Talk:Islamic State/Archive 30

Archive 25

←

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

→

Archive 35

Restore the Moratorium on Page Moves - with an expiry of April 30, 2015

The moratorium on page moves was quite successful for moving the article forward. How do editors feel about reimposing it - with the current proposed move discussion being the last one allowed. Legacypac (talk) 21:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I would be fine with that. EastTN (talk) 21:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Strongly oppose such an action; if this move is the last one allowed. Otherwise I am happy with a moratorium if the current move request can be snowed, as it has no merit. Mbcap (talk) 21:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no preference either way. Mbcap (talk) 22:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• I would prefer something nearer half that length, I feel 3 months from now is too long. I'm also not sure how this should effect the above requested move. I see no policy reason why it should be moved to ISIL, ISIS, Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham. These changes, in my opinion, would also be less significant than to Islamic State, which the closing administrator had the following to be said about:

"As this discussion has been had several times, I would suggest disengaging for a while (at the end of the day, the title of the article is not worth this much time spent on it--there are more important things in the article that I can already see needing change), observing where the state of the world is in a few months, and marshalling the arguments for changing the title into a more unified and coherent request for comment and move."

This is why I support the idea of a Moratorium on Page moves. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 00:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

John, I suggested 3 months for that was the length of the initial Moratorium imposed by User:PBS. I don't anticipate a major shift in the situation over the next 3 months but if something unexpected happened we can always revisit the Moratorium itself first. As I've proposed this, the current move request would play out however it plays out. Legacypac (talk) 00:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Of course not. If the logic behind constant calls for a name change can't be meet with simple reference to previous discussion then perhaps there's something worth talking about. GraniteSand (talk) 00:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I am both uneasy in regard to moves that close down or otherwise curtail discussion and about discussions such as the Islamic State (islamist rebel group) RM in which the same content is added time and again by the same editors on repeat. I find both sides, some manifestations of restriction and all manifestations of pushing to be disruptive. Wikipedia is supported by a very wide range of competent editors who can address issues as they are raised. RM discussions run for a minimum of seven days and I cannot fail to notice that the proposal for the moratorium was raised within 10 hours of the RM being proposed. I presented an option for a move without pushing while presenting arguments on both sides. I think that it would have been a sign of respect to let the discussion progress a little before pushing for further restriction on dialogue. GregKaye 08:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The current RM can run its course if this proposal is accepted. I proposed this soon after the latest RM started specifically to give everyone at least 7 days to hash out the name, while also giving editors the opportunity to discuss the wisdom of entertaining additional RMs in the next thread. Legacypac (talk) 08:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Possible to synchronise map update across related articles.

I would like to ask those editors involved in the map for ISIL. Going through the various related articles, the maps on the other pages are outdated in relation to the one on this article. Is there any possible way to synchronise the update to the map here, with all those across related articles? Or do they have to be done individually? Mbcap (talk) 01:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The Syrian and Iraq can be updated with minimal effort once the combined one is made, they are derived works. I only updated the combined one in the most recent update because of a graphical problem that would be more apparent on the country maps (Basically a whole bunch of stuff moved one pixel (on my screenshots, IK it's SVG format) and that caused white areas to appear everywhere). This also made so many differences on the maps that I wasn't sure I hadn't missed anything. I planned to update the other two with the next update when I'd fixed the colouring, but I accidentally saved the map in such a way that updating it was no longer easy. So as opposed to the <15 mins it takes to update normally, I've spent a couple hours redoing the entire colouring. I've redone the Iraq half, but the Syria one may take a while, because it's much more intricate. I'm not sure how much time I'm going to have enough time to fix it before the weekend. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 02:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Take as much time as you need, there is no rush. Just to clarify so we are talking about the same thing. There is an updated map right now on this page, dated 22 January 2015. I have seen the same updated map on another related page here[[1]]. However the maps on these 2 pages are still the old ones here;[[2]], [[3]]. My question was, is their a way to update them through an automatic process or does it have to be done manually. But I guess, there is a problem with this at the moment, if I have understood you correctly. On a side note, could I ask, where are the data for these maps derived from? Mbcap (talk) 02:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah, no I don't make that map. I thought you meant these: Syria, Iraq. They are not automatically updated. The Syria and Iraq maps are done by putting greyed out maps of the other country and copying. I assume you know that if you click on an image you can see file information. From there if you look at file history you can see the users who made the map. I thought I saw somewhere a discussion on not using that map any more a while ago, but I don't remember where. Clearly that has not been adopted across the wiki. At any rate, I doubt I can be much use in updating that map, I'm not good with .svg files. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 03:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. If I replaced that map with the one on this page, would that be objectionable? Sorry to bother you with this but how would I replace them? Is it a simple job of copy pasting the code from this page onto there. Mbcap (talk) 03:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

To change a picture, find it in the source code, change the link to the image you want, changing relevant information (caption etc). I don't really care if the map is used on the portal or not. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 09:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

As for how the maps are derived (working backwards):

I use this template and take screenshots to make a map. This template runs this module which runs the Syria and Iraq modules. Those modules are regularly updated by editors. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Alleged military aids by the US

Khestwol -- I see you reverted another editor's edit who stated the reasons for doing so in the edit summary. Though I cannot weigh in on the validity of the information contained therin, it is correct that this section has nothing to do with the structure of the ISIL military, therefore its inclusion seems unwarranted. What are your thoughts? Mbcap (talk) 09:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the subsection needs to stay and not be deleted, because it is well sourced, and is important for the section and for the article. Maybe, it can be reworded, to represent the refs more accurately though. Khestwol (talk) 09:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Rand Paul does not voice official US policy, he was voicing an interesting view, which he very poorly articulated. It looks like 4 sources were supplied, but actually its only 2 used 2 times. One source is PressTV, an Iranian Govt controlled source not noted for its accuracy in reporting on American political issues, but even the Iranian spin does not closely what is in this Wikipedia article which is that the US was accused of supporting ISIL. Paul was trying to say that the US supported allies of ISIL against Assuad and therefore the US is on the same side as ISIL in Syria but against them in Iraq. The article here spins that as the US supporting ISIL. It can be said this is a domestic US political discussion and little to do with ISIL. In a multi-sided war it is not always true that the friend of my friend is friend or the enemy of my enemy is my friend. I still think the short section is best just removed. Legacypac (talk) 19:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes looking at the section again, it does need to be sourced better, I agree. However, the article already has the sections "Allegations of Turkish support" and "Allegations of Saudi Arabia's support", so I think it does need one about the alleged American support as well. Khestwol (talk) 11:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

However, just like the sections "Allegations of Turkish support" and "Allegations of Saudi Arabia's support", perhaps it would make more sense to move this allegation section also to "Supporters". Khestwol (talk) 12:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Those sections are not much better. Turkey... maybe there is some truth to it, but the Saudis are not supporting a group that wants to over throw them. Legacypac (talk) 12:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion these are all notable allegations and must be mentioned. United States, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, but also Jordan and Qatar etc. have all been claimed to support ISIL. (In the case of the United States, the claims came from Rand Paul and Iran). Khestwol (talk) 12:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Khestwol It is not strictly correct that "US, Saudi, Turkey, but also Jordan and Qatar etc have all calimed to support ISIL". As far as I am aware, there have been no governmental acknowledgement of that nature. Whilst it may be true of the middle eastern contries, it is not so crystal clear regarding the support being sanctioned by the ruling apparatus of those countries. For example the gulf countries and Saudi do support ISIL but that is only support provided by wealthy citizens who are sympathetic to the ISIL cause. It is not the case that those states are supporting them but rather their domiciled subjects who choose to do so. For the US, it is neither their citizens nor the government providing any aid to ISIL. What happened was, if the sources are correct, is that the US in an effort to preserve their strategic interests aided those groups that were amenable to having a shared aim in the region. Those groups were helped but then all of that was just taken as "war booty" by the ISIL group when they took over or overran them. Therefore, it is slightly difficult to see how US is providing military aid to ISIL. Then again I could be wrong so please do let me know if you still think it needs to stay in. Mbcap (talk) 17:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I believe his comment was meant to read "US, Saudi, Turkey, but also Jordan and Qatar etc have all calimed to support been claimed to be supporting ISIL". John Smith the Gamer (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I see. Should this be left in do you think? If it is an unqualified elaboration of those countries which have been claimed to have provided support then maybe it does belong in this section. Mbcap (talk) 19:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I have no preference. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 15:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Conflicts involving ISIL

Is it me, or is the "Participant in.." section of the infobox becoming increasingly irritating (visually)? What if the group involves itself in further conflicts, will we keep listing them all here? I propose moving those to the sidebar template. Thoughts? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 22:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

As long as they have participated, they will be listed under that parameter. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Nope. We are now dealing with Template:Infobox country and this was obviously an invented 'parameter'. This could have been accurate when we had Template:Infobox war faction, which included a | battles = parameter. I'm not saying that we can't be creative to improve Wikipedia, but that simply isn't the case here. The list is becoming too long and it shouldn't be the first thing our readers come across when opening the article. These should be moved to the sidebar where they would appear less confusing. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 12:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Personally I think that there are advantages in having the "Participants in ..." content in close proximity to the File:Syria and Iraq 2014-onward War map.png. However other solutions may also work. GregKaye 14:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

So if insurgents from Nigeria, Somalia, Philippines, etc also declared their allegiance to ISIL, we will list all the relevant conflicts here? Sorry, but that seems a bit ridiculous. I strongly suggest we at least decide on a certain casualties threshold for this section. In my opinion, conflicts which generated below 10,000 deaths since ISIL got significantly involved should be removed. These include Libya, Sinai, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

We should be using Infobox:Geopolitical Organization. Legacypac (talk) 13:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2015

Please add to Allegations of outside influence - Iran

Ali Shirazi representative of Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Hosseini Khamenei during an interview published by the Defa Press news agency on January 25, 2015 was quoted as saying "The Houthi group is a similar copy to Lebanon's Hezbollah, and this group will come into action against enemies of Islam," "The Islamic republic directly supports the Houthis in Yemen, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the popular forces in Syria and Iraq," he said, adding that "officials in the country have reiterated this many times."

Last year Ali Akbar Velayati senior advisor to Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Hosseini Khamenei said Iran supported the "rightful struggles" of the Houthi movement in Yemen, and "considers this movement as part of the successful Islamic Awakening movements".

Iran attempted to smuggle arms to Houthi separatists in Yemen

References

DrSalted (talk) 01:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

So, could you elaborate on what ANY of the above has to do withe so-called Islamic State? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. -- Sam ^Sing! 09:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

–"Designation as a terrorist organization"–

  Under this section, why is the UK listed first since they determined that they were a terrorit Org. when they were Part of Al-Qaeda? First, It seems trival and not needed. Second, I think the USA, Al-Qaeda's first sworn enemy and main combatantin Iraq , would have also determined they were a terrorist Org. around the same time if not earlier.

Turkish intervention against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

Would someone kindly take part in the discussion here regarding whether the existence of Turkish intervention against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant as a stand-alone article or its title are accurate or not. Regards. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

What is more notable is what Turkey has NOT done to intervene. Legacypac (talk) 12:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

• Language style note: use of "wanna-be" to describe would-be mujahadeen members, I think is

inapropriately casual in tone, bordering on American slang. "Would-be mujahadeen" would be a better choice of words.

• Also, the word choice of "everyday" tasks is vague and also a bit too casual. "mundane" would be a better choice than "everyday". Again, this malapropism borders on American slang/usage.

• "Information directed to women".. Directed "towards women" or "directed at women".

Passive in tone while being less vague. 72.199.56.229 (talk) 15:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC)anonymous (american)english geek

• "In addition to banning the sale and use of alcohol—which is customary in Muslim culture—ISIL has banned the sale and use of cigarettes" Which of the 3 things mentioned, is customary in Muslim culture? The sale, the use, or the banning of these things? An unclear sentence.

• "Saudi practices also followed by the group include the establishment of relgious police.." Saudi practices, or Wahabist practices common in Saudi Arabia?

• "Before the accused are executed their charges are read toward them and the spectators. They carry out executions in various forms such as stoning to death, crucifixions, beheadings and some are thrown from the top storeys of tall buildings." --Non objective tone. Non objective tone rises and falls throughout the entire article.

• Too, too, many articles and non-authoritative sources quoted in article. Smacks of hearsay. Leave that sort of thing to YouTube. This lends the article the same overall tone as television journalism, rather than information worthy of an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.199.56.229 (talk) 15:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Recent Edits to Section on "Sexual violence and slavery"

It appears that Hand snoojy is reinserting into the section on "Sexual violence and slavery" essentially the same content that has been found problematic in the past, that resulted in his being blocked (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Hand snoojy reported by User:NeilN (Result: Blocked)), and has been the subject of edit warring by several sockpuppets (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Absolution provider 1999). Since I took it on myself to merge what seemed useful from that material into the article, it seems slightly more likely to trigger an edit war if I'm the one to review and revert or modify these new edits (I fear that one may be inevitable in any case). I would appreciate it if some other editors would take a look at these edits for their appropriateness. Thanks. EastTN (talk) 14:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The section is long enough. Various editors have reviewed and incorporated the better portions of these insertions a number of times. This user, under different names, seems intent on inserting justifications for the worst crimes. We should just revert this garbage henceforth. Legacypac (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Whilst I personally won't use the word garbage, I believe that content had (and still have) consensus against them. For me it is too close to soapboxing, with undue weight given to IS. Whilst we may need to consider increasing the weight of their viewpoints in other parts of the article as it is about them (I haven't checked and am not really considering this right now), it doesn't seem encyclopaedic. Other than potentially increasing protection of the page (I wish English wikipedia used Pending changes level 2 with Semi-protection), reverting on sight (without violating 1RR) and involving administrators what can we do? Perhaps we could look to expand community sanctions?

Also, if new accounts had to do their required number of edits edits on mainspace before getting autoconfirmed that would have stopped the latest two from uploading the material, but I doubt its worth the effort of trying to change a major policy just to fix one suspected persistent use of sock-puppetry. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 02:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I've tried to flesh this out a bit by bringing in some of the views quoted in the media articles. My intent was to do this in a dispassionate, encyclopedic fashion. In particular, I brought in the characterization of the pamphlet as "abhorrent," which is part of the text that keeps being reinserted. I did it, however, by directly attributing it to the researcher and professor who used the word. There may be other specific rules in the pamphlet that we need to bring in, but I don't think we can simply quote endlessly from ISIL's propaganda. EastTN (talk) 18:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I've also tweaked the grammar a bit, since that's one thing that keeps coming up for adding the other content. And, to be fair, I did find that there was a missing "and" in one sentence when I re-read the original text. EastTN (talk) 19:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The sexual slavery claims are made up by the United States government. This is United States propaganda. 108.27.38.227 (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The material I inserted has a critical view of ISIL and gives the basis for ISIL's actions.I fail to see why it should be removed. Do you think the militant group is doing all this for fun?!?, the paragraph breaks it down for the readers.All terrorist groups have some kind of goals, henceforth the paragraph is to be left alone .Hand snoojy (talk) 07:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Head's up

I just changed my username back from "John Smith the Gamer" to "Banak" because it's shorter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banak (talk • contribs) 01:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Province images inclusion?

File:Barqa province.jpg

Barqa

File:Wilayat Sinai logo.jpeg

Sinai

File:Algeria province.jpg

Algeria

These images have been added to the article and I would like to ask about/question their appropriate usage here, their authentication and their notability. They are added as Emblem of Barqa Province, Emblem of Sinai Province and Emblem of Algerian Province. In these cases I think that we can also write things like "claimed" Algeria province as many people may regard that places like Algeria and Sinai are best otherwise described than being provinces of ISIL. This is not something that I think we should be saying in Wikipedia's voice. Where, how and to what extent have these images been used? If these images are lesser used or unestablished I don't think that Wikipedia should be used for showcasing not greatly relevant and potentially non representative contents. On the last point I would be interested if anyone finds out about the local styles of presentation used in and around the group in relation to Islam/Islamic religion.

I had deleted the images here after doing some rudimentary image checks and finding minimal content and leaving edit summary "Removing unsubstantiated and potentially fan art images". This was reverted by Ritsaiph with edit summary "Sources are reputable for all images. Prove to the contrary." I personally believe that burden of proof is lies with the people that want inclusion partly due to the difficulties of demonstrating Evidence of absence especially in relation to origination. GregKaye 12:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

This is the source for Barqah, Sinai and Algeria Province of the Islamic State: [4]. Are you telling me that the British Broadcasting Corporation are no more reliable than the onion news network..? Furthermore, the burden of proof for me has been proven by this cited source which identifies the logos as being the representations of the Provinces. The only way to disprove this is to find a source which is contradictory.--Ritsaiph (talk) 12:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Ritsaiph, BBC is a reliable source for the images associated with the provinces. However, I am not sure if the emblems add anything to the article. Mbcap (talk) 12:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

So does this mean I have been Wiki-vanquished? --Ritsaiph (talk) 13:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I do not understand your meaning, re wiki-vanquished? Mbcap (talk) 13:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

A potentially relevant place for the images might be in the section on propaganda and social media. The logos may say more about the al-Hayat Media Center as they do about the groups that they are applied to. All the same I see little relevance of the logos in the main article. GregKaye 19:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, I don't think that these Emblems are notable enough. In some of these "provinces" ISIL controls 0% of the territory. Even if it did, I see no reason to include what are effectively flags of subdivisions. Even if ISIL were a state and these were overseas territories, their flags wouldn't be in the main article (like they aren't in UK) Banak (talk) 22:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I am personally curious in regard to the content of the Sinai image (need to get back into Arabic) where did this come from, what was its content, what was its intention and what happened to it? Now a new image is presented in the article here in much the same style as the Barqa and Algeria images. I have so far seen nothing to suggest that these images are not all just the product of one person's output on one PC as one element in ISIL propaganda. GregKaye 07:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

official website ?

Talk about official website was removed :-( Why ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.160.215.12 (talk) 10:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Province content

I'm wondering how this content developed within the article. There article already had a section on "Group goals, structure and characteristics" which had a subsection on Territorial claim (which perhaps should be called something like "ISIL controlled territory" - I still don't know of any specific territorial claim that they made). The main article for this content, ISIL territorial claims, already has much of this information and, in a long article, this seems to me to be unnecessary repetition of content. GregKaye 12:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2015

"NATO-All 27 members are taking part" Should be changed to "NATO-all 28 Members are taking part" due to the fact that NATO has 28 member states, and not 27. Source: http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/nato_countries.htm Thelockheedr22 (talk) 16:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Done -- Sam ^Sing! 12:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/28/rape-and-sexual-slavery-inside-an-isis-prison.html and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2874435/Isis-puts-Iraq-s-second-biggest-city-lockdown-cutting-phone-lines-banning-residents-leaving-ahead-expected-assaults-government-forces.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Usual hat tip to you, Moonriddengirl. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Restoring Section on "Sexual violence and slavery" After the Edit Wars

See also: Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/Archive_29#Section title Jusifications (asserted) for sexual slavery and Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/Archive_29#Propose deleting section: Justification based on Islamic religious text.

I think some useful text in the section on "Sexual violence and slavery" was lost during the recent edit wars. I've put back in what I think is appropriate and consistent with the pre-war consensus. It does not include the lengthy quotations from the Quran, and I do not believe it includes any copyright violations. It does have a couple of direct quotations, but they are within quotation marks, the speakers are clearly indicated and the sources are cited. If anyone does believe the text as it stands still contains copyright violations, I'd appreciate it if they would identify the specific sentences involved so we can resolve them. I think what we have is reasonably encyclopedic, but if there are concerns about the tone or balance, let's talk about it. Thanks. EastTN (talk) 21:20, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree, but thought most people on this talkpage opposed it. Previously removed text was discussed to be readded, but I don't think we ever decided how. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 21:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

You're adding the Daily Mail and Jihad Watch as sources? Seriously? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:45, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

John Smith the Gamer, you may be right. I've tried to reflect the more rational comments as we've gone along. Please take a look and see if you think I've done a reasonable job. Now that things seem to have cooled down a bit, we should be able to talk about and adjust the language a bit more dispassionately. NeilN, I took the two citations to Jihad Watch out. Including the Daily Mail doesn't give me any real heartburn, but others may have a different views and we can certainly talk about it. I'm not sure it matters much in this case, because there are multiple sources for what ISIL has said on this topic. EastTN (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I added some stuff for balance, couldn't see anything that seemed POV pushing. The sections that were removed included things titled "justification for...", I'll try to fish them out of the history and clear them up if I get time, but need to update the map due to advances. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 00:14, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! That sounds good. I think much of the useful material from the "justifications" sections has already been folded in to the rest of the article - but it would be good to check. EastTN (talk)

Looks like it, had a go at clearing it up. Diff shows how it was. I've managed to get rid of some of unencyclopaedic content, but finding the first paragraph a little difficult to clean up.

Partially cleaned up old content

[Partially cleaned up content that was removed]

Sexual slavery

ISIL claims it has religious justification for the treatment of its captives based on the Hadith and Qur’an, which has received widespread criticism for explicitly citing verses from the Qur'an by Muslim scholars and the rest of the Muslim world. Muslim leaders say it is forbidden to use part of the Qur'an to derive a ruling in isolation, rather that they must consider the he entire Qur’an and Hadith. They publicly claim religious justification in enslaving and raping captive non-Muslim women citing Qur'an verses. An ISIL source claimed they wish to ethnically cleanse the land they control of all non-believers. Non-Muslim women have reportedly been married off to fighters against their will. They claim women provide new converts and children to spread ISIL's control. Dabiq, an ISIL magazine claimed "enslaving the families of the kuffar and taking their women as concubines is a firmly established aspect of the Sharia’s that if one were to deny or mock, he would be denying or mocking the verses of the Qur'an and the narration of the Prophet … and thereby apostatizing from Islam,". Captured Yazidi women and children are then divided amongst the fighters who captured them, with one fifth taken as a tax. Dabiq claims that taking forced wives reduces risk of infidelity.Yazidi and Christian girls are sold for a price of around $175 in Iraq. Those who don't cooperating ‘would be executed.’

Executions

Dabiq cites the severe punishments the Prophet Mohammed gave to traitors as a justification for their actions. An Al-Qaida-affiliated leader expressed support for the beheading of American journalist James Foley by a member of ISIL to terrorize "the enemies of Islam". He points out he is responsible as he didn't pay for religious protection from ISIL. and that Islam since it is a religion of violence. A captured fighter said he deliberately drew out the beheading of others to inflict more pain on them.

ISIL has publicly crucified people, including a 17 year old boy in Syria, and those who had already died. People who are convicted of supplying information to media outlets or counter-terrorism establishments are executed. They claim that the Qur'an justifies executing, including by crucifixion those "who wage war against Allah" An ISIS commander claimed they try to convert others before they die to save them punishment in the afterlife.

Persecution of Yazidi

Yazidis, a religious minority of 650,000 in Iraq and 50,000 in Syria, have been persecuted and considered as devil worshippers by ISIS. Some have been forced to convert to Islam.

Banak (talk) 23:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

References

Thank you very much for doing this! I'll make a WP:Bold stab at merging what hasn't already been merged into the body of the article.EastTN (talk) 17:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The Harding piece on ethnic cleansing is already in the section on "Human rights abuse and war crime findings." EastTN (talk) 18:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I just took a stab at incorporating the text on slavery into the appropriate section in an organic way. I didn't include the stuff based on Jihad Watch, because of a question raised earlier about using that source. Please take a look and see what you think. EastTN (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Had a glance and it looks good to me, but I just smashed my head on a door handle so I can't focus. The text that was already in the article might need a bit of a clean up as well. I'll probably look over the whole of section 4 (Human rights abuse and war crime findings) tomorrow when if I get time. Banak (talk) 22:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Ouch! Hope you feel better soon. EastTN (talk) 22:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

You talked about a heads up in the following thread. But better a heads up, however literally, than a heads off. GregKaye 21:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I found that incredibly funny, whilst putting everything into perspective. You made my day Banak (talk) 22:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I would appeal, perhaps in reflection on the content above, that we proceed with caution. I'd be curious as to what other editors think about the potential best location for this type of information. I think there is an argument that, if this type of information is to be added at all, it could go in a common article such as Islamic extremism. There may be a great deal of repetition if this type of information were placed in every Wikipedia article on a similar group. I think that the article should best present information that is unique to ISIL and that care should be taken with presentations regarding interpretations of religious texts. GregKaye 00:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

If we don't use the material from Jihad Watch, which someone objected to above, there's really not that much material here. Having said that, I do think it makes sense to talk about whether we have the material arranged in the most useful way. It seems natural to me that this article would include at least a summary discussion of ISIL's ideology on certain issues, since they are at least ostensibly an ideologically driven group. Is it appropriate to put it into a general article on Islamic extremism when the sources we're using specifically address ISIL's beliefs, and not a general Islamist ideology? Another approach might be to create a sub-article on something like "Islamist Ideology of ISIL." EastTN (talk) 01:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

A person can be considered to be an Islamist simply by having a friendly level of "evangelical" disposition with regard to a version of Islamic faith or something similar. Unique aspects of ISIL's interpretive theology I doubt would be very extensive. People can also be fundamentalists in all sorts of ways as different people may have different views on the fundamentals of a religion. None-the-less, some content might be presented in the Islamic fundamentalism article or, as mentioned, in Islamic extremism. This is a common description of groups such as ISIL. GregKaye 07:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that some content on ISIL should be in the general articles on Islamic fundamentalism or extremism. We already have some in the articles on Slavery in 21st-century Islamism, Islamic views on slavery and Sexual slavery. But it seems appropriate to me to have the most detail on what ISIL believes, says and does in articles that are specific to ISIL. EastTN (talk) 16:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

There's also some material in Sexual violence in the Iraqi insurgency, but that may be more of an ISIL-specific article than a general Islamist one. I believe it has ab bit more detail than the others. EastTN (talk) 16:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I am curious/concerned about the legal/ethical situation regarding these issues. I also think that it is important to keep things in perspective. ISIL are a group that will endorse and publicise the deaths of a British aid worker and a compassionate Japanese man who only came to the area to try to negotiate the release of another prisoner. There is nothing in Islam that justifies these acts and, in this context, I am very uneasy in regard to the presentation of interpretations of Islamic religious texts that are taken to justify similar killings. I am also curious in regard to any extent to which a potential acquisition of female slaves may be a motivation amongst the ISIL militants. The husband and brothers of women of a range of ethnic groups have been slaughtered and, it has been in the context of this death, that the women have been forced into sex slave relationships with men within the killing group. Again I do not see the point in presenting any great content regarding the groups explanations / justifications for their actions.

Another thing that I am curious about is what I think is the possibility of many organisations steering clear of this kind of information and it has crossed my mind that there may be legal issues affecting various organisations. Jihad Watch present various claims and, while I am not sure whether all the content is factually correct, they present their contents as an expose of faults within extremist groups. Other outlets seem to be more reticent in regard to presentations of explanations of the motivations of extremist groups and, if not due to legislation, I think that there are ethical considerations that need to be kept in mind. I really do not think that it is Wikipedia's role to give any significant focus reasonings and rationales that the group choose to present. It is blatantly obvious that the group believes in such practices as beheadings and sexual slavery. I don't see the relevance or benefit of significant further comment. GregKaye 21:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

My perspective is a bit different from yours. I agree that it's entirely possible that what the various media outlets report is affected by legal considerations. I'm not privy to what those considerations are, but I imagine they would include the usual concerns about avoiding anything that's slanderous or libelous, and in some jurisdictions legal limitations on naming victims of sexual assault. Once they publish, though, I don't see how that directly affects our work as Wikipedia editors. We do, of course, have to follow all of the applicable Wikipedia rules and guidelines.

It sounds like your primary concern is ethical. The basic question seems to be whether reporting on ISIL's arguments will promote their idiology, make readers more sympathetic, give their position intellectual cover, or in some other way provide aid and comfort to ISIL. Assuming we do it correctly, my answer would be an emphatic "no." I would share your concern if we were indiscriminately copying ISIL propaganda - but we're not doing that. I firmly believe that if we report clearly and dispassionately on ISIL's actions, beliefs and claims, people will see it for what it is. Yes, they twist Islam. That's at the core of their ideology, and we have to understand that to understand ISIL. Reporting on how they twist the Quran isn't going to make ISIL more attractive to Muslims or to anyone else. There are some ideologies that, when clearly understood, shock the conscience of the world. In those cases the best innoculation against their spread is to make sure as many people as possible understand them as clearly and thoroughly as possible. EastTN (talk) 16:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

If publishing religious texts that justify their attracities did not attract new recruits ISIL would not do it - Wikipedia should not be a soapbox for extremist views. Presenting text after text will alternatively convince people that Islam supports ISIL or that ISIL is justified by their faith, or maybe that they are taking things out of context. One can pull Bible texts to justify slavery, honor killing, stoning and other things not practiced by Christians today but Wikipedia does not publish defenses of these things using Bible texts. Legacypac (talk) 23:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I am personally against using specific verses in the Quran to back up their claims in the main article, but for outlining their arguments. If we don't cover them at all we fail NPOV, and therefore we will stop people coming to an informed opinion, which I doubt could be anything other than utter disgust at IS. If there was a separate page on IS's religious arguments, I believe that should have specific quotes from the Quran as used by IS. If you believe we are/would be giving undue weight, then we probably should look into that in more detail. Banak (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree that we cannot provide ISIL with a soapbox for their ideology. I'm comfortable, though, that the current text doesn't do that. To your point, it doesn't quote any specific verses from the Quran. I don't see any need for us to go that far. (I would note that the article on Christian views on slavery does discuss specific passages from both the Old and New Testaments and the positions Christians have taken both for and against slavery, and does it in a way that's not inflammatory.) I agree that ISIL believes it can attract support through their religious arguments, but that's when they get to frame those arguments as part of their propaganda. I think we're all agreed that we can't copy ISIL's propaganda into the article.

Wikipedia covers a lot of distasteful topics, including Nazi racial theories, eugenics, and white supremacy. This is truly ugly stuff, and some of it's still with us. But I think Wikipedia does a pretty good job of covering topics like this in a responsible way. I also believe that, on balance, it's better for Wikipedia to make this information available in a neutral, dispassionate, encyclopedic way than to leave it out. We do need to be careful - as I think we have been - to guard against folks trying to turn Wikipedia into yet another media outlet for ISIL. But I am absolutely convinced that if we report this ideology straight-up as the Wikipedia guidelines call for, readers will be able to see this group for what it is. EastTN (talk) 01:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure what to make of the newly inserted Eschatology section. Banak (talk) 10:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I probably wouldn't have gone into that much detail, but it looks like it was written in good faith. EastTN (talk) 13:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Article name

Based on the logic used in renaming the Bradley Manning article Chelsea Manning (that that is what verifiably the subject of the article prefers), should not this article be titled simply "Islamic State"? Or are there different rules depending on the non-neutral opinions of wikipedia editors? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.5.253 (talk) 13:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

129.215.5.253 You are more than welcome to review past discussions and to consider the various issues involved. GregKaye 23:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I recently supported a failed move request to move to "Islamic State (group)" , IP. However I disagree with your argument. It seems that just because IS declared they've changed their name doesn't make it automatically so, according similar wikipedia policy (e.g. in the case of people wikipedia says to look to others sources). Rather, in my opinion it is the commonname, which I think makes it the correct name for this article. Banak (talk) 23:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

per commonname, why this article isn't titled ISIS, like the Arabic article, which was recently moved to Da‘ish from Islamic State of Iraq and Levant? --Kuwaity26 (talk) 09:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

129.215.5.253 you are welcome to review the situation. If you go to the top of this talk page, you can go through all past discussion's on the naming of the article. I would also echo Banak's comment, that if someone or something changes their name, that is not reason enough to change the name. I guess Bradley Manning was changed because the more common name was Chelsea Manning in reliable sources. The WP:Commonname is one of the criteria that is used to determine the article name. Your point regarding non-neutral opinions, are not strictly true because the move that took place before last, was closed with no-consensus based on valid arguments on both sides. It may also be worthwhile, to take the article naming policy, WP:AT into consideration as that is the main guide for us to deal with this issue. Mbcap (talk) 09:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Emblem

Is there any RS on the emblem? The emblem reads "Islamic State of Iraq and Sham" so we need a good RS dating to after their name change.--Kathovo talk 17:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

no you are reading an alternative (non) translation clearly detailed in the lead of this article. Sham=Levent. The emblem is often visable in ISIL released and other published photos, especially on vehicles but also billboards and buildings. Just google image search and you will see it. It is used so much I don't think we need to provide a specific source for its use. Legacypac (talk) 12:35, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The emblem with "Iraq and Sham" is no longer in existance. The image is not visible on any ISIL released photo or vehicles or billboards or building since their name change. Mbcap (talk) 15:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

It looks more like fan art since I have never encountered it in any of their official publications. Interestingly it is only exclusively found in English language websites.--Kathovo talk 10:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

They no longer include of "Iraq and the Levant" in their name, I see no reason that they would keep it in their banner. Banak (talk) 10:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Can we therefore delete the emblem because it is inaccurate information. Mbcap (talk) 21:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I did but @LightandDark2000: reverted it stating no consensus was reached in talk page.--Kathovo talk

They still use the same flag, so they probably still use the same emblem. LightandDark2000 (talk) 19:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

LightandDark2000 could you please provide sources that corroborate the view that they use this emblem. Mbcap (talk) 20:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Is placement of "Territorial control and provinces" strictly correct?

I would like to get editors comments on this section of the main article. To me at least, the title and placement of this section at the current position that it holds on the page, suggests that all of the mentioned provinces constitute territory. Whilst for example, Barqa and maybe Sinai Province do hold territory, the same cannot be said for Khorasan or the Algerian province. My own impression is that these provinces are not provinces as such but the new names of the groups which have now pledged allegiance to Islamic State, some of which have territory under their control. In light of this I thought, maybe we need to rethink how to place these provinces on the page. As I mentioned, Barqa and Sinai Province's could stand where they are at the moment as they do hold territory (not sure about Sinai though), but the other provinces may need to be appropriately placed elsewhere. Otherwise we may give the impression that they hold more territory than they actually hold. If I have overlooked anything or misunderstood the situation, please do let me know. Mbcap (talk) 09:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

TY Mbcap. I had recently moved the information from ISIL#Military and resources due to the repetition of content but realised this was a bodge and highlighted the issue at Talk:ISIL#Province content. The groups with allegiance don't really count as resources and, as you mention, some don't control territory. One way that things could go is to rename section to something along the lines of "Territorial control and international presence". I personally think that some of the content has been added in excess to relevance to the current article as it is all presented in the questionably named ISIL territorial claims article. I am also uncertain as to the extent that the groups would be willing to follow al-Baghdadi's orders and the extent, beyond claims, that this has been verified. GregKaye 11:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Greg the new proposed section of "Territorial control and international presence" would be better than the current heading. We would need to clearly differentiate between what is territorial control and what is international presence because the sources I have read do make that distinction. This would, I hope, do away with the false impression that is given by the current section and that given impression is not your fault. I only realised when I was searching through the relevant attributed citations.

For example the Khorasan province, the information contained within reliable sources only go as far as to say that some have pledged allegience and that there is a recruitmant drive. There is no mention of territorial control, unlike the Barqa province. In fact this article[5] from the New York times, mentions the matter of territorial control directly by saying that "there is no indication that the Islamic State controls territory in Afghanistan."

In regards to Sinai province this article [6] from the wall street journal suggests that the army control the entire Sinai peninsula. I could not find any sources to state otherwise.

In regards to the Alergian pronvince, there were no sources to be found suggesting any form of control. They simply stated that they had pledged allegiance and were not a major force here[7].

Barqa province controls territory and this is shown by the sources. There may be some element of control exerted by Baghdadi on Barqa as reported here [8] but the information is sourced from Al-Monitor which in my opinion is not reliable. Your uncertainty as to the extent that the groups would follow Baghdadi's orders are reflected by sources, as far as I am aware. This article[9] from The Nation says that is little to no evidence to suggest practical control over Islamic State's North African provinces but it does admit their apparent influence. I think we simply do not know if they are in control or not because we do not have the necessary evidence.

All of the above taken together, I would suggest the following;

• Rename "Territorial control and provinces" to the suggested "Territorial control and international presence".
• Keep Barqa province in its current place as it controls territory
• Create a new level 3 heading for "international presence" and transfer the contents of Sinai, Khorasan and Algerian province's into there.
• The provinces of Sinai, Khorasan and Algeria, do not need individual separate heading, I think this is giving too much weight. We can reconsider if the situation changes.

Mbcap (talk) 12:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Mbcap Again your diligence in all of this is greatly appreciated and I doubt, IMO, that there would be any objection to these suggestions. Also, given that some content is not relevant to territorial control, let alone territorial claim, have you (or anyone else) any thoughts on the title for (or content limitation of) the ISIL territorial claims article. I personally think that this type of article is best expanded and with content here being cut. GregKaye 18:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes I am aware that my previous post may seem overboard but it was necessary because after I made the discussed changed, the edits that were concerned with clearly distinguishing those provinces that hold territory and those that do not, were reverted. Moreover, the introduction to the section of territorial control and international presence currently says, that they hold territory in Sinai, which is not supported by any reliable source. I am not really sure how to proceed as a repeat edit by me on the same thing, may end up being reverted again. Mbcap (talk) 15:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Primary target of War on Terror???

The sentence looks like a WP:ORIGINAL to me. In the article of War on Terror, it has been stated that Al-Qaeda is the primary target. And i believe Al-Qaeda is still the #1 target if we look at international intervention. We didint see any Afganistan scale intervention against ISIS. kazekagetr 21:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Funny how I was coming to discuss the very same thing here as well, and I've found this thread. I strongly object to the inclusion of the "War on Terror" in the "part of.." section of infoboxes in articles which involve ISIL. This term still remains a controversial one, and it mainly (if not always) applies to US-led anti-terrorism campaigns. I came across it when editing 2015 Egyptian military intervention in Libya [10] and I've previously noticed it on Sinai insurgency [11]. This merits discussion because I fail to see sources claiming that these conflicts are particularly related to this "war". Fitzcarmalan (talk) 09:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

ISIL is a primary target of the War on Terror. Barack Obama's speeches on the terrorist organization also implies that the US targets ISIL every bit as much as it targets al-Qaeda, if not more so at the moment. LightandDark2000 (talk) 04:20, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit on the Libyan intervention article, and will do the same on Sinai insurgency as well. Unfortunately you did not provide sources claiming that Egypt's operations are part of these particular campaigns. Yes, the Egyptian government is indeed engaged in a "war on terror", but is it the War on Terror in question? Hardly. The only thing linking this to the US in any significant way is when Sisi previously called on Washington to finish what it started in Libya. But I fail to see how this translates into Egypt being part of the "War on Terror". Fitzcarmalan (talk) 08:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Ham fisted lead

In Archive 25 I made a comment regarding the LEAD's unclear and confusing prose/grammer. Unfortunatly as a reader who just wants basic information (as in asking Siri what ISIS stands for) I would get this grammatical nightmare:

The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL /ˈaɪsəl/) is a jihadist most extreme terrorist[24]and a rebel group that controls territory in Iraq and Syria and also operates in eastern Libya, the Sinai Peninsula of Egypt, and other areas of the Middle East,[25] North Africa, South Asia,[26] and Southeast Asia.[

Honestly, I don't know about you, but this seems pretty confusing to me. What is a "jihadist most extreme terrorist?" Buffaboy (formerly Dekema2) (talk) 04:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't see the issue. The article's lead's grammar seems fine to me (at least where you are pointing out). If there is really a problem, it just might be your phone's software. LightandDark2000 (talk) 08:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Map

I suggest you change the map in the infobox to Territorial control of the ISIS.svg. --67.166.194.80 (talk) 16:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Feb. 23 abductions

Two days later, BBC quotes "sources in the community" as saying the number abducted may be as high as 200. Sca (talk) 15:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Quranic Quotations in Section on "Sexual violence and slavery"

A Quranic quotation supporting slavery has been inserted into this section again with this edit. The question of what to put into this section has been extensively discussed in the past. My sense of the consensus is that we should summarize the gist of ISIL's primary arguments, but not repeat their propaganda. I can imagine an appropriate way to indicate which portions of the Quran ISIL picks to support its arguments, putting ISIL's interpretation into context with the standard interpretations of Islamic scholars, but this text doesn't appear to be doing that. As it stands, it seems to me to lean towards promoting ISIL's point of view. EastTN (talk) 16:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I think we previously agreed not to include such quotes. I would revert it away, but I rarely revert with mobile edits. Banak (talk) 16:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I brought it here because I've already reverted it once. I'll let it sit for a bit, and come back later and remove it again if there's no additional discussion. EastTN (talk) 17:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I see no reason to remove.
It would seem bias against the Islamic State for Wikipedia to censor out the IS' reasons and justifications for what they see as correct and fair (from their POV); the islamists could then fairly say that Wikipedia only publishes arguments against them. XavierItzm (talk) 16:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

This has been discussed extensively above. There is a difference between reporting on ISIL's claims and providing a WP:SOAPBOX to promote their position. The consensus is that quotes such as this cross that line. EastTN (talk) 17:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

So you're accusing news agencies of soapboxing or whatever that means. There are tons of articles (featuring the sex slave pamphlet) which include the quranic verses which justifies the sexual slavery of the militant group and you're complaining that the verse helps repeat ISIL propaganda. This is not your job. 'The facts' how ugly it may be, must be included.Hum num gitu (talk) 18:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Hum num gitu and XavierItzm, is the use of quotes from the Qur'an used in reliable sources in this way and if so, can you provide a list. Mbcap (talk) 18:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Hum num gitu, I have not made any accusations. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It's not a newspaper, magazine or on-line news outlet. That means Wikipedia articles will not (and should not) be written like news articles. The standards for neutrality and objectivity are different (and much higher). In other terms, Wikipedia is a tertiary source, while the news reports are generally secondary sources. Again, that means that the Wikipedia articles (encyclopedia entries) will be written differently than news stories are. We include the facts (in fact, we already include the fact that ISIL claims the Quran and the Hadith support the practice of slavery), but we do so in a manner appropriate to an encyclopedia. The fact that an encyclopedia is different from a news paper is not a criticism of either. EastTN (talk) 19:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

EastTN I would like to respectfully disagree with you about Wikipedia having higher neutrality and objectivity. I am sure you are well aware of the page called "liberation of Mosul" so let us not pretend that we are contributing to a bastion of demonstrable neutrality and objectivity. Having said that we do need reliable sources, secondary or tertiary to use the quotes in the way that is suggested in the article. Mbcap (talk) 19:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Mbcap, I would argue that Wikipedia has higher standards. Whether we achieve them or not is an entirely different question, to which I agree the answer is far too often "no". But if we want to improve Wikipedia, we have to keep doing our best to hold ourselves to those standards. EastTN (talk) 19:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

True, you are right about striving to make it better. However I just checked the sources and it seems that they are one; reliable and two; use the quote from the Qur'an, in the way that is used in this article. For this reason we should not delete it from the article. Mbcap (talk) 19:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The RS citations provided are irreproachable. Should be kept in the article. XavierItzm (talk) 20:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I never said the articles - and the ISIL pamphlet they're talking about - don't cite that particular verse. But I don't think that's the issue here. The real question is the degree of detail we should go into in covering ISIL's arguments, and the extent to which we should directly quote it. To get more specific, the original text said that the ISIL pamphlet allows fighters to do certain things. The last time I took the quote out, I also modified the remaining text to say that the pamphlet claims the Quran allows fighters to do those things. Another step could be to say that according to the pamphlet, Quran 23:5-6 allows fighters to do certain things (which would be my preferred solution at this point). The point is, there are multiple ways of reporting their arguments, and including entire verses out of the Quran may well not be the best one. EastTN (talk) 20:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

There have been too many Wikipedia instances where a well-intentioned editor correctly summarised as in, for example, "koran 23:5-6 allows muslims to have sex with their slaves" (which BTW is exactly what the koran reads; look it up), where such a good faith edit ends up getting taken out of Wikipedia because of disagreements with the text. So for instance your proposed text "allows fighters to do" is erroneous. Better stick to the facts as reported by RS. Recommend keep the citations in the article as they stand. XavierItzm (talk) 21:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

That's exactly the problem - the scope of the article does not include the correct interpretation of the Quran, but it does include what ISIL says about the Quran. We can report what ISIL says about the Quran, based on reliable sources, without quoting the Quran itself. Second, done correctly, including the statement "according to the pamphlet, Quran 23:5–6 ..." will provide the reader with a direct link to the verse, so they can see exactly what it says if they so desire. Again, the issue isn't about whether we report facts based on reliable sources, but how we report them. EastTN (talk) 22:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

So, you agree that there are pitfalls with any proposed modification to the current text, which is backed by multiple RS. Recommend keep the citations in the article as they stand, as per the RS. XavierItzm (talk) 03:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I mentally considered a few things when I previously decided what I felt about the inclusion of the quote, they included how much of IS's viewpoints we should include in their own article, the weight given to IS's viewpoints and noteworthiness of their viewpoints. In the end I decided that, IMO it would be wrong for a mixture of WP:SOAPBOX and Neutrality (kind of like the second example at WP:INTEXT only without the majority opinion at all), but the issue of how much weight IS should be given in their own article is... interesting. Banak (talk) 23:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

XavierItzm - "So, you agree that there are pitfalls with any proposed modification to the current text..." No, I do not. You have completely misread my comments. Banak - that is an interesting question, and one reason I've consistently said we should cover the arguments ISIL asserts to justify their actions and positions. But for exactly the considerations you've raised, I believe we need to do it very, very carefully. I believe the safest way is to summarize their arguments in a neutral fashion (e.g., "ISIL uses X to support Y"). That can be done in a reasonable amount of detail, as long as we don't violate WP:UNDUE and appropriately include other perspectives so as to maintain WP:NPOV. But while I'm fine listing the verses ISIL relies on, my judgment is that you were correct in saying that quoting them at length crosses the line. EastTN (talk) 04:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Terrorist Organization

The "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" should be called as the terrorist organization. Should it put on the front page of topic?Marxistfounder (talk) 11:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Probably not in the first paragraph of the header, see WP:TERRORIST which says only in-text attribution should be used to label group as such. We could include a sentence there which says the UN has designated it as one. Banak (talk) 12:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Dug around the archieves, found these previous discussions amongst others:

• Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant/Archive_9#.22Terrorist.22_in_the_Lead,
• Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant/Archive_3#Is_ISIS_a_terrorist_organization.3F
• [[12]]

Banak (talk) 16:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I find it humourous. Editors will strongly argue against the use of the word terrorist in regard to groups even when these groups are widely and reliably described with this term and they will make their arguments to the point of adding WP:TERRORIST as a secondary shortcut to value laden WP:LABEL and yet editors will also push to add "jihadist", a questionably applicable value laden WP:LABEL which contest a religious justification to group action. I think that it is appropriate to quote sources as the article currently does but a parallel article which perhaps is of note is es:Estado Islámico (organización terrorista). GregKaye 11:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 27 February 2015

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.

---

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State (rebel group) – Now that your using it as an offical name in the intro, we really should start calling it that. 67.166.194.80 (talk) 15:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• Speedy close – @JzG: Prior RM discussion finished yesterday, where this name too was discussed. Requesting input of closer. RGloucester — ☎ 18:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Leave it at least a month, is my view, and then place all possible candidate titles on the table and look at how the sources address them. Guy (Help!) 18:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Extremist, Islamist as most prevalently used descriptions for the group.

See also: Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/Archive_25#"Jihadist" dropped from Lead, "Islamist" substituted

Despite content of the above mentioned discussion there has been an edit war so as to replace the more commonly used description "Islamist" within News, Books and Scholarship with "jihadist". Please consider the following search results:

• (isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND ("extremist" OR "extremism") gets "About 6,790,000 results" results in News

(isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND ("extremist" OR "extremism") gets "About 8,780 results" results in Books

(isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND ("extremist" OR "extremism") gets "About 15,600 results" results in Scholar

• (isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND ("Islamist" OR "Islamism") gets "About 611,000 results" results in News

(isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND ("Islamist" OR "Islamism") gets "About 17,500 results" results in Books

(isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND ("Islamist" OR "Islamism") gets "About 17,900 results" results in Scholar

• (isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND ("jihadist" OR "jihadism") gets "About 131,000 results" results in News

(isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND ("jihadist" OR "jihadism") gets "About 2,170 results" results in Books

(isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND ("jihadist" OR "jihadism") gets "About 5,490 results" results in Scholar

GregKaye 16:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Greg Could we please include in-text attribution to the term "terrorist" in the lead. Mbcap (talk) 05:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Mbcap I am not sure what you are asking/proposing. Do you want a similar complilation of search results on "... ("terrorist" OR "terrorism")" for comparison? GregKaye 11:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

In text attribution is where you have a sentence that says "according to x, y" rather than "y". So here this is saying "According to the UN/some other group, ISIL is a terrorist group" or similar rather than "ISIL is a terrorist group". Under WP:TERRORIST we cannot do the second one, rather we have to use in-text attribution if we wish to include terrorist in the lead, as Mbcap wants to. Banak (talk) 11:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Banak, the middle sentence of the second paragraph reads: "The group has been designated as a terrorist organisation by the United Nations, the European Union, the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, Canada, Indonesia, Malaysia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, India, and Russia." Can you clarify further what is being asked here? As far as I can see this fits in with guidelines on the use of value laden WP:LABELs. GregKaye 11:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I previously missed that sentence, then made a comment at Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#Terrorist_Organization, which Mbcap must have read and thought there was no such statement in the lead having taken my word, I think. Instead he might be asking for it to be moved to the first paragraph. You'll have to ask them to be sure. Banak (talk) 11:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

My apologies for being the cause of confusion. To be honest I think I was confused when I wrote my original post. I mean can we provide attribution to the term "extremist" in the first line of of the article. Mbcap (talk) 19:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Quotes around "Caliphate" in infobox

The infobox "Establishment" section lists: Declaration of "Caliphate" 29 June 2014

Why are there quotes around the word Caliphate? The word declaration implies quotes around whatever follows it, so the added quotation marks only serve to add biased commentary. ISIL is generally considered illegitimate and Wikipedia should reflect that, but the quotation marks are not the appropriate way.

I looked at another self-declared state for comparison; Abkhazia's infobox lists: Declaration of Independence 23 July 1992, First international recognition 26 August 2008. This seems like a more appropriate model because it highlights the difference between declaration and recognition without giving an opinion on either. ISIL's infobox should list their declaration in an equally unbiased manner, with the absence of international recognition drawing attention to its illegitimacy. GreetingsThree (talk) 23:44, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the quotes should be removed. They are redundant. This problem is widespread in ISIS-related articles. For example in the opening paragraphs Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was named its "Caliph". As a caliphate, it claims religious... should read Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was named its Caliph. As a "caliphate", it claims religious... I don't know why we have such difficulty with this. I'm sure we can all agree that 1) ISIS is illegitimate and 2) They consider themselves a Caliphate. Despite this some people have put ridiculously convoluted and sarcastic language into these articles just to ensure that people don't think ISIS is a real Caliphate. The opening paragraph to al-Baghdadi's article is equally ridiculous. I have tried to improve it. I would just come back in 5 or 10 years and then try to make some common sense edits to these articles. Brianbleakley (talk) 00:38, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

If we wanted to make it crystal clear without using quotation marks around "Caliphate" we could begin the statement with "Self-declaration" rather than "Declaration." EastTN (talk) 02:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I would oppose any such use of quotation marks, unless someone provides reliable sources which use it. Mbcap (talk) 03:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done, I've gone ahead and removed the quotation marks so as to present: Declaration of caliphate  29 June 2014. I can't remember any time that the use of quotation marks here had been agreed. I agree with EastTN regarding the use of "Self-declaration" which has also previously been debated. While the declaration has been widely rejected, it has been accepted by groups such as in Libya and Sinai. All the same, acceptance seems to be at a relatively low level. I think that the self declared terminology is reasonably justified. GregKaye 09:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

A caliphate covers all muslims. Clearly there is no caliphate or caliph regardless what they call themselves. The group in Libya is sponsored by returned ISIL fighters, more of an expansion than acceptance. Legacypac (talk) 08:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Allegations of Saudi Arabia's support

I am concerned with the following sentence: the Iraqi President Nouri al-Maliki[476] and some media outlets like NBC, BBC, and NYTimes stated that Saudi Arabia is funding ISIL.[477][478][479][480] None of the four cited sources contain this claim, and in most cases assert the exact opposite, so I have changed it accordingly.

1. In the Washington Institute for Near East Policy [13]: “At present, there is no credible evidence that the Saudi government is financially supporting ISIS”
2. In the BBC Article [14]: “Saudi Arabia likewise is innocent of a direct state policy to fund the group,”
3. In the NBC article [15]: “Stavridis and other current U.S. officials suggest that the biggest share of the individual donations…..One U.S. official said the Saudis are "more in line with U.S. foreign policy" than the Qataris.
4. The New York Times article [16] is an op-ed describing Saudi Arabia’s sponsorship of Salafism, no claim that “Saudi Arabia is funding ISIL” is made.

Gazkthul (talk) 12:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

All should redirect to Daesh. This page should not be called Islamic State. Seeing no objections I will make this correction. -Teetotaler 28 February, 2015

Turkey invaded Syria

This should be added, because they invaded specifically to fight the terrorists ...and probably also to conquer the area around their former rulers grave. GMRE (talk) 12:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Operation Shah Firat cannot be classed as an invasion of Syria as the Republic of Turkey has pursuant to International Law transit rights through Syria to the Turkish enclave of Suleyman Shah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.130.229 (talk) 14:27, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2015

include Muslim Brotherhood strong relation and support to The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

references here:

http://en.rightsreporter.org/connection-between-isis-and-muslim-brotherhood-alarm-in-jordan/ http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/arnold-ahlert/the-muslim-brotherhood-isis-connection/ http://www.horowitzfreedomcenter.org/arnold_ahlert_the_muslim_brotherhood_isis_connection https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/africa/14190-muslim-brotherhood-decries-foreign-intervention-against-islamic-state https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/articles/africa/14277-the-muslim-brotherhood-and-is-are-not-the-same-thing

this links to a simple search on Muslim Brotherhood own webportal justifying and supporting ISIL crimes http://www.ikhwanonline.com/Search.aspx?SearchKey=%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%B9%D8%B4

in video: http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/09/muslim-brotherhood-cleric-declares-his-support-for-the-islamic-state

Maged mmh (talk) 15:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Edit requests must be accompanied by a detailed and specific description of what changes you want to be made to an article. Pishcal — ♣ 13:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)