![]() | 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 15 | ← | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | → | Archive 25 |
The combining of the infoboxes reduced the overall length and eliminated some duplicated info (group name for example). I think the opponents could be nicely boxed in a limited purpose war faction box, since usually opponents are listed in such an infobox but the list was so long it was getting way out of hand. Legacypac ( talk) 21:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
As you know, there is a moratorium on discussing name changes for this article. I just wanted to ask what will happen once the moratorium ends, and if I am unable to voice my opinion when the time comes. StanMan87 ( talk) 12:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
[Transferred from P123 Talk page]
Gregkaye Something that struck me when copy-editing yesterday was that the infoboxes have a lot about the current conflicts that ISIL is involved in, but there is nothing in the Lead about them. Do you not think the Lead should have a few lines about these conflicts? Readers before reading the article may wonder what the infoboxes are talking about when they see nothing in the Lead about it. This is going on the principle that the Lead is meant to summarise the article. There would be room for a few sentences as I cut down the history part of the Lead the other day by a few lines. ~
P123ct1 (
talk)
09:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
we need a updated version of the map. Baiji is under government control and an ongoing battle at ramadi is taking place-- Arbutus the tree ( talk) 01:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
the problem is no one ever uses those pages.-- Arbutus the tree ( talk) 02:59, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Again pinging map editors @ Haghal Jagul: @ Spesh531: @ Kohelet: @ Joan301009: @ Vectrex: @ Mondolkiri1: to raise this in addition to other threads.
The first paragraph of the article describes a "rebel group controlling territory" and, while I think that this is a reasonable description, I thought it might be relevant to raise a "controlling what?" question.
If the areas are anything like Jordan then I would imagine that, from the perspectives of both sides, a lot of the territory is relatively difficult to "control". What there will be is a lot of variously defensible and potentially strategic locations and a variety of populated areas in amongst a whole lot of typically desert wilderness. The maps are useful but I think that the block colours can be deceptive. It can be easy to think of borders in coloured terms perhaps in relation to our conceptions of border crossings etc. It can also be easy to think of wars in terms of Front lines and with conceptions affected by knowledge of historical conflicts such as WWII with its trench warfare.
"..controlling populated and other areas.." might work.
Also pinging the various map editors on this, @ Haghal Jagul: @ Spesh531: @ Kohelet: @ Joan301009: @ Vectrex: @ Mondolkiri1: See also: #Article Maps which was a particular issue on the 'SIL page in its condition before its amalgamation of infoboxes. Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Legacypac ( talk) 18:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I am no fan of Israeli politics but one thing that seems fairly clear to me is that they can be very clear in what they say. It is also clear that Israel has been listed in the article in error.
Israel, that I have seen, makes declarations about organisations in two significant ways. They can make a declaration of to say that an organisation is an organisation "as a terrorist organisation" (הכרזה כארגון טרור - "as an organisation of terror") and they can make a declaration to say that an organisation is a "Unlawful organization" (התאחדות בלתי מותרת - an "association/united group, not, allowed"). I have gone a bit into the etymology of the terms but regular translation simply relates to declarations of terrorist organisations and declarations of unlawful/illegal organisations and Israel made the second of these declarations in relation to 'SIL.
I found this information by searching on "הכרזה כארגון טרור לפי פקודת מניעת טרור" ("Declaration, as [an] organization, [of] terror, "from mouth", [of the] Ordinance, [of] prevention of, Terror") and then by choosing the download the immediately presented link with address shown as: www.mod.gov.il/Defence-and.../teror16.11.xls . This link has the title "רשימת ההכרזות - משרד הביטחון" which translates as: List of, Announcements - Office, [of] Security, (Ministry of Defence).
Israel has ten times issued a "הכרזה כארגון טרור לפי פקודת מניעת טרור" Declaration as a terrorist organization by the Command of preventing terror. I counted ten groups on the list and they included PLO, Fatah, Hamas, Palestine al-muslima, Palestinian relief and development...
Israel has also often issued a "הכרזה על התאחדות בלתי מותרת" Declaration of an unlawful association. I estimate about 100 items and groups include:
3.9.14 דאע"ש או המדינה האסלאמית או המדינה האסלאמית בעיראק ובסוריה או החליפות האסלאמית או אלקאעדה עיראק ISLAMIC STATE או ISLAMIC STATE IN IRAQ AND SYRIA/ALSHAM/LEVEANT או ISIL/ISIS או AQI אלדולה אלאסלאמיה פי עיראק ואלשאם או אלקאעדה פי עיראק الدولة الاسلامية או الدولة الاسلامية في عراق والشام או داﻋﺶ או اﳋلافۃ الاسلامية הכרזה על התאחדות בלתי מותרת לפי תקנות ההגנה (שעת חירום) 1945 שר הביטחון - משה (בוגי) יעלון 03/09/14 Daa"s or Islamic state or an Islamic state in Iraq and Syria or Islamic caliphate or Al-Qaeda or Iraq ISLAMIC STATE ISLAMIC STATE IN IRAQ AND SYRIA / ALSHAM / LEVEANT or ISIL / ISIS or AQI Haldol Alislamiya Iraq and al-Sham according to Al-Qaeda or Iraq الدولة الاسلامية times or الدولة الاسلامية في عراق والشام or داعش or الخلافۃ الاسلامية declaration of an unlawful association under the Defense (Emergency) Regulations, 1945 Defense Minister - Moshe (Bogie) Ya'alon.
The inclusion of the Israel reference in the section "Designation as a terrorist organization" is totally unjustified. Beyond the table the text of the section states "Many world leaders and government spokespeople have called ISIL a terrorist group..." Israel, as far as I can see, has not even done this.
Thank you
P123ct1 for removing the reference from the ISIL list. I will add relevant declarations to the article
List of designated terrorist organizations. It is important for Israel to be kept accountable for their notable actions. Thank you also for asking me the right questions to help me find Israel's surreptitiously hidden information on this.
Gregkaye ✍♪ 18:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
[links below belong to an earlier TP thread]
We here announce the ISIL article "Footnote appeal"
Don't let ISIL reference footnotes go naked - for it is written: "bare URL footnotes – i.e. footnotes that contain only the website http address – are susceptible to link-rot,". Oh the horror.
You can play your part in this most worthy campaign. Should you find that an editor has left a footnote in a bare, defenceless and susceptible condition, please gently inform them of this plight.
Supportive links are now provided:
Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#FootnoteDirective or
Talk:ISIL#FootnoteDirective will take an editor to relevant content in the banner. Yes footnotes are indeed given worthy mention amongst this content.
Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Footnote 2 or
Talk:ISIL#Footnote 2 will take an editor direct to the relevant hatnote above
(Similar access is provided by link:
Talk:ISIL#FootnoteHatnote)
These poor destitute URLs are best brought amongst the abundant fields of: Author, Title, Date, Publisher/Work, Agency, Access Date and other accompaniment that may be applicable to the foots individual condition.
Let's keep our feet happy - and thank-you.
Gregkaye ✍♪ 03:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Technical note:
As noted above, bare URL footnotes (with just the hhtp address and nothing else) are susceptible to link-rot. Link-rot happens when a website moves to a new domain. When it moves, it acquires a new http address, so the original link is broken and the reader will not be able to call up the citation. The reason why footnotes formed using the WP cite templates are better is that they have a lot of information in them, so that if the http address does change, that information can be used to retrieve the article from the internet. Broken-link or "dead-link" footnotes are easily repaired by substituting the old URL address with the new one. ~
P123ct1 (
talk)
09:29, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
The current count of bare URLs stands at 25 in this article and 14 in the timeline article, the highest it has ever been. The message is not getting through. ~ P123ct1 ( talk)
I found this new article via a link in the ISIL article. 2014 U.S. and allies versus Islamic State hostilities and conflicts. There are a number of issues with this article a deserves a look by other editors - I've AfD'd it. Legacypac ( talk) 11:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
1. It was only very recently that the article went through a significant restructure as per link above. At this stage the TOC looked like this.
2. Since then there has been another major revision that brought the TOC to look like this.
3. From this point I made some further reorganisations to produce an article sequence with a TOC that looks like this.
Each edit has its qualities. What do editors think. Gregkeye 16:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
After looking at all the towns under isil control's populations i have made a rough calculation that ISIL's population is 612,484 but unfortunately not all the towns populations are logged so their should be more than this. [ Where I got my source ] -- Weegeeislyfe ( talk) 08:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
(new section started below-same topic-I brought them together
Legacypac (
talk)
21:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)))
4,644,780–8,000,000 Honestly? If we do no know the first digit why should we write 5 more digits that are pure fairy tale. This should be 4 million-8 million. 95.91.128.159 ( talk) 09:17, 26 November 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. |
Addition of ~12,000 militants who were recruited in Balochistan region of Pakistan under ISIS' military size.
Kennybmr ( talk) 10:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
The decision as to whether to keep the timeline in the article has been a bit " in, out, in, out, and shake it all about" as per recent continuation of discussion at Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/Archive_17#Propose scrapping timeline from main article.
No real consensus was reached but the last definite view expressed was to keep seven days (I'll say ~seven days) of the info in the main article. For reasons that I won't go into I have had to check up on how this works with a
query at WP:PUMP. The bit that I understood was that the "transclusion" works when <onlyinclude>...</onlyinclude>
tags surround the section of text and unless anyone wants to understand the next bit I suggest that this last bit is the bit we should work with
.
The next bit relates to the tech's statement that, "A more versatile way to do this is with labeled section transclusion". Does anyone want to look into this? Anyone?
Otherwise what I plan to do is to just look at the timeline once in a while and, when the length stretches to over a week, to move the "<onlyinclude>" tag down to something like a four day timespan. All other editors are welcome to join me in this as are editors that edit the actual timeline document for love of that page.
My personal view is that the section of the timeline presented in the 'SIL article just needs to be long enough to give a taste of the content of the full timeline document so as to also present the most recent headlines. I still don't have a strong opinion as to whether timeline content should be kept in the main article but at least now everyone knows how things stand.
Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
The other thing that should be noted is that the section headings (AKA "months") from the timeline document are also "transcluded" into the ISIL document with the rest of the timeline text. This basically means at the wrong phase of the moon we get two titles in the TOC of the main document for the price of one. A personal thought is that this might be a good time to shorten time length, by something like the fourth of each month, to a corresponding number of days. Its just a thought. Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
next issue it was previously agreed to set up a format on the Timeline page so that the month heading would not appear as a second item on the TOC after "Timeline of recent events". This is still what I think looks best, most straightforward and honest. For instance it might get to the last week in November and yet there would still be a heading saying November even though just one week is displayed. A difficulty in not having the title is that editors would actually need to load the timeline document to make edits. I'd still favour losing the extra title. Gregkaye ✍♪ 20:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
What it was) vs What it is now 1 History
2 Criticism
3 Countries and groups at war with ISIL
4 Group characteristics and structure
5 Supporters
6 Analysis
The article has grown organically without anyone looking hard at the structure for a long time. There is a method to this madness. These 6 major sections will allow us to bring together and reduce duplicated info to trim this down. For example, we had the leaders listed and linked in two sections (Governance and Leaders) Once reorganized that was obvious and the duplication eliminated with no loss. This is also is a lot more user friendly. Legacypac ( talk) 14:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks - it is possible to set it out in a column (I'm hopeless at that in wiki) but why not just look at the article Table of Contents or hit edit on this section to see it laid out in point form. how the TOC looked yesterday. Legacypac ( talk) 20:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
As far as I can tell the most relevant section of Wikipedia guidelines on this is WP:BODY. The basic principle is that: "Headings introduce sections and subsections, clarify articles by breaking up text, organize content, and populate the table of contents. Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose." MOS:HEADINGS also indicates that there are four levels of heading available. In its current state the article makes use of three of them, it uses six major ==headings== as detailed above which provide navigation to well over 40 section titles.
I was the editor that proposed the last look at the article structure and, possibly as a result of my introduction, we had a lot of discussion about sequence of content but not a lot about depth. My personal opinion for what it is worth is that the new layout is less bitty than it was before providing an easier navigation than we previously managed to achieve. Content remains the same but I think people will now be able to access it more easily.
Controversial changes in actual content material certainly need to be raised here and I know Legacypac has rightly followed this procedure when proposing #Standard for Naming ISIL in Sinai, Libya etc for example. The concept of consultation as mentioned by P123ct1 is vital in this article and when editors deviate from this they can be rightly held to account. My view is that the current edits are far from destructive. I'm quite annoyed that I didn't think of them myself.
Gregkaye ✍♪ 20:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Compare to an article on the polar opposite Red Cross
Legacypac ( talk) 01:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
History actually details who the group is and many of their major activities, but so does Criticism (as Gregkeye says). It is the most appropriate followup section. I'd suggest a little reordering to get the Human rights abuses closer to the History since they are the main place we detail this activity.
Current:
2 Criticism (as now organized)
Proposed:
2 Criticism
Legacypac ( talk) 01:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I am less convinced by the idea that the section "Countries and groups at war with ISIL" should go before the description of 'SIL's "Military and arms" as presented at the end of "Group characteristcs and structure" or that the "Countries and groups at war.." section should be split from the section on "Supporters". I see a logic in this section following "Designation as a terrorist organization" but don't consider this to be sufficient to justify such a move. Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
(moved from a new section started) Current order of sections is not suitable. We'd better put introductory sections (such as Group characteristics and structure) first, then we might have sections such as criticism and etc. I edited based on this idea, but it was reverted every time. Mhhossein ( talk) 07:53, 27 November 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.
LightandDark2000 has twice put in material in the Supporters section Once by dropping in material I moved (which I reverted assuming he did not realize where it went and immediately reached out on his talk page) and now by reverting my reversion of his edit. That crosses the 1RR line so I've requested he revert himself and come here to discuss his concerns. As state in my edit summay and his talk page I believe the "Supporters: remove material reinserted in error by LightandDark2000. This info was not deleted earlier, it was moved to and summarized in Section 2.6 Military and arms with details in Military of ISIL)]])" Legacypac ( talk) 04:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
The list of groups pledging in can be found here and summarized here so we don't need it here anymore. And if the fighters joined ISIL why would we list them as Supporters. If we are going to list these 5 or 6 groups we should list all the dozens of groups in Iraq and Syria that joined ISIL, sometimes a 1000 at a time. Legacypac ( talk) 04:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
It is mentioned that part of India is controlled by ISIS, which is not true. Can anyone remove it?
Article content should accurately report on the wholly unjustified inter-Muslim/inter-faith conflict currently occurring in Iraq and Syria. This conflict should be fairly presented as should the relative status levels and backgrounds of any of the groups involved. It is only right that the truth of the nature of this sectarian warfare be clearly presented.
On the other side of this same issue there should not be attempts to highlight western involvements in ways that go beyond the actual realities in Iraq and Syria. In other articles I have seen a rhetorical repetition of the terms American and U.S. in a way that, amongst other things, might well leave us other coalition member states (and the government of Syria etc.) feeling left out. It has been common in various places in various articles to talk of Assad, of al-Maliki and of U.S President Barack Obama as following mention of the U.S.-led coalition and other U.S. related references. While I think that it is fair for all groups that have intervened in the region to be fairly accountable for their actions it often seems that some editors take every turn to place a U.S. centric spin on local issues. I think that the thread above on Israel indicates a gratuitous act by some journalists to indicate a sensationalist involvement of Israel whose headline may have shifted a few more copies of the paper. Closer to home I don't think that a gratuitous emphasis of U.S. involvement should be tolerated. I have attempted to balance this out where I have been able and hope that other editors can also be watchful.
References in articles to local groups are a cause for concern. In the references such as in the timeline article I seen can talk about ISIL and rebel groups. I think that it may even be proposed that 'SIL is about as rebellious a group as it is possible to get. It has rebels against local governments, it has rebelled against and has separated from al-Qaeda and it arguable that the extremity of many of its actions constitute a rebellion against a great many purported authorities of Islam.
Terminologies we might use could include "other rebel groups" or perhaps we could talk of the "ISIL separatists" in comparison to "rebel groups" or rebels. Better still perhaps we can name the other groups and state something on their ideologies. Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
back on "propaganda" In the timeline document there was another text example contrasting, "unite several hard-line groups" and "other moderate Syrian Rebel groups". What makes the hard-liners to be hard-liners but the moderates to be rebels? It's difficult to know the politics of each of the many groups out there but, as far as I have been able to understand, it's the hard-liners that have been the groups that have rebelled against the the Syrian and Iraqi regimes. In the articles, however, it is POV to differentiate between the groups. Gregkaye ✍♪ 21:45, 29 November 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 15 | ← | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | → | Archive 25 |
The combining of the infoboxes reduced the overall length and eliminated some duplicated info (group name for example). I think the opponents could be nicely boxed in a limited purpose war faction box, since usually opponents are listed in such an infobox but the list was so long it was getting way out of hand. Legacypac ( talk) 21:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
As you know, there is a moratorium on discussing name changes for this article. I just wanted to ask what will happen once the moratorium ends, and if I am unable to voice my opinion when the time comes. StanMan87 ( talk) 12:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
[Transferred from P123 Talk page]
Gregkaye Something that struck me when copy-editing yesterday was that the infoboxes have a lot about the current conflicts that ISIL is involved in, but there is nothing in the Lead about them. Do you not think the Lead should have a few lines about these conflicts? Readers before reading the article may wonder what the infoboxes are talking about when they see nothing in the Lead about it. This is going on the principle that the Lead is meant to summarise the article. There would be room for a few sentences as I cut down the history part of the Lead the other day by a few lines. ~
P123ct1 (
talk)
09:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
we need a updated version of the map. Baiji is under government control and an ongoing battle at ramadi is taking place-- Arbutus the tree ( talk) 01:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
the problem is no one ever uses those pages.-- Arbutus the tree ( talk) 02:59, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Again pinging map editors @ Haghal Jagul: @ Spesh531: @ Kohelet: @ Joan301009: @ Vectrex: @ Mondolkiri1: to raise this in addition to other threads.
The first paragraph of the article describes a "rebel group controlling territory" and, while I think that this is a reasonable description, I thought it might be relevant to raise a "controlling what?" question.
If the areas are anything like Jordan then I would imagine that, from the perspectives of both sides, a lot of the territory is relatively difficult to "control". What there will be is a lot of variously defensible and potentially strategic locations and a variety of populated areas in amongst a whole lot of typically desert wilderness. The maps are useful but I think that the block colours can be deceptive. It can be easy to think of borders in coloured terms perhaps in relation to our conceptions of border crossings etc. It can also be easy to think of wars in terms of Front lines and with conceptions affected by knowledge of historical conflicts such as WWII with its trench warfare.
"..controlling populated and other areas.." might work.
Also pinging the various map editors on this, @ Haghal Jagul: @ Spesh531: @ Kohelet: @ Joan301009: @ Vectrex: @ Mondolkiri1: See also: #Article Maps which was a particular issue on the 'SIL page in its condition before its amalgamation of infoboxes. Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Legacypac ( talk) 18:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I am no fan of Israeli politics but one thing that seems fairly clear to me is that they can be very clear in what they say. It is also clear that Israel has been listed in the article in error.
Israel, that I have seen, makes declarations about organisations in two significant ways. They can make a declaration of to say that an organisation is an organisation "as a terrorist organisation" (הכרזה כארגון טרור - "as an organisation of terror") and they can make a declaration to say that an organisation is a "Unlawful organization" (התאחדות בלתי מותרת - an "association/united group, not, allowed"). I have gone a bit into the etymology of the terms but regular translation simply relates to declarations of terrorist organisations and declarations of unlawful/illegal organisations and Israel made the second of these declarations in relation to 'SIL.
I found this information by searching on "הכרזה כארגון טרור לפי פקודת מניעת טרור" ("Declaration, as [an] organization, [of] terror, "from mouth", [of the] Ordinance, [of] prevention of, Terror") and then by choosing the download the immediately presented link with address shown as: www.mod.gov.il/Defence-and.../teror16.11.xls . This link has the title "רשימת ההכרזות - משרד הביטחון" which translates as: List of, Announcements - Office, [of] Security, (Ministry of Defence).
Israel has ten times issued a "הכרזה כארגון טרור לפי פקודת מניעת טרור" Declaration as a terrorist organization by the Command of preventing terror. I counted ten groups on the list and they included PLO, Fatah, Hamas, Palestine al-muslima, Palestinian relief and development...
Israel has also often issued a "הכרזה על התאחדות בלתי מותרת" Declaration of an unlawful association. I estimate about 100 items and groups include:
3.9.14 דאע"ש או המדינה האסלאמית או המדינה האסלאמית בעיראק ובסוריה או החליפות האסלאמית או אלקאעדה עיראק ISLAMIC STATE או ISLAMIC STATE IN IRAQ AND SYRIA/ALSHAM/LEVEANT או ISIL/ISIS או AQI אלדולה אלאסלאמיה פי עיראק ואלשאם או אלקאעדה פי עיראק الدولة الاسلامية או الدولة الاسلامية في عراق والشام או داﻋﺶ או اﳋلافۃ الاسلامية הכרזה על התאחדות בלתי מותרת לפי תקנות ההגנה (שעת חירום) 1945 שר הביטחון - משה (בוגי) יעלון 03/09/14 Daa"s or Islamic state or an Islamic state in Iraq and Syria or Islamic caliphate or Al-Qaeda or Iraq ISLAMIC STATE ISLAMIC STATE IN IRAQ AND SYRIA / ALSHAM / LEVEANT or ISIL / ISIS or AQI Haldol Alislamiya Iraq and al-Sham according to Al-Qaeda or Iraq الدولة الاسلامية times or الدولة الاسلامية في عراق والشام or داعش or الخلافۃ الاسلامية declaration of an unlawful association under the Defense (Emergency) Regulations, 1945 Defense Minister - Moshe (Bogie) Ya'alon.
The inclusion of the Israel reference in the section "Designation as a terrorist organization" is totally unjustified. Beyond the table the text of the section states "Many world leaders and government spokespeople have called ISIL a terrorist group..." Israel, as far as I can see, has not even done this.
Thank you
P123ct1 for removing the reference from the ISIL list. I will add relevant declarations to the article
List of designated terrorist organizations. It is important for Israel to be kept accountable for their notable actions. Thank you also for asking me the right questions to help me find Israel's surreptitiously hidden information on this.
Gregkaye ✍♪ 18:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
[links below belong to an earlier TP thread]
We here announce the ISIL article "Footnote appeal"
Don't let ISIL reference footnotes go naked - for it is written: "bare URL footnotes – i.e. footnotes that contain only the website http address – are susceptible to link-rot,". Oh the horror.
You can play your part in this most worthy campaign. Should you find that an editor has left a footnote in a bare, defenceless and susceptible condition, please gently inform them of this plight.
Supportive links are now provided:
Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#FootnoteDirective or
Talk:ISIL#FootnoteDirective will take an editor to relevant content in the banner. Yes footnotes are indeed given worthy mention amongst this content.
Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Footnote 2 or
Talk:ISIL#Footnote 2 will take an editor direct to the relevant hatnote above
(Similar access is provided by link:
Talk:ISIL#FootnoteHatnote)
These poor destitute URLs are best brought amongst the abundant fields of: Author, Title, Date, Publisher/Work, Agency, Access Date and other accompaniment that may be applicable to the foots individual condition.
Let's keep our feet happy - and thank-you.
Gregkaye ✍♪ 03:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Technical note:
As noted above, bare URL footnotes (with just the hhtp address and nothing else) are susceptible to link-rot. Link-rot happens when a website moves to a new domain. When it moves, it acquires a new http address, so the original link is broken and the reader will not be able to call up the citation. The reason why footnotes formed using the WP cite templates are better is that they have a lot of information in them, so that if the http address does change, that information can be used to retrieve the article from the internet. Broken-link or "dead-link" footnotes are easily repaired by substituting the old URL address with the new one. ~
P123ct1 (
talk)
09:29, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
The current count of bare URLs stands at 25 in this article and 14 in the timeline article, the highest it has ever been. The message is not getting through. ~ P123ct1 ( talk)
I found this new article via a link in the ISIL article. 2014 U.S. and allies versus Islamic State hostilities and conflicts. There are a number of issues with this article a deserves a look by other editors - I've AfD'd it. Legacypac ( talk) 11:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
1. It was only very recently that the article went through a significant restructure as per link above. At this stage the TOC looked like this.
2. Since then there has been another major revision that brought the TOC to look like this.
3. From this point I made some further reorganisations to produce an article sequence with a TOC that looks like this.
Each edit has its qualities. What do editors think. Gregkeye 16:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
After looking at all the towns under isil control's populations i have made a rough calculation that ISIL's population is 612,484 but unfortunately not all the towns populations are logged so their should be more than this. [ Where I got my source ] -- Weegeeislyfe ( talk) 08:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
(new section started below-same topic-I brought them together
Legacypac (
talk)
21:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)))
4,644,780–8,000,000 Honestly? If we do no know the first digit why should we write 5 more digits that are pure fairy tale. This should be 4 million-8 million. 95.91.128.159 ( talk) 09:17, 26 November 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. |
Addition of ~12,000 militants who were recruited in Balochistan region of Pakistan under ISIS' military size.
Kennybmr ( talk) 10:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
The decision as to whether to keep the timeline in the article has been a bit " in, out, in, out, and shake it all about" as per recent continuation of discussion at Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/Archive_17#Propose scrapping timeline from main article.
No real consensus was reached but the last definite view expressed was to keep seven days (I'll say ~seven days) of the info in the main article. For reasons that I won't go into I have had to check up on how this works with a
query at WP:PUMP. The bit that I understood was that the "transclusion" works when <onlyinclude>...</onlyinclude>
tags surround the section of text and unless anyone wants to understand the next bit I suggest that this last bit is the bit we should work with
.
The next bit relates to the tech's statement that, "A more versatile way to do this is with labeled section transclusion". Does anyone want to look into this? Anyone?
Otherwise what I plan to do is to just look at the timeline once in a while and, when the length stretches to over a week, to move the "<onlyinclude>" tag down to something like a four day timespan. All other editors are welcome to join me in this as are editors that edit the actual timeline document for love of that page.
My personal view is that the section of the timeline presented in the 'SIL article just needs to be long enough to give a taste of the content of the full timeline document so as to also present the most recent headlines. I still don't have a strong opinion as to whether timeline content should be kept in the main article but at least now everyone knows how things stand.
Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
The other thing that should be noted is that the section headings (AKA "months") from the timeline document are also "transcluded" into the ISIL document with the rest of the timeline text. This basically means at the wrong phase of the moon we get two titles in the TOC of the main document for the price of one. A personal thought is that this might be a good time to shorten time length, by something like the fourth of each month, to a corresponding number of days. Its just a thought. Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
next issue it was previously agreed to set up a format on the Timeline page so that the month heading would not appear as a second item on the TOC after "Timeline of recent events". This is still what I think looks best, most straightforward and honest. For instance it might get to the last week in November and yet there would still be a heading saying November even though just one week is displayed. A difficulty in not having the title is that editors would actually need to load the timeline document to make edits. I'd still favour losing the extra title. Gregkaye ✍♪ 20:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
What it was) vs What it is now 1 History
2 Criticism
3 Countries and groups at war with ISIL
4 Group characteristics and structure
5 Supporters
6 Analysis
The article has grown organically without anyone looking hard at the structure for a long time. There is a method to this madness. These 6 major sections will allow us to bring together and reduce duplicated info to trim this down. For example, we had the leaders listed and linked in two sections (Governance and Leaders) Once reorganized that was obvious and the duplication eliminated with no loss. This is also is a lot more user friendly. Legacypac ( talk) 14:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks - it is possible to set it out in a column (I'm hopeless at that in wiki) but why not just look at the article Table of Contents or hit edit on this section to see it laid out in point form. how the TOC looked yesterday. Legacypac ( talk) 20:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
As far as I can tell the most relevant section of Wikipedia guidelines on this is WP:BODY. The basic principle is that: "Headings introduce sections and subsections, clarify articles by breaking up text, organize content, and populate the table of contents. Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose." MOS:HEADINGS also indicates that there are four levels of heading available. In its current state the article makes use of three of them, it uses six major ==headings== as detailed above which provide navigation to well over 40 section titles.
I was the editor that proposed the last look at the article structure and, possibly as a result of my introduction, we had a lot of discussion about sequence of content but not a lot about depth. My personal opinion for what it is worth is that the new layout is less bitty than it was before providing an easier navigation than we previously managed to achieve. Content remains the same but I think people will now be able to access it more easily.
Controversial changes in actual content material certainly need to be raised here and I know Legacypac has rightly followed this procedure when proposing #Standard for Naming ISIL in Sinai, Libya etc for example. The concept of consultation as mentioned by P123ct1 is vital in this article and when editors deviate from this they can be rightly held to account. My view is that the current edits are far from destructive. I'm quite annoyed that I didn't think of them myself.
Gregkaye ✍♪ 20:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Compare to an article on the polar opposite Red Cross
Legacypac ( talk) 01:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
History actually details who the group is and many of their major activities, but so does Criticism (as Gregkeye says). It is the most appropriate followup section. I'd suggest a little reordering to get the Human rights abuses closer to the History since they are the main place we detail this activity.
Current:
2 Criticism (as now organized)
Proposed:
2 Criticism
Legacypac ( talk) 01:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I am less convinced by the idea that the section "Countries and groups at war with ISIL" should go before the description of 'SIL's "Military and arms" as presented at the end of "Group characteristcs and structure" or that the "Countries and groups at war.." section should be split from the section on "Supporters". I see a logic in this section following "Designation as a terrorist organization" but don't consider this to be sufficient to justify such a move. Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
(moved from a new section started) Current order of sections is not suitable. We'd better put introductory sections (such as Group characteristics and structure) first, then we might have sections such as criticism and etc. I edited based on this idea, but it was reverted every time. Mhhossein ( talk) 07:53, 27 November 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.
LightandDark2000 has twice put in material in the Supporters section Once by dropping in material I moved (which I reverted assuming he did not realize where it went and immediately reached out on his talk page) and now by reverting my reversion of his edit. That crosses the 1RR line so I've requested he revert himself and come here to discuss his concerns. As state in my edit summay and his talk page I believe the "Supporters: remove material reinserted in error by LightandDark2000. This info was not deleted earlier, it was moved to and summarized in Section 2.6 Military and arms with details in Military of ISIL)]])" Legacypac ( talk) 04:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
The list of groups pledging in can be found here and summarized here so we don't need it here anymore. And if the fighters joined ISIL why would we list them as Supporters. If we are going to list these 5 or 6 groups we should list all the dozens of groups in Iraq and Syria that joined ISIL, sometimes a 1000 at a time. Legacypac ( talk) 04:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
It is mentioned that part of India is controlled by ISIS, which is not true. Can anyone remove it?
Article content should accurately report on the wholly unjustified inter-Muslim/inter-faith conflict currently occurring in Iraq and Syria. This conflict should be fairly presented as should the relative status levels and backgrounds of any of the groups involved. It is only right that the truth of the nature of this sectarian warfare be clearly presented.
On the other side of this same issue there should not be attempts to highlight western involvements in ways that go beyond the actual realities in Iraq and Syria. In other articles I have seen a rhetorical repetition of the terms American and U.S. in a way that, amongst other things, might well leave us other coalition member states (and the government of Syria etc.) feeling left out. It has been common in various places in various articles to talk of Assad, of al-Maliki and of U.S President Barack Obama as following mention of the U.S.-led coalition and other U.S. related references. While I think that it is fair for all groups that have intervened in the region to be fairly accountable for their actions it often seems that some editors take every turn to place a U.S. centric spin on local issues. I think that the thread above on Israel indicates a gratuitous act by some journalists to indicate a sensationalist involvement of Israel whose headline may have shifted a few more copies of the paper. Closer to home I don't think that a gratuitous emphasis of U.S. involvement should be tolerated. I have attempted to balance this out where I have been able and hope that other editors can also be watchful.
References in articles to local groups are a cause for concern. In the references such as in the timeline article I seen can talk about ISIL and rebel groups. I think that it may even be proposed that 'SIL is about as rebellious a group as it is possible to get. It has rebels against local governments, it has rebelled against and has separated from al-Qaeda and it arguable that the extremity of many of its actions constitute a rebellion against a great many purported authorities of Islam.
Terminologies we might use could include "other rebel groups" or perhaps we could talk of the "ISIL separatists" in comparison to "rebel groups" or rebels. Better still perhaps we can name the other groups and state something on their ideologies. Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
back on "propaganda" In the timeline document there was another text example contrasting, "unite several hard-line groups" and "other moderate Syrian Rebel groups". What makes the hard-liners to be hard-liners but the moderates to be rebels? It's difficult to know the politics of each of the many groups out there but, as far as I have been able to understand, it's the hard-liners that have been the groups that have rebelled against the the Syrian and Iraqi regimes. In the articles, however, it is POV to differentiate between the groups. Gregkaye ✍♪ 21:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)