Talk:Islamic State/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 30

the term "Rebel group controlling territory" is fake term made up in order to replace the term "unrecognized state"

the islamic state isn't just a rebel group with a central goal of toppling some regime. they formed a state with government and other infrastracutes like economy, law enforcment, education, agriculture etc and they keep developing them and calls for various experts around the world to join their new state/caliphate.

the term "Rebel group controlling territory" for the islamic state is nothing more than the false preception of them as nothing more than gang of lunatics who all what they doing is to run from city to city and kill the police and anyone who oppose them but it doesn't true, they are replacing the former goverments in many ways from law enforcment to education.

and that POV pushing is just the one part of a series of POV pushing made by people who can't seperate their justified hate for the islamic state from the article about the islamic state despite the fact that the article should be NEUTRAL and mention facts as they are. and as i already showed her there is some people who are simply too eager to attack everything relating to ISIS from their legitimacy of being caliphate and even for being "jihadist" with nothing but demagogy like the OPINION of some individuals and even just realy stupid and hilarious "arguments" like "ISIS is an unrecognized-state, they aren't a state so they can't be a caliphate".

some people edited this article in a realy bad way which harms wikipedia reputation for being neutral. --Wheels of steel0 (talk) 21:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

You will find the term originated List_of_active_rebel_groups#Groups_which_control_territory here where the Article is called List of Active Rebel Groups and the section 1st header "Groups Which Control Territory" =>Rebel group controlling territory term used here. That article says: "This is a list of active rebel groups around the world whose domains may be subnational, transnational or international. A "rebel group" is defined here as a political group seeking change through armed conflict in opposition to an established government or governments." Compare to Sovereign state. I hope the clarification was helpful. Legacypac ([[User talk:Legacypac|ta

Legacypac i saw that article and it has nothing to do with the legitimacy of this term on the islamic state case or in general. on the other hand you should read the article you mentioned about sovereign state, that article showed the international law terms for being a sovereign state:

1.having a permanent population. the islamic state have it.

2.defined territory. the islamic state have it and they aren't the first state who have imperialistic territorial claims.

3.the CAPACITY to enter into relations with other sovereign states. they do have the capacity and there is even claims that they have secret relations with turkey and even an embassy.

4.one government. they have it.

the article even talk about states without recognitions from other states so they obviously fit for being called a 'state'.

it mybe more practical to define some rebel groups who conquer some city or territory as part of an armed battle against some government or group as "rebel group controlling territory" but the islamic state is different in the vast organized efforts in various infrastractures from law enforcment and juridical system to education, agriculture, water, electricity, sewage, post offices(in some areas) and even building new roads and facilities. and ofcourse they are a new state and not just some group trying to topple and replace some government in a specific state, so even the term "rebel group" didn't fit to them from the beginning.

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2014/08/18/iraq_isis_terror_obama_us_intelligence_islamic_state

the statehood of the islamic state is talked in many other articles and mentioned by people who live in their territory. so there is no reason to treat them as "rebel group controlling territory" cause they don't just "control" the the territory they realy govern over the territory and the people in it in the level of at least low level third world country.

and anyway most people will agree that for long time the islamic state is no longer some "rebel group controlling teritory".--Wheels of steel0 (talk) 17:29, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I think we can agree that they fail under "Constitutive theory" as no state recognizes them as a country.

Your list is from the Declarative theory which requires all 4 elements.

1) a defined territory (not stable, shifts daily, requires saying that Iraq and/or Syria's borders have changed, which even Syria's other enemies have never said)

2) a permanent population; (there are no "citizens". They do not have popular support in areas controlled. Refugees all over the place.)

3) a government (they do control local government functions to various degrees, but local government is not national sovereignty. They surely do not exercise the exclusive right to use force anywhere.)

and 4) a capacity to enter into relations with other states, so long as it wasn't achieved by force whether this consists in the employment of arms, in threatening diplomatic representations, or in any other effective coercive measure. (from Article 11 of the Montevideo Convention) (ummm... fail? and the UN designation of ISIL as a terrorist group pretty much precludes diplomatic recognition.)

Okay, I'd like to point out some problems with your theory: 1)There are areas that are firmly under their control, but that doesn't even matter because "defined territory" doesn't necessarily mean stable. Somalia has defined territory, and it's still unstable in areas. 2) Popular support is irrelevant. Do you think all the dictators of history had popular support? They do have a permanent population, because, "citizen" or not, they have people living in their territory under their rule. It could even be argued that they are "citizens", despite the fact they are not recognized officially as such. 3)Have you even read the reports on their activity in Derna? They have taken over the police force, administrative buildings, schools and other educational programs and facilities, and more. They are quite effective at administering the territory under their control. 4)I'm sure they have the capacity to attempt to enter diplomatic relations with other countries, but since they view most other countries as evil I doubt they will. In any case, that isn't necessary to fall under the category of unrecognized state. 5)Diplomatic recognition is irrelevant. It doesn't need diplomatic recognition to be classified as an unrecognized state. Somaliland isn't recognized by any sovereign nation, and yet it is still recognized as an unrecognized state by this website. ISIL more than meets the definition of an unrecognized state. Back in 2013, when they first formed, they didn't. They were just another insurgent group operating in Iraq and Syria. But this year they firmly established themselves and made major gains, seizing major population centers in Iraq from government forces. Their further success in the June 2014 campaign and the subsequent declaration of the Caliphate has only cemented their status as an unrecognized state. Those of you who argue otherwise have clearly never been to Iraq or Syria, and have not been keeping themselves informed of the situation. I know people who have been over there, and I'm sure they'll tell you the same thing: ISIL does have control of the territories it holds. They are an unrecognized state. This cannot be denied. Anasaitis (talk) 22:02, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac (talk) 00:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC) 18:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac , Gregkaye(i don't know who wrote that comment). don't try to made up new terms and rewrite the international law and known defenition of 'state'.

1. neither do the territory which syria and iraq control is "stable", not that it means anything about the legitimacy of some state if it loses or gain some territory.

2."not popular"? since when a state needs to be "popular"? anyway you need to stop with those claims of "the muslims don't support them" "they are not popular" and all this nonesense of assuming that you know and can generalize about the muslim world as if they all have the same opinion and somekind of authority, after our discussion on that matter we both know that you don't know much about islam and know nothing at all about the people inside the islamic state territory or muslims in general.

3. local goverment is the big part that makes them from some group who conquer territory as part of a militiary campaign against some specific country to a state that govern its territory and people. the "right" according to your POV has nothing to do with her.

4. they can have it by "force" or various other ways according to the will of the other country, the capacity is all what is matter her and not if they succeded or not in having relations and formal recognition of some state.

the constitutive theory isn't the only or main defenition of state so it doesn't matter if the islamic state isn't a state according to this theory which is problematic from its core cause "recognition" is nothing but formal and mostly symbolic act in many cases like the "recognition" of russia in south ossetia and transnistria as "sovereign states" and part of russia in the same time or like the "recognition" of turkey in the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus"(northern cyprus) which is the same case.

countries like that has no real "recognition" from any country so they are called "unrecognized states" and they aren't the only countries in that situation. so as you can see the constitutive theory defenition of a state is ignored most of the time and that why we have the term "unrecognized state". --Wheels of steel0 (talk) 23:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I already noted there are two schools of thought on nationhood - interpretation falls between the two schools.

Wheels of steel0 Can you name any other group in the world that is as rebellious as 'SIL? They have rebelled against the governments of Syria and the democratically elected government of Iraq. They have rebelled against al-Qaeda to whom they previously swore loyalty and from whom they have now been disowned. They have rebelled against a great number of Islamic authorities who have come to the point, in many cases, of calling them un-Islamic. I cannot see that they are anything other than the epitome of a rebel group. Who can you say is worse? Gregkaye ✍♪ 19:24, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

the term "rebel group" is about the cause and goals of the group and not its personal character. the islamic state don't want to replace the current syrian goverment in another "syrian" goverment and do it in iraq. the islamic state want to conquer those countries and destroying them completely. they even forbiden teachers in their schools to mention the words "syria" or "iraq" and the names of other arab states which they see as fake countries and nations. --Wheels of steel0 (talk) 23:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The difficult and uncomfortable truth is that they are probably both. Other language wiki articles on ISIL have two, one for the group as ISIL, one for the group as Islamic state. When is that nettle going to be grasped by the en.wiki article? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 19:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. While I think that the term rebel group is very apt in some circumstances (especially when comparisons are being made to other groups) I agree that it does not give a full or accurate big picture view of what they are about. How about a lead text, "... is a Sunni, extremist, jihadist militant organization controlling territory ..." The link to List of active rebel groups#Groups which control territory can still be attached but perhaps to the words "controlling territory". As far as "status" or "type" in the infobox are concerned I think rebel group gives good description. However, in other situations rebel group does not describe an organisation with slick PR that 'SIL exhibits. The first titles in the governance section might also warrant a revision but no ideas at present. Perhaps a word like promotion could be added to Propaganda and social media. I object to the use of government. This description fails on the basis that 'SIL is not a nation. The infobox should talk of governance not government. They are not a nation and don't have a recognised government. Last time I checked sources did not describe 'SIL as having a government and nor should we. Gregkaye ✍♪ 22:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye the term government has nothing to do with nationality at all. goverment is the administrative system which controll a state, and they are a state as you can see.

the lack of "nationality" as we know it and the idea of being the state of all muslims(kind of islamic nationality) is exactly what made them a caliphate which is also kind of goverment system. many people think that "recognizing" their statehood or being a caliphate is kind of support in them but the fact is that recognition doesn't affect the fact that they are a state and obviously has nothing to do with being a caliphate. they are pan islamic state which is a caliphate. --Wheels of steel0 (talk) 23:49, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

the unrecognized "states" wheels mention are both stable and backed by a great power aka puppet states. A rebel group does not need to recognize the legitimate government, in fact they usually reject the government. I never referenced muslims, this has nothing to do with religion - popular support means the people support (or at least recognize but not necessarily like) the group as the legitimate government. Provision of water, power, courts etc does NOT equal sovereignty-if it did every city and province/state would be its own country. If wheels is here to argue that ISIL is a sovereign nation please provide some actual support and come back here after you successfully amend List_of_sovereign_states. This position has been rejected many times all over Wikipedia and there is no reason to change this article to conflict with the rest of the project. No one else here sees that ISIL is a state. Legacypac (talk) 00:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• Wheels of steel0 As far as I see it you are pushing a fairly strong POV. Have you read State. I will readily hear any defence to the contrary but, by my reading, QSIS fails at every level. Please don't say that I "can see" something that doesn't seem to me to fit in with any definition of state. One thing that I found interesting was that the article "Islamic state" does not have a parallel equivalent on Arabic Wikipedia. How did this concept originate? Without information to the contrary I think that the most logical answer is to interpret an "Islamic state" as being simply a "state" that is ajectivally described by "Islamic". You need to present evidence of your claim of a concept of a state for all Muslims. This is not how countries and international law works. If say a Czechoslovakian person goes, for instance to Mexico they don't remain in Czechoslovakia. They go to Mexico. They do not remain in the same state. There are only two states most directly involved in the 'SIL story. They are Iraq and Syria and there are a number of rebel/militant, groups/organisations fighting for power in between. Gregkaye ✍♪ 05:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac i didn't gave examples for unrecognized states but examples for "recognition" and how it can't realy determine if some group is a state or not. we can both agree that you don't know how much people like the islamic state in its territory and how much don't like them, but as you can see at yourself many people cooperates with them whether if it is by paying taxes and for other services like water and by using facilities in their control like courthouses and schools and even by complaining to their kind of police about other people.

city may run many similar things but a city isn't indipendent and it is part of a country, that why a city without a larger state which control it is called a city-state and not "rebel group controling territory" or "group of people controling territory".

your demand that i will correct anyother article which made similar mistake with the islamic state is ridiculous. the blind refusal of seeing them as what they are is a mistake that should be corrected on the article about the islamic state before any other article that mention them.

you on the other hand needs to show me how the islamic state doesn't fit to the known defenition of a state instead of trying to made up new defenition with new terms like "popular support" and "the right" to force their rule.

Gregkaye can you show me how you got to the conclusion that the islamic state doesn't fit to those terms? i talked about that with a lot of details so you need to do more than writing your claim without any kind of argument.

the term "islamic state" as a type of country means nothing at all for the legitimacy of the islamic state for being a caliphate or a state so what is your point her exactly?. anyway if we are talking about the arabic wikipedia you should know that the arabic article of the islamic state describing the 'situation' of the islamic state as unrecognized-state as this article did not many time ago.

and what can't you understand in the fact that the islamic state sees itself as the state of all muslims? you talked about nationality and this is the nationality of the islamic state, the same ideology that defines a caliphate and seperate it from countries with none-islamic nationality which force the sharia on the people like iran. so how a person who goes from one country to another has anything to do with the subject her? the islamic state as any other state rule what its rule and the international law have nothing to do with the nationality/ideology of the state itself.--Wheels of steel0 (talk) 12:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Wheels of steel0 Please also do not misrepresent a dictionary defined word such as rebel. This word has a wide range of meanings and it does not help if you make POV assertions regarding one fairly extreme form of its definition. For other views of the term please see search on: "Che Guevara" AND (rebel OR rebellion) and, for instance, content at Star Wars, Rebel Alliance. Throughout history there have been noble rebellions and less noble rebellions. No judgement if meant by the use of the term. It merely constitutes a correct and encyclopaedic description of the situation. This has nothing to do with readers independent judgements of the group and its actions and what they represent.

In your second sentence in you opening statement above you claimed, "they formed a state". I would ask you to look at definitions of state and present reasons based on that content as to why you think that this group fits the related encyclopaedic descriptions. References in reliable sources to reference to the group as being a nation state would also be helpful. The fact is that QSIS, as I am at liberty to describe it, is a rebel group. It has taken control of territory that exists within the border areas of Iraq and Syria. You have claimed that they have formed a "state" but you have not substantiated this claim according to the definitions of the word used.

How a person goes from one country to another has everything to do with the subject. Please read the content of State.Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye it seems you failed to understand that the term "rebel" is not just about the action of the group but also about what they are without being a rebel, while rebels are group(from very small to very big) of people resisting to some authority this term can't be used when the group has formed a functioning state which rule a significant amount of territory.

and for being a state, i ALREADY showed how they fit to the term in THIS discussion, don't try to ignore it:

"

1.having a permanent population. the islamic state have it.

2.defined territory. the islamic state have it and they aren't the first state who have imperialistic territorial claims.

3.the CAPACITY to enter into relations with other sovereign states. they do have the capacity and there is even claims that they have secret relations with turkey and even an embassy.

4.one government. they have it.

the article even talk about states without recognitions from other states so they obviously fit for being called a 'state'.

"

i even commented about the desperate criticism of "legacypac" about it so why you keep talking as if i didn't talked about the terms at all? if you do had some kind of real criticism you were at least talking about the terms and what i said about them ofcourse. and again your ridiculous connection between being a state/government to nationality just show that you simply have inaccurate and false preception of the concept of a state. and it look like you readed the article about state in the same way you "readed" the articles about nation and nationality so don't tell me to read the article about state in your attempt to avoid a real discussion about the terms i talked about and other things from that article which you chose to ignore. --Wheels of steel0 (talk) 16:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Wheels of steel0 With regard to your use of the terms "failed", "desperate" and "ridiculous" please see WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL. If you want people to discuss issues with you can you please treat them with respect. I have given options to respond as above. They have no RS recognition as a state. They have no RS recognition as a government. Sources, that I have seen, do not refer to them in these ways. Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:30, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye referring sources have nothing to do with her cause as you can see in the article about the term state and in many actual real-life examples the term state is not about any kind of "recognition"(especialy not of some american news network and others) but about actual functionality and facts which you deny over and over again, that why the term "unrecognized-state" exist. you indeed failed in giving any real argument to support your claim and your way of avoiding real discussion and only saying your opinion without any kind of arguments or even referring to the arguments i showed her is desperate. you give the POV of some online news site and personal people as an argument for claims that has nothing to do with the POV of those people you use, and you ignore them when they doesn't have the same POV as you like with our discussion about if the islamic state is "jihadistic" and caliphate.

the problem is not just with your claims but with your whole rhetoric. --Wheels of steel0 (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Wheels of steel0 In addition to all the above please read and understand Wikipedia:Weasel words with regard to your unsubstantiated statement regarding, "many actual real-life examples the term state". Demonstrate to us all the list of nations that recognise the rebel group QSIS to be a state. Demonstrate a predominance of references in RS. Please don't make unsubstantiated accusations about rhetoric. Again see WP:NPA. I am in no way avoiding the topic of functionality and in no way deny the view of QSIS being an intricately functioning rebel group. This is an irrelevance. Gregkaye ✍♪ 18:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye the term "weasel words" just described the rhetoric you are using now with how you act as if you said anything meaningful about what i said while you are doing nothing instead of having claims without anykind of argument not to mention one that refer to what i just said before. and i already gave you examples for states without recognition that have other names in some media like south ossetia, abkhazia and north cyprus and more, you call it "unsubstantiated"?, don't tell me that you didn't heard about those states cause i mentioned them before in this discussion.

now despite what we know now about unrecognized state and the common terms which don't include any kind of "recognition" you demand some ridiculous demands like "Demonstrate to us all the list of nations that recognise the rebel group QSIS to be a state" and "Demonstrate a predominance of references in RS" despite the fact that we are just talking about how "recognition" have nothing to do with being a state. you even demand "recognition" of news networks as "sources" which only show that you don't know the use of reliable sources, third party sources are used for getting FACTS which the third party sources are likely to know and not the POV of the news network which is obviously not in favor of the islamic state and will keep referring them as a "terror group" instead of a state no matter who will recognize them. this is not the way sources should be used and once again you are using that demagogy for backing your claims while you completly ignore them when you don't agree with them like with how those sources call this group "jihadist".

your rhetoric is desperate and full of demagogy, i don't know if you are just hating this group too much that you have to disagree with everything that these people want to make themselves look like(like with being "jihadistic" and your pointless and presistant opposing for calling them like that) or just realy get things wrong at the beginning but can't backoff from your claims after you made them even when you see that you are wrong. in both cases you need to let go instead of using demagogy and desperate rhetoric.--Wheels of steel0 (talk) 23:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Wheels of steel0 just to give you the heads up. I was not the only editor to be looking at the unsubstantiated "unrecognised state" terminology that the article used to use. Another editor added something like a "how" tag to the term as I was simultaneously thought about the issue. The problem is that (isil or isis or daesh or "islamic state") AND "unrecognised state" gets ZERO results in news. It isn't used. (Now if I had repeated that last sentence as I was tempted to do, just so you know, this would have been an example of rhetoric). The main phrase that I knew to be attested was, (isil or isis or daesh or "islamic state") AND "terrorist organisation" which is a designation that is attested by groups such as the United Nations. Another editor came up with the rebel group terminology which also has the advantage of fitting in with the content of List of active rebel groups.

As I said, "please read and understand WP:Weasel words. Please read WP:WALLOFTEXT. Please read WP:rhetoric. Please stop making unsubstantiated accusations. Thankyou. Gregkaye ✍♪ 01:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye you just posted a pile of mumblings without any relevant argument as if i didn't just showed you in the previous comment how the POV of the media about how to call them can't be count as RS cause the way they choose to call them has nothing to do with FACTS, and instead of reacting to what i said you just say what you said before just as a long and pointless speech full of accusations and links that actualy describe your desperate rhetoric of making comments that looks like they say something but in fact are empty of any real argument and even barely related to the comment you are responding to.

show me how you think that the way some news network and random online pages choose to call some group can be count as "Reliable Source" for any kind of FACT or comback to the argument about the terms for being a state and finaly tell me your mysterious reasons for why you think the islamic state failed "in any level" for meeting the terms for being a state, and of course don't just throw empty claims again.

if you can't do one of those things you should simply quite from this argument instead of posting more empty speeches that barely have anything to do with the subject or to anything i just said before.--Wheels of steel0 (talk) 18:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Wheels of steel0 @ "full of accusations" - cite them! What do you disagree with and why? I am more than happy to talk about "some news network" but usually on condition that the news network concerned fitted into the more reliable side of WP:RS. I wouldn't trust "random online pages" at least not without researching. I tend to be one of the more cynical editors here Gregkaye ✍♪ 18:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye "cite them" like for saying that i am doing "weasel wording" and "wall of text" which are both done only by you her with your pointless speeches and desperate rhetoric. your accusations are ridiculous with their irony and only used by you for derailing this discussion cause you ran out of arguments. and again, it doesn't matter if you call those news network "reliable" cause the whole "reliable" concept is for FACTS and not for the way they choose to call some group, i hope you can notice the different between telling about something that happened or happening and between using different names for some group. your desperate rhetoric of using the names some news networks use as "sources" for anything isn't just desperate and wrong but also hypocrisy cause in a previous debate on the islamic state matter you just said her that wikipedia should ignore the news networks when they call the islamic state "jihadist" and stop calling them jihadistic on this article, why that wasn't "reliable sources"?...

your desperate rhetoric isn't doing good for you so it is about time that you come with some real arguments and adopt reasonable way of backing up your claims or quite from this argument.--Wheels of steel0 (talk) 02:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Wheels of steel0 For WP:weasel words see your statement: many actual real-life examples the term state is not about any kind of "recognition". For WP:walloftext look above. For WP:Rhetoric look at your own repetitions. You have now additionally made a fallacious accusation that I said that: wikipedia should ignore the news networks. You need to strike your libellous attack.

My argument is simple and it is found here: (isil or isis or daesh or "islamic state") AND "a state". Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye i gave you real life examples for states without recognition and that have been called "unrecognized states" so what you couldn't understand her exactly? don't you notice the relation to the subject we are talking about or you just throw blindly accusations cause you ran out of arguments?. i repeat my self cause of your desperate attempts of avoiding real argument and finaly give some kind of argument to support your claim. but instead of showing arguments you are using the WP:walloftext you talked about, giving me a link to some google search with web pages and news articles about the islamic state names that barely talk about their being of state and only mention some letters from a muslim group who asked david cameron not to acknowledge the islamic state nor as "islamic" or "state". you call that an argument? or you just hoped that i wouldn't read the articles in that search?, seems your WP:walloftext startegy of derailing this discussion just failed.

i am still waiting for real and written argument about how the islamic state isn't a state or an argument about why should we adopt the POV of some news networks. don't bother to comment without any of this cause your desperate WP:weasel words and WP:walloftext startegies of avoiding from providing real argument remain obvious and futile no matter how much you will try to blame me in what you are doing.--Wheels of steel0 (talk) 16:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Wheels of steel0 I have not seen that you have given me anything. Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Wheels of steel0, Please read, Sovereign state. The article begins, "A state is a nonphysical juridical entity of the international legal system.." There is nothing in connection with this group that has a favourable fit with international law. They are an outlawed group. Wikipedia is here to accurately report content. We go by realities. Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye "part of international legal system"? read about international law if you don't realy know about what it is, you also need to read the article you just mentioned and the terms of the international law i talked about on earlier comments, the article just mentioned the terms of the international law at the beginning but you ignored them in order to make an excuse for another pointless comment.

and i didn't even mentioned the fact that the term state is mostly matter of fact and not of recognition, there is no meaning for the term "outlawed" for being a state, and there is no meaning for the international law itself for being a state, states can follow some UN resolutions or completely ignore them but they are still states. the international law have a defenition for a state but it doesn't mean that being a state is something that needs authorization of the UN like some professional certification. you don't know how to manage a debate and only repeat on your failed and only argument: "nobody recognize them as state"(the bottom line of most of your comments if we ignore all your WP:walloftext) without any reaction to my argument(about the "recognition" thing) and even ignore crucial parts of what you claim to read.

comback with a real argument or just stop posting pointless comments--Wheels of steel0 (talk) 12:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Wheels of steel0, GregKaye. Your pointless arguing and continued disruptive editing are a nuisance. You delete any attempts to edit this article so that ISIL is defined as an unrecognized state. You told me there was an agreement by the majority of the other editors, and that it the conversation had reached a consensus. I came to the talk page to add my thoughts on the topic, and what did I find? There was no agreement by consensus that ISIL wasn't a state. In fact, most of the other editors seem to think otherwise. You lied to me and deleted my edits for no apparent reason. I may be new here, but I'm pretty sure what you're doing is disruptive editing and edit warring. Anasaitis (talk) 22:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Anasaitis It would be extremely well appreciated here if editors could address each other civilly without anger. It would also be appreciated if you wouldn't come flying in with unsubstantiated accusation. The fact is that we are building an encyclopaedia here. We go by definitions of words. We attempt to present accurate information. State is a very specifically defined word. We also go by WP:RS. We also can't just present claims that others are not making. We can't use Wikipedia's voice on disputable matters. See WP:OR.

The comments that have accompanied my edits have been:

• Removing Category:States and territories established in 2014, The group is not a state. This article is about the group. It may have reorganised territories and when articles are written on those territories, then use
• Please read State, There are many big organised groups in the world. Becoming a state requires political will.

What did I say to you and where? Your talk page contains six edits. None of them are mine. I have not had any edits on my talk page from the Anasaitis login. GregKaye ✍♪ 23:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

If coming here to argue pro-ISIL positions that can't be substantiated with reliable sources expect to run into serious resistance. It has been well established they are not a state, or an unrecognized state. Legacypac (talk) 09:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

GregKaye why can't you understand the difference between make a statment about a fact between calling or not calling some group in some ways which is about recognition and POV of the writers and not a fact?, the article you mentioned has talked about "statements of fact" which has nothing to do with the recognition of some functioning government as a state or not. we already talked about it but you keep with the same false rhetoric despite the fact that you didn't saw new networks as "reliable sources" for calling the IS "jihadistic" and realy fought against using the terms the news networks use for them. you are using false rhetoric and double standards again, anyone can be a reliable source only if and when he say something that you feel comfortable with.

Legacypac "well estublished"? both you and gregkaye failed to back up your blind resistance for treating them as unrecognized state and infact your only argument was that state can only be a state if they are being "recognized" by some country and ignored the known term 'unrecognized state'.

and you claim that we support the islamic state? like seriously? i am a complete atheist and everybody who support the "pro-isil" you are talking about were probably atheist to or even christians.

i think both you and gregkaye should finnaly understand that "recognition" is meaningless her, the islamic state is functioning as a state and govern their territory as one and this is a FACT, you can like it or not but using different names doesn't going to change the fact that they are no longer some terrorist organisation who managed to drive off the army and police from some territory. --Wheels of steel0 (talk) 15:47, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

@Wheels of steel0: your posts suggest you are bias, reuse to follow the sources, and may in fact be part of ISIL's propaganda efforts. You are the one claiming the article is wrong even though it has 100s of sources. You bring the evidence you are right - not up to us to disprove your fringe theories. Legacypac (talk) 17:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac "follow the sources"? you don't know what is the meaning of using sources and what is their purpose, sources are used for backing up FACTS and not the POV about the legitimacy of some group to seize the territory they govern.

you also don't know what is the real meaning of "recognition" of some state(or news network) in another state, you just use desperate rhetoric of claiming that your POV have "sources".

before you accusing me of being "part of ISIL's propaganda efforts" i suggest you to learn about what is sources and about some basic facts about states and politics.

and above all, you and gregkaye need to understand that refusing to acknowledge the reality of the IS existence as a state with functioning government is not "anti-isil" but nothing more than denial of the truth. wikipedia should be NEUTRAL and not sacrifice significant facts in order to reflect the stances of the editors of the article. the truth should be heard as it is and you can be sure that everyone who is against them(including me) don't realy going to be any less against them if he will know that the IS is now a low-level functioning state.--Wheels of steel0 (talk) 21:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

What has happened to the maps?

One of the maps usefully showed the borders of Iraq, Syria and neighbouring countries. Why has this gone? Editors may be familiar with this part of the Middle East, but what about readers who may not be? This article is being written for WP readers, after all. Every map used by the media always shows the different countries clearly marked, why not this article? It seems like common sense to follow their good example. The maps will make no sense to readers who do not know where the Iraq-Syria border is. ~ P-123 (talk) 22:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

@P-123: which map do you mean? A link to that will help our discussion. Mhhossein (talk) 00:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Mhhossein: I could not find it. On 2 November I thanked the editor who put in the borders, but his map does not show up on versions of the page around that date. It was in one of the Lead infoboxes. gregkaye, can you help? It was one of Spesh's maps. ~ P-123 (talk) 01:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

P-123 map edit history is as follows.

• @Spesh531: "update 11/1/2014 labels" 23:02, 1 November 2014
• @RobiH: label contents as already presented in NPOV form under the map were changed and unnecessarily added to the map: "other Syrian rebels" was changed to "Syrian rebel groups", "Syrian government" was changed to "Assad Regime (Syria)", "Iraqi government" was changed to "Iraq/Shia Army" and reference to the Kurds was edited out. There was also an additional ref of "Israel occupied Syria" added which, for once, actually mentions Israel in reference to, IMO, legitimate wrong. Never-the-less I'd suggest that this is content that is most constructively developed elsewhere in Wikipedia. 20:37, 4 December 2014
• @Legacypac: "Reverted to version as of 23:02, 1 November 2014 - terrorist friendly labels included, seek consensus before making such changes" 15:24, 5 December 2014
• @Joan301009 "update" 12:49, 6 December 2014

(I'd suggest a use of the format as of edits by Spesh53 and Legacypac). At least this is what I was going to suggest b4 realising that the map is used on a great number of pages where local languages may not even use Latin script. gregkaye ✍♪ 03:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

This is the map I was referring to. (First one in the list above.) Why was it discontinued? What are the terrorist-friendly labels? I asked for the borders to be put in, and then the map suddenly appeared, was there for a while and disappeared, I am not sure when. ~ P-123 (talk) 08:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Why? See Wikidata on parallel articles. The addition of English headings may not be appreciated by many users across the entire encyclopedia. Lables and and timings are covered in comments above. gregkaye ✍♪ 15:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

The RobiH version minimized the Iraq/Syria border and splashed Islamic State across the gray zone. It also highlighted Golan heights bright blue and other problems in the legend. It looks like an ISIL propaganda publication. Legacypac (talk) 16:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac: I don't understand. The RobiH version isn't the one I am talking about. You say the addition of English headings may not be appreciated ... but why cannot one version of the map I linked to be given the English titles and be used just in this article? I am probably being naïve, but why is everything so darned complicated in Wikipedia? ~ P-123 (talk) 02:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

gregkaye: Belated thanks for providing that list. ~ P-123 (talk) 02:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Greg said the English headings might be an issue, not me. Each version is saved over the others. Maybe we could save the version we like with English labels as a new file name and use it. Of course anyone could overwrite that file too, but we can police that. The other issue is the map gets updated occasionally, so this article would have to rely on the English version being updated as well as the "no words" version. The no words version has an attached key in many languages. Legacypac (talk) 08:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Good, if that can be achieved without too much difficulty, as readers would be helped greatly if they had a map that clearly shows the borders, IMO. ~ P-123 (talk) 10:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I've raised a question at User talk:Spesh531 regarding a potential development of a parallel file for an image of the map but adapted with English headings. There may also be other editors that could do this or be involved. I don't personally have a clue. GregKaye ✍♪ 05:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to thank who ever updated the map to include the Sinai peninsula and derna --Weegeeislyfe (talk) 07:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Should we add Israel to the list of coalition countries against ISIL?

See also: Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/Archive 15#Israel should be added to the opponents' list

Israel is providing intelligence on ISIS to Coalition partners, according to a Western diplomat.

While a Western diplomat is a reliable source, the Israeli Ministry of Defence declined comment. Also, the Israeli PM said on CBS that “We are ready to support and help in every way that we’re asked, but these are things we don’t discuss necessarily on TV”.

So should we add Israel to the coalition countries list, on the section "Humanitarian and other contributions to identified coalition objectives". Felino123 (talk) 18:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The Counter-ISIL Coalition is a fairly well defined group that includes a number of Arab nations. As far as I've seen, Israel has not been named as part of the Coalition, much like Iran has not been identified as part of the group. I really doubt that Israel would be invited in as few want to turn this into an Jewish-Arab conflict. I could maybe see listing Israel under Other Countries. Legacypac (talk) 18:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Two things - one is that Israeli role in the Syrian Civil War, including against ISIL has so far been minimal (see talk:Syrian Civil War/Israel). The second thing is that the "Jewish-Arab conflict" or more correctly the Arab-Israeli conflict has been the conflict between Arab League vs. Israel; even if Israel joins the Arab League efforts against Daesh (which is doubtful), it still doesn't make it an Arab-Israeli conflict, but something completely different - an alliance with Arab League against a third force ISIL (which is not fully Arab, but mixed ethnicities). In 2013, it was decided that the Syrian Civil War is not significantly related with the Arab-Israeli conflict, and thus an entirely different scheme of tagging and sanctions has been utilized (see [1]).GreyShark (dibra) 12:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

PKK forces in Iraq

It has been widely reported that PKK has taken positions in Maxmour [2] and controls areas in the Sinjar area in North Iraq [3], but those areas are marked as held by "Iraqi Kurds" on the map, which is incorrect. We should either add PKK to the map as another significant force or to mark PKK-held areas as Rojava's, as PKK is a close ally to a more dominant Syrian Kurdish administration, and they coordinate their efforts in many areas.GreyShark (dibra) 12:43, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The PKK (Turkish Kurds) are not exerting Turkish Kurd sovereignty over parts of Iraq, nor are they fighting against Iraqi Kurds, nor are the Syrian Kurds fighting against Iraqi Kurds with Turkish Kurd help. Rather they are all allies in this fight so it is inappropriate to show yet another side for the PKK. PKK should however be listed as a combatant in lists properly sourced.Legacypac (talk) 19:37, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

ISIS and sexual slavings

Why do we need six cites for this? There were six; I deleted four of them, then got reverted on the basis that "extraordinary" (whatever is meant by that) claims require "extraordinary" (i.e. "a great amount of") documentation. But what is this WP:ExtraordinaryDocumentation? Without wishing to sound like a pooh-bums, I only know WP:RS. It's no big deal—my only reason for deleting them was thinking it was overkill—but perhaps I might learn another thing about Wikipedia policy, procedures, or whatever, if further explanation is provided. That's all. Cheers! --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 23:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I believe the ref is to WP:REDFLAG aka WP:EXCEPTIONAL. The actions described are very extreme (enslaving and selling women and justifying it), so heavily sourcing the statements seems very appropriate. I was thinking about putting back the refs myself. Hope that helps. Legacypac (talk) 02:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Heavily citing a report is necessary for other editors to verify whether the cited reports are necessarily summarized and saved on the page , only recurring article references need be deleted.thanks--Jason Foren Daniel(talk) 21:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Sydney hostage crisis

The December 2014 section includes an entry for the Sydney hostage crisis. Although the perpetrator had pledged his loyalty to ISIL prior to the attack, my understanding is that the group did not acknowledge him as affiliated and that he was acting alone in the attack. Therefore it may be better to remove this item from the list. Otherwise we risk falling into the trap of portraying all civilian violence as acts of terrorism, and all acts of terrorism as international Islamist plots. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 17:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

ISIL has repeatedly called for just such attacks. ISIL does not send out laminated membership cards and permission slips to kill people-so what connection are you seeking anyway? There is clearly a difference between civilian violence like some guy beating his wife (never making the local paper) and a terrorism act broadcast around the world at the top of every news cast. It is also pretty easy to tell Islamic terrorism from other kinds. Legacypac (talk) 19:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

67.188.230.128 It seems pretty clear-cut. If it can be proved that the group did not acknowledge him as affiliated, then the entry should be removed. Do you have any hard evidence that ISIL have not acknowledged this? P-123 (talk) 10:17, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

JThe guy responsible for the Sidney act was a mentally disturbed Shiite Iranian, who is considered an infidel in ISIL ideology. Of course his act may be considered as a Jihadist terrorist act, but his association with ISIL is ridiculous. There are enough Shiite Jihadists (Hezbollah, Muqtada al-Sadr's brigades) and other non-ISIL Jihadists in the world (Salafi al-Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood's Hamas, etc.), so linking everything with ISIL is roughly a misunderstanding of the acting forces.GreyShark (dibra) 10:22, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

He converted to Sunni, even seems to have updated his religion on his own wikipedia page. I'd argue that ISIL people doing beheadings etc in Iraq and Syria are also likely mentally disturbed, but that does not excuse their actions. anyway, can you substantiate that he was mentally disturbed? Legacypac (talk) 17:22, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Map legend

The second map (showing ISIL controlled territories in several countries) has on the third line of the legend "Rest of Countries" where country is hyperlinked. It pretty clearly meant "rest of Syria and Iraq" when the map showed only those two countries. Today it should read "Other countries" - without country being hyperlinked. But I can't figure out how to edit it. Can anyone help out? Jd2718 (talk) 14:58, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

No nation recognizes ...

The article still asserts in the "Criticism" section, "No nation recognises the group as a sovereign state." Whether or not that is true is not the issue, the issue is that an assertion like that in WP's own voice does need a citation, otherwise it looks like WP:OR by Wikipedia, which Wikipedia has to guard against. Can a Reliable Source be found to back up this statement? The wikilink to the diplomatic recognition article though useful does not help to prove anything, as it is only an explanation of the mechanism by which sovereign state recognition works. There was some discussion about this before and for the newer editors perhaps Legacypac could restate his reason for leaving this sentence uncited. P-123 (talk) 16:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Obviously this is linked to discussion #1 on sovereign states, which is why I brought it up. P-123 (talk) 17:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

a) its is an undeniably true statement - diplomatic recognition generally confers statehood and that is a big deal. No one has provided one source that suggests otherwise.

b) the US President said it in an address heard round the world. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/09/10/statement-president-isil-1 4th paragraph. "ISIL is certainly not a state. It was formerly al Qaeda’s affiliate in Iraq, and has taken advantage of sectarian strife and Syria’s civil war to gain territory on both sides of the Iraq-Syrian border. It is recognized by no government, nor by the people it subjugates. ISIL is a terrorist organization, pure and simple. And it has no vision other than the slaughter of all who stand in its way."

c) Here is a legal scholor: http://warontherocks.com/2014/07/the-islamic-state-isnt-a-legal-examination/#_

d) When the head of the UN says “Un-Islamic Nonstate” why is anyone debating this?

Legacypac (talk) 17:17, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that. You say "its an undeniably true statement ... No one has provided one source that suggests otherwise." Absence of proof is not proof of anything. It is a classic logical fallacy. One cannot say something is true because it has not been proved to be false.You quoted Obama as though he were infallible on this point, but is he really? Has his department researched this? Whether or not, his statement could be cited to support the sentence, as the US's view on it. As for legal scholars, they notoriouly disagree on the interpretation of legal points! Ban Ki-Moon, again, is just stating the UN's position on this. The most that can approximately be said, using all those sources, is "Nations, international bodies such as the UN and legal experts do not recognize the group as a sovereign state". That would be accurate. I think the wording should be adjusted accordingly along those lines, perhaps with some more citations of the type quoted (countries that have specifically said this, for example) to back it up. P-123 (talk) 18:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac has asked me to remove my above response, but I think this is an important point. I do not see how his examples verify the sentence "No nation recognizes the group as a sovereign state". The way the idea is expressed at the moment is an example of WP:OR by Wikipedia, in my view. P-123 (talk) 22:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

As a move forward I have added the second link to the text as follows: No nation [[Diplomatic recognition|recognises]] the group as a [[List of sovereign states|sovereign state]]. A link was already made to Diplomatic recognition and there are other sources on this topic available. Wikipedia also has a list of List of states with limited recognition and I presume that it would be perfectly possible to check the situations surrounding changes in recognition statuses. P-123, can I ask the extent have you checked through the issues surrounding this subject before raising the thread here? You previously said to me that you thought I would doubt that "the cat sat on the mat". There is certainly no indication of state like recognition. Can you demonstrate a form of circumstances in which a valid form of recognition, if those are the right words, may have occurred? If you can do this then this would help your argument. There has got to be some form of substantiation in this debate or we may just end up pushing opinions. GregKaye ✍♪ 01:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

My main point really isn't complicated, Greg. This isn't a "cat sat on the mat" issue. Forget for a minute the question whether they are or are not a sovereign state. Forget my quibble about the logic. Just concentrate on the wording. "No nation recognises the group as a sovereign state." Who says? Without a firm citation, WP does, and it cannot do that, per WP:OR. Either find some RS which say that categorically and report it accordingly, or rejig the sentence in the way I have said, with supporting citations. Am I making sense? P-123 (talk) 02:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Certainly we need a reliable source to express that sentence and as you know, we can't write our own conclusion and understanding from reading the sources. As P-123 said, "No nation recognizes the group as a sovereign state," needs a citation. But the question is that, what sources are eligible to say such a thing? Mhhossein (talk) 03:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

If a nation gave recognition to 'SIL as being a sovereign state then this, I think, would be an extremely newsworthy event. I think that there would be particular controversy amongst the Arab nations. Perhaps we can add a footnote to say something along the lines of "as reported". Any reader going to the list of states with limited recognition would look at an entry and be likely to say there are this many states recognising and that number not recognising.

The logical fallacy argument logically only goes so far. It may be difficult to say for sure that there is no masked intruder somewhere in an otherwise empty building. However, if the building was full of alert individuals with good communications or if there was an alarm system in an empty building then it would be obvious whether or not there was an intruder present. I think that the same is the case in this situation. (If it were a subject worth reporting we might even know whether cats were on mats. In comparison the issue of whether 'SIL has been recognised as a sovereign state is extremely reportable.

For instance WP:OR states that: the statement "the capital of France is Paris" needs no source. Similarly I think editors can justifiably write that, for instance, the airplane concord is not in service or that no nation recognises 'SIL as a Sovereign State. We check the news and know that concord has not been brought back into service and that there are still no nations giving recognition. GregKaye ✍♪ 06:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

[Comment added later]

• Gregkaye: You say "the issue of whether 'SIL has been recognised as a sovereign state is extremely reportable." If it is, can we have some examples of countries or international organisations which have said they do not recognize ISIL as a sovereign state, apart from the US and the UN? Those are the sort of examples needed to back up this sentence (see below). I don't know how to search the web for this. How is it done? Don't want to keep asking you to do jobs we could perhaps do ourselves! I don't think for this particular sentence we need bother our heads whether or not ISIL are a sovereign state, do we? We just go by what the Reliable Sources say about it, i.e. "Country X says that they do not recognize ISIL as a sovereign state". No need for exotic cats on exotic mats in this particular instance, I think. P-123 (talk) 18:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

This would not even be a debate except that ISIL calls themselves the "Islamic State" and asserts all other governments are void when the IS armies arrive. It is truly a crazy thing to say - and has been declared not true by POTUS, the UN Sec Gen, about 60 nations agreeing to destroy ISIL and by the legitimate governments of the countries in which they hold territory. The sources provided are beyond definitive on the topic. Legacypac (talk) 06:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is as simple as Legacypac says. Just a few more RS examples of countries that do not recognize are needed. As I said before, those along with the other sources Legacypac gave would be enough back-up, problem solved.

I shouldn't have brought up the logical fallacy point, as it was a red herring. I had little doubt "no nation recognizes", just took exception to the illogical assertion that because there is no evidence to the contrary, that must be true. Sorry to have been such a pedant about it. P-123 (talk) 09:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I certainly think that there is merit in the raising of the issue. I'd also broach the question as to whether the addition of a footnote may add qualification. An explanation of the permitted type of OR used may, I think show the extent of assumptions made. Yes I've mentioned assumptions and think that assumptions can fairly be made. For instance in an article on London Bridge it might be fair to say that there is a modern version of the bridge spanning the Thames and an assumption is that, since the writing of the article, the bridge has not fallen down. The "No nation recognises.." is dependent, at the very least, on press reporting. GregKaye ✍♪ 21:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

That is what I meant by RS citations to back this up. Some reliable press reports that Country X, Y or Z does not recognize the group as a sovereign state. But I don't think any assumptions can be made here at all. P-123 (talk) 22:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Joint statement by 60 nations that they will degrade and defeat and will be "Exposing ISIL/Daesh’s true nature (ideological delegitimization)" .http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2014/12/234627.htm is approximately the opposite of diplomatic recognition.

One of the tests is "the capacity to enter into relations with other states" but when they captured Mosul, they took the entire Turkish consulate hostage - pretty much the opposite of entering into diplomatic relations. Legacypac (talk) 18:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't dispute the basic accuracy of the statement. It is just that citations are needed for it. I think that one is probably enough for the countries not recognizing ISIL as a sovereign state. P-123 (talk) 21:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I have no confidence that any nation would even give lip service to the idea of considering ISIL as a sovereign state. I wouldn't be surprised if Ban Ki-moon type comments covering the wider topic that they are not a state may have been used a number of times. To talk about being a sovereign states is an even more specific topic and I doubt that any government would touch it. GregKaye ✍♪ 21:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

You have quotes from Moon and Obama - add the cites and move on. Or how about Abbotts quote about not dignifying them? Legacypac (talk) 05:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• Hear, hear. There are enough citations now. P-123 (talk) 18:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I am still unsure that citation are either needed or valid. WP:WHYCITE states: "By citing sources for Wikipedia content, you enable users to verify that the information given is supported by reliable sources, thus ... showing that the content is not original research". The No nations claim, however, is justified in effect as being verifiable content of a type not applying to original research objections which, as noted, comes in the context of Ban Ki-Moon and similar comments. Maybe, as an alternative, other related comments can transparently be added to the text. The only reason for the inclusion of the statement is that the group have called themselves "Islamic State". The article is just striking a balance in saying that they are not recognised as such. I don't object to the use of citations but think that other options are available. GregKaye ✍♪ 07:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Rereading the citations given above, the only quote that could support the statement as it stands is Obama's, and possibly the legal scholar citation. The rest are not close enough. But being exact about citations is not a high priority in this article, so it doesn't matter. P-123 (talk) 08:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The new text given to replace "No nation recognizes ..." is: "President Obama said that, ISIL is not “Islamic” on the basis that no religion condones the killing of innocents and that no government recognises the group as a state,[286]" That does not accurately reflect what Obama said, it is very approximate and alters his meaning. But hey-ho, approximate is good enough for Wikipedia, isn't it? P-123 (talk) 22:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

See the last sentence of first paragraph at Novorossiya_(confederation) no cite for "The self-declared confederation was not recognized by any other states."

Obama said it in an address heard round the world. [4] 4th paragraph. "ISIL is certainly not a state. It was formerly al Qaeda’s affiliate in Iraq, and has taken advantage of sectarian strife and Syria’s civil war to gain territory on both sides of the Iraq-Syrian border. It is recognized by no government, nor by the people it subjugates. ISIL is a terrorist organization, pure and simple. And it has no vision other than the slaughter of all who stand in its way." Legacypac (talk) 18:06, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

What to call it in the east? (~Iraqi insurgency or ~Iraqi Civil War)

Articles and templates use different titles and I think that it would be constructive to achieve commonality one way or another.

Please make comments in discussion at: Talk:Iraqi insurgency (2011–present)#Insurgency or civil war? (RfC)

GregKaye ✍♪ 12:47, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

"Since June 2014 it calls itself the Islamic State (IS), a name widely rejected by non-members"

I think we should remove "a name widely rejected by non-members".

I don't think this name is rejected by non-members of ISIL, that turn out to be most of the world's population with exception of some thousands of people! This name is used everywhere, specially in the media and among world leaders. There is some criticism by some Muslim communities, and this is already noted on various sections, it even has a section under the criticism section.

So I don't think "a name widely rejected by non-members" should be here because this is not true or accurate, and it gives a bad impression to the reader. Felino123 (talk) 19:05, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I believe that the "a name widely rejected by non-members" wording was added relatively recently but, none-the-less, it is accurate. In many cases groups use wording such as "so called Islamic State". 20:08, 25 December 2014 GregKaye ✍♪ 03:25, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

as noted the rejection of the name "Islamic State" by nearly all Muslims, nearly all residents of Iraq and Syria, the UN and every world leader I've read etc is so notable it gets its own section. I've never seen any group name rejected like this before. At Wikipedia editors have rejected naming this article "Islamic State" repeatedly. Legacypac (talk) 02:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I oppose Felino123's suggestion per former discussions. Mhhossein (talk) 07:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Sources may call this group ISIL, ISIS, or Dāʻish. But that's mainly because "Islamic State" is a name readers find confusing. We can't conclude that anything has been "rejected." NotUnusual (talk) 16:56, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Your point is WP:OR. I suggest reading the section of this article about rejecting the name, and the list of failed moves at the top of the talk page. Legacypac (talk) 22:48, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

This argument turns the concept of OR on its head. There needs to be a source for the "widely rejected" claim. Given how much material has been published on this group, an off-hand remark in a single source would not be enough. I must say that it is quite amusing that Mullah Obama can proclaim that the group is not Islamic, while at same time calling it ISIL, i.e. the Islamic State of whatever. NotUnusual (talk) 00:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Yup, your argument is original research. I'll drop in a few sources already in use in the Entire Section about this point. Legacypac (talk) 00:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh gee, last wordism. If you don't have a point to make, you don't have to reply. If you talk in generic cliches like this, I can't tell what point you are trying to make. Are you saying that because some clerics have rejected the Islamic pretensions of IS, the IS name has been "rejected"? But whether the state is Islamic and what name to call it are two different issues. The names ISIS, ISIL and Dāʻish also acknowledge the state's Islamic pretensions. NotUnusual (talk) 01:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

NotUnusual: Bringing up the Obama stuff really raises your credibility (sarcasm). Stick to the point. Dustin (talk) 07:10, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that the wording "a name widely rejected..." is certainly substantiated. I cannot think of any organisational name that has been as widely rejected as this one. Whether the wording should continue with ".. by non-members" of with something else may also be up for debate. GregKaye ✍♪ 17:18, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Countries and groups at war with ISIL: Iran

There is evidence and official confirmation of direct military action against ISIL by Iran http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/islamic-state/11269353/Iranian-jets-join-allies-in-the-fight-against-Islamic-State-in-Iraq.html http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/12/iran-confirms-strikes-against-isil-20141277759104238.html

Listing Iran as 'Other state opponents' along with Russia is misleading, I believe Iran should be listed under the category: "Military operations in or over Iraq and/or Syria airstrikes, air support, and ground forces performing training" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12usn12 (talk • contribs) 09:10, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Iran has long been listed as an opponent, and you can read 2014 Iranian-led intervention in Iraq, however Iran is decidedly excluded from the US led Global Coalition to Counter ISIL, the countries of which are organized within the table you are referring to. I appreciate the first cite, which specifically says "Iran is not part of the formal coalition drawn up to take on Isil in Iraq and Syria, in which France and several Gulf nations are flying sorties as well as Britain and the US. The British and American governments have always been keen to stress that there is no direct co-ordination with Iran." Hope that helps Legacypac (talk) 23:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

The group's original aim

The text of the fifth paragraph of the lead begins: "The group's original aim was to establish an Islamic state in Sunni-majority regions of Iraq, and after it joined the Syrian Civil War, this extended to include Sunni-majority areas of Syria." Is there any quote from the group itself regarding its original aim or is this just speculation? Why were they fighting? For territory? For statehood? For vengeance against or hatred (or similar) of Shia believers and/or of other ethnic groups? For the enforcement of Sharia law on wider groups of people? For a cleansing of the land? I am speculating here but (I am guessing) that whoever added the original text may have done the same.

Citations on the group's declared aims, if it ever made any, would be appreciated. For now I have edited so as to place the "Sunni-majority" reference within its relevant section and removed reference to the claimed singular aim here. GregKaye ✍♪ 11:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

GregKaye: This sentence you have removed was carefully decided upon by editors:

"The group's original aim was to establish an Islamic state in Sunni-majority regions of Iraq"

Gazkthul can put you right on the history of the group's Islamic state dream, but unfortunately he is away. There are several citations on this in the article which might help you on this if you care to look at them. I suggest you restore the sentence until this can be sorted out. P-123 (talk) 12:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

P-123, what exactly do we know about this group? They promote various lifestyle aspects of Sharia law; they threaten and terrorise citizens so as to force compliance to their requirements; they kill people that they think will be a threat and they torture and kill people who refuse to comply and they have declared an Islamic state and caliphate. A group of Muslims could buy an island from a government in a way that in which the government renounced sovereignty and declare an Islamic state. Clearly, unless an Islamist agenda is being pushed, it may be argued that the other issues mentioned may not be necessary. We cannot crystal ball with speculations regarding the group's original aim. At most we may be able to quote members of Jamāʻat al-Tawḥīd wa-al-Jihād as to what they say that their aim was. We have difficulty in crystal balling their aim at any stage in proceedings. I think we are better off quoting what they say and what they do.

I've notified Gazkthul of thread and edit developments and have invited contribution here. GregKaye ✍♪ 22:52, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you. Sources are needed for this. I think there may at one time have been an RS which backed up that sentence, even in the Lead. What about the other references in this article which back up that they have always aimed to found an Islamic state? (Don't be frightened of pro-ISIL bogeys, I honestly don't think there are any working on this article! You ask the right questions, but is the cat on the mat perhaps getting the better of you again? ) P-123 (talk) 23:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

P-123 When you mention anti-ISIL and pro-ISIL the only issue involved is neutrality and unless in response to another editor, these are terms that I have never used.

• Of course the only issue is neutrality. I never meant anything else when contrasting those two terms. P-123 (talk) 09:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC) [redacted]

Not just 'SIL but other similar groups may well have an aim to establish what they would describe as an "Islamic state" or what they would describe as an "(Islamic) caliphate". However to say that such was the aim of Jamāʻat al-Tawḥīd wa-al-Jihād would need confirmed citation. The fact is that the group have undertaken a wide range of War Crime type actions that are, by no means, required for the formation of either of the above. When there are citations saying that the group are targeting and killing the Shia, should we declare the groups aim to be the denuding of Shia populations? We can't crystal ball on these issues. We are not thought police. We can only present facts. GregKaye ✍♪ 08:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• GregKaye: I am not clear why you are making these points. It has already been decided that citations have to be found. I had an exchange with Gazkthul about this some time ago; the matter has to be taken up with him on his return. He is very knowledgeable about the history groups like ISIL as you probably know. Observation: your constant return to the iniquities of ISIL, brought in at every possible opportunity, is very telling about your attitude towards editing this article, IMO. P-123 (talk) 09:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

P-123 It is fine to raise question of motive but I find it curious, when you have repeatedly protested against perceived "thought police" on instance when the content of your edits have been challenged, that you raise this type of issue here.

The first point I made was in reply to your mention of pro-ISIL bogeys. I responded.

The iniquities of ISIL are a major topic in relation to the group. In relation to article content there have been what you have described to be surreptitious attempts to edit the article which have had the effect to remove critical content; There are currently attempts to declare in Wikipedia's voice that the group are (Islamic) caliphate despite several "facts": that the claimed authority of the group is extremely widely disputed; that they are widely regarded to be un-Islamic; that, when RS use the word caliphate in connection to this group, they typically qualify the use of the term and that other groups with similar but less extreme claims to Islam are fighting against them. Accurate heading descriptions in relation section content have been disputed. I think that various issues are being pushed in the article and that they are telling, IMO.

Thanks for mentioning the point about other references in this article. I was interested to see a primary source text dating back to 2005 (in the goals section) in which the establishment of a caliphate is mentioned 6 times and state is mentioned (in the context of becoming one) is mentioned 4 times. There is also an interesting justification of slaughter amongst other things. The Shia are mentioned 19 times. Again I have to wonder whether the aim was to build a "caliphate" or destroy the Shia. What do you think? GregKaye ✍♪ 10:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

You say, "P-123 ... you have repeatedly protested against perceived "thought police" on instance when the content of your edits have been challenged". That is a gross misrepresentation. (See collapse box for my original comment removed by Gregkaye.) P-123 (talk) 22:54, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

On moved comments

Some major refactoring moving of comments seems to have gone on here which makes nonsense of this part of the thread. My comment "I am a bad person to ask ..." was initially in direct response to the comment ending "What do you think?" My other comments have been moved about. P-123 (talk) 18:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC) (The big difference is that I never tell you what to think, Greg! Perhaps you don't realise you do this ... . That What you refer to has been on our Talk pages, not here, and has not been in connection with challenged edits. You must be careful not to misrepresent, though I believe (hope) this was accidental.) P-123 (talk) 11:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC) [Content originally placed within my edit P-123 and moved as above. I have mentioned this a number of times and will delete content on the next occasion. GregKaye ✍♪ 16:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)] P-123 Again your WP:ASPERSIONS are misplaced here. Please cite instances in which I have told you what to think. Otherwise please stop badgering. You are welcome to edit on my talk page but please be ready to substantiate your claims. GregKaye ✍♪ 16:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC) (Ah, diktats! My only wish is to stick to NPOV (as I understand it to be) and if it looks like being pro-ISIL I cannot help that. ) P-123 (talk) 11:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC) [Content originally placed within my edit P-123 and moved as above. I have mentioned this a number of times and will delete content on the next occasion. GregKaye ✍♪ 16:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)] P-123 Please do not focus on refactoring as being the problem here. Please do not edit within other editors edits. You could have easily refactored your content to give it more coherent sense. GregKaye ✍♪ 13:22, 24 December 2014 (UTC) As an involved editor and not an admin, you acted ultra vires in unilaterally removing another editor's comments to this box so that their sense is completely lost. I will report this. P-123 (talk) 22:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC) P-123 I have previously stated clearly that I do not want you editing within my edits. Still you persist. Twice on my talk page I have asked, "You have repeatedly edited within my edits... Was this a deliberate provocation?" You have not answered. Here you say I moved the "comments to this box". I had nothing to do with this box which was your choice. You could have as easily refactored your intrusive edits to give them contextual sense and apologised. GregKaye ✍♪ 03:22, 25 December 2014 (UTC) Gregkaye: You seem unable to recognise that moving away my first comment left serious WP:ASPERSIONS glaring in your comment. I had to answer it there to protect my editorial reputation. I will not continue this ridiculous "discussion" here. P-123 (talk) 16:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

The assertion of a title "Refactoring muddle" is a gross misrepresentation. You inserted text directly into my edits which is an issue that I have previously requested you not to do. All your content has done is assert more of your unsubstantiated claims. I did not refactor anything. I now regret not just deleting the intrusive content and letting you start again. Your edit summary that your "comments", "have been unilaterally removed by Gregkaye and put in a collapse box" is also a misrepresentation. If the comments were relevant you could easily have added them or edited them at the end of my comment in the normal way and as I have requested. This bickering is no use for an article talk page. Please desist from your "sparring". GregKaye ✍♪ 13:27, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Apologies to editors. Gregkaye, please read: (i) I have already scored out "to this box" (see inside collapse box); (ii) I had already altered "refactoring" to "removed" in my notes; (iii) I will alter all "refactoring" to "moving" to meet your objections. I will not disrupt the Talk page by repeating why this is no trivial matter (see collapse box). P-123 (talk) 16:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

P-123 Please see: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing comments, "The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." You had no justification to add text within my edit but did so despite my previous objection to this type of action. You chose to instigate the collapse by your own volition. You now want to highlight the content within the collapse. This whole thing has been a disruption from beginning to end. GregKaye ✍♪ 16:41, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

GregKaye: I am a bad person to ask as I don't know too much about it, but I would say the aim was to do both. It is alien to our way of thinking, but I can see how for groups that seem to think like ISIL do those goals would not be incompatible. (One of the big problems in understanding ISIL, I think, and much of the Middle East for that matter is that the mindset is so completely different from the Western one. Sorry, this is not a WP:FORUM.) I am puzzled why that 2005 letter you refer to is cited in support of ISIL's caliphate/Islamic state dream, because I don't think it is from a member of ISIL (in a former incarnation) at all. I looked it up before and I think the person who wrote that letter, Abu Muhammad, is Ayman al-Zawahiri from al-Qaeda. That name is listed in the wiki article on him as one of his aliases. P-123 (talk) 11:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Because ISIL=al-Qaeda at the time? P-123's understanding of NPOV is flawed and indeed is making him look like an ISIL cheerleader now. Neutral POV includes giving appropriate weight to RS - and in this case the overwhelming RS evidence is not pro-ISIL claims. Legacypac (talk) 19:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac: Correct about the letter covering ISIL as ISIL was part of al-Qaeda at the time. Will have to check with Gazkthul when back whether this is al-Zawahiri's letter. Perhaps it should be made clear this was ISIL's view as well, either in the text (messy) or in the footnote (better). Re: "overwhelming RS evidence is not pro-ISIL". Of course it isn't. I don't question the accuracy of that paragraph's contents or correct balance; I was in the discussions to compose it as you were. To repeat, it is that para's positioning in the Lead, not its content, that is crucial here. It looks POV placed there (even though balanced and accurate) and that is what counts, first impressions and all that. This same point was made in very early discussions on this para. This article has to be looked at as a whole, not piecemeal as a series of facts. Balance applies there just as much as it applies to the individual facts reported in it. That is all I meant by my comments. P-123 (talk) 20:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I certainly agree that it will be interesting to consider the possible aims of the group may have been.

The paragraph states that, the group proclaimed a worldwide caliphate, that al-Baghdadi as Caliph Ibrahim was named its caliph, and the group was renamed the Islamic State... that, As caliphate it claims religious, political and military authority over all Muslims worldwide. and that One of ISIL's goals has been to establish a radical Sunni Islamist state in Iraq and the Levant region,.. as per original citation content. It has been mentioned before but there is a lot of caliphate content here. There are also a lot of reference to Islamic State... and ISIL terminologies throughout. There has also been a significant drive to kill or condition large groups of people.

It will be interesting to hear views and interpretations on the drives and aims that brought these things together. I find it curious to note that there is no arabic article on a parallel to the article Islamic state. It makes me wonder how important a concept being an "Islamic state" is. There's certainly and Arabic article on the topic of caliphate as ar:خلافة_إسلامية. Greg Kaye 00:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Generally people aim to do something before they do it. At least as far back as sometime before the declaration of the Islamic State of Iraq, they wanted to form a country organized as an Islamic state. The caliphate was not proclaimed earlier because they perceived the time not to right yet, but I understand the dream of a caliphate is widely shared by islamic extremists around the world. Legacypac (talk) 18:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)