This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
Amazing:
I was wondering whether a section might be added as a final subsection of "Opposition" but other options might work. Titles might be: "Female fighters", "Fear of female fighters", Female fighters as an asset", other options?
See also:
Houri
If anyone else want to join in a write up, pls do.
Gregkaye
✍♪
21:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
OMG. Wikipedia is not a place to spread propaganda! eather PYD or IS. This claim is a stupid propaganda. 3bdulelah ( talk) 15:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
title edited from "Can we try to cite sources that don't require subscription" Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC) please. Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
I think that the summary of ISIL isn't accurate. The main activity of ISIL is torturing and murdering christians and followers of other religions in the name of the Islam -- and this should be clearly stated. Even if they base on extreme interpretations of jihad. The statement "The United Nations and Amnesty International have accused the group of grave human rights abuses" might be interpreted like "they are just accused and maybe innocent". There are dozens of articles which describe the crimes. A quick google search shows a scale of it. Somebody who hadn't known what ISIL is could gain a very incomplete view.
We all know what ISIL is, and maybe "everybody" knows. But IMHO Wikipiedia shouldn't take that into account as a reason to not mention the most important facts, because it destroys a neutral point of view.
My proposition is to add a sentence "ISIL is responsible of such crimes like torturing men and women, rape and mass murder. This includes shooting to death, crucifixion, beheading and other forms of atrociousness.", at the end of the third paragraph. After that might be a bunch of references to various sources. Bypassing an essence of the matter is not neutral. -- gajatko 9.10.2014 01:30
As there is a page on Sinjar massacre, I wonder whether there should be pages on other major massacres perpetrated by ISIL during last months.
In one considers only massacres with 100+ victims, in addition to Sinjar and other massacres already described in the pages about the massacre of Camp Speicher and the battles of Tabqa air base and Shaer gas field, there were more at Khana Sor (100 Yazidis: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/IQ/UNAMI_OHCHR_POC_Report_FINAL_6July_10September2014.pdf), Hardan (250-300 Yazidis: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/IQ/UNAMI_OHCHR_POC_Report_FINAL_6July_10September2014.pdf), Khocho (400 Yazidis: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/IQ/UNAMI_OHCHR_POC_Report_FINAL_6July_10September2014.pdf), Tal Afar prison (200 Yazidis: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/IQ/UNAMI_OHCHR_POC_Report_FINAL_6July_10September2014.pdf), Mosul (670 inmates of Badush prison: http://www.iraqinews.com/features/isil-kills-670-prisoners-badush-prison-beings-campaign-turkmen-says-un/, http://www.iraqinews.com/iraq-war/urgent-400-bodies-found-mass-grave-northwest-al-mosul/ and http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/lauretta-brown/un-isis-massacred-700-turkmen-including-women-children-elderly) and Beshir (700 Turkmen: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/lauretta-brown/un-isis-massacred-700-turkmen-including-women-children-elderly and http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/170899/women-and-children-among-massacred-iraqi-turkmen.html); in addition to the massacre of 700 members of the Shitat tribe in Der ez-Zor province in the first two weeks of August ( http://www.almanar.com.lb/english/adetails.php?eid=166032&cid=23&fromval=1). This (without counting several more massacres with dozens, but less than 100, victims) according to the United Nations; in the mentioned articles and reports there are some details, maybe somebody could create the pages if they are to be considered encyclopedic (some of these are even bloodier than the Sinjar massacre that already has a page). -- 2.35.58.16 ( talk) 21:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I changed the "MiszaBot/config| algo=old" to from default 30 days to 48 days a while back to keep older discussions alive. This page gets up to 1.6M pageviews/day (!) and discussion has been lively. I think it should be set back to 30 days, or even as low as 21 days. ~Technophant (talk) 11:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Note: After 7 days of no response to the above archived proposal I went ahead and changed the algo to 30 days.~ Technophant ( talk) 05:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) PBS: The way the Talk page works has become very chaotic over the past month or so. Editors open threads for topics when there are already ongoing discussions about them. Editors do not keep to the topic of threads and branch out into other topics (with a plethora of subheadings), which are then continued by other editors. It is very hard to keep track of discussions on particular topics now. Shortening the time to seven days would make it even harder, as it would mean constantly having to look back at the archived discussions to see what was said before (and frankly I can't see that many editors would make the effort, simpler to open a new thread). For these reasons I think seven days is unreasonable. There is a far better chance of following a discussion on a topic if the block to scan for it is 14 days long. -- P123ct1 ( talk) 08:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
1. This article was giving a link to Caliphate, a former (historic) supreme post for all Muslims. (I changed it to " Worldwide Caliphate", which seems to be a new-born concept that responds to the projects of these ISIS terrorists. Please do be careful to use the concepts not to hurt anybody's feelings. 2. The article also gives a link to Caliph where we see a photo of the last Ottoman-Turkish Caliph Abdülmecid II. The last Caliph was a man of arts, a painter. Please see his photos and those of his daughters at this Google link. Does this family look like that of the so called "ISIS Caliph"? (Have any of you seen a photo of a "woman" from that family?) Please do not confuse our readers on these institutions like The Caliphate and Islam and what, how and who the Muslims are. Begin by calling terrorists by their name: "Terrorists", I mean ALL Terrorists. The so-called "political correctness" of Wikipedia only causes the masses that read it to confuse a Muslim with a TERRORIST, as we use concepts like Islamist, Jihadist etc both in religion and terrorism articles. Any questions? Thanks for reading. -- Why should I have a User Name? ( talk) 16:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
We should have an animated GIF showing the territorial evolution of this group over time, similar to this one for the Rashidun caliphate here:
File:Mohammad_adil-Rashidun_empire-slide.gif
It wouldn't be that hard to do, we could just blend all the maps we've posted so far as slides, adding dates in the corner as show. FiredanceThroughTheNight ( talk) 23:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
IS' territory changed in daily basis so i believe animation is inapplicable in this situation. kazekagetr 17:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Looking into Devils Hole; the dark area is the surface of the water.
36°25′25″N 116°18′20″W / 36.42361°N 116.30556°W
Devils Hole is a geologic formation located in a detached unit of Death Valley National Park and surrounded by the Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, in Nye County, Nevada, in the Southwestern United States.
Devils Hole is habitat for the only naturally occurring population of the endangered Devils Hole pupfish (Cyprinodon diabolis). The 40 acres (16 ha) unit is part of the Ash Meadows complex, an area of desert uplands and spring-fed oases that was designated as a National Wildlife Refuge in 1984.
Devils Hole is a geothermal pool within a limestone cavern in the Amargosa Desert in the Amargosa Valley of Nevada, east over the Amargosa Range and Funeral Mountains from Death Valley. It is at an elevation of 730 m (2,400 ft) above sea level [1] and the water is a constant temperature of 33 °C (91 °F). [2] The surface area of Devils Hole is about 22 m long by 3.5 m wide (72 ft long by 11.5 ft wide). Approximately 0.3 m (0.98 ft) deep on one end of Devils Hole is a small rock shelf of 3.5 by 5 m (11 by 16 ft). The dissolved oxygen of the water is 2.5–3.0 ppm up to around 22 m (72 ft) in depth, though the shallow shelf can have dissolved oxygen levels as high as 6.0–7.0 ppm in June and July. [1]
Devils Hole branches into caverns at least 130 m (430 ft) deep, [2] whose bottom has never been mapped. [3] According to geologists, the caves were formed over 500,000 years ago. [4] The pool has frequently experienced activity due to far away earthquakes in Japan, Indonesia, Mexico, and Chile, which have been likened to extremely small scale tsunamis. [3]
Below the surface pool, Devils Hole descends approximately 160 feet (49 m) through what is termed the "main chamber" before reaching a narrow opening referred to as the 'funnel'. Through this opening lies a much larger chamber of the cavern system known as Acree's Chasm. Acree's Chasm is approximately 300 feet (91 m) in length, 40 feet (12 m) in width, and has a bottom approximately 260 feet (79 m) below the surface. [5] [6]
Immediately after passing the funnel into Acree's Chamber, a narrow side tube can be found to a diver's left. This side tube is narrow and proceeds approximately 90 feet (27 m) upward to a chamber with an air pocket, named Brown's Room after its discoverer William Brown in 1953. The tube leading to Brown's Room has at least 2 offshoots, the higher of which leads to a dead-end filled with a small air pocket, and the lower of which confluences with additional tubes descending from Brown's Room. [5] If the diver instead descends through Acree's Chamber, the first notable landmark is a rocky shelf termed the 'lower ledge,' around 100 feet (30 m) below the entrance to the chamber. The bottom of Acree's Chamber lies around 260 feet (79 m) below the surface, but is not flat. Instead, a portion of the chamber floor descends below this lower shelf; a gradual funnel leads to a hole in the bottom of the chamber featuring a strong current. The hole, later termed the ojo de agua, is 315 feet (96 m) below the surface and just large enough for a diver with equipment to fit through. However, on June 20th, 1965, during the second dive of a rescue and then body recovery mission, Jim Houtz with his dive partner, dropped a weighted depth line to a depth of 932 feet (284 m) from the start of this opening, without hitting the bottom of the chamber below. Due to the strong current, small size of the entrance, and unknown depth of the below cavern Houtz termed the "Infinity Room," Jim and his partner chose not to explore this Infinity Room. This mission did, however, confirm that the depth of the Infinity Room of Devil's Hole, and the cavern system itself, has a depth of at least 1,247 feet (380 m) from the surface. [7] [6]
A subsequent USGS exploration into Devils Hole in 1991 by Alan Riggs, Paul DeLoach, and Sheck Exley entered what they found out to be a narrow tube rather than an 'Infinity Room' at 315 feet (96 m), descending to a depth of 436 feet (133 m). The team reported being able to see down to a depth of some 500 feet (150 m), without visualizing the bottom of the cavern. [6]
Dense, white, billowy coatings of mammillary calcite originally precipitated on all of Devils Hole’s underwater surfaces, as calcium-carbonate-supersaturated aquifer water circulated through it. The mammillary calcite coating is as much as 100 centimetres (39 in) thick in places and is the material that has been analyzed to develop a continuous 800,000-year-long continental paleoclimate record. [6] [8] [9]
Other calcium carbonate morphologies, including folia and flowstone, precipitated in Devils Hole, but in different locations and under different circumstances. Folia precipitate on the walls of Brown’s Room, a perpetually dark air-filled chamber. Foliar growth is stimulated by Devils Hole’s mixed semidiurnal tide (caused by small changes in aquifer volume as the moon’s and sun’s gravitational forces cyclically distort the aquifer) that alternately wets and exposes a small band of wall around mean water level twice a day. Maximum spring tide amplitude is about 12 centimetres (4.7 in). [6]
A 7.4-magnitude
2012 Guerrero–Oaxaca earthquake, some 2,000 miles (3,200 km) away, centered roughly 12 miles (19 km) below the surface, on March 20th, 2012, caused an undulating 4 feet (1.2 m) rise and fall of the cavern waters, as appreciated by researchers working at Devils Hole at the time. This provided further evidence that Devils Hole cave system was connected to not only the Death Valley Regional Groundwater Flow System, but possibly to even further-reaching underground water systems. The 1991 USGS dive team described the Devils Hole as a "skylight" into the water table.Cite error: The opening <ref>
tag is malformed or has a bad name (see the
help page).
[6]
Located 650 feet (200 m) north of Devils Hole is a separate cave system called Devils Hole Cave (#2). It was first explored underwater to a depth of 70 feet (21 m) by divers from he Southwestern Speleological Society in February of 1961. It had been described as being shaped like a boot with fallen rock restriction at the 50-foot (15 m) level leading to a narrow pool of 93 °F (34 °C) water. [5] Since no sunlight reaches the water, algae cannot grow and no fish species are found. [10]
In 1991, deep diver Sheck Exley located a bottom to the eastern shaft at 128.9 metres (423 ft) [6]
On the surface, the cave openings are connected to Devils Hole by an access road and covered with a locked metal grate Below ground, a passable deepwater connection to Devils Hole has been theorized but remains undiscovered.Cite error: The <ref>
tag has too many names (see the
help page).
A team of paleoclimatologists from the University of Innsbruck have been collecting and dating calcite mineral deposits here since 2010. [9] In March of 2017, underwater cinematographer Jonathan Bird received permission to assist scientists in a four day expedition to take water and calcite core samples. [8] IMAX footage was included in the 2020 film Ancient Caves and extra footage was used to create the video documentary Exploring Devils Hole on YouTube. Similar studies had been done in Devils Hole but are no longer allowed permitted due to the endangered status of the Devils Hole pupfish. [8]
Devils Hole is the only natural habitat of the Devils Hole pupfish, which thrives despite the hot, oxygen-poor water. Devils Hole "may be the smallest habitat in the world containing the entire population of a vertebrate species". [2] The pupfish are considered critically endangered by the IUCN. [11] The pupfish has been described as the world's rarest fish, [12] with a population of less than 200 since 2005. [13] Genetic information indicates that the pupfish species is as old as the Hole itself, which opened to the surface about 60,000 years ago. [14] [15]
The pupfish have been protected since being declared an endangered species in 1967. [13] Conflicts of the ownership and use of the groundwater around Devils Hole caused litigation in the 1980s. [16] The litigation triggered further protections of the pupfish. However, since the late 1990s, the pupfish population has substantially decreased. The reasons for the decrease are unknown, but is possibly due to a microscopic non-indigenous diving beetle that is consuming pupfish eggs. [13] [17]
:1
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).
36°25′31″N 116°17′27″W / 36.4252338°N 116.2908733°W
~
Technophant (
talk)
18:01, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
ISIL are Islamic/religious fundamentalists, yet this description is absent from the article. Should there not be something on it somewhere? It would probably belong best in the section on "Governance", where this characteristic is very apparent. -- P123ct1 ( talk) 10:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
The article contains two excellent maps both of which are produced by User:Spesh531. First things first: I've just awarded a barnstar at: User_talk:Spesh531#ISIL_Barnstar and would be more than happy for anyone else to edit the message and add their signature :)
I was also wondering about the best use of the second map. The first map is in the first infobox and the second map is currently positioned in : Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#Timeline_of_events
Is this the best location for it? Other possibilities include: following either of the infoboxes with the key information being placed as a caption; following the history section; some other position. What think ye?
Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Deletion of
File:Syria and Iraq 2014-onward War map.png and key from original position
Is this now duplication? Would deletion help? The map is now in a very locatable position.
Gregkaye
✍♪
10:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Italy has been added to "Military operations in or over Iraq and/or Syria".
It's correct that Italy is on this list, as it has offered to assist coalition partners in air-to-air refueling and ISR operations with one KC-767 and two UAVs Reapers.
But the source should be updated, as it doesn't say anything about that. It's the old source from the "9 allies" on the NATO Wales summit, where the roles had not been established yet. Then, other countries joined the Coalition after this summit, and before and after the Paris summit.
I just think the source should be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felino123 ( talk • contribs) 09:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
It's been months and I'm waiting for someone to change this misleading information in the box that says (Islamic state of Iraq and the Levant was established in 2014. everyone knows that the accurate date is in 2013 as it mentioned in the name section. regarding the sources that use the date in January 2014 this was a misunderstanding because when they entered the city of Fallojah they said it's one of the Wilayat of ISIS which was liberated. they didn't declare anything new! while at that time they had presence in many cities in Syria including Raqqah, Jarabouls and Azaz. please correct the date! 3bdulelah ( talk) 19:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
NOT THIS AGAIN. This matter has already been discussed. This is not misleading. The 2014 date is used because that is the date they took Fallujah. 2014 Was also the date that they broke ties with All Qaeda and the Syrian Opposition. They now had an established territory and were no longer associated with other groups. This date is used not because it is the date that the GROUP formed. It is used because this is the date that they took control of of sections of Iraq. This isn't misleading. There are two sources which backing this up. I will add more if that isn't enough for you. The key here is determining the difference between an INSURGENCY and an UNRECOGNIZED STATE, and when ISIL crossed that line. Why do you think that there are two different infoboxes? I will add the date the Group was formed to the other infobox. In the meantime, please stop beating a dead horse. Quite frankly, I'm growing tired of this arguement. Toolen ( talk) 15:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
ISIS controlled cities alone in Syria in 2013 including Jarabulos and Azaz after their battle with FSA (North storm) if this is your reason. we have millions of sources that indicate their occupation of cities before Falujah. also in Faluhah they were not alone at January and they just clashed with Jaysh al mujaheddin last month. So GO AND READ. 3bdulelah ( talk) 15:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
how balanced is the following statement, when all, with exception of one, of the corresponding citations - are directly from Iraqi-Muslims, here:
"The declaration of a caliphate has been criticized and ridiculed by Muslim scholars and rival Islamists inside and outside the occupied territory.[116][117][118][119][120][121]"
I really want to see more -non I/L sources- citations if one can find those to offer, as it seems as if (albeit not in an explicit manner) the text is a bit.. once sided, or more clearly, an unbalanced claim (though not misinforming) for the amount of the following citations, five of which are Iraqi sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.109.37.236 ( talk • contribs) 11:47, 18 October 2014
This article has both spellings. The Al-Qaeda in Iraq/Tanzim article has gone over to "al-Qaeda in Iraq". After a long period of stability with "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" being the spelling, a discussion was opened last month on the Talk page of the Al-Qaeda in Iraq article here about what the spelling should be, but in usual fashion no decision was reached, and editors now do what they like. This chaos has to stop. Can it be decided here, or on the other article's Talk page, once and for all, what the spelling should be, please? -- P123ct1 ( talk) 19:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Australia is not a member of NATO, so it should be off the list of NATO members.
Where should it be then? "Other state opponents"? Or on the section "—Military operations in or over Iraq and/or Syria – (US-led)—" but off any list?
What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felino123 ( talk • contribs) 11:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Done and thanks, that's hilarious. (Pic added). Australia, being positioned between the Indian, Pacific and Southern Oceans is about as far away from the North Atlantic as it is possible to get. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
...especially the spiteful and filthy French – or an Australian, or a Canadian, or any other disbeliever from the disbelievers waging war, including the citizens of the countries that entered into a coalition against the Islamic State, then rely upon Allah, and kill him in any manner or way however it may be. Smash his head with a rock, or slaughter him with a knife, or run him over with your car, or throw him down from a high place, or choke him, or poison him". This was Abu Mohammad al-Adnani, the ISIL spokesman, a month ago. Now this happens. Should such "incidents" (in addition to this, also the beheading in Oklahoma City in September, and the recent shootout in Ottawa if it also turns out to be ISIL-inspired) be mentioned somewhere?-- 37.116.57.244 ( talk) 21:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
@ 20 October: villages not willages
Can this go straight to archive? Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Changing colors in second map for red-green colorblind users ==
In the second map ( "Map: Current Military Situation"), the colors used for ISIS and Iraq are virtually indistinguishable to me and (presumably) many others with red-green colorblindness. I have to look very closely to find the borders between the two. At a glance, the map makes it look to me like all of Iraq is held by the same ISIS.
For greater legibility, I would recommend making whichever one of the two is green significantly bluer, as is done in many traffic lights.
Since I don't know anything about editing Wikipedia, and since I fear messing things up, I leave the decision for this change to other users' discretion.
2601:E:1C80:2EA:2C3A:7372:7AD7:EB36 ( talk) 18:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Maps
I asked the person who does the maps if he could mark in the Syrian/Iraq border, and his reply is
here. He says he can put in all borders in the region if wanted. I think some borders might be a good idea are essential, to help readers unfamiliar with the region. All media maps and diagrams show them when reporting on this conflict. Should he be asked to provide an example, so that editors can decide on this? Obviously the maps must not be too crowded, so perhaps they should only show the Syria/Iraq border. --
P123ct1 (
talk)
15:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
There are two different spellings for this name in Arabic, one in the Lead and one in the "Names" section, ad-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fīl-ʻIraq wa ash-Shām and al-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fī al-ʻIrāq wa-al-Shām. They need to be the same. Which is the best? -- P123ct1 ( talk) 08:48, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Why have you altered the date in the "History" section here Gregkaye? Your edit summary gives no explanation. The ISIL section is how headed "As Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (2013~)", and the Islamic State section is headed "As Islamic State (2014 - )". Are these two bodies running concurrently? Wikipedia has uninformed readers who need clear information and they will be puzzled by this. -- P123ct1 ( talk) 13:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There was an update from the BBC page quoted on [487][488] correcting the claim listed above reading: Correction: An earlier version of this article wrongly referred to the contents of the airdrops in Kobane as "US weapons". The weapons were in fact supplied by Kurdish authorities in Iraq. Source http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-29715044 about 2/3 down the page. Thank you. 97.73.240.17 ( talk) 07:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
On Israel, you put the logo of the Israel Defense Forces to refer to Israel's Ministry of Defense. This is wrong, as the Ministry of Defense has its own logo.
This should be corrected, but I think it's not necessary to put the logos of the national institutions that designated IS as a terror organization. Felino123 ( talk) 05:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
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.
title change from "An RM to ISIS?" Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:11, 16 October 2014 (UTC) Obviously it would just be a request which could then be debated but I thought it best to check provisional views. Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:07, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
See my comment when making the last RM close. I suggested that there is a moratorium on requested moves for 3 months (until the new year). There comes a point where continual debate over the name of an article becomes DISRUPTIVE and I think that now there have seven requests this year with four requests in the last two months, and many other sections taken up with discussions about the name, that point has been reached. It becomes disruptive when editors time is taken up in endless debates over the name, when the limited time that editors have can better be spent improving this and other articles. Consensus can change, but it is unlikely to change in such a short period, so wait until after the new year then if an editor thinks that usage in reliable sources justifies a request then make one. In the mean time If I think that editors are being disruptive over this issue then I will take administrative action under the general sanctions that apply to this page. -- PBS ( talk) 18:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
As an univolved administrator I have used a template to close this conversation. -- PBS ( talk) 11:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The difference between ISIS and ISIL is mostly the semantic navel gazing. The actual issue is whether or not to use the group's real name. Moratoriums on dynamic conventions make no sense. As reliable sources shift so must we, that's what we do. I'll be putting together an RfC on the subject in the next week or so as more and more independent and third party reliable sources make affirmative declarations on the proper use of the group's actual name. GraniteSand ( talk) 22:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Editor User:GraniteSand just needlessly reverted a cleanup of Syrian Civil War to go back to Islamic State and ISIS exclusively. The editor's comments above and this revert fails to follow consensus and may indicate intent to edit war. None of the articles need that. I would strongly urge not continuing the battle over names. Legacypac ( talk) 05:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
P123ct1, rightly notes that there has been an "obsession with the name" but I think that this can be accounted for in the fact that the Non-Islamic, Non-State as Ban-Ki Moon described it has made an unethical choice in regard to their self-designation and various news outlets and agencies, significantly Reuters, have pandered to it. A copy of collapsed text from the top of the page: Its worth noting that an RM to ISIS as yet untried (but it's just an option and is not something that I ever intended to push). Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
|
I'm not sure if it would be beneficial for this thread to be archived. Just saying :) Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Prominence when collapsed
When collapsed, the TOC has a box saying "Contents [show]". Could that box be put in a more prominent place - for example, straight after the Lead on the left? It is easy to miss hidden away on the right under the infobox. --
P123ct1 (
talk)
06:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Width
Is it possible to adjust the width of the TOC (as at
Template:TOC right) so that the width is matched to the width of the war faction infobox above. So far I have also started to look at results of WP search
Template:infobox width but these results seem to work on a different format methodology.
Gregkaye
✍♪
09:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure all of you meant well, but as it is today the article doesn't look well. The table of contents stands too low in the article: when on full screen, I see first the lead section, then section 'Names', 'Index of names', 'History of names', and only then on the right the table of 'Contents'. That table should appear immediately after lead section, I suggest. -- Corriebertus ( talk) 11:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
One possible solution to the TOC size would be to reduce the number of subheadings, e.g. use bold text rather than further subheadings. Do the separate subheadings of September and October 2014 really need distinguishing? It is especially confusing because the October 2014 timeline is immediately followed by a paragraph starting "In March 2011...". In other cases, perhaps "Index of Names" and "History of names" could be subsumed into simply "Names", or combining the sections "Ideology and beliefs" and "Goals". This would of course require editorial skill, creativity, and discretion, and perhaps more deference to summary style. --Animalparty-- ( talk) 21:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
WP:LEAD makes it clear that "The lead should define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight." So, if criticism is trivial, it probably doesn't belong in the lead. If it not trivial, it does belong in the lead. It is certainly not true that as a general case "Criticism should on the criticism section, not on the Lead." as Felino123 seems to think. Dougweller ( talk) 13:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
The new template was created with some good looking content.
Propose move to "Template:History of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant"
The title may need to be formatted to span two lines of text.
@ ༆:
Gregkaye ✍♪ 18:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Support If we need the template we should definitely have it match the agreed article title 09:01, 23 October 2014
Done and tidied. Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Oddly the main heading link of the template leads directly to history in the ISIL page. It now reads:
| linkoverride = <small> </small>[[History of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant|Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant<small> <br />History</small>]]
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
History
Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Please link the "US-led military operations" nations, to their respective Wikipedia pages.
They're also technically coalition forces...
-- JT2958 ( talk) 16:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
The discussion of its history alone is as long as some ledes. -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 01:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
I have cut down the history paras as much as possible to reduce the size of the Lead. There is a limit to how much can be cut out, as the Lead is supposed to be a summary of the article. -- P123ct1 ( talk) 13:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
text reads:
The group has been designated as a terrorist organization by the United Nations, the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, Israel, Turkey, Indonesia, and Saudi Arabia.
Suggest:
The group has been designated as a terrorist organization by the United Nations and by
various nations.
that last link could be composed various nations.
Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with this revert by Legacypac of my edit changing the infobox header to the actual name. Yes, the title of the article has been discussed many times, but I only see a few mentions of the actual infobox header when I search it, and I disagree that it makes Wikipedia look "foolish" and all that other nonsense. The name presented in an infobox does not need to reflect the article's title, and I do not see why some people think otherwise. Just as many country articles use short names for titles and actual names in infoboxes, I don't see why we shouldn't use long names in the title with the short, self-given name in the infobox. Maybe there were some discussions specifically about the infobox title, and I managed to overlook them somehow, and if so, some links would help, but I still don't get the reasoning here. Dustin (talk) 00:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
In the name of further consistency between to the lead I suggest editing the infobox "native name" entry to :
الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام (
Arabic)
ad-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fil-ʻIrāq wa ash-Shām
(self-described as the "Islamic State")
Even if the "ad-Daw.." line is placed in small it won't fit onto one line. Writing "(self-described as the "Islamic State")" in small fits within the span quite comfortably.
Gregkaye
✍♪
20:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Your discussion, relating to mid article content, could have begun elsewhere or with acknowledgement of the suggestion made above.
I am regularly involved in RM discussions and can report that more editors have contributed to the ISIL related RM discussions than to many others. Many of the contributions here have been based on ethical arguments (both ways) related to the situation. Significant content has been related to value judgements related to the importance and relevance of sources. Who has the most important say? The rebranding of the group as the "Islamic State" is arguably an issue that has considerable direct affect on the Islamic world. It is also of relevance to surrounding populations at risk of losing liberty or life as a result of the groups interpretation of Islam and on various ground forces whose troops may lose their lives while trying to address the situation. The international community also has a say. These are not merely emotional considerations. Gregkaye ✍♪ 21:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Similar discussion /info/en/?search=Talk:American-led_intervention_in_Syria#RfC_-_Name_of_ISIS.2FISIL.2FIS where Technophant made the same proposal as above, which I suggested could be consodered forum shopping. Legacypac ( talk) 22:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Anyway, getting back to the main topic, using Islamic State in the infobox. The first infobox (country) is almost exclusively about the Islamic State in its current state so Islamic State is the name that is most appropriate for first infobox. The second infobox (war faction) is about the group historically, so per my proposal ISIL should be used. ~ Technophant ( talk) 05:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
As you know it is about the group that is widely known by the terms ISIS and Islamic State in the media and which uses a name that causes a widespread offence. This is not to say that the name should not have relevance in the infobox but just that there are legitimate options.
Re: Technophant's additional proposal I don't have any direct personal objections but think it important to consider how names are presented.
Its also worth noting the actual usage:
ISIS has long been the most widely used term and this is still true in most recent news. I was surprised at the high level of results for ISIL. Islamic State is used. It is an optional terminology disliked by many primarily on the basis that they are not the Islamic State.
The proposal is basically that the names "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" and "ISIL" should be used relating to time periods 8 April 2013 to 29 June 2014 and when no period of time is defined and that time specific terminologies be used elsewhere. The main contentious period relates to the latest renaming. In response there have been some news agencies like reuters that seem to have determinedly pushed a rarely qualified use of: Islamic State. On other occasions when sources use: Islamic State, it can be presented terminologies such as: the so called Islamic State, the self-declared Islamic State etc. or in quotation marks.
In summary: the term Islamic State is used in the media and yet it is disliked by the people that the group most effects. Gregkaye ✍♪ 06:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
For guidence see this discussion closed by Technophant #An_RM_to_ISIS.3F_.28moves_now_prohibited.29 We need to follow the title. What is the point of setting the title and than using the rejected terminology in the article? Legacypac ( talk) 19:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Much of the following text was moved from #Second map position when once I saw that this was the more relevant thread location. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Deletion of
File:Syria and Iraq 2014-onward War map.png and key from original position
Is this now duplication? Would deletion help? The map is now in a very locatable position.
Gregkaye
✍♪
10:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
The positioning of the box can be taken to be extremely suggestive of a transition point of ISIL becoming a country
To me the four potential categories of time references that could be considered:
Contents within the infobox have origins over a range of time frames. The flag, the coat of arms and the motto all have all been in use for unstated lengths of time. A capital that has been under the groups control for an unstated length of time is presented. It gives an establishment date as an Islamic state that does not concur with its date of the group's rebranding as the "Islamic State". The box presents a status of "unrecognised state".
As the first parallel that came to mind I did a search so as to ask [ "when did the united states become a country". Results given related to the date of independence and one date of recognition.
I also dispute the unqualified use of Islamic State in the title box. No other state recognises the group by this name so I suggest a move of the box to an earlier time frame and a renaming of the topic.
Earlier on this talk page, and in the context of reference to the use of:
"Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" I suggested the use of:
الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام (
Arabic)
ad-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fil-ʻIrāq wa ash-Shām
(self-described as the "Islamic State")
(In "infobox country: Even if the "ad-Daw.." line is placed in small it won't fit onto one line. Writing "(self-described as the "Islamic State")").
I suggest that something similar, either with or without the transliterated text, be used consistently in both infoboxes. Obviously possible text sizes will be dependent on the possibilities made available within each infobox.
Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I had previously removed the ISIL flag from the bottom of the infobox on the basis of repetition and that a flag as a last item looked odd. Now with the infobox coming into pole position and with the underpinning of the TOC maybe flag and if pos the coat of arms might be added back.
again suggest opening similar to:
"Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant"
الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام (
Arabic)
ad-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fil-ʻIrāq wa ash-Shām
(self-described as the "Islamic State").
Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
Amazing:
I was wondering whether a section might be added as a final subsection of "Opposition" but other options might work. Titles might be: "Female fighters", "Fear of female fighters", Female fighters as an asset", other options?
See also:
Houri
If anyone else want to join in a write up, pls do.
Gregkaye
✍♪
21:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
OMG. Wikipedia is not a place to spread propaganda! eather PYD or IS. This claim is a stupid propaganda. 3bdulelah ( talk) 15:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
title edited from "Can we try to cite sources that don't require subscription" Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC) please. Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
I think that the summary of ISIL isn't accurate. The main activity of ISIL is torturing and murdering christians and followers of other religions in the name of the Islam -- and this should be clearly stated. Even if they base on extreme interpretations of jihad. The statement "The United Nations and Amnesty International have accused the group of grave human rights abuses" might be interpreted like "they are just accused and maybe innocent". There are dozens of articles which describe the crimes. A quick google search shows a scale of it. Somebody who hadn't known what ISIL is could gain a very incomplete view.
We all know what ISIL is, and maybe "everybody" knows. But IMHO Wikipiedia shouldn't take that into account as a reason to not mention the most important facts, because it destroys a neutral point of view.
My proposition is to add a sentence "ISIL is responsible of such crimes like torturing men and women, rape and mass murder. This includes shooting to death, crucifixion, beheading and other forms of atrociousness.", at the end of the third paragraph. After that might be a bunch of references to various sources. Bypassing an essence of the matter is not neutral. -- gajatko 9.10.2014 01:30
As there is a page on Sinjar massacre, I wonder whether there should be pages on other major massacres perpetrated by ISIL during last months.
In one considers only massacres with 100+ victims, in addition to Sinjar and other massacres already described in the pages about the massacre of Camp Speicher and the battles of Tabqa air base and Shaer gas field, there were more at Khana Sor (100 Yazidis: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/IQ/UNAMI_OHCHR_POC_Report_FINAL_6July_10September2014.pdf), Hardan (250-300 Yazidis: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/IQ/UNAMI_OHCHR_POC_Report_FINAL_6July_10September2014.pdf), Khocho (400 Yazidis: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/IQ/UNAMI_OHCHR_POC_Report_FINAL_6July_10September2014.pdf), Tal Afar prison (200 Yazidis: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/IQ/UNAMI_OHCHR_POC_Report_FINAL_6July_10September2014.pdf), Mosul (670 inmates of Badush prison: http://www.iraqinews.com/features/isil-kills-670-prisoners-badush-prison-beings-campaign-turkmen-says-un/, http://www.iraqinews.com/iraq-war/urgent-400-bodies-found-mass-grave-northwest-al-mosul/ and http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/lauretta-brown/un-isis-massacred-700-turkmen-including-women-children-elderly) and Beshir (700 Turkmen: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/lauretta-brown/un-isis-massacred-700-turkmen-including-women-children-elderly and http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/170899/women-and-children-among-massacred-iraqi-turkmen.html); in addition to the massacre of 700 members of the Shitat tribe in Der ez-Zor province in the first two weeks of August ( http://www.almanar.com.lb/english/adetails.php?eid=166032&cid=23&fromval=1). This (without counting several more massacres with dozens, but less than 100, victims) according to the United Nations; in the mentioned articles and reports there are some details, maybe somebody could create the pages if they are to be considered encyclopedic (some of these are even bloodier than the Sinjar massacre that already has a page). -- 2.35.58.16 ( talk) 21:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I changed the "MiszaBot/config| algo=old" to from default 30 days to 48 days a while back to keep older discussions alive. This page gets up to 1.6M pageviews/day (!) and discussion has been lively. I think it should be set back to 30 days, or even as low as 21 days. ~Technophant (talk) 11:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Note: After 7 days of no response to the above archived proposal I went ahead and changed the algo to 30 days.~ Technophant ( talk) 05:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) PBS: The way the Talk page works has become very chaotic over the past month or so. Editors open threads for topics when there are already ongoing discussions about them. Editors do not keep to the topic of threads and branch out into other topics (with a plethora of subheadings), which are then continued by other editors. It is very hard to keep track of discussions on particular topics now. Shortening the time to seven days would make it even harder, as it would mean constantly having to look back at the archived discussions to see what was said before (and frankly I can't see that many editors would make the effort, simpler to open a new thread). For these reasons I think seven days is unreasonable. There is a far better chance of following a discussion on a topic if the block to scan for it is 14 days long. -- P123ct1 ( talk) 08:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
1. This article was giving a link to Caliphate, a former (historic) supreme post for all Muslims. (I changed it to " Worldwide Caliphate", which seems to be a new-born concept that responds to the projects of these ISIS terrorists. Please do be careful to use the concepts not to hurt anybody's feelings. 2. The article also gives a link to Caliph where we see a photo of the last Ottoman-Turkish Caliph Abdülmecid II. The last Caliph was a man of arts, a painter. Please see his photos and those of his daughters at this Google link. Does this family look like that of the so called "ISIS Caliph"? (Have any of you seen a photo of a "woman" from that family?) Please do not confuse our readers on these institutions like The Caliphate and Islam and what, how and who the Muslims are. Begin by calling terrorists by their name: "Terrorists", I mean ALL Terrorists. The so-called "political correctness" of Wikipedia only causes the masses that read it to confuse a Muslim with a TERRORIST, as we use concepts like Islamist, Jihadist etc both in religion and terrorism articles. Any questions? Thanks for reading. -- Why should I have a User Name? ( talk) 16:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
We should have an animated GIF showing the territorial evolution of this group over time, similar to this one for the Rashidun caliphate here:
File:Mohammad_adil-Rashidun_empire-slide.gif
It wouldn't be that hard to do, we could just blend all the maps we've posted so far as slides, adding dates in the corner as show. FiredanceThroughTheNight ( talk) 23:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
IS' territory changed in daily basis so i believe animation is inapplicable in this situation. kazekagetr 17:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Looking into Devils Hole; the dark area is the surface of the water.
36°25′25″N 116°18′20″W / 36.42361°N 116.30556°W
Devils Hole is a geologic formation located in a detached unit of Death Valley National Park and surrounded by the Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, in Nye County, Nevada, in the Southwestern United States.
Devils Hole is habitat for the only naturally occurring population of the endangered Devils Hole pupfish (Cyprinodon diabolis). The 40 acres (16 ha) unit is part of the Ash Meadows complex, an area of desert uplands and spring-fed oases that was designated as a National Wildlife Refuge in 1984.
Devils Hole is a geothermal pool within a limestone cavern in the Amargosa Desert in the Amargosa Valley of Nevada, east over the Amargosa Range and Funeral Mountains from Death Valley. It is at an elevation of 730 m (2,400 ft) above sea level [1] and the water is a constant temperature of 33 °C (91 °F). [2] The surface area of Devils Hole is about 22 m long by 3.5 m wide (72 ft long by 11.5 ft wide). Approximately 0.3 m (0.98 ft) deep on one end of Devils Hole is a small rock shelf of 3.5 by 5 m (11 by 16 ft). The dissolved oxygen of the water is 2.5–3.0 ppm up to around 22 m (72 ft) in depth, though the shallow shelf can have dissolved oxygen levels as high as 6.0–7.0 ppm in June and July. [1]
Devils Hole branches into caverns at least 130 m (430 ft) deep, [2] whose bottom has never been mapped. [3] According to geologists, the caves were formed over 500,000 years ago. [4] The pool has frequently experienced activity due to far away earthquakes in Japan, Indonesia, Mexico, and Chile, which have been likened to extremely small scale tsunamis. [3]
Below the surface pool, Devils Hole descends approximately 160 feet (49 m) through what is termed the "main chamber" before reaching a narrow opening referred to as the 'funnel'. Through this opening lies a much larger chamber of the cavern system known as Acree's Chasm. Acree's Chasm is approximately 300 feet (91 m) in length, 40 feet (12 m) in width, and has a bottom approximately 260 feet (79 m) below the surface. [5] [6]
Immediately after passing the funnel into Acree's Chamber, a narrow side tube can be found to a diver's left. This side tube is narrow and proceeds approximately 90 feet (27 m) upward to a chamber with an air pocket, named Brown's Room after its discoverer William Brown in 1953. The tube leading to Brown's Room has at least 2 offshoots, the higher of which leads to a dead-end filled with a small air pocket, and the lower of which confluences with additional tubes descending from Brown's Room. [5] If the diver instead descends through Acree's Chamber, the first notable landmark is a rocky shelf termed the 'lower ledge,' around 100 feet (30 m) below the entrance to the chamber. The bottom of Acree's Chamber lies around 260 feet (79 m) below the surface, but is not flat. Instead, a portion of the chamber floor descends below this lower shelf; a gradual funnel leads to a hole in the bottom of the chamber featuring a strong current. The hole, later termed the ojo de agua, is 315 feet (96 m) below the surface and just large enough for a diver with equipment to fit through. However, on June 20th, 1965, during the second dive of a rescue and then body recovery mission, Jim Houtz with his dive partner, dropped a weighted depth line to a depth of 932 feet (284 m) from the start of this opening, without hitting the bottom of the chamber below. Due to the strong current, small size of the entrance, and unknown depth of the below cavern Houtz termed the "Infinity Room," Jim and his partner chose not to explore this Infinity Room. This mission did, however, confirm that the depth of the Infinity Room of Devil's Hole, and the cavern system itself, has a depth of at least 1,247 feet (380 m) from the surface. [7] [6]
A subsequent USGS exploration into Devils Hole in 1991 by Alan Riggs, Paul DeLoach, and Sheck Exley entered what they found out to be a narrow tube rather than an 'Infinity Room' at 315 feet (96 m), descending to a depth of 436 feet (133 m). The team reported being able to see down to a depth of some 500 feet (150 m), without visualizing the bottom of the cavern. [6]
Dense, white, billowy coatings of mammillary calcite originally precipitated on all of Devils Hole’s underwater surfaces, as calcium-carbonate-supersaturated aquifer water circulated through it. The mammillary calcite coating is as much as 100 centimetres (39 in) thick in places and is the material that has been analyzed to develop a continuous 800,000-year-long continental paleoclimate record. [6] [8] [9]
Other calcium carbonate morphologies, including folia and flowstone, precipitated in Devils Hole, but in different locations and under different circumstances. Folia precipitate on the walls of Brown’s Room, a perpetually dark air-filled chamber. Foliar growth is stimulated by Devils Hole’s mixed semidiurnal tide (caused by small changes in aquifer volume as the moon’s and sun’s gravitational forces cyclically distort the aquifer) that alternately wets and exposes a small band of wall around mean water level twice a day. Maximum spring tide amplitude is about 12 centimetres (4.7 in). [6]
A 7.4-magnitude
2012 Guerrero–Oaxaca earthquake, some 2,000 miles (3,200 km) away, centered roughly 12 miles (19 km) below the surface, on March 20th, 2012, caused an undulating 4 feet (1.2 m) rise and fall of the cavern waters, as appreciated by researchers working at Devils Hole at the time. This provided further evidence that Devils Hole cave system was connected to not only the Death Valley Regional Groundwater Flow System, but possibly to even further-reaching underground water systems. The 1991 USGS dive team described the Devils Hole as a "skylight" into the water table.Cite error: The opening <ref>
tag is malformed or has a bad name (see the
help page).
[6]
Located 650 feet (200 m) north of Devils Hole is a separate cave system called Devils Hole Cave (#2). It was first explored underwater to a depth of 70 feet (21 m) by divers from he Southwestern Speleological Society in February of 1961. It had been described as being shaped like a boot with fallen rock restriction at the 50-foot (15 m) level leading to a narrow pool of 93 °F (34 °C) water. [5] Since no sunlight reaches the water, algae cannot grow and no fish species are found. [10]
In 1991, deep diver Sheck Exley located a bottom to the eastern shaft at 128.9 metres (423 ft) [6]
On the surface, the cave openings are connected to Devils Hole by an access road and covered with a locked metal grate Below ground, a passable deepwater connection to Devils Hole has been theorized but remains undiscovered.Cite error: The <ref>
tag has too many names (see the
help page).
A team of paleoclimatologists from the University of Innsbruck have been collecting and dating calcite mineral deposits here since 2010. [9] In March of 2017, underwater cinematographer Jonathan Bird received permission to assist scientists in a four day expedition to take water and calcite core samples. [8] IMAX footage was included in the 2020 film Ancient Caves and extra footage was used to create the video documentary Exploring Devils Hole on YouTube. Similar studies had been done in Devils Hole but are no longer allowed permitted due to the endangered status of the Devils Hole pupfish. [8]
Devils Hole is the only natural habitat of the Devils Hole pupfish, which thrives despite the hot, oxygen-poor water. Devils Hole "may be the smallest habitat in the world containing the entire population of a vertebrate species". [2] The pupfish are considered critically endangered by the IUCN. [11] The pupfish has been described as the world's rarest fish, [12] with a population of less than 200 since 2005. [13] Genetic information indicates that the pupfish species is as old as the Hole itself, which opened to the surface about 60,000 years ago. [14] [15]
The pupfish have been protected since being declared an endangered species in 1967. [13] Conflicts of the ownership and use of the groundwater around Devils Hole caused litigation in the 1980s. [16] The litigation triggered further protections of the pupfish. However, since the late 1990s, the pupfish population has substantially decreased. The reasons for the decrease are unknown, but is possibly due to a microscopic non-indigenous diving beetle that is consuming pupfish eggs. [13] [17]
:1
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).
36°25′31″N 116°17′27″W / 36.4252338°N 116.2908733°W
~
Technophant (
talk)
18:01, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
ISIL are Islamic/religious fundamentalists, yet this description is absent from the article. Should there not be something on it somewhere? It would probably belong best in the section on "Governance", where this characteristic is very apparent. -- P123ct1 ( talk) 10:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
The article contains two excellent maps both of which are produced by User:Spesh531. First things first: I've just awarded a barnstar at: User_talk:Spesh531#ISIL_Barnstar and would be more than happy for anyone else to edit the message and add their signature :)
I was also wondering about the best use of the second map. The first map is in the first infobox and the second map is currently positioned in : Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#Timeline_of_events
Is this the best location for it? Other possibilities include: following either of the infoboxes with the key information being placed as a caption; following the history section; some other position. What think ye?
Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Deletion of
File:Syria and Iraq 2014-onward War map.png and key from original position
Is this now duplication? Would deletion help? The map is now in a very locatable position.
Gregkaye
✍♪
10:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Italy has been added to "Military operations in or over Iraq and/or Syria".
It's correct that Italy is on this list, as it has offered to assist coalition partners in air-to-air refueling and ISR operations with one KC-767 and two UAVs Reapers.
But the source should be updated, as it doesn't say anything about that. It's the old source from the "9 allies" on the NATO Wales summit, where the roles had not been established yet. Then, other countries joined the Coalition after this summit, and before and after the Paris summit.
I just think the source should be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felino123 ( talk • contribs) 09:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
It's been months and I'm waiting for someone to change this misleading information in the box that says (Islamic state of Iraq and the Levant was established in 2014. everyone knows that the accurate date is in 2013 as it mentioned in the name section. regarding the sources that use the date in January 2014 this was a misunderstanding because when they entered the city of Fallojah they said it's one of the Wilayat of ISIS which was liberated. they didn't declare anything new! while at that time they had presence in many cities in Syria including Raqqah, Jarabouls and Azaz. please correct the date! 3bdulelah ( talk) 19:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
NOT THIS AGAIN. This matter has already been discussed. This is not misleading. The 2014 date is used because that is the date they took Fallujah. 2014 Was also the date that they broke ties with All Qaeda and the Syrian Opposition. They now had an established territory and were no longer associated with other groups. This date is used not because it is the date that the GROUP formed. It is used because this is the date that they took control of of sections of Iraq. This isn't misleading. There are two sources which backing this up. I will add more if that isn't enough for you. The key here is determining the difference between an INSURGENCY and an UNRECOGNIZED STATE, and when ISIL crossed that line. Why do you think that there are two different infoboxes? I will add the date the Group was formed to the other infobox. In the meantime, please stop beating a dead horse. Quite frankly, I'm growing tired of this arguement. Toolen ( talk) 15:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
ISIS controlled cities alone in Syria in 2013 including Jarabulos and Azaz after their battle with FSA (North storm) if this is your reason. we have millions of sources that indicate their occupation of cities before Falujah. also in Faluhah they were not alone at January and they just clashed with Jaysh al mujaheddin last month. So GO AND READ. 3bdulelah ( talk) 15:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
how balanced is the following statement, when all, with exception of one, of the corresponding citations - are directly from Iraqi-Muslims, here:
"The declaration of a caliphate has been criticized and ridiculed by Muslim scholars and rival Islamists inside and outside the occupied territory.[116][117][118][119][120][121]"
I really want to see more -non I/L sources- citations if one can find those to offer, as it seems as if (albeit not in an explicit manner) the text is a bit.. once sided, or more clearly, an unbalanced claim (though not misinforming) for the amount of the following citations, five of which are Iraqi sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.109.37.236 ( talk • contribs) 11:47, 18 October 2014
This article has both spellings. The Al-Qaeda in Iraq/Tanzim article has gone over to "al-Qaeda in Iraq". After a long period of stability with "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" being the spelling, a discussion was opened last month on the Talk page of the Al-Qaeda in Iraq article here about what the spelling should be, but in usual fashion no decision was reached, and editors now do what they like. This chaos has to stop. Can it be decided here, or on the other article's Talk page, once and for all, what the spelling should be, please? -- P123ct1 ( talk) 19:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Australia is not a member of NATO, so it should be off the list of NATO members.
Where should it be then? "Other state opponents"? Or on the section "—Military operations in or over Iraq and/or Syria – (US-led)—" but off any list?
What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felino123 ( talk • contribs) 11:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Done and thanks, that's hilarious. (Pic added). Australia, being positioned between the Indian, Pacific and Southern Oceans is about as far away from the North Atlantic as it is possible to get. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
...especially the spiteful and filthy French – or an Australian, or a Canadian, or any other disbeliever from the disbelievers waging war, including the citizens of the countries that entered into a coalition against the Islamic State, then rely upon Allah, and kill him in any manner or way however it may be. Smash his head with a rock, or slaughter him with a knife, or run him over with your car, or throw him down from a high place, or choke him, or poison him". This was Abu Mohammad al-Adnani, the ISIL spokesman, a month ago. Now this happens. Should such "incidents" (in addition to this, also the beheading in Oklahoma City in September, and the recent shootout in Ottawa if it also turns out to be ISIL-inspired) be mentioned somewhere?-- 37.116.57.244 ( talk) 21:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
@ 20 October: villages not willages
Can this go straight to archive? Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Changing colors in second map for red-green colorblind users ==
In the second map ( "Map: Current Military Situation"), the colors used for ISIS and Iraq are virtually indistinguishable to me and (presumably) many others with red-green colorblindness. I have to look very closely to find the borders between the two. At a glance, the map makes it look to me like all of Iraq is held by the same ISIS.
For greater legibility, I would recommend making whichever one of the two is green significantly bluer, as is done in many traffic lights.
Since I don't know anything about editing Wikipedia, and since I fear messing things up, I leave the decision for this change to other users' discretion.
2601:E:1C80:2EA:2C3A:7372:7AD7:EB36 ( talk) 18:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Maps
I asked the person who does the maps if he could mark in the Syrian/Iraq border, and his reply is
here. He says he can put in all borders in the region if wanted. I think some borders might be a good idea are essential, to help readers unfamiliar with the region. All media maps and diagrams show them when reporting on this conflict. Should he be asked to provide an example, so that editors can decide on this? Obviously the maps must not be too crowded, so perhaps they should only show the Syria/Iraq border. --
P123ct1 (
talk)
15:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
There are two different spellings for this name in Arabic, one in the Lead and one in the "Names" section, ad-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fīl-ʻIraq wa ash-Shām and al-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fī al-ʻIrāq wa-al-Shām. They need to be the same. Which is the best? -- P123ct1 ( talk) 08:48, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Why have you altered the date in the "History" section here Gregkaye? Your edit summary gives no explanation. The ISIL section is how headed "As Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (2013~)", and the Islamic State section is headed "As Islamic State (2014 - )". Are these two bodies running concurrently? Wikipedia has uninformed readers who need clear information and they will be puzzled by this. -- P123ct1 ( talk) 13:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There was an update from the BBC page quoted on [487][488] correcting the claim listed above reading: Correction: An earlier version of this article wrongly referred to the contents of the airdrops in Kobane as "US weapons". The weapons were in fact supplied by Kurdish authorities in Iraq. Source http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-29715044 about 2/3 down the page. Thank you. 97.73.240.17 ( talk) 07:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
On Israel, you put the logo of the Israel Defense Forces to refer to Israel's Ministry of Defense. This is wrong, as the Ministry of Defense has its own logo.
This should be corrected, but I think it's not necessary to put the logos of the national institutions that designated IS as a terror organization. Felino123 ( talk) 05:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
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.
title change from "An RM to ISIS?" Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:11, 16 October 2014 (UTC) Obviously it would just be a request which could then be debated but I thought it best to check provisional views. Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:07, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
See my comment when making the last RM close. I suggested that there is a moratorium on requested moves for 3 months (until the new year). There comes a point where continual debate over the name of an article becomes DISRUPTIVE and I think that now there have seven requests this year with four requests in the last two months, and many other sections taken up with discussions about the name, that point has been reached. It becomes disruptive when editors time is taken up in endless debates over the name, when the limited time that editors have can better be spent improving this and other articles. Consensus can change, but it is unlikely to change in such a short period, so wait until after the new year then if an editor thinks that usage in reliable sources justifies a request then make one. In the mean time If I think that editors are being disruptive over this issue then I will take administrative action under the general sanctions that apply to this page. -- PBS ( talk) 18:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
As an univolved administrator I have used a template to close this conversation. -- PBS ( talk) 11:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The difference between ISIS and ISIL is mostly the semantic navel gazing. The actual issue is whether or not to use the group's real name. Moratoriums on dynamic conventions make no sense. As reliable sources shift so must we, that's what we do. I'll be putting together an RfC on the subject in the next week or so as more and more independent and third party reliable sources make affirmative declarations on the proper use of the group's actual name. GraniteSand ( talk) 22:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Editor User:GraniteSand just needlessly reverted a cleanup of Syrian Civil War to go back to Islamic State and ISIS exclusively. The editor's comments above and this revert fails to follow consensus and may indicate intent to edit war. None of the articles need that. I would strongly urge not continuing the battle over names. Legacypac ( talk) 05:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
P123ct1, rightly notes that there has been an "obsession with the name" but I think that this can be accounted for in the fact that the Non-Islamic, Non-State as Ban-Ki Moon described it has made an unethical choice in regard to their self-designation and various news outlets and agencies, significantly Reuters, have pandered to it. A copy of collapsed text from the top of the page: Its worth noting that an RM to ISIS as yet untried (but it's just an option and is not something that I ever intended to push). Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
|
I'm not sure if it would be beneficial for this thread to be archived. Just saying :) Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Prominence when collapsed
When collapsed, the TOC has a box saying "Contents [show]". Could that box be put in a more prominent place - for example, straight after the Lead on the left? It is easy to miss hidden away on the right under the infobox. --
P123ct1 (
talk)
06:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Width
Is it possible to adjust the width of the TOC (as at
Template:TOC right) so that the width is matched to the width of the war faction infobox above. So far I have also started to look at results of WP search
Template:infobox width but these results seem to work on a different format methodology.
Gregkaye
✍♪
09:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure all of you meant well, but as it is today the article doesn't look well. The table of contents stands too low in the article: when on full screen, I see first the lead section, then section 'Names', 'Index of names', 'History of names', and only then on the right the table of 'Contents'. That table should appear immediately after lead section, I suggest. -- Corriebertus ( talk) 11:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
One possible solution to the TOC size would be to reduce the number of subheadings, e.g. use bold text rather than further subheadings. Do the separate subheadings of September and October 2014 really need distinguishing? It is especially confusing because the October 2014 timeline is immediately followed by a paragraph starting "In March 2011...". In other cases, perhaps "Index of Names" and "History of names" could be subsumed into simply "Names", or combining the sections "Ideology and beliefs" and "Goals". This would of course require editorial skill, creativity, and discretion, and perhaps more deference to summary style. --Animalparty-- ( talk) 21:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
WP:LEAD makes it clear that "The lead should define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight." So, if criticism is trivial, it probably doesn't belong in the lead. If it not trivial, it does belong in the lead. It is certainly not true that as a general case "Criticism should on the criticism section, not on the Lead." as Felino123 seems to think. Dougweller ( talk) 13:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
The new template was created with some good looking content.
Propose move to "Template:History of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant"
The title may need to be formatted to span two lines of text.
@ ༆:
Gregkaye ✍♪ 18:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Support If we need the template we should definitely have it match the agreed article title 09:01, 23 October 2014
Done and tidied. Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Oddly the main heading link of the template leads directly to history in the ISIL page. It now reads:
| linkoverride = <small> </small>[[History of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant|Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant<small> <br />History</small>]]
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
History
Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Please link the "US-led military operations" nations, to their respective Wikipedia pages.
They're also technically coalition forces...
-- JT2958 ( talk) 16:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
The discussion of its history alone is as long as some ledes. -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 01:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
I have cut down the history paras as much as possible to reduce the size of the Lead. There is a limit to how much can be cut out, as the Lead is supposed to be a summary of the article. -- P123ct1 ( talk) 13:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
text reads:
The group has been designated as a terrorist organization by the United Nations, the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, Israel, Turkey, Indonesia, and Saudi Arabia.
Suggest:
The group has been designated as a terrorist organization by the United Nations and by
various nations.
that last link could be composed various nations.
Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with this revert by Legacypac of my edit changing the infobox header to the actual name. Yes, the title of the article has been discussed many times, but I only see a few mentions of the actual infobox header when I search it, and I disagree that it makes Wikipedia look "foolish" and all that other nonsense. The name presented in an infobox does not need to reflect the article's title, and I do not see why some people think otherwise. Just as many country articles use short names for titles and actual names in infoboxes, I don't see why we shouldn't use long names in the title with the short, self-given name in the infobox. Maybe there were some discussions specifically about the infobox title, and I managed to overlook them somehow, and if so, some links would help, but I still don't get the reasoning here. Dustin (talk) 00:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
In the name of further consistency between to the lead I suggest editing the infobox "native name" entry to :
الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام (
Arabic)
ad-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fil-ʻIrāq wa ash-Shām
(self-described as the "Islamic State")
Even if the "ad-Daw.." line is placed in small it won't fit onto one line. Writing "(self-described as the "Islamic State")" in small fits within the span quite comfortably.
Gregkaye
✍♪
20:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Your discussion, relating to mid article content, could have begun elsewhere or with acknowledgement of the suggestion made above.
I am regularly involved in RM discussions and can report that more editors have contributed to the ISIL related RM discussions than to many others. Many of the contributions here have been based on ethical arguments (both ways) related to the situation. Significant content has been related to value judgements related to the importance and relevance of sources. Who has the most important say? The rebranding of the group as the "Islamic State" is arguably an issue that has considerable direct affect on the Islamic world. It is also of relevance to surrounding populations at risk of losing liberty or life as a result of the groups interpretation of Islam and on various ground forces whose troops may lose their lives while trying to address the situation. The international community also has a say. These are not merely emotional considerations. Gregkaye ✍♪ 21:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Similar discussion /info/en/?search=Talk:American-led_intervention_in_Syria#RfC_-_Name_of_ISIS.2FISIL.2FIS where Technophant made the same proposal as above, which I suggested could be consodered forum shopping. Legacypac ( talk) 22:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Anyway, getting back to the main topic, using Islamic State in the infobox. The first infobox (country) is almost exclusively about the Islamic State in its current state so Islamic State is the name that is most appropriate for first infobox. The second infobox (war faction) is about the group historically, so per my proposal ISIL should be used. ~ Technophant ( talk) 05:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
As you know it is about the group that is widely known by the terms ISIS and Islamic State in the media and which uses a name that causes a widespread offence. This is not to say that the name should not have relevance in the infobox but just that there are legitimate options.
Re: Technophant's additional proposal I don't have any direct personal objections but think it important to consider how names are presented.
Its also worth noting the actual usage:
ISIS has long been the most widely used term and this is still true in most recent news. I was surprised at the high level of results for ISIL. Islamic State is used. It is an optional terminology disliked by many primarily on the basis that they are not the Islamic State.
The proposal is basically that the names "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" and "ISIL" should be used relating to time periods 8 April 2013 to 29 June 2014 and when no period of time is defined and that time specific terminologies be used elsewhere. The main contentious period relates to the latest renaming. In response there have been some news agencies like reuters that seem to have determinedly pushed a rarely qualified use of: Islamic State. On other occasions when sources use: Islamic State, it can be presented terminologies such as: the so called Islamic State, the self-declared Islamic State etc. or in quotation marks.
In summary: the term Islamic State is used in the media and yet it is disliked by the people that the group most effects. Gregkaye ✍♪ 06:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
For guidence see this discussion closed by Technophant #An_RM_to_ISIS.3F_.28moves_now_prohibited.29 We need to follow the title. What is the point of setting the title and than using the rejected terminology in the article? Legacypac ( talk) 19:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Much of the following text was moved from #Second map position when once I saw that this was the more relevant thread location. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Deletion of
File:Syria and Iraq 2014-onward War map.png and key from original position
Is this now duplication? Would deletion help? The map is now in a very locatable position.
Gregkaye
✍♪
10:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
The positioning of the box can be taken to be extremely suggestive of a transition point of ISIL becoming a country
To me the four potential categories of time references that could be considered:
Contents within the infobox have origins over a range of time frames. The flag, the coat of arms and the motto all have all been in use for unstated lengths of time. A capital that has been under the groups control for an unstated length of time is presented. It gives an establishment date as an Islamic state that does not concur with its date of the group's rebranding as the "Islamic State". The box presents a status of "unrecognised state".
As the first parallel that came to mind I did a search so as to ask [ "when did the united states become a country". Results given related to the date of independence and one date of recognition.
I also dispute the unqualified use of Islamic State in the title box. No other state recognises the group by this name so I suggest a move of the box to an earlier time frame and a renaming of the topic.
Earlier on this talk page, and in the context of reference to the use of:
"Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" I suggested the use of:
الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام (
Arabic)
ad-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fil-ʻIrāq wa ash-Shām
(self-described as the "Islamic State")
(In "infobox country: Even if the "ad-Daw.." line is placed in small it won't fit onto one line. Writing "(self-described as the "Islamic State")").
I suggest that something similar, either with or without the transliterated text, be used consistently in both infoboxes. Obviously possible text sizes will be dependent on the possibilities made available within each infobox.
Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I had previously removed the ISIL flag from the bottom of the infobox on the basis of repetition and that a flag as a last item looked odd. Now with the infobox coming into pole position and with the underpinning of the TOC maybe flag and if pos the coat of arms might be added back.
again suggest opening similar to:
"Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant"
الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام (
Arabic)
ad-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fil-ʻIrāq wa ash-Shām
(self-described as the "Islamic State").
Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)