manages to be completely neutral in the Lead and there are as many criticisms of al-Qaeda as there are of ISIL. There needs to be a more neutral way of describing these criticisms. An anti-ISIL bias in the Lead at the moment is very strong. One way to make the Lead more neutral would be to move the second paragraph to the end of the Lead. I think in fact this is why that paragraph was moved to the end in the first place, and it has slowly moved back up, which began with my moving up some parts of it to the top. (See Archive ##22 "Bold change of para order in Lead".) I did express doubts about what I had done at the time, because it has led to bias; I now think I made a mistake and am sorry I did it. P-123 (talk) 07:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac: When adding your comment above you deleted my accidentally unsigned comment, which I have restored. I imagine this was a mistake. P-123 (talk) 07:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC) Yup - never saw it Legacypac (talk) 07:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

You should regret your last post P-123. Nothing in the paragraph is criticism (the expression of disapproval of someone or something based on perceived faults or mistakes) but hard verifiable facts.

Right now it says: "The United Nations has held ISIL responsible for human rights abuses and war crimes, and Amnesty International has reported ethnic cleansing by the group on a "historic scale". (Section 4) The group has been designated as a terrorist organization by the United Nations, the European Union, the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, Indonesia, Canada, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, India, the UAE, and Egypt. (Section 3) ISIL's actions have been widely criticized around the world (very weak part Section 5), with many Islamic communities judging the group to be unrepresentative of Islam. (Section 5) Over 60 countries are directly or indirectly waging war against ISIL." (part of Section 7) = 4 sentences dealing with 4 sections in a factual summary kind of way. "Neutral" is not the goal of NPOV - fair and proportional without bias reflecting significant views in RS is the goal. The proclamation of caliphate paragraph in the lead lacks any balance right now - no line that anyone opposes it.

I'd say AQ look like Boy Scouts compared to ISIL, committing a fraction of the total killings and few of the other war crimes documented to have been committed by ISIL. Between 1992 and 2008 the AQ terrorist network perpetrated 31 attacks with a toll of more than 4,400 lives outside Iraq and Afgahnistan [1] June-Sept 2014 5,500 killed in Iraq only by ISIL (plus Syria!). [2] Legacypac (talk) 07:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac: Finesse it how you like, that paragraph displays anti-ISIL POV. The facts should be there, but everything is in how they are presented. That presentation does not show a neutral point of view. WP:NPOV says, "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Bias is there. As for "'Neutral' is not the goal of NPOV", that beggars belief. P-123 (talk) 08:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

There is no bias (look up the meaning). See WP:OUTRAGE. You did not identify an incorrect fact, or what is opinion. Instead you seem to be arguing for the fun of arguing instead of presenting a credible alternative. Legacypac (talk) 09:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Again, you are failing to understand, I think because you do not recognise recognise bias here. Of course those are all facts (except the criticisms sentence, obviously). Can you really not see that presenting them so prominently in the Lead, on its second breath, sets a tone of criticism from WP? That is the only thing I am concerned about. I have already presented what I think is a credible alternative: putting that whole paragraph at the end of the Lead, where it was originally, put there precisely to avoid this bias. I don't think you were involved in those discussions. P-123 (talk) 10:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

[above edit refactored without striking]

(I don't know who added that note, but it is not mine.) P-123 (talk) 18:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac: Like Gregkaye, you show a disturbing tendency to return again and again to how evil ISIL are. That must affect your outlooks on editing this article, and possibly prevents you both seeing bias where it exists, I don't know. P-123 (talk) 10:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

P-123 Please see WP:NPA regarding your assertion "failing to understand", suspicion "you do not recognise", rethoric "Can you really not see..", judgement "disturbing". Please see WP:CIVIL. I have already mentioned the abusive use of "here we go again", "bizarre", "vexed" and "ever be an end". Please see: WP:IDHT. I view this type of interaction on talk pages to be unnecessarily aggressive and in contradiction to the aim of the collegiate atmosphere of which you have otherwise stated as being an ideal. Even in this thread things have progressively got worse.

This thread was started on one issue. I mentioned a related issue. You then weighed in with a range of content that made no direct contribution to this thread.

You presented the problem, '"Oh no, here we go again!" The Lead has been discussed at great length by editors, analysed, quartered, diced, reconstituted, so many times.' You were the editor raising many if not most of those discussions with some being baseless and with one clearly (had you checked) going against your own pushed consensus (as here) and yet with your admission of your breaking of consensus being deleted from the recent thread here. Your constant re-visitation on the same old issues comes to feel like an incredible waste of time. From time to time please let things alone. GregKaye ✍♪ 11:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

[content above placed out of (sequence edit conflict)]

"ISIL's actions have been widely criticized around the world, with many Islamic communities judging the group to be unrepresentative of Islam." = very factual statement, not opinion. Your proposal is not fair or proportionate because you are seeking to downplay the main defining characteristics of the group, what they are best known for. If you are cognizant of how evil this group then you need your sanity checked because I know you've read the article a few times. 10:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Apologies to other editors here, but why do you resort to what verges on WP:PA when addressing editors who disagree with you, Legacypac? Can we not keep civil in disagreements? I have been trying not to say this for some time, but enough is enough. P-123 (talk) 12:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Now you are both at it! Gregkaye, I have repeated ad nauseam on this Talk page and ours that I acknowledge going against a consensus I had agreed to. I never "push" for consensus as you well know, I put things to editors to discuss and am happy with whatever consensus arises. You are too sensitive to tough language from editors who do not agree with you, you have a track record here. (If I refrain from citing on this, it will be criticized, as you hate "unsubstantiated" charges, if I cite, it will be seen as an attack, can't win.) This is now becoming really childish. "Constant re-visitation of the same old issues" is because I feel strongly about them, much to your discomfort, evidently. I have been bothered by the frequent revert edit summaries of late which say "goes against consensus", when often no consensus has been arrived at, the edits just happen to have stuck. I know you and Legacypac don't like opposition to your ideas, it is very plain, and I am a thorn in your sides, obviously. I knew this point would be reached eventually, in fact I have known it for a long, long time. Most of this comment is not for your benefits, but for the record, as I think it needs going on the record. P-123 (talk) 12:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

P-123 Thank you for editing so as to put this in the collapsed box. All of this is way off topic.

Both at what?? Please get the point. I am far from knowing that you do not push. In my view you push hard while employing a variety of tactics to undermine fellow editors with opposing argument. I am sensitive to what I consider to be unfair presentations of views and to the use of attack in edits. "Childish" is just one more additional attack. On fairness: you claim right to revisit previously discussed issues but, when I raise a completely new proposal regarding the jihadist wording, you present multiple edits in opposition. You don't push? Really?

If you see any editor make a claim in edit summary that you don't agree with then raise it on their talk page. Again, THIS is not the place for unsubstantiated accusations. I believe that proposals that I have made to be based on a neutral approach to editing and am fine about good straightforward opposition. Please, if you want to oppose any editors proposals, don't infer issues like lawyering, weasel type activity and the use of sophisms as, again, you did here. This is not the way not to push for consensus especially on an issue that you did not even support. Lines need to be drawn. Please do not add further unsubstantiated content to this threat that would force a further response. None of this is relevant here. GregKaye ✍♪ 13:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

comments on now removed collapse

Am tired of your growing attempts to lay down the law about how editors should behave and of your over-sensitivity to criticism. Those interpretations of comments, lawyering, etc, are typical of an editor who cannot handle criticism. There has been talk like this from you before when editors disagree with you. Your attempts to control discussion and unilateral collapse of a discussion on a very important topic, NPOV, amounts to censorship and WP:OWN, in my view. It is serious. P-123 (talk) 14:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC) P-123 I have withdrawn the collapse with this being done at the time I receiving the advice returned from an administrator that I had sought immediately at the time of the collapse. This discussion was not on the topic of NPOV but on the topic of the initial content of the lead, most specifically regarding splitting it into separate elements. GregKaye 18:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC) [comment added out of chronological sequence] Comment - Gregkaye has shut down this discussion by collapsing it. I have asked an admin if an editor is permitted to do this. P-123 (talk) 16:32, 23 December 2014 (UTC) P-123 As you should know from a ping from an edit on the talk page of Lor, I had already written to "check whether ... the right courses of action" had been taken here. I collapsed the discussion after your 12:07, 23 December 2014 edit on the basis that the content was, as I saw it, entirely irrelevant to the the topic of this thread. Others may view this differently. You then added comment and then, in a separate edit, moved your additional content into the collapsed region of text. Which parent have you gone to this time? GregKaye ✍♪ 20:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC) Never one to miss a chance at a side-swipe! Well done. Never got the any ping from you, btw. P-123 (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC) P-123 As you are fully aware it has long been in my habit to fully "miss" public confrontation on article talk pages. Instead I have more commonly followed a preference to raise issues such as guideline infringement directly with editors on their talk pages. This has been done so as to give editors control on whether they keep, archive or delete content. However, if content is targeted directed at me or at another editor in what I think is an unfair way I also have the right to respond directly. You went to Lor and have written extensively on this admins talk page regarding your perceptions of situations. I have also pinged Lor at various times related to my interactions with you and, as can be confirmed by going back on our communications, this was also done with the intention that I would not need to write on Lor's page directly and unnecessarily bring issues into public display there. In the context of your many messages on Lor's user page and in the context of your statement that you would not go to another parent I was surprised to find your comment above and that you did not continue with this admin. I am pleased that you only went as far as to going back to PBS. There was no side-swipe, just a response to content. Again, none of this content has anything to do with the thread. GregKaye ✍♪ 05:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC) P-123 You make a display in regard to me collapsing content here, while make direct complaint to admin all without pinging me and, when I make my reply here, you do this. I take it that you agree with the appropriateness of the collapse. This has been an utter waste of time. GregKaye ✍♪ 12:53, 24 December 2014 (UTC) GregKaye Never even thought to ping, my bad manners, apologies. I extended the collapse to keep further exchanges off the Talk page. P-123 (talk) 14:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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

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

Why was the Islamic States anthem removed from the page

If anyone's got any opinion about it please post your comments in this section as to why the IS anthem was removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason foren daniel (talk • contribs) 12:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I did not touch it, but I've got questions. I believe it was added by an editor that was subsequently banned. Since ISIL is not a country, they can't have a national anthem. Since they have banned music, it seems strange for them to have an official song. Is there sourcing that this song is official? And was the audio properly licensed under cc? Legacypac (talk) 17:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Jason foren daniel There is no valid reason for its removal or and I checked the issue at Village pump. I also wonder about its value as not a 'SIL recording. What is your view? GregKaye 19:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)