Talk:Islamic State

NOTE 1: This talk page has a history of high levels of activity. Please make reasonable checks to see whether additional content can be added to existing threads and please make new section titles as general as may be practically helpful.

NOTE 2: Please complete citations attached to article content with fields such as Author, Title, URL, Date, Publisher/Work, Agency and Access Date. (See footnotes guide above.) (If you would like to copy the footnotes guide to your userpage, put this template in the Edit Page – {{User:P123ct1/My template}} – and it will display the guide.)

Baathist (non-religious) origins?

A recent article be Der Spiegel claims that the group was started by Baathists who only use Islam as a propaganda tool. --CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

ISIS is a state

ISIS is a state, not an "Islamist rebel group that controls territory in Iraq and Syria". If Northern Cyprus is a state, and the Donetsk People's Republic, then so is ISIS. It purports to be a state, it controls territory, it has an army, and it has a rudimentary form of government. It seems to me that there is no justification for not describing it as a state. This is an entirely different matter to whether it should be allowed to continue exist. To pretend that it is not a state is like pretending that Adolf Hitter was not the ruler of Germany.101.98.186.134 (talk) 05:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Donetsk is classed as a state? That's odd. Regardless, as it's in the middle of active fighting for the territory as the civil war is going on., it shouldn't be considered a state. I think this is stated on list of sovereign states' talk. Donetsk is also listed as a rebel group. Banak (talk) 10:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

'SIL is neither recognised as a state by the international community, by academia or by reliable sources. This has been extensively discussed in previous threads. It would be appreciated if editors would check through previous threads on topics before presenting proposals. I think that this case again raises the issue of potentially requiring editors to register and login b4 editing this talk page. To describe groups like Boko Haram and 'SIL as states is quite far into the realm of original research and, I think, POV. GregKaye 08:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources do not recognise the possibility of Islamic State being "an unrecognised state" so we have to wait to see if and when reliable information points to the contrary. Mbcap (talk) 09:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The contrast between the lede on Northern Cyprus and the one on the Islamic State is significant. "Northern Cyprus [...]is a self-declared state that comprises the northeastern portion of the island of Cyprus. Recognised only by Turkey [...] Northern Cyprus is considered by the international community as part of the Republic of Cyprus."
It seems to me that as soon as one single state recognises the Islamic State, the lede here will have to be harmonised to that of Northern Cyprus. However, if it hasn't happened yet, it might be premature to acknowledge that the Islamic State is yet one, even though it clearly meets all other criteria, including the collection of taxes. XavierItzm (talk) 16:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

It fails as a state on multiple fronts, including no international recognition, all territory seized by arms, no acceptance by the population it controls, active fighting, no stable territory etc. Legacypac (talk) 08:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Disagree. You cannot claim a state is not such just because "all territory seized by arms". England, for instance, is a state, and yet it was all seized by arms. Just ask William the Conqueror. Iran was also seized by arms by a Muslim cleric from its previous ruler, the Shah, and many today regard it as a legitimate state. Bottom line is, The Islamic State is a perfect state except for international recognition. XavierItzm (talk) 14:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

XavierItzm There are a great number of politicians and academics that will consider views as to whether "the armed group", as the UN describes it, is classified as a state. This is not something that you or anyone else can push. There is no source justification for considering it is a state and yet there is a seemingly unanimous view to say that it is not. GregKaye 12:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC) strikes added GregKaye 17:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Greg I wrote the Islamic State is already a perfect state except for international recognition. I.e., I wrote that it is not a state. It will not be a state until at least one established state recognises it. When that happens, the encyclopaedic thing to do will be to harmonise its entry with that of Northern Cyprus. XavierItzm (talk) 15:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

XavierItzm apologies for my earlier misreading/understanding of your content. I was also unaware of the content of List of states with limited recognition#Criteria for inclusion which certainly mentions two options, either to satisfy the declarative theory of statehood, or to be recognised as a state by at least one UN member state. I don't know if you can help with a guide to the rational for the second case or on what it is based.

The self-declared "Islamic State" does not itself consider the validity of any other state.

I do not know of any other situation in which international views have been put more clearly to say that the group is not a state.

If we go by the mentioned declarative theory then we find that a state has to have a defined territory. How is this possible with a group whose whole creed denies the existence of borders. This is a warring group that shows no signs of wanting peace and, perhaps, would only be declared a state by a state that had become its puppet. I doubt that it would come to this but don't personally think that Wikipedia should advocate shotgun statehood. I would also be interested to know when the declarative theory or statehood was itself first declared. In any case I don't think that your comparisons to nations like England carry any weight. The "the land of the Angles" has long been "the land of the Angles" with a largely consistent population no matter who was in charge and which has not, as in the unstable nature of the ISIL situation, suffered consistent "ethnic" cleansing. This group would need to be able to sit down with stated borders and a stable population to have the possibility of even being considered as being a state on an international basis. Otherwise I think that Ban Ki-Moon's interpretation of an 'Un-Islamic Non-State', echoed across the Arabic world, carries. GregKaye 20:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The original Bolsheviks of 1917, led by Lenin, Stalin, Bubnov, Zinoviev (Ovsei-Gershon Aronovich Radomyslsky), Kamenev (Rosenfeld), Sokólnikov (Brilliant), and Trotsky (Bronstein) were not much for borders either; they fully expected the Socialist International to take over the world. The Soviets in fact took over half of Europe when they had the chance and otherwise fought proxy wars until their bitter end. Didn't they use to say that borders were a Capitalist construct? Never did anyone refuse statehood recognition to the Socialists just because they are expansionist. Likewise, the Islamic State is a perfect state but for the fact it has yet to be recognised by some other state. XavierItzm (talk) 21:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

While the entity is not a qualifying "state" under the constitutive theory of statehood, it satisfies every requirement set forth in the declarative theory of statehood, including "the capacity to enter into relations with other states". (See Sovereign state for elaboration.) Jean-Jacques Rousseau, in The Social Contract, considers "war" a "relation between State and State." It is a matter of fact that a multitude of States have engaged in open warfare against this entity. Whether war constitutes a bilateral relation aside, it is a matter of fact that this entity, on an institutional level, has at least dealt with Turkey (and has thus far respected the sovereignty of Turkey), whereby said dealings resemble relations more than they resemble lack thereof. Recognition by a recognized state is one way of attaining statehood, it is not a requirement. Sapiocrat (talk) 16:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the clarification; makes perfect sense. From a strictly pragmatic POV, however, isn't it true that in the ignorant media and public imagination, the established ideas of Grotius, de Vitoria and other other founding fathers of international law have been usurped by the UN political process, which will reject statehood for whatever the five real powers of the Security Council deem politically unacceptable? XavierItzm (talk) 12:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Unrecognized state

A better classification would be as an unrecognized state, in the sovereign and Weberian sense it is undoubtedly one. I also looked for some media reports that confirm this:

• How ISIS Governs Its Caliphate (Newsweek): "Throughout the captured grounds of Syria and Iraq, ISIS is showing every indication of building a functioning state out of the prevailing chaos."

• ISIS: Everything you need to know about the rise of the militant group "ISIS is putting governing structures in place to rule the territories the group conquers once the dust settles on the battlefield. From the cabinet and the governors to the financial and legislative bodies, ISIS' bureaucratic hierarchy looks a lot like those of some of the Western countries whose values it rejects..."

• Is the “Islamic State of Iraq and Syria” a Real Country Now? (Salon): "some terrorism experts...suggest that the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria—the militant group that took over the city, is coming close to actually being the “Islamic State” implied by its name."

CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Sentence in the lead --> "Many Islamic and non-Islamic communities judge the group unrepresentative of Islam."

This sentence is in the first paragraph of the lead;

"Many Islamic and non-Islamic communities judge the group unrepresentative of Islam."

We have now had the Graeme Wood article which says the opposite. He is an expert in Political sciences who also manages to quote Bernard Haykel. My question is, do we need to take expert opinions into account or does expert opinion carry more weight than the laymans opinion? Should we put this in the lead as well? The Graeme Wood piece in the Atlantic clearly disagrees that they are unrepresentative of Islam. Thoughts? Mbcap (talk) 20:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I've read the Wood piece, the statement you are referring to is our corollary to "Muslims can reject the Islamic State; nearly all do." in the Wood piece. The statement you talk about describes an opinion some people hold. It would probably work better to interpolate Wood's quote: "pretending that it isn’t actually a religious, millenarian group, with theology that must be understood to be combatted, has already led the United States to underestimate it and back foolish schemes to counter it". Maybe you can say "Graeme Wood argues 'the religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam'". Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 22:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

That sentence in the lead (at the end of first paragraph) appeared to be not sourced: it was NOT being said in the given newspaper article... So I've removed that sentence. --Corriebertus (talk) 16:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Discuss-Dubious. I have added the last suggestion you made. Do you think we should add the first one as well? Corriebertus you are right, the citation does not support the statement so I have removed the reference. Mbcap (talk) 20:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

A Lead is supposed to summarise the article. "Many Islamic and non-Islamic communities judge the group unrepresentative of Islam" summarises the Criticism section. If editors want to refine this statement, it should be done in the Criticism section, not the Lead. Recent edits to the Lead show that editors are ignorant of what the purpose of a Lead is. 11:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.70.218 (talk)

Mbcap can you please present why you think that there is a contradiction between the content of the Wikipedia quote that you mention and Graeme Wood's article The content of this thread IMO literally beggars belief.
Mbcap you start by asserting:

"... in the first paragraph of the lead;

"Many Islamic and non-Islamic communities judge the group unrepresentative of Islam."

We have now had the Graeme Wood article which says the opposite. ...

There is nothing opposite. You present no quotes and there is nothing to say for instance: "Many Islamic and non-Islamic communities judge the group to be representative of Islam." This would be ludicrous. There is nothing presented to undermine the presented and much discussed content.

Corriebertus you say: "That sentence in the lead (at the end of first paragraph) appeared to be not sourced".
That sentence, as anyone checking the content would see, is written: "Many Islamic and non-Islamic communities [[#IslamicCriticism|judge]] the group unrepresentative of [[Islam]]." Reference is made to an extremely large content all of which is sourced.

82.20.70.218 rightly points out that "A Lead is supposed to summarise the article."

Discuss-Dubious, I appreciate your distillation of Graham Wood's arguments but I do not think that the comments of a lone political scientist from The Atlantic (who is not individually of sufficient note to have his own Wikipedia article) and has no credentials in Islamic studies should be given such high profile in comments on faithfulness to religion in this widely read Wikipedia article. The content on judging is taken from comments of High level Muslim clerics and has been commented on by high level political and other figures. There is no comparison here. Please see the POV push. People here seem determined to add reference to Israel when there is no involvement, to make rhetorical reference to the US when there is a coalition involved and the British were the first to designate the group as terrorist and now there is a drive to wipe the high level criticism of this group from the text or to present members of the group as the "most ardent followers" of Islam. This is unacceptable. On the basis of NPOV, in the same way as we do not WP:LABEL people murderers, we do not present one subset of a religion as its "most ardent followers". Religious devotion may clearly be manifest or not in a wide range of ways. When a group within a religion is waging war against other people in the same religion, who are the ardent followers? We cannot describe someone like Mohammed Emwazi as an ardent follower of Islam in a way that would insult, for instance, the supporters and founders of groups like Muslim Aid. GregKaye 14:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

To the question of "When a group within a religion is waging war against other people in the same religion, who are the ardent followers?" raised above, the answer is provided by the British Broadcasting Corporation BBC, which states categorically on its "What is Islamic State" page: "IS members are jihadists who adhere to an extreme interpretation of Sunni Islam and consider themselves the only true believers. They hold that the rest of the world is made up of unbelievers who seek to destroy Islam, justifying attacks against other Muslims and non-Muslims alike." I hope this WP:RS is useful to any wikipaedia editors making efforts to discern whether the Islamic State is composed of ardent followers of Sunni Islam. XavierItzm (talk) 19:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

XavierItzm Please do not misrepresent sources: You quote that they: "adhere to an extreme interpretation of Sunni Islam". You present, "... discern whether the Islamic State is composed of ardent followers of Sunni Islam." Even following your use of selective reference why then drop reference to extremism? GregKaye 08:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

You have just misrepresented a full quote I made from a very solid WP:RS, namely the BBC on the page the BBC uses to define "What is Islamic State". I will repeat here the full text I quoted just so anyone can see that the quote stands on its own and that you are making unfounded aspersions with regard to my citation of it: "IS members are jihadists who adhere to an extreme interpretation of Sunni Islam and consider themselves the only true believers. They hold that the rest of the world is made up of unbelievers who seek to destroy Islam, justifying attacks against other Muslims and non-Muslims alike.". There you have it. Islamic State is a type of Sunni Islam. Jihadi Muslims, extreme Muslims, Sunni Muslims, whatever adjectives you want to use to qualify them, they are Muslims. XavierItzm (talk) 12:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

The sentence in the lead about the group being unrepresentative of Islam suggests that the group is not Islamic. The expert views on the subject differ from this. Graeme Wood and Tom Holland disagree that Islamic State is not Islamic. Graeme Wood does have his own article and he is a notable figure, having written a well researched 10,000 word article. He has been interviewed by Vice News and invited to a panel by Center for Strategic and International Studies to talk about the Islamic State. You can view it here[1]. People who study this subject at an academic level and write about it, expressing their analysis therein, have to be credited as such. Wood says that the Islamic State is very Islamic. Bernard Haykel offers a similar view in the Atlantic Piece. Tom Holland a British Historian offers a similar analysis. Please do let me know if there are other sources written by people who study this at an academic level. There is no WP:LABEL or NPOV issue here as we are reporting what reliable sources are saying. Lastly as to me not providing quotes, I did not have the time and assumed editors had read it. Discuss-Dubious certainly had read it and was able to provide assistance in the matter raised. Mbcap (talk) 19:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

XavierItzm-The assumption was that I was saying that ISIL are the "most ardent followers" of Islam. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 03:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

GregKaye,Thank you for your comments. You make a good point about not needing to label them, the article can label the group itself. I never intended to suggest keeping that thought that ISIL's claims are widely disputed of the article. I could honestly live with balancing it with an article about the more modern aspects about it, like this :[2], but the article by Graeme C. A. Wood with quotes from Bernard Haykel is really generating a lot of discussion, so I think the statement "Graeme Wood argues that ISIL believes it is a millenarian, religious group in a 2015 Atlantic article" would work, right?

re: "ardent followers"-Wood means the ardent followers of ISIL. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 02:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Mbcap-Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#Islamic_criticism, Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#Theological_objections both substantiate that people feel this way about the group. They statement that this is how they "judge" ISIL is correct, but even Bernard Haykel can say that the "QSIS" thing is reasonable as a critique. [ http://thinkprogress.org/world/2015/02/20/3625446/atlantic-left-isis-conversation-bernard-haykel/] Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 02:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Discuss-Dubious I agree. That is why I only removed the citation and not the sentence itself because other parts of the article support the statement. But we still need to write the opposing view as there are sources now which contain an opposing view therein. Mbcap (talk) 05:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Discuss-Dubious, thanks for your explanation and clarification above: I have changed the text to say:

• "Many Islamic and non-Islamic communities judge the group unrepresentative of Islam. Political scientist Graeme Wood comments on IS that "the religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam".

There does not seem to be a contradiction between the contents of the two sentences so I have withdrawn the "However". This still seems to give a relatively small content on a large voice of criticism and a lot of text to a much discussed, recently raised contention. GregKaye 10:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Lead (reader opinion)

_{Moved from standalone section Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 22:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)}

Lead says, "Political scientist Graeme Wood comments on IS that "the religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam"." Err - wot? Don't make Wikipedia a figure of fun. 82.20.70.218 (talk) 21:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Discussion re: Graeme Wood quote in lead section

Invited to participate:@Khestwol and Gouncbeatduke: & 82.20.70.218.
Other relevant parties:@GregKaye, Mbcap, and Corriebertus:

This is about the sentence that starts with "Political scientist Graeme Wood..." Political scientist Graeme Wood comments on IS that "the religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam"

It's clearly controversial, and there have been a few reverts recently. The article it originated from has gotten a lot of discussion and criticism. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]

Most are critical of the piece. Should we mention and acknowledge these other pieces? Can we fix the sentence at all? Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 03:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Some considerations with regard to the Graeme Wood article, in no particular order: 1. If it were not important, partisans (thinkprogress? really?) wouldn't rush to try and feebly try to criticise it. 2. Wood's article actually interviews jihadists, IS-advocates, and their fellow travellers. Serious journalism. 3. If The Atlantic is not a WP:RS, one wouldn't quite know what is. 4. Wood's article is buttressed by Princeton scholar Bernard Haykel. Cred. 5. “Uncircumcised geezer” is an actual quote from the article. 6. Clarifies that people who say Islamic State is not Islamic are actually engaging in takfirism. Let that sink in. 7. The article is welcome balance to the preceding sentence in the lead. XavierItzm (talk) 04:29, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I would be wary of leaning entirely on Wood and Haykel. We have Alistair Crooke talking about how Abd al-Wahhab's ideas largely contributed to the ideas of ISIL we have today. I remember an article about how the group is similar to a revolution That would be good with the Slate article as a counterpoint. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 22:32, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The best template I have seen for where a subject like this has been treated well in Wikipedia is the handling of the Protestant Reich Church in the Nazi Germany article. The Nazi Germany article strikes the right balance of recognizing both the Reich Church's faithful following of Christian tradition from the medieval times and its oppression of the modern churches. This article needs the same kind of balance. As Andrew Anderson wrote "In our current political climate, where people claim Islam is innately violent, a failure to differentiate early Islamic and medieval practices fuels the fire. Wood’s article has provided the fodder for people to say, “see, IS looks at the texts and IS is violent. Ergo, Islam is violent.” That conflation does not help anyone". This article currently lacks balance and suffers from POV-pushing by those who desire to make that conflation. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 13:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Re: the conflation. That is a good point, but ISIL still considers itself as an apocalyptic entity, and fits into a sort of Wahhabism, cf. two-part series by Alistair Crooke. Of course, not all Salafists or all Wahhabis are violent. It would be great to mention what is modern about the group and fit it in as well. The first article I linked from Salon mentions how ISIL recruitment operates on multiple levels-Sunni Arab nationalism and an Islamism-based level. We could include it in consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Discuss-Dubious (talk • contribs) 14:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

This is a difficult one. On the one hand you have this expert written article by Wood who's assessment has been somewhat echoed by Tom Holland and the article about Wahhabism. These suggest that Islamic State is Islamic. On the other hand you have governments and world bodies that have dismissed the group as being un-Islamic. I think Gregkaye may have alluded to previously that there is inappropriate weight given to the Graeme Wood statement in the lead and I may be inclined to agree to a certain extent. However, saying that they are deemed un-representative of Islam in the lead would suggest that they are unequivocally un-Islamic. This does give a false impression of the group. This group really does not see Islam as that which is practised today. They want to practise Islam as it was practised in the first century AH. This I think may be the reason behind the entire confusion regarding their Islamic basis. The Wood's edit in the lead, I see as a counterbalance and also as a representation of other article's which analyse the group as being Islamic. I would be interested in how other editors think we can address this issue. On a side note, maybe we should consider creating an article on the Graeme Wood piece, seen as it has got so much analysis in the media. There is the Salon article, the Mehdi Hassan article from the New Statesman, etc, etc. Mbcap (talk) 02:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Precisely. Evidently the Islamic State members, including their imams, their theologians, their caliph and other religious authorities think they are pure as the driven snow Muslims; what Holland, Haykel, Graeme and the other experts provide, in English, is the explanation of why this is so. It seems just so churlish, so censorious to let the Wikipedia say that some (i.e., a number of Muslim propagandists, entities, and associations) think the Islamic State is not composed of Muslims, without clarifying that in fact, "some others" think that the Islamic State is composed of quite the most adept of Muslims out there. The statements of the Western governments to which you allude, of course, are meritless, for how can non-Muslim government employees pretend to tell the world who is a Muslim and who is not? XavierItzm (talk) 23:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree that we need to indicade that there is an opposing view on the group being Islamic. The sentence in the lead has made even Nat Hentoff upset[10]. The Graeme Wood sentence has been removed once again from the lead. This is turning into a sub-acute edit war. Mbcap (talk) 19:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

All right, so before this gets archived, everyone write how they feel the lead section should be. The area it was has been copied for you to work with. Everyone work in their own section and not other people's, please. Refer to diffs if you want to comment on a section. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 17:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

User	Preferred version of lead section
Mbcap	.
Gouncbeatduke	As caliphate, it claims religious, political and military authority over all Muslims worldwide and that "the legality of all emirates, groups, states, and organisations, becomes null by the expansion of the khilāfah's [caliphate's] authority and arrival of its troops to their areas".[33][34] Many Islamic and non-Islamic communities judge the group unrepresentative of Islam. The United Nations has held ISIL responsible for human rights abuses and war crimes, and Amnesty International has reported ethnic cleansing by the group on a "historic scale".
XavierItzm	As caliphate, it claims religious, political and military authority over all Muslims worldwide and that "the legality of all emirates, groups, states, and organisations, becomes null by the expansion of the khilāfah's [caliphate's] authority and arrival of its troops to their areas".[33][34] Many Islamic and non-Islamic communities judge the group unrepresentative of Islam. The United Nations has held ISIL responsible for human rights abuses and war crimes, and Amnesty International has reported ethnic cleansing by the group on a "historic scale".
Discuss-Dubious	As caliphate, it claims religious, political and military authority over all Muslims worldwide and that "the legality of all emirates, groups, states, and organisations, becomes null by the expansion of the khilāfah's [caliphate's] authority and arrival of its troops to their areas".[33][34] Many Islamic and non-Islamic communities judge the group unrepresentative of Islam. The group considers itself to be apocalyptic[11] and some analysts argue that it is basically a religion-oriented group [12], but some analysts argue that the religious aspect of the group is only a justification. 1, 2 The United Nations has held ISIL responsible for human rights abuses and war crimes, and Amnesty International has reported ethnic cleansing by the group on a "historic scale".
GregKaye	As caliphate, it claims religious, political and military authority over all Muslims worldwide and that "the legality of all emirates, groups, states, and organisations, becomes null by the expansion of the khilāfah's [caliphate's] authority and arrival of its troops to their areas".[33][34] Many Islamic and non-Islamic communities judge the group unrepresentative of Islam. The United Nations has held ISIL responsible for human rights abuses and war crimes, and Amnesty International has reported ethnic cleansing by the group on a "historic scale".
87.244.94.46	The Islamic State is an unrecognized state and an international Islamic religious-political revolutionary movement. In its political aspect, it seeks to overthrow established governments of Muslim countries, which it views as apostate tyrants and seeks to unify all Muslim-majority territories into an Islamic caliphate.' In its religious aspect, it is a Islamic revivalist movement which seeks to return the practice of Islam to that of the Prophet Muhammad, the sahabah and the salaf. It holds territory and functions as an unrecognized state in Syria, Iraq, Libya and Nigeria, where it has established systems and structures of governance. It has operations or affiliates in Lebanon, Egypt, and other areas of the Middle East, North and West Africa, South and Southeast Asia. On the 29th June 2014, in a speech entitled 'This is the promise of Allah', the spokesman of the Islamic State, Shaykh Abu Muhammad al-Adnani announced the restoration of the caliphate and said that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, had been elected by Ahl al-hall wal 'aqd (أهل الحل والعقد), which signifies the people of authority and influence in the Islamic State shura council, to be Amir al-Mu'minin Caliph Ibrahim. As a caliphate, it claims religious, political and military authority over all Muslims worldwide and that "the legality of all emirates, groups, states, and organisations, becomes null by the expansion of the khilāfah's [caliphate's] authority and arrival of its troops to their ar
Banak	It claims that as a caliphate it has religious, political and military authority over all Muslims worldwide and that "the legality of all emirates, groups, states, and organisations, becomes null by the expansion of the khilāfah's [caliphate's] authority and arrival of its troops to their areas".[33][34] Most Islamic and non-Islamic communities consider the group unrepresentative of Islam. The United Nations has held ISIL responsible for human rights abuses and war crimes, and Amnesty International has reported ethnic cleansing by the group on a "historic scale".
Corriebertus	As caliphate, it claims religious, political and military authority over all Muslims worldwide and that "the legality of all emirates, groups, states, and organisations, becomes null by the expansion of the khilāfah's [caliphate's] authority and arrival of its troops to their areas".[33][34] Many Islamic and non-Islamic communities judge the group unrepresentative of Islam. The United Nations has held ISIL responsible for human rights abuses and war crimes, and Amnesty International has reported ethnic cleansing by the group on a "historic scale".

I've highlighted the edits I & Banak suggest and that the IP wants in bold. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 22:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Regarding this edit, what does BH actually do in Nigeria? State-wise, I mean. Are punishments and fighting in the bush all they do, or do they actually operate services? It would help to give a source. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 02:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Can we archive this? I think we're done. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 18:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I think we'd reached 19 days before you commented and auto-archive would have been 21 days... so I think it's probably fair game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banak (talk • contribs) 19:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

"The Islamic State"

1. "Un-Islamic State" is not the name of the entity this article concerns itself with, notwithstanding if it is a state, or if it is Islamic in nature, self-declared or otherwise. Referring to the entity as such is loaded as it is an inherent ideological statement, and thus reference to the entity as such should be removed from the list of this entity's names. This expression got removed from the article soon after the edit request was posted. Issue 1 is no longer under dispute.

2. As the entity claims territory outside of Iraq and al-Sham as within it's scope, and has demonstrably been active outside the geography that is Iraq and al-Sham, I believe clarification is needed on why the entity should not be referred to by it's primary self-designation. In the event of further expansion by the entity, it is assured that the present method of primary referral will quickly become outdated. In any case, a refusal to refer to this entity as "the Islamic State" can also be considered loaded, as it is also an inherent ideological statement, seeking to specifically denounce a certain attribute of this entity (more so than it is denounced as an entirety.)

Sapiocrat (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Sapiocrat Declaring the group as "Islamic State" i.e. a state for Islam, in condition that the group only finds a section of Sunni Islam as acceptable, is also misleading and loaded. The wording "Islamic State ..." is presented in the article title". The redirect Islamic State group is functional. GregKaye 12:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

GregKaye Yet, we call it the "Islamic State" of Iraq and the Levant anyway, not the "Sunni Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant"; the sole source of that name is their past self-designation, not what we deemed correct to call them. I do not comprehend the grounds on which we refuse to refer to them by their up-to-date self-designation. Furthermore, the concept of Jihad is not a concept isolated to Sunni Islam, the Shia sect has the concept as well. The fact of the matter is, this entity is jihadist, and it's target is a pan-Islamic, post-nationalist world. What justification do we have for not calling it as it defines itself and its own goals? Where we differ is, I do not think it is still an ideological statement if I call it with its self designation; because it is no longer MY statement, it's theirs. You don't see Turkey renaming the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) to something to the tune of Kurdish Terrorist Organization of the Turkish South-East, which reflects the state opinion infinitely more accurately; there is no better authority on this entity's name but themselves, and yes, it is "official." Whether their name is representative of what they are is another, entirely separate and relative issue. Sapiocrat (talk) 14:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Sapiocrat, The group could have called itself "Islamic State for people adhering to our interpretation of Islam" or similar to previous states and groups claiming to be states, they could have called themselves "Islamic State of X region". Examples of this are:

• Islamic State of Azawad
• Islamic State of Qadian
• Islamic State of Waziristan
• Islamic State of Indonesia

(There are also a number of other Islamic states that, only dependent on theological interpretations, actually are so but which do not include the title in their names.

As it is Baghdadi's group has ambiguously been called "Islamic State" which I interpret raises the question of what? They claim to be the Islamic State for all Islam but with this Islam being according to their interpretation. While many describe the "Islamic State group" others use Islamic State (as well as ISIS, ISIL and Daesh). The argument is that when Islam represents a significantly prevalent belief/set or beliefs and practices, is misrepresentative to present one group as ambiguously the Islamic State. GregKaye 15:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

GregKaye Islamic State [of the World]; it is the definition of jihad: a worldwide Islamic caliphate, they are not being ambiguous, they are being extremely precise. Sapiocrat (talk) 15:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

You hit the nail on the head as to what the "Islamic world" finds objectionable. GregKaye 23:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

On this Talk page there has been more hot air on this than any other aspect of the group. They call themselves the "Islamic State". Would you quibble over the name of any other group/institution/organization/body/state/country/person and say they must not be called by their name? Censorship gone mad to refuse to. 82.20.70.218 (talk) 20:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Re 1: where in the article does Wikipedia list "un-Islamic State" as one of the group's names? What point is being made here? 82.20.70.218 (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

That got removed soon after I posted this edit request, so there is no issue there. We're debating point 2. Sapiocrat (talk) 22:32, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Lets just wait a while, I say a few months, then we can have another RM where no doubt the page will be moved to Islamic State which has become the common name. We can move the current Islamic State article to another disambiguated name. It makes no sense to leave the "Iraq and the Levant" part. They now have territory in Nigeria, Libya, Yemen, Iraq and Syria, not to mention their presence in other countries. They cannot really call themselves Islamic State of anything, because they are not confined to a single area. In their ideology it would not be allowed for the Caliph to ever have a permanent stop to the expansion of the borders. Why would you call yourself Islamic State of a specific area when you intend to take over all of Saudi, Lebanon, Egypt, etc, etc. Mbcap (talk) 21:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

You rase a fair point, Mbcap. For instance, the Spanish wikipedia recently moved from "Estado Islámico (Organización Terrorista)" to just "Estado Islámico," i.e., the official name of the group. XavierItzm (talk) 23:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

XavierItzm Please quit your selective references. You do not raise a fair point. Here is the full list of Wikipedia references to the group inclusive of a great many references to "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" and increasing use of Daesh, ISIS and ISIL.
Transliterations to make it easier for certain foreign scripts added by Discuss-Dubious (t/c)

af Islamitiese Staat (in Irak en die Levant)
ar داعش [Da'ish]
arz داعش [Da'ish]
av ГІиракъалъул
ва Шамалъул Исламияб Пачалихъ
az İraq Şam İslam Dövləti
be_x_old Ісламская дзяржава
be Ісламская дзяржава Ірака і Леванта [includes "Iraq & the Levant"-Discuss-Dubious (t/c)]
bg Ислямска държава в Ирак и Леванта
bn ইসলামিক স্টেট অব ইরাক এন্ড দ্য লেভান্ট
br Stad Islamek bs Islamska Država
ca Estat Islàmic
cdo Iraq gâe̤ng Levant
Ĭ-sṳ̆-làng-guók
ckb دەوڵەتی ئیسلامی لە عێراق و شام
cs Islámský stát
cy Gwladwriaeth Islamaidd
Irac a'r Lefant
da Islamisk Stat
de Islamischer Staat (Organisation)
diq Dewleta İslami İraq u
Şam de el Ισλαμικό Κράτος
en Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
eo Islama Ŝtato de Irako kaj Sirio
es Estado Islámico
et Islamiriik (organisatsioon)
eu Estatu Islamikoa
fa دولت اسلامی عراق و شام
fi Isis (järjestö)
fo Islamski Staturin
fr État islamique (organisation)
he המדינה האסלאמית hi आईएसआईएस
hr Islamska Država Iraka i Levanta
hu Iraki és Levantei Iszlám Állam
hy Իրաքի և Լևանտի իսլամական պետություն
id Negara Islam Irak dan Syam
ie Islamic State it Stato Islamico
it Stado Islamica _{Just to end a complaint Discuss-Dubious (t/c)}
ja ISIL
jv Negara Islam Irak lan Syam
ka ერაყისა და ლევანტის ისლამური სახელმწიფო
ko 이슬람 국가 (단체) [incl."(organization)"]
ku Dewleta Îslamî
ya Iraq û Şamê la Civitas Islamica in Iraquia et Levante
li Islamitische Staot (in Irak enne Levant)
lo ລັດອິດສະລາມອີຣັກແລະເຣເວນທ໌
lv Islāma valsts min Nagari Islam Irak
jo Syam ml ഇസ്‌ലാമിക്ക് സ്റ്റേറ്റ് ഓഫ് ഇറാഖ് ആൻഡ് ലെ…
ms Negara Islam Iraq dan Syam mt Stat Iżlamiku
my အစ္စလာမ္မစ်နိုင်ငံအဖွဲ့ (အိုင်အက်စ်)
mzn داعش
ne आइएसआइएल
nl Islamitische Staat (in Irak en de Levant)
nn Den islamske staten Irak og Levanten
no Den islamske staten Irak og Levanten
oc Estat Islamic
pa ਇਰਾਕ ਅਤੇ ਅਲ ਸ਼ਾਮ ਵਿੱਚ ਇਸਲਾਮੀ ਰਾਜ
pl Państwo Islamskie
pnb اسلامی راج ps د عراق او شام اسلامي دولت
pt Estado Islâmico do Iraque e do Levante
ro Statul Islamic
ru Исламское государство Ирака и Леванта
scn Statu Islamicu (Gruppu tirrurista)
sc Istadu Islamicu de Iraq e Levante
sh Islamska Država Irak i Levant
simple Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
si ඉස්ලාමීය රාජ්‍යය
sk Islamský štát (militantná organizácia)
sl Islamska država Iraka in Levanta
sr Исламска Држава sv Islamiska staten
sw Daish
ta இராக்கிலும் சாமிலும் இசுலாமிய அரசு
te ఇస్లామిక్ స్టేట్ ఇన్ ఇరాక్ అండ్ ది లెవంట్
th รัฐอิสลามอิรักและเลแวนต์
tl Islamikong Estado ng Iraq at Levant
tr İslam Devleti (örgüt)
tt Ğıyraq häm Şam İslam däwläte
ug ئىراق ۋە شام ئىسلام دۆلىتى
uk Ісламська Держава
ur عراق اور الشام میں اسلامی ریاست[+ Iraq & Al-Sham-Discuss-Dubious (t/c)]
uz Iroq va Shom Islom Davlati
vi Nhà nước Hồi giáo Iraq và Levant
xmf ერაყიშ დო ლევანტიშ ისლამური სახენწჷფო
yi אייסיס
zea Islamitische Staete in Irak en de Levant
zh_classical 達伊沙
zh_min_nan Iraq kap Levant I-su-lân-kok
zh_yue 伊拉克和黎凡特伊斯蘭國
zh 伊斯兰国

GregKaye 00:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Let me complete the list as some may have been left out:
* French Wikipedia (État islamique (organisation)),
* German Wikipedia (Islamischer Staat (Organisation)),
* Spanish Wikipedia (Estado Islámico) ,
* Italian Wikipedia (Stato Islamico),
Selective? Sure, just happen to be four largest Schengen countries. Cheerio, XavierItzm (talk) 08:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

XavierItzm Yes everything I have seen of you, I think, indicates that you are selective. My edit which had content cut directly from the wikipedia data, contains the French, German and Spanish references. I do not know what happened to the Italian but I presume it was a glitch. Please also think about placing your posts in chronological order. I could similarly place all the references to Isil, ISIS, Daesh and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/Syria in Bold. Did you take a good look at my content before you made your assertion? Please strike your fallacious and defamatory content. GregKaye 16:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Wow, those are some pretty serious accusations and outside of the "assume good faith" rules around here. Funny the long list of provided on 00:24, 1 April 2015 is selective as no Italian and no Spanish "Stato Islamico" (translation: Islamic State) and "Estado Islámico" (translation: Islamic State) references were linked. Looks like someone may have selectively chosen to avoid major Wikipedias which use the official name! XavierItzm (talk) 21:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

XavierItzm: 3 of the Schengen countries you are looking for are listed as "de" (German), "es" (Spanish), and "fr" (French). Italian is missing. Hope it helps. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 02:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Yay, the Spanish was Dutch-sounding from inception until it got revised at 02:37, 3 April 2015. So, what did it say from the beginning of time in the long list above until a fix just few minutes ago? Ah, yes: "es Estado Islámico et Islamiriik (organisatsioon)" Somehow I doubt any of the 405,000,000 native Spanish speakers out there have much of a clue what the words "et" and "Islamiriik" and "organisatsioon" are. But hey, people wanted to call that "Spanish" before it got fixed, what can one say? By the way, thanks for fixing the other editor's errors and omissions. XavierItzm (talk) 02:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I though it was just me who thought it was Dutch-like, but it is this Wiki: [et.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamiriik_(organisatsioon)] Maybe it is Estonian? Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 03:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

et is te ISO 639 code for Estonian

XavierItzm You are familiar with my comments as I have raised them with you as we have discussed issues of selective reference on your talk page. Your expressed view was "If one stays away from US-centric media ..." The Arabic media (that predominantly use "ISIS", "ISIL", "Daesh" and a full blown rendition such as "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant") is just one portion of the media that use these terms and is hardly U.S. centric. Added to this you continue to WP:SOAPBOX your selective "Islamic State" and other repetitiously presented references by stylising them with bold format. We can honestly do without the POV push. GregKaye 14:23, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

These are some pretty serious, albeit completely spurious, accusations, once again repeated. Please note all my edits have been fully supported by blue-chip WP:RS such as the BBC, The Telegraph, The Guardian, and other leading, reputable sources in the English language. The fact that the BBC, on its definitional page regarding "What is Islamic State?" may mention facts that may make some squirm is no grounds to censor the British Broadcasting Corporation out of this Wikipedia entry. XavierItzm (talk) 21:52, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I still don't comprehend why this was ever at dispute. Sapiocrat (talk) 23:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

There are a great number of references to ISIS, ISIL and Daesh. Selective references that editors may push on these talk page may push "Islamic State" but a range of usages are apparent. When "Islamic State" is used it is often used with qualification. GregKaye 00:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

As you can see from my transliterations, there is not a lot of consensus for a solitary name yet. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 00:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Discuss-Dubious As you can see from my previous arguments, the need for a consensus, and this debate, is what I do not understand. Plus, an easier explanation for the "lack of consensus" you purport to find through your transliterations is the fact that foreign language Wikipedia are also afflicted with the same issue the English article is, or that THEY themselves look to the English Wikipedia for guidance on the name, as it is by far the biggest, and presumably the most up-to-date. As far as the ENTITY IN QUESTION is concerned, ISIL no longer exists. It is called the Islamic State. What consensus are you seeking? Sapiocrat (talk) 14:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, your explanations make sense. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 17:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Of course it exists. There is a group that calls itself Islamic State and which many others call by names such as ISIL. Sapiocrat, as I am sure you appreciate, it is called Islamic State by itself and many others (many of which use "Islamic State group"). It is called ISIL, ISIS, and Daesh almost exclusively by just about every government in the world, by a large contingent of Muslim populations, by a large section of the media and by a large section of the people that the various media outlets interview. The group exists and the only difference relates to the names by which it is described. Please do not WP:ASSERT. A less POV title to this thread could have been a more even handed ""Islamic State" or "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant"" ping also Discuss-Dubious GregKaye 14:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Adding the version with the word "or" would be too long. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 03:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Greg The policy you linked me to quite blatantly says do not assert opinions. The entity in question calls ITSELF the Islamic State (or rather al-Dawla al-Islamiya); this is FACT, not my opinion. Not ISIS, ISIL, Daesh, or whatever else the other actors, or the media calls them: THAT is the assertion of an opinion, and the reasons behind it are immaterial. Thus, please, make the name of the page compliant with WP:ASSERT. Also, please do not WP:ASSERT. Sapiocrat (talk) 14:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Greg The title of the section is in quotation marks for a reason. Sapiocrat (talk) 14:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Sapiocrat Your statement was "ISIL no longer exists". GregKaye 14:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Greg Greg, my statement was that ACCORDING TO THE ENTITY IN QUESTION, ISIL NO LONGER EXISTS. That is also a fact... since they have stopped using that name. Sapiocrat (talk) 14:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Sapiocrat I really goofed there and am extremely sorry for any possible offence taken. You don't need me to say this but what you said was quite fair. GregKaye 15:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Greg No worries, man. None taken, just trying to make sure I'm understood. :) Sapiocrat (talk) 15:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

So is there any consensus yet for changing the name of the article to Islamic State? In this article on 16th April by BBC they call it Islamic State, in the entire article it is only refered to as Islamic State and abbreviated IS http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-32333630

Islamic State is what they call themselves, and they are universally refered to by that name by ever major newspaper, news website, TV Channels etc Just today they killed 33 people in jalalabad in Afghanistan This is clearly an international movement

Islamic state in Iraq and levant is incorrect in everyway and needs to be changed

87.244.94.46 (talk) 23:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

It's controversial, so shouldn't be done unilaterally. I think WP:RM#CM covers how to start a move request. Banak (talk) 23:39, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I requested the move, hope you'll support it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.94.46 (talk) 00:29, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

"allegations of saudi arabian support"

This section certainly deserves much more fleshing out, and, it would seem, the Iraqi allegations of US support deserves some objective treatment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.252.249.155 (talk) 22:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Find us a reliable source for the last one. But, yeah, we can do the first one. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 18:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

On the question of alleged U.S. support for ISIL, I think this sentence is problematic:

"Rand Paul, the junior Senator from Kentucky, accused the US government of allying with ISIL in the Syrian Civil War by arming their allies and fighting their enemies in that country."

Paul's point was not that the U.S. had actually allied with ISIL - that was said for dramatic flourish. His point was that, by supporting and training members of the FSA who subsequently allied with or joined ISIL, the United States had inadvertently and indirectly provided support to ISIL. This is not the same as deliberate collusion or direct support, but the way it's phrased in the article conflates these two concepts and gives readers a misleading impression.TheBlueCanoe 23:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

agree with above, this sentence needs changing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.94.46 (talk • contribs) 12:40, 12 April 2015 UTC

It's done. There may still be a larger problem with the whole section, but that's another discussion. TheBlueCanoe 12:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

1 revert per 24 hours rule?

The warning on top states: "Editors of this article are restricted to 1 revert per 24 hours when reverting logged-in users... Violations of this restriction will lead to blocks or other sanctions". Yet, Mbcap reverted 2 users in a period of less than 1 hour ([13] [14]). It seems the policy is not helping protecting this page from disruption by Mbcap etc. Khestwol (talk) 19:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Maybe log it at WP:ANEW. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 19:54, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

It will result in a temporary block for Mbcap? Can you do it Fortuna? Khestwol (talk) 20:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I doubt it will result in anything like a ban, he hasn't been notified of the General_sanctions at Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Syrian_Civil_War_and_Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant. Mbcap may not have believed the first edit is a revert or it may have been an accident, that is if Mbcap is aware of the 1RR here. I have seen Mbcap go out of their way to obey Wikipedia's rules and act in good faith, so I personally doubt any attempt is being made to be disruptive. That said, if they violated the 1RR, perhaps you should ask them on their user page to revert their offending edit in question? Banak (talk) 21:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

@Khestwol: Also, didn't [15] and [16] happen within 24 hours? Appears to be an accident as your edits are 16 hours apart and you appear to have a good record from your talkpage. Banak (talk) 21:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Mbcap's record as a meticulous, well-documented editor is unimpeachable. XavierItzm (talk) 02:50, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you all for assuming good faith. The sentence which I reverted was one that was discussed above[17]. So it is a mystery as to why it is being deleted without being discussed on the talk page first. Regardless I have reverted myself. This sort of problem takes place all too often. The section on "Islamic State being Islamic" has been so far deleted twice I think. The "Wahhabism" reference in the ideology section has also been deleted and is not in the infobox anymore. I hope something can be done about this. Mbcap (talk) 14:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

1RR is a hard rule in regard to Wikipedia conduct. This is not pointed at Mbcap but I am not sure whether intention by any editor comes into it. If we know the rule then we should follow it. GregKaye 19:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

@Mbcap: The "Wahhabism" reference in the ideology section has also been deleted and is not in the infobox anymore. Yes that is correct it was not there. I just restored it. Khestwol (talk) 15:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The 1RR rule is sometimes quite tricky to understand. I hope this summary I drew up some time ago helps. ~ P-123 (talk) 21:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

ThanksP-123. I made an error in judgement with the revert but I did self revert. However I do think the lead still lacks in informing the reader about their Islamic nature which is something contested in sources. There is no unanimous opinion on the group being unIslamic and this should be in the lead. Mbcap (talk) 21:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Concerns re: sourcing and wording critical of article's subject

Use of word "extortion"

This word is used five times in the article It is loaded word and violates neutral point of view IS is a state that levies taxes , like any other state When a truck driver wants to operate in a western state, he has to pay road tax, he has to pass toll booths and pay for the use of the motorway To refer to IS doing such things as extortion disguises the reality which is that levying taxes to pay for services to the people is a perfectly reasonable thing to do It may seem like a small thing but it is actually a serious violation of NPOV and this word should not be used The article could do with a lot of small changes like this to make it more balanced

Furthermore, a section should be put in about levying of religiously mandated zakat tax, along with jizyah from christians

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.94.46 (talk • contribs) 22:57, 11 April 2015‎

In various of the other situations the government may have been less likely to have killed, for instance, friends and family members of the truck driver or imposed various restrictions on liberty. If the group changed then things would be a lot more balanced. This is an unelected, religiously motivated group that has taken control of territories often by force in the context of resistance, is depriving students of general education across a wide syllabus while enforcing time consuming syllabuses of religious education on select individuals and also demands money so as to fund these activities. GregKaye 06:38, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Finances

I think it's been widely reported by now that The mosul central bank was not in fact 'robbed' and the money remained there for withdrawal by citizens, so references to this and other so called robberies need to be removed. In any case that money was theirs by right I also object to using the word stolen or looted for artefacts sold by IS Who owns these artefacts if not the iraqi people of the islamic state? They are owned by the Iraqi people of IS and are theirs to rightfully sell if they so wish This is again a neutral viewpoint issue and is to do with people refusing to recognise the political legitimacy of the islamic state as the representative of iraqs Sunnis and insisting on damaging this article by their bias — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.94.46 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 12 April 2015

Have you read previous contents on this? There is an insurgent group that has taken control of various properties that hold items of the cultural heritage of Iraq and, in this case, the world. It is nothing less than the dismantling of culture and history as well as being an insult to anyone with any interest in the origins of the human race and where we come from. The actions of coalition forces in not securing museums upon invasion was also, IMO, crazy but what Isil does in the wilful destruction of culture is detestable. (This is the first time that I have not added an "I think" qualifier to one of my statements in a long time). Its abhorrent, hateful, loathsome, abominable, repellent, repugnant, repulsive, revolting, disgusting, distasteful, heinous, reprehensible, offensive and contemptible. This is world culture fallen into the hands of ignorant or otherwise wilfully destructive vandals. GregKaye 06:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

General tone of article + criticism of IS

There is an awful lot of description of the islamic States ideology and activities by journalists, politicians etc The problem is that they are opinions and frequently biased or misinformed

Why on earth should we take the opinion of a journalist about what IS believers when we know exactly what the ideology of IS is through its propaganda I think the article needs to state the ideology of IS as they see it , which is verifiable sourceble fact quoted from their documents rather than have dozens of opinions from misinformed people which serve to mystify and obscure rather than clarify

This article really needs a big clear up

I also think another article should be created for criticism of IS There is certainly an awful lot of it, enough to fill another article and that will allow people to add as much criticism as they like to the other article

This article should really be about the islamic state, not about other peoples views on it This article should represent the facts about IS and the facts about what it believes, from its own sources, not about what other people think about it or what other people think IS thinks

87.244.94.46 (talk) 16:09, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. Everything is judged by an outside perspective. Claims made by IS itself are no basis for an objective article. No state or organization is a reliable source about itself. ♆ CUSH ♆ 02:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

BTW, Wikipedia should disable IP-users from editing this article and its talk page. ♆ CUSH ♆ 02:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

In my view this is unnecessary. I don't mind the article being semi-protected. Protect the talkpage? Overreaction, especially when users such as 82.20.70.218 are trying to improve the article. In addition, if we have any RFCs like we have had a few for move requests, we would be blocking IPs from contributing to them as well. Banak (talk) 02:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Building the article on ISIS' view of itself is not an improvement. 87.244.94.46 reads more like an islamist ISIS supporter. ♆ CUSH ♆ 09:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

That's clear as day, but that doesn't change anything. Not allowing IPs to discuss changes is not necessary. It's not as bad as you think. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 12:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Is it? They objected to the controversial sentence in the lead. Are you sure you're not talking about 87.244.94.46 rather than 82.20.70.218? Banak (talk) 16:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Just to pont out that the former IP recently removed that comment, which may tell you much that you need to know. Reverted him. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we have one disruptive IP. No that's not all we need to know. Other IPs contribute, most of whom help. Banak (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Great that you understand! Cheers, _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

@IP- Can I have you read the first sentence of the NPOV page? NPOV is actually all about sources.

All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

Italics are used for emphasis. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 12:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

As far as the idea of bias in sources goes, read the linked paragraph (from the NPOV page). We should attribute ideas to sources and thus be within policy. Read this as well. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 13:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

Yes, I've read it and this article fulfills none of it Sources are given undue weight which deserve none, the proportion of negative opinion and non-IS opinion is overwhelming, and all sources are by their nature biased against IS How can only opinions, entirely negative ones, represent all the significant views Isn't how IS sees itself a 'significant view'? I would have thought in an article about IS it would be the most significant and deserving of the greater proportion of coverage

87.244.94.46 (talk) 16:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

No publication made by ISIS or ISIS-supporters is a reliable source. ♆ CUSH ♆ 17:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes it is

All you have to do is preface it with 'according to IS publication dabiq' etc Or 'according to IS itself'. It's not a case of bias when you are simply reflecting what they stated. 87.244.94.46 (talk) 23:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

That would be Original Research. And please sign your comments. ♆ CUSH ♆ 07:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

No wonder so many articles on wikipedia are rubbish when it's editors refuse to ever put anything in simply citing 'original research' or 'reliable source' This article will continue to read like american propaganda until IS is allowed a voice via quotations from its own publications and if your reason for denying IS a voice about itself on its own Wikipedia page is your prejudice against it, better to just say so than chant wikipedia doctrines 87.244.94.46 (talk) 18:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

@Cush: Actually, we have guidelines on using sources as sources on themselves, which isn't necessarily original research.

**The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim.

• • It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities).
    

• • It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject.
    

• • There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. [i.e. fabrication]
    

• • The article is not based primarily on such sources.

From our verifiability page: Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. We prefer secondary sources everywhere else possible, and we never really grant exceptions to other things. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 20:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

In fewer words, you trust ISIS. ♆ CUSH ♆ 05:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

In fewer words, we are allowed to use their words as a source, not use it as the basis of an article, which the IP will not like, because we are always to base articles on third-party sources. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 20:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not a matter of trust when you are simply stating what they said they believe in their publication. But for what it's worth I have never known them to lie, whereas any accusation made against them is frequently made up.

I would be wary of spin in their propaganda.

I'll give you an example, ISIL statements relating to the death of one hostage implied an ability to distinguish between different airstrike participants using F-16s at 35000-something miles above. Considering that this was during a time when Jordan joined the coalition, the idea that they were somehow able to identify it as Jordanian makes the diagnosis a bit suspect. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 20:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Well that was just 2 days afterr Jordan started a blitz of strikes after they burnt kasasbeh So even if the couldn't be sure, not unreasonable to assume it was jordan after they had significantly increased their frequency of bombing at that time Why would they imply it was Jordan if it wasn't anyway? It would be even worse if it was actually an American akrstrike that killed the American girl! And no better if it was a saudi one etc. 87.244.94.46 (talk) 02:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it probably would have been a dreadful irony had a US airstrike been involved, but it would probably not have been likely to inflame as many tensions at that time if it was identified as the others besides Jordan, rather than simply "an airstrike by the enemies of the Islamic State" or something like that. Either way, Wiki rules don't allow us to base articles entirely on first-party sources for other articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Discuss-Dubious (talk • contribs) 03:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Need for removal of treatment of civilians section

The first half of this section is spurious allegations from bad sources which do not clarify anything factual about IS treatment of civilians The rest is westerners complaining about shariah law

It needs to be accepted that in reality the citizens of IS, that is sunni muslims, are treated very well and not subject to any problems The only people who face punishment are criminals who commit crimes, just like anywhere else

The section should be replaced with a short explanation of shariah law, which IS implements None of this rubbish about 'interpretations' or 'variants' or 'strains or strands', shariah law is shariah law and it doesn't vary, so any idea that IS is implementing an 'extreme' form of shariah is rubbish, it is the shariah as it has always existed for 1400 years and will always exist without any change

This whole article has a lot of these weasel words, isn't there a wikipedia policy against that ?

87.244.94.46 (talk) 13:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there is WP:WEASELS, though this probably should be on a different section of our talkpage. Banak (talk) 15:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

We do not need to remove the section because of third-party sourcing (you don't like any third-party sources). The best option here is to show how Sunni Muslims are treated in the group's territory and show what data is inaccurate. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 21:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

In the sidebar the color used in the key for the area controlled by the Syrian Kurdistan forces appears not to match the color used for that area in the map itself

In the map in the sidebar, the keys to the colors for the separate areas controlled by Iraqi and Syrian Kurdistan forces are confusing. At first, judging by the relative darkness of the two shades of yellowish green in the key, I thought that it was the case that, strangely, someone had reversed the two, which would ridiculously have the larger area to the northeast as the area controlled by the Syrian Kurdistan forces. Comparing with the high resolution map didn't work because all of the colors in the sidebar map seemed darker than the same colors in the high resolution map.

I was only able to decide more precisely what the situation actually was by enlarging the sidebar on two separate pages, so as to be able to bring close to each other the color shown in the key and the color it referred to on the map itself. Doing so finally made it clear that the color shown in the key for the color on the map of the area controlled by Iraqi Kurdistan forces is probably correct but that the color shown in the key for the color of the area controlled by Syrian Kurdistan forces is quite a bit darker than the color actually used for this area on the map itself. I do not have any idea how to correct this situation, but I must repeat that, to one looking at this map for the first time, trying to understand, using the colors given in the keys, which Kurdistan force controls which area is quite confusing. Wikifan2744 (talk) 17:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

@Wikifan2744: my bad, I'll sort out the key. Was trying to fix problems with the colours looking too similar per a request, didn't update the key. I can't update the map for a little while, however, a minor bug has caused a massive headache. Banak (talk) 18:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Map

The map is not clear. People not familiar still don't know where everything is located because there is hardly any water on the map. There should a map showing the surroundings.

--2.245.168.6 (talk) 22:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm a little surprised the location map is so far down the article, don't remember that being the case. I thought that map was up near the header to show it's location, but this appears to not be the case. Banak (talk) 14:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 19 April 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved (snow closure). NW (Talk) 14:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

---

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State – Islamic State is what they call themselves, and is now the way they are called by all news media including BBC etc without reference to isis/isil. It also reflects the international nature, since they exist in Egypt, Libya, Nigeria, lebanon, yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan as well as iraq and Syria. And those are only their official provinces and affliates, many other groups have expressed support and allegiance. So to refer to them being in Iraq or syria is not accurate , they exist internationally. This change is long overdue, I hope you'll all agree 87.244.94.46 (talk) 00:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Support per WP:COMMONNAME: "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used". Note WP:DIFFCAPS means the article at Islamic state would not have to be moved. Will list evidence below in next section to avoid taking up too much roomBanak (talk)

Diffcaps is a bad naming scheme. Other articles include Islamic State of Iran, Islamic State of Afghanistan, Islamic State of Pakistan, Islamic State of Azawad and of course Islamic State of Iraq. This isn't a simple change, you would need to fix dab pages on other articles. -- Aronzak (talk) 04:04, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Fixing any (main space) links to Islamic State, not sure if that is what you mean. Banak (talk) 07:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

First 10 Google news search results for "Iraq" - Banak

First 10 Google news search results for "Iraq" Slate article "ISIS" used in article summary, 3 times in article. "So called Islamic State" Used once. "Da'sh" Used once plus 3 times ina quote. "Islamic State" used 9 times without qualification. daily mail article IS used in url, ISIS in title and summary "The Islamic State group" ISIS x2 and in one caption "Islamic State" unqualified x3 Fox News article ISIS in title and URL Islamic State used 5 times ISIS used once in the article USA today article Islamic State used 6 times BBC news article 4 uses of Islamic State 4 uses of IS Links on page to further BBC articles use Islamic State except 1 for ISIS and 2 for IS. Telegraph article Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant used once ISIL used 12 times National review Islamic State used once ISIL used once NYtimes article No mention of Islamic State by any name. mediaite article No mention of Islamic State by any name. rudaw.net "Islamic State" used once. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banak (talk • contribs) 01:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

First 10 google news reports for "Syria" - Banak

First 10 google news reports for "Syria" bbc news article Somehow doesn't refer to Islamic State at all. NPR ISIS in title/headline "the self-proclaimed Islamic State" in lead the Islamic State in leading caption 5 uses of "ISIL" the guardian "Islamic State (Isis)" used once ISIS used twice further. BBC again] "the jihadist Islamic State (IS) group" Islamic State used in caption IS used in another caption IS used 7 further times foreignpolicy Islamic State used twice Washingtonpost the Islamic State used once. cnn No mention of IS. NY times "the Islamic State, also called ISIS or ISIL" "the self-described Islamic State" "the Islamic State" twice more. ibtimes article "the Islamic State group" twice al "the extremist Islamic rebel group known as ISIS" "the Islamic State" "ISIS forces" in caption ISIS once more in article. Banak (talk) 01:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose The proposed title is just pushing POV while NOT being used frequently by sources. By the way, per WP:TITLECHANGES we'd better not to move this stable title and concentrate on the article itself instead. We had many such long threads before which were not ended with consensus. Mhhossein (talk) 02:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
• Strong Support It is absurd that Wikipedia is using the term ISIL, which is not descriptive nor in common usage nor is it used by the organization in question. The use of "ISIL" is an effort to push anti-Israel POV because Israel is part of the Levant. If editors are uncomfortable with the accurate term Islamic State, then "ISIS" would be the second best option simply because of common usage. MiamiManny (talk) 20:19, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose do a Google news search for ISIL in just the last 24 hours, it's used by hundreds of outlets, and used by the US DOD. Unless ISIL falls out of common usage then there's no need to move the article on ideological grounds. -- Aronzak (talk) 03:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per the 6 previous similar move requests ; This organization is not the only Islamic State, and Islamic state is a completely separate topic for which title case entry is possible. Plus "(The) Islamic State" properly means the Caliphate, and that properly means the first caliphate, not any modern entity. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:14, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment renaming it to Da'esh or similar would be much better, since that term is not used in English to mean any other entity, is used in English and many other languages, including Arabic. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
    • No, it wouldn't. Da'esh is nowhere near the WP:COMMONNAME. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:22, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose It honestly seems to me that this submission was either made without reading the previous RMs or that it is extremely tendacious inclined. Selective information from a previous RM is supplied, which hardly implied support, without direct reference being given to those RMs to allow readers to see challenges to information presented. It is a POV name. The Jordanians write "enemies of Islam" on various bits of their ammunition. They are opposed by a great proportion Sunni, Shias and Sufis and only represent a variant of the Sunni based Salafi Jihadic doctrine. In comparison there are Islamic states whose status of being Islamic states has been relatively uncontested. GregKaye 06:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. An Islamic state means a caliphate. It's true that Da'esh represents itself as a caliphate, but it's not the primary meaning of the term. The trivial difference in capitalization is not sufficient to distinguish these senses, either; because "The Islamic State" represents itself as an Islamic state, a reader with no prior understanding of the topic could get very confused. Moreover, nothing has really changed since the last move request, all of three months ago. Unless some urgent problem requires that the name of this article be changed, new move requests should probably be discouraged. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 06:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Groups' self-naming is disputed by Muslim World and their 'stateness' is disputed. kazekagetr 10:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Aronzak, it is not on ideological grounds, it's on grounds of self-designation, a wiki rule, common name, a wiki rule and on accuracy, also a wiki rule Gregkayelkaye, it is not a point of view issue at all. What is point of view is you opposing it despite it fulfilling all the criteria of wiki rules It doesn't matter whether or not it is an islamic state This article page title says it is an islamic state in Iraq and levant You've already given it the designation islamic and state! So why not remove the iraq and levant to indicate it operates worldwide and is not called ISIL anymore! It really is silly that you allow your hatred of them to cloud your judgement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.94.46 (talk) 12:41, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose, wikipedia should not become a mouthpiece for ISIL ideological propaganda about themselves. Khestwol (talk) 12:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. While several names are in common usage, ISIL best fits the bill as the WP:COMMONNAME. It's also what's used by international oganizations such as the UN (though some governments, especially European ones, are moving toward Da'esh).TheBlueCanoe 12:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Khestwol, maybe you think BBC is ideological propaganda since they use exclusively Islamic State and IS? The blue canoe, a ISIL is only used by U.S. govt who are obviously got a conflict of interest there, and international organisations are controlled by US Their choice of ISIL is actually an ideological one Whereas international news media like BBC, who are required to be independent and neutral, use islamic state I just cannot understand why you think calling them islamic state justifies them anymore than ISIL does? Do you think by continuing to use ISIL you can actually stop it becoming a worldwide caliphate by the force of language? When they call themselves islamic state, and it is the most common name used by news media I.e reliable sources, any opposition can only be on grounds of bias against them which is not beneficial for wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.94.46 (talk) 13:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

87.244.94.46 As was rightly pointed out by Mhhossein, of course it is a POV issue. If they had called themselves something along the lines of "Islamic State of Salafi Jihadist extremists" then, while being of concern, would arguably have been an acceptable Wikipedia title. As it is they have self-designated as "Islamic State" while purporting to be the state of all of Islam. This is unacceptable.

Please don't attempt to polarise this as an U.S. issue. Throughout the Arabic and Persian speaking world government officials predominantly use Daesh in speaking of the "armed group" as it is described by the UN. Representatives of other governments predominantly use ISIL, ISIS and Daesh. Please note that a variety of News outlets present the group in a variety of ways. Even on the BBC, a group that has long been known to be careless with ethics, regularly include some qualification in their references to ISIL. As has been rightly supported by the responses above the main issue here is WP:NPOV as one of the WP:PILLARs of Wikipedia. Then news sources have a very high if not predominant usage of ISIS and ISIL and, when they do use "Islamic State.." it is often in the context of using texts such as "Islamic State group". What franchise of Caliphate do you think ISIL would represent? GregKaye 15:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

We already have this page called the ISLAMIC STATE of Iraq and the levant all the dropping of Iraq and levant does is clarify that the are not geographically limited to iraq and the levant The same Arab governments, that torture and murder their citizens? The same Saudi Arabia that does exactly what IS does, just ignoring a few islamic rulings so they can keep arabia in one family? Are you really saying that their use of daesh means anything? As far as I'm concerned IS are in complete agreement with quran and sunnah and are a legitimate caliphate according to islamic law, so that is no reason not to name them such, but you probably guessed that already :)

I'm sorry, but your only arguments are that you don't like them calling themselves islamic state, just like Obama doesn't like it, so refuse to allow them to self-designate themselves so, which is ridiculous considering that many news organisations DO use islamic state..

I really can't see how this violates neutral point of view, wikipedia is not taking a leap by referring to them as islamic state when BBC does so and most others... Wikipedia is not conferring them any legitimacy when it calls them islamic state, just as the BBC is not declaring their legitimacy when they call them that There really is no reasonable argument for not changing the title 87.244.94.46 (talk) 16:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

So, how about a ban for 87.244.94.46 ? ♆ CUSH ♆ 16:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• I'd support a topic ban per WP:SPA, given edit warring. -- Aronzak (talk) 18:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

87.244.94.46 None of what you say makes Isil seem any better. All you are doing is demonstrating that issues of deep concern, religious persecutions, deprivation of education across a full possible range of subjects etc. are performed in other locations in the name of Allah than just as is done to extremes in Isil controlled territory. All you are doing is highlighting that other abuses are conducted in the name of various Mohammedan doctrines as are performed to greater extents by your armed group.

It changes nothing. There are believers in Quran based doctrines that I know that can say As-salamu alaykum and mean it. Isil don't represent greater Islam. They are not a state. Isil certainly don't represent the people I know. I'm beginning to agree with Cush. GregKaye 18:05, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Well maybe if you watch the latest video from IS, the first 25 minutes you can see how Christians are actually living happily and safely in IS raqqah after paying jizyah and that the caliph let all the Christians leave Mosul safely even though they refused Islam and jizyah So much for religious persecution. To pay a few hundred dollars a year in tax to the Muslims to be protected is a good deal for the Christians As for deprivation of education, maybe you want to hear about how IS open a nursing school for women? So no problems with education. As-salamu alaykum is only used Muslim-Muslim. We are gentle towards the Muslims and harsh towards the disbelievers, this is the doctrine of Islam. IS are following exactly Quran and sunnah and they are adhering to shariah in every matter. Too bad for you, they are not just a state, they are a caliphate, and they are remaining and expanding despite 7 months of crusader air strikes You can ban me if you like, that's what all Muslims get in this world for exposing the lies of the disbelievers. 87.244.94.46 (talk) 21:35, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

What you actually describe is that people are being selectively forced to pay additional monies in a religiously motivated Protection racket. The fact that the Mosul Christians chose to leave also tells a story. How do we know that they were all allowed to leave? Groups with similar mentalities and associations with ISIL are involved in selective kidnappings. They limit freedoms. Can John Cantlie do and say what he wants?

No problems with education? Really? Are a full range of subjects available? Clearly not. Yours is a regime that censors and manipulates and, I think, is scared to let facts speak for themselves.

Yours is an organisation that kills aid workers and which commits atrocities that has generated horror in the Islamic world. The crusader air strikes as you tendentiously describe them are conducted by nations including Jordan who write enemies of Islam on their bombs and, IMO, they are right - across the world ISIL are chief amongst the embarrassments to religion and you are pushing it right out there. GregKaye 03:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Can an admin SNOW close this per WP:DFFT - the proposer has been blocked for 72 hours for trolling/NOTHERE editng, and the majority of discussions are pushed by them.-- Aronzak (talk) 06:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Sex slavery, nicknames and origins of ISIS

WP:ADVOCACY for Daesh

I'm going to bring up three issues, and more experienced people can decide whether to incorporate them into the article. Firstly, the article currently says that only non-Muslim women (especially Yezidis and Christians) have been raped or used as sex slaves by ISIS, although Sunnis who have lived under ISIS control have said that even Sunni women have been systematically raped on a daily basis by ISIS fighters (a practice which they call "sex jihad" - a requirement that women should serve as sex slaves for them as a duty. ISIS posted signs in Mosul to that effect). Here's a news report (which should be an RS) in Arabic, which I can't understand but maybe someone else can : http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ef9_1403543024 Here's a description by Scott Wolf, an American volunteer fighting for the Kurds, describing how Sunnis southwest of Kirkuk told him through a translator that almost all the women in their village had been raped on a nearly daily basis by ISIS fighters (this may not be an RS but it gives some indication of what might be going on): https://www.facebook.com/scott.cardy.18/posts/10153250597398593?pnref=story Second Issue: here's a theory about ISIS' origins which is based on hard documentation (extensive papers captured after one of ISIS' members was killed) rather than the usual vapid conspiracy theories or political finger-pointing, and it's in an RS that we can use, the German newspaper "Der Spiegel". The theory says that ISIS was set up partly by a Ba'athist named Samir Abd Muhammad al-Khlifawi who had previously served as a colonel in one of Saddam Hussein's intelligence agencies. After he was killed at Tal Rifaat in 2014, his captured documents indicate that he planned the structure and initial leadership assignments for ISIS. The article is in English this time: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/islamic-state-files-show-structure-of-islamist-terror-group-a-1029274.html Third issue: among the common frontline nicknames for ISIS (not currently listed in the article) is "Dola Shaytania" - which means "Satanic State" - which is often used by the Kurds. I've seen them use terms like this, and Scott Wolf says it's common near Kirkuk: https://www.facebook.com/scott.cardy.18/videos/10153272857563593/ There may be an RS available for this. Ryn78 (talk) 20:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC) Before I get banned, the sexual jihad thing is a lie, propaganda. A man can only have sex with his wife or slave girl in Islam. Mujahideen do not have sex outside marriage to Muslim girls, that is a sin and is fornication and gets 100 lashes. How anyone believe that rubbish is ridiculous. Secondly IS existed for years in Iraq, it was not set up by any Baathists, and any Baathists who joined had to renounce Baathism and their former apostasy, learn to recite a third of the Quran and take classes in aqeedah, Islamic creed. Thirdly, you already have Daesh insult in the leader, adding another can make this article read even more like propaganda against Muslims, so go ahead and be an islamophobe! Allahu akbar Islamic state remaining and expanding with Allahs permission 87.244.94.46 (talk) 21:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC) So, can we finally have a ban for 87.244.94.46 ? And not just for failing to indent replies properly... ♆ CUSH ♆ 22:19, 19 April 2015 (UTC) Any topic ban proposals need to be raised at WP:ANI. Focus on content here, please. --NeilN talk to me 22:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC) And in Christianity, people must be faithful to their spouse. Doesn't mean there's some magical Christian force preventing cheating. What religion dictates and what actually happens are two different things. --NeilN talk to me 22:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC) It is not attributable to any Islamic state mujahideen that they would ever violate the honour of a Muslim girl. If anyone say IS soldiers raped Sunni women, it's just an disgusting evil lie, plain and simple Like I said, sex is only allowed with wife or slavegirl and only non-Muslim can be slave That is the difference between Christianity and Islam, islam has laws and they are followed and enforced That we are even discussing this obvious lie and propaganda is just a sign of how brainwashed people are against IS In fact they are the best of people.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.94.46 (talk) 22:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC) There are eyewitness accounts of ISIS fighters systematically raping Sunni women at least in a few areas, as well as the much more common rape of Christians and Yezidis. If you want to dismiss these eyewitness accounts, you need a better argument than claiming that even individual Muslims never violate Islamic law (in which case Islamic countries would have zero crime if that were true). Ryn78 (talk) 18:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC) BTW, why is this entire section closed off with an "Advocacy for Daesh" label? Only one person (87.244.94.46) was advocating for Daesh here. My original note in this section raised three issues, none of which involve "advocacy for Daesh" (rather quite the opposite if anything). Ryn78 (talk) 19:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

ANI thread editors here may be interested in

See Do we have a Daesh (ISIL) sympathizer?

Ian.thomson (talk) 23:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring complaint

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.

---

An AN/EW report about violation of WP:1RR at this article. See WP:AN/EW#User:Nulla Taciti reported by User:Khestwol (Result: Restriction for one week) if interested. Khestwol (talk) 10:51, 20 April 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.

Inconsistency regarding Islamic State leaders

I have noticed recently that there has been contradictory sources defining the positions and roles of IS leaders. I'll list these inconsistencies.

1. Head of the IS Military Council. Some sources say that Abu Ayman al-Iraqi is/was the leader of the IS Military Council whilst others say that Abu Ahmad al-Alwani is the IS military leader who has since been reported killed as of late 2014 . On top of this, Abu Omar al-Shishani is also referenced as being the top IS Military leader . It does not stop here. Now this man, Abu Suleiman al-Naser, a person who was believed to have been killed in 2011 and was the War Minister for IS predecessor ISI (Islamic State of Iraq) is now stated as being the top IS Military Commander, taking over from Abu Ayman al-Iraqi who was apparently killed in November 2014 and according to this source, late 2013 .

1. Deputy Caliph of IS. Sources say that since Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was injured in a recent airstrike, one of his aides, Abu Alaa Afri (Abdul Rahman al-Afari) aka Abu Suja had alledegely taken over of IS as something akin to the acting Caliph.. However, these articles released last November list Abu Suja as having been killed . The first source states he is a former Iraqi physics teacher . This source on the other hand states that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi's Deputy of Syria Abu Ali al-Anbari is a/the physics teacher from the Mosul area , and would be more likely to be the successor of IS given his already Deputy of Syria status [18], . This source repeatedly has Abu Alaa Afri referred to as al-Baghdadi's Deputy . I think there is a mistake of identity here.

What is going on?... StanTheMan87 (talk) 12:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

StanTheMan87 It would be nice if it were safe a genuinely neutral journalist to go and ask. Do you have an interpretation of what is going on? GregKaye 14:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Someone cunning in IS disseminating false/contradictory information on their leaders to sources in Iraq and Syria, inevitably reaching media outlets. StanTheMan87 (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

StanTheMan87 you have raised an important question. The problem is this is not a purely military conflict but also something akin to information war. The group was able to capture Mosul through a 'cunning' tactic of false information dissemination. The US and its allies are struggling to identify and neutralise their leaders, whilst the group maintains secrecy and attempts to cause confusion in the coalition which is fighting them. Others have written about IS's Salafi ideology and these reflect on the fact that they have taken to heart the theological principle of, "war is deception". The media is simply caught in the middle of all this fiasco, hence the misinformation. I think we should make sure that each of their leaders on the article is well sourced from multiple reliable publications. As to the inconsistencies, how do you suggest we address them? Mbcap (talk) 21:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Part of the problem is the sources being used. The Sun isn't exactly known for it's quality journalism, while Press TV is an Iranian state run TV channel with a lot of controversy and criticism. The "ISIS Study Group" appears to be some sort of blog. If we stuck to more reliable sources above, like the New York Times, Washington Post, CBS News and NBC News, it might cut down on the confusion. Also there are too many definitive statements based on a single source. Rather than "X is now the leader" we should be saying "The ibtimes has reported..." Gazkthul (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

StanTheMan87 The hypothesis that you present seems very plausible and would certainly fit techniques in conflict used by less sophisticated organisations. Given this I was surprised not to find related content in news via the search (isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND ("misinformation" OR "contradictory information" OR "disinformation" OR "false information" OR "misleading information" OR "deception" OR "false rumour" OR "red herring" OR "false trail" OR "bum steer"). I am not sure what to make of this. GregKaye 17:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Mbcap, I don't know how best to address them, because I have no idea what the IS hierarchy looks like. Any one of those men could be the real Military Commander for IS. All I know is that the last head of the IS Military either in Iraq or overall was Abu Abdulrahman al-Bilawi. Once he died in June 2014, this is where the line of succession gets incredibly hazy. Maybe it could be a misinterpretation. Abu Abdulrahman al-Bilawi is referred to as being both the Head of the IS Military Council by some sources indicating he was the overall Military leader, and by others as the chief IS commander for Iraq . Perhaps he wasn't the highest Military figure in Syria, so both the Syrian and Iraqi chief IS commanders are referenced in similar language? Or maybe there is a distinction between the Head of the Military Council within the Shura Council of the IS hierarchy and the Chief IS commander for Iraq and Syria. Perhaps one is more of a "desk job" while the other is more fieldwork? Maybe there the same thing? I really have no idea. StanTheMan87 (talk) 13:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

section refs

Lede

The lede, with its wording ..is an Islamic extremist rebel group controlling territory.. was chosen after long discussions, most notably by GregKaye but also others involved. So it must remain until a consensus is reached to change it. Khestwol (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Military capabilities

“The overall takeaway from this and several other videos like it, and this opinion is borne out by the facts on the ground, is that Daash remains better trained, more motivated, better led and supported by a logistical infrastructure that the Iraqi government is literally incapable of delivering to their own troops,” said one former British special forces soldier who consults with the Iraqi Kurdish government on military affairs. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 23:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Context and motivating factors to the conflict

The article says, I think, surprisingly little about the context of Sunni-Shia relations, for instance, in the history section and I'm wondering how any relevant content might be woven into the article. Not to excuse the Shia's but I think that it is right to say that various aspects of the Sunni based leadership structure under Saddam had a negative impact on the Shias. Not to excuse the Sunnis but the Sunnis I think that it is right to say that various aspects of the Shia interactions with Sunnis following their takeover of government were bang out of order. The recent BBC documentary about the world's richest terror group covered topics such as suppression of protests and the like. How should this be tackled? GregKaye 18:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Greg having watched the documentary you speak of, I see what you mean. I think we should have a section in the article explaining the various factors and co-factors that have led to the state of affairs in the Iraq and Syria region. I am not sure what you think but this sectarianism has been brewing for a long time and has provided a fertile condition for this group to come forth. We should cover what you have proposed, highlighting the actions of both sides before before and after Saddam if possible. This will enable the reader to better understand the circumstances that have led to the conditions now present. It is a shame that a transcript for the show cannot be found so that a thorough study of the source can be undertaken. Also I would be interested in what you think of the following proposal. There is another BBC documentary called This World; Kill the Christians (I think this is the name), where it talks about how the Christians have supposedly endured less than ideal conditions under the post Saddam government and now this group. The exodus of the Christians from the Ninevah plain is a notable event and may warrant inclusion as it is well covered in sources. There is more material in the documentary which may also warrant inclusion, especially in regards to the Christian's in Syria. Mbcap (talk) 18:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

We have to remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a history book. The topics mentioned are really the stuff of history-writing, where interpretation is all. It is not Wikipedia's job to interpret facts, just to recount them. BBC documentaries are usually in history-writing territory. If facts are included relating to the very interesting link between ISIS and the general Sunni-Shia conflict, I think they should be stated baldly, taking care not to interpret those facts - which is a tall order, I think. ~ P-123 (talk) 13:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Its a good point but, all the same, Wikipedia has a lot of history related content. Some type of content on Sunni-Shia tensions in the Middle East or any similar topic could either go within the article or as a stand alone content elsewhere. Currently there is a category on Shia–Sunni sectarian violence which is within the more subtly titled Category:Shia–Sunni relations. I think that one of the problems we have in relation to coverage is that Western media focussed on Western interests while an encyclopedia may need to present information on all the relevant issues proportionately. I referenced one ISIL document some time ago and most of it was a denigration/commentary (choose your word of choice) of the Shia. GregKaye 17:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Groups driving the migration problem

Again this is another topic that I have not seen significantly covered in the article. The problem of population growth generally has long been a personal concern to me that has been continually on my mind in connection to groups like ISIL, Boko Haram and a variety of groups in Libya. Things were then really brought into focus when now banned editor 87.244.94.46 commented that Isil "let all the Christians leave Mosul safely". The cost of supporting refugee camps has great cost particularly in relation to requirements in food, energy and the setting up of infrastructures. In the long term things will be severe for the simple reason that, when the world runs out of its non renewable resources, we may need to utilise areas of land, currently used for growing food, so they can be used in the production of energy. The fact that Isil are drivers of migration I think deserves coverage as would any calls or plans to return displaced peoples to their homes. Highly populated places like GB and Japan are already responsible for great inefficiency due to high net imports of food and energy and the forced migration of peoples will only increase the international inefficiencies. The UK even relied on food imports during WWII even though the people were generally motivated to dig for victory and the needs of the population, as with others, has only increased.

Again I am wondering whether editors have seen content addressing issues on this or related topics. GregKaye 18:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Migration resulting from conflicts, particularly from Libya has hit news across Europe. It's also been raised as an issue by the UK opposition leader Ed Milliband during his election campaign, who argued that if we'd had a decent plan for Libya we'd not be seeing so many immigrants killing themselves to get to the EU.

As for the UK and Japan being "inefficient" because of net imports of food an energy, food production is not a financially rewarding industry, without the CAP which uses 46.7% of the EU budget and trade barriers Europe would struggle to compete. Banak (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

There's a lot of literature on the refugee crisis in Iraq and Syria (and neighboring countries). With Syria it's sometimes more difficult to attribute solely to ISIL, though there are exceptions[19]. I think this is a good idea, and would be happy to try to contribute if you want to try to get something started. But keep it simple: this is not the place for launching into broader discussions on land use and resource scarcity.TheBlueCanoe 04:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Categories

This article has a couple of category tags I don't think it should have. The ones I think that should go are: [[Category:Disputed territories in Africa]] (ISIL is not a territory, it is a rebel group. A disputed territory is an area claimed by different groups)

[[Category:Rebel groups in Nigeria]] ISIL is not in Nigeria, Boko Harem which has sworn allegiance to it is.

[[Category:Arabic-speaking countries and territories]] (Not a territory or country)

[[Category:States and territories established in 2014]] (not a territory or a country)

Other ones I think are probably wrong: [[Category:Rebel groups in Egypt]] and [[Category:Rebel groups in Libya]] (is it really in both?)

[[Category:Terrorism in Turkey]] and [[Category:Terrorism in Lebanon]] (is it really in both?)

[[Category:New religious movements]] (does it qualify?)

Finally the rest I have no idea really what they are actually meant to mean [[Category:Theocracies]] [[Category:Anti-Kurdism]] [[Category:Anti-Shi'ism]] [[Category:Anti-Nusayrism]] [[Category:Persecution of Yazidis]] [[Category:Salafi groups]] [[Category:Sunni Islamist groups]] [[Category:Anti-secularism]] [[Category:Wahhabism]] [[Category:1999 establishments]] Banak (talk) 20:18, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The countries and (dependent) territories content keeps coming back despite having no place in this article. Categories could easily be created with titles in a format such as: Rebel groups controlling territory in foo-location. GregKaye 17:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, [[Category:Unrecognized or largely unrecognized states]] got added, which I think is clearly wrong. Checking when I last reverted, will remove the tags I'm fairly sure are wrong while the rest are discussed. Banak (talk) 21:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Is ISIL rightly called "rebel"?

Would not the correct word be "revolutionary"? It seems to me that the "Islamic State" has come to power originally in areas which were unstable -- no stable government against which to rebel, or where a civil are was already in progress. Then it invaded Iraq. But it was not like a group of discontent Iraqis arising vs their government? Do your sources call it "rebel"? (EnochBethany (talk) 01:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC))

EnochBethany I think that there were a lot of strong and ideologically driven forces in the area. To an extent, I don't know how much, the Shia government suppressed Sunni protest and political representation and various Sunni contingents, who had had a history of being on Saddam's dominant and arguably ruthless side of things, rebelled.

(isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND ("rebel") gets "About 1,730,000 results" and these are mainly split between descriptions of the group itself and descriptions of other groups like the al nustra front. GregKaye 16:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Much of the ISIL power also seems to be based in Syria. Syria is another example where ISIL is serving as a rebel group against Assad's government, and is in alliance with other fellow rebels to help bring down the Syrian Arab Republic. Khestwol (talk) 17:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

IS is not in alliance with other Syrian rebels, in fact there have literally been thousands of casualties in the conflict between the two groups, with IS being completely expelled from Idlib and Latakia provinces, and the Syrian rebels being killed/expelled from Raqqa and Deir ez Zour. Syrian opposition–Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant conflict. Gazkthul (talk) 00:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. That article is now located at Inter-rebel conflict during the Syrian Civil War. Much of the conflict seems to be also within the rebel faction that identify themselves as being part of ISIL, in deciding which forces to side with. Inter-rebel conflicts can be expected during such politically unstable situations. Khestwol (talk) 05:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2015

Please include the next information after "The announcement included designs of the proposed coins, which displayed imagery including a map of the world, a sword and shield, the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, and a crescent moon.", because probably these coins are being already minted and there're a few details in the article: Total of 7 different coins: 2 - copper, 3 - silver and 2 gold. The most "expensive" - 5 dinars from 21 carat gold (875/1000) weighing 21.25 grams. (Source - http://isis-coins.com) Kaputin (talk) 03:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Can you provide a reliable source discussing the denominations? I'm not sure this is notable enough to include, quite honestly, but if an independent third party covers it I would reconsider. TheBlueCanoe 04:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 05:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Its an odd site. The web address presents "isis" which I had thought the group did not like and the main page presents "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant". GregKaye 17:45, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

ISIL does not control territory in Nigeria.

Someone keeps putting this back in the lead. It is an unsupported claim, so I am removing it. Please don't restore it without some solid reliable sources that would directly substantiate it (and no, it's not good enough to point out that Boko Haram has pledged allegiance to ISIL; that is not the same as controlling territory, and insisting otherwise amounts to original synthesis).TheBlueCanoe 04:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Boko Haram has renamed itself officially as the Islamic States's West Africa Provice. It has changed its flag to the ISIL flag. It has described Baghdadi's status as a caliph. It has altered its media style to that of Isil. Hence, Boko Haram has done more than pledge allegiance to it. World bymyself (talk) 18:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Still, as TheBlueCanoe wrote, Nigeria (or Libya) is not in the same category as Iraq and Syria. At best, we may write: "...controlling territory in Syria and Iraq, and, according to some sources, Libya and Nigeria. The group also has operations or affiliates in Lebanon, Egypt, and other areas of the Middle East, North and West Africa, and South and Southeast Asia." Khestwol (talk) 20:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Aren't ISIL and Boko Haram the same thing now?--87.16.235.148 (talk) 14:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

American (US) children (mostly) pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america. Yet, none of them are the flag of the united states of America. Boko Haram pledges allegiance to ISIL, but Boko Haram isn't ISIL. Banak (talk) 20:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

The organisations didn't pledge allegiance, Abubakr Shekau pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. What that actually means in organisational terms is difficult to know at this stage. Gazkthul (talk) 23:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Content using "semi-offical Iranian New source"

An Iranian news source that previously claimed "Tall White Aliens" came from Nazi Germany to the US and copied an Onion article word for word is being used as a source for claims that the UK had planes shot down by Iraq delivering weapons to ISIL. I've used my revert for the day. Someone fix please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banak (talk • contribs) 08:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Banak Done. They also claimed that an Iranian had built a time machine. Just to let you know, it was compact enough to be portable. It most definitely is not a reliable source. Mbcap (talk) 14:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Allegations of Support - Qatar

Very surprised that Qatar hasn't been mentioned despite the allegations leveled against it [20][21][22] [23][24] [25] [26]. StanTheMan87 (talk) 03:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

That should be added to article. Khestwol (talk) 07:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

How should we address those territories outside Iraq and Syria?

The lead says;

"Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant is an Islamic extremist rebel group controlling territory in Iraq and Syria, and, according to some sources, Libya and Nigeria."

Could we discuss how best to word this sentence. It is not according to some sources, as the sentence currently says. All sources agree about the groups who control territory in Libya and Nigeria pledging allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. I think the dispute is whether they directly control the territory or hold influence over day to day running of these places/groups. Maybe we can say through their affiliates or through their franchises, they control such territory. Or we could say that other groups allied with them control territory. Other suggestions would be welcome. Mbcap (talk) 07:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps a note might be better to clarify, one that says something along the lines of:

"it is debated whether groups controlling territory in Libya and Nigeria are subordinates of ISIL or part of ISIL, the leader's of both groups have pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of ISIL" Banak (talk) 09:18, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Confusion between Wahhabism and Salafism

The two movements are similar but distinct. Wahhabism has recently merged with Salafism. For historical purposes Wahhabism is still used by academics and various other news agencies. This analysis might make it clear for editors. [27] Blizzio (talk) 00:32, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Even after reading the article, I still don't understand the ideological differences between the two.--87.16.235.148 (talk) 14:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Blizzio For me I think that this may be best understood in the context of Set theory and I have added a diagram in line with personal a personal view of considerable overlap between the two and, similar to 87.16.235.148, I still don't understand the ideological differences between the two.

However, the analysis from Washington based NGO, The Jamestown Foundation, begins:

"The phenomenon of Islamic terrorism cannot be adequately explained as the export of Saudi Wahhabism, as many commentators claim." and continues "The official ‘Wahhabi’ religion of Saudi Arabia has essentially merged with certain segments of Salafism."

Perhaps it would be helpful if issues regarding the similarities and distinctions between the two could be clarified but I do not know how possible this might be. GregKaye 06:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Salafism's roots date back to Ibn Taymiyyah. Sunni scholars such as Ibn Abidin and those before him rejected Ibn Taymiyyahs's teachings until Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Wahhab revived them. Around the same time as the Saudi Wahhabi movement, began Islamic Modernism in Egypt led by Rida, Abduh and Jamal. The modernists developed the Salafi methodology as a rejection of the Traditional Sunni School establishments such as Hanbali Hanafi etc. Wahhabis originally referred to themselves as unitarians but Saudi has most recently adopted the term Salafi. The adoption of the Salafi term by the Saudi's was beneficial because Salafi's already reject traditional Sunni schools although Wahhabis reject Sunni schools only partially. Both the Salafi and Wahhabi view Ibn taymiyyah as one of the best scholars of Islam. Unlike Salafis, Wahhabis use Hanbali jurisprudence to some extent. Salafi scholars such as Muhammad Nasiruddin al-Albani (noted for being the first scholar to label himself salafi) criticizes Wahhabis for this as mentioned in this article [28]. Albani's criticism of Abdulwahhab as not being "pure salafi" are just some of the quarrels within the movement. Other Salafists declare the Saud family as illegitimate rulers of Arabia, however since Wahhabis were able to militarily oppose ottomans with the help of Saud, and Saud was able to ideologically oppose Ottoman rule using Wahhabism. Both Wahhabis and Saudis have mutual interests to back one another. Blizzio (talk) 07:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Appropriate addition of Wahhabism to the ideology content

I am grateful to Khestwol for making recent mention of this ongoing saga on my talk page.

As had been noted in the now archived thread What content should be used in the "Ideologies" section of the ISIL infobox? there are a large number of references that discuss "Wahhabism" in association with ISIL. The stats as I presented them within that thread included:

• (isil or isis or daesh or "islamic state") AND "Wahhabism" got "About 153,000 results"
• (isil or isis or daesh or "islamic state") AND "Sunni Islam" got "About 27,200 results"
• (isil or isis or daesh or "islamic state") AND "Salafism" got "About 13,900 results"
• (isil or isis or daesh or "islamic state") AND "Takfirism" got "About 11,500 results"
• (isil or isis or daesh or "islamic state") AND "Salafist jihadism" got "About 1,430 results"

Amongst many references making connections between the group and "Wahhabism" is a Huffington Post article with the arguably pertinent title

• "You Can't Understand ISIS If You Don't Know the History of Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia".

For some reason, and amongst other potential issues with reporting I honestly don't know the rhyme or reason for this, the group have not regularly been directly presented as being Wahhabist but, instead, the typical presentation is of their ideology being intrinsically rooted in Wahhabism.

I think that a content in Ideology could encyclopaedically present:

• Based on Salafist jihadism and Salafism

in the context of Wahhabism

or simply:

• Based on Salafist jihadism

in the context of Wahhabism

From all I have so seen, the reference to "Salafism" would seem to be superfluous in the context of "Salafi Jihadism". Scholarly references that I have seen indicate the group to have a form of "Salafist jihadism" and I think that the based on wording provides a relevant encyclopedic clarification. How does this sound?

At present the page is in a state of "Wahhabi Wars", my interpretation, and it might be nice for them to be resolved. GregKaye 06:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Google searches can be difficult to interpret as they will not discount unreliable sources. We also have to consider weighting expert vs non expert analysis. In light of this, We should have Salafism and Jihadi Salafism first, followed by Wahhabism. I disagree with having Wahhabism for reasons elucidated on past occasions but the main reason would be is that the ideology of all three are of the same aqa'id, that being the Athari creed. Regardless if there is consensus then inclusion is appropriate. I would also prefer if we just write the ideologies as opposed to saying, "based on". This is just unnecessary. By saying their ideology is X, you would be saying implicitly that their ideology is "based on" X.

Greg In regards to the slow simmering edit war on Wahhabi ascription in the ideology infobox, maybe we should ping the editors involved so we can achieve a stable infobox. Mbcap (talk) 11:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I was hoping that, as possible, neutral editors (if there are such things) who just stumbled on this thread might comment. Anyway, here goes: Nulla Taciti, Imfeelyoung, Ritsaiph, Fraytel, KahnJohn27, Vietcong nuturlizer, Khestwol, Star72, Blizzio, StanTheMan87. There has not been much simmering about this. GregKaye 12:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

GregKaye thank you for opening this discussion again. Mentioning both "Salafi jihadism" and "Wahhabism" shows a more neutral viewpoint. But adding "Salafism" to the aforementioned 2 makes it superfluous. I think I agree more with your second suggestion, i.e. Based on Salafist jihadism; in the context of Wahhabism. Khestwol (talk) 17:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the approprate forum for sectarian and archaic political labels (I.e. WP:LABEL). If a source where ISIS refer to themselves as Wahhabi there might be a basis for this, yet none have been provided. On the contrary editors pushing for this have used Shiite extremist sources such as quotes from the leader of hezbollah to attempt to justify the inclusion of this term. From Human Right Watch: "In Central Asia, government leaders and government-aligned clergy use the term “Wahhabism” to denote “Islamic fundamentalism” and “extremism.” It is often used as a slur, with strong political implications. [...] The “Wahhabi” label has also been used in other parts of the former Soviet Union as short-hand for militant" — Notes on Wahhabism, “Wahhabis,” and Hizb ut-Tahrir. (See also: The Vocabulary of Sectarianism) Nulla Taciti (talk) 18:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Nulla Taciti Can you substantiate your view that Wahhabism is a Label in this context. It is a well established term that is used substantially within scholarship. An respected news RS has even clearly stated the view that "You Can't Understand ISIS If You Don't Know the History of Wahhabism..." The proposal is to say "in the context of Wahhabism" which, from all that I have seen, has been very well established. The Huffington Post is not a Shiite extremist source. GregKaye 18:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

GregKaye the Huffington Post article you are referring to specifically states that the ideology of ISIS is not Wahhabi — "There is nothing here that separates Wahhabism from ISIS. The rift would emerge only later". You have established that Wahhabism has a niche academic use, but not vis-à-vis ISIS. Also I can assure you that the results on the Google searches you provided are mostly from sectarian sources such as Iranian state run Press TV, for example strange anti-semetic articles like this one titled "Wahhabi-Zionist onslaught on humanity". Nulla Taciti (talk) 18:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I do not think that we are in disagreement. The content is intended to note the very relevant context of Wahhabism. See also:

• Boston Globe Islamic State descends from Wahhabism
• New Statesman Wahhabism to ISIS: how Saudi Arabia exported the main source of global terrorism
• Huffington Post How Saudi Wahhabism Is the Fountainhead of Islamist Terrorism saying: "... "Saudi Arabia has not stopped its interest in spreading extreme Wahhabism. ISIS...is a product of Saudi ideals, ... One could reasonably argue that the House of Saud is simply a more established and diplomatic version of ISIS. It shares the extremist Wahhabi theo-fascism, the lack of human rights, intolerance, violent beheadings etc. -- but with nicer buildings and roads..."
• The Weekly Standard Saudi Wahhabism and ISIS Wahhabism: The Difference

There are also a large number of scholarly articles to be considered and who knows how many news articles mentioning the association between Isil and Wahhabism within the text. GregKaye 19:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

This is all incredibly tenuous ("Descended from" etc.). Even one of the articles you provided, Saudi Wahhabism and ISIS Wahhabism: The Differnce, states — "Yet in analyzing radical Islam, we should make distinctions, not confuse them". You would do well to consider this. This is reaching and it is compounded by the notable sectarian usage this term has acquired. Nulla Taciti (talk) 19:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The Saudis have practices such as cutting peoples heads off. So does Isil. I doubt that any surviving members of victims families would necessarily consider it tenuous. The news, echoing scholarship see the Isil as developing in the influence of Saudi Wahhabism. We are providing clarification via context. To put it simply, we are labelling a group that cuts peoples heads off with an association to an ideology that finds it acceptable to cut people's heads off. If they want to avoid the label, they can stop. GregKaye 23:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Greg. "Some of the features of Isis ideology, such as its hatred of Shia Muslims and application of strict punishments such as limb amputations, are shared with the purist Salafi thought that defines Saudi Wahhabism. Isis has explicitly referenced early Wahhabi teachers, such as Mohammed ibn Abdulwahhab, to justify its destruction of Shia shrines and Christian churches as it cuts a swath through Iraq and Syria. Thousands of Saudi nationals have been recruited to its ranks". Guardian [29] Blizzio (talk) 04:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Blizzio While I also agree with you (lol) I would also counsel against letting the article turn the article into a polemic. Some editors may have possibly noticed that I like google searches which, admittedly can sometimes have limited application especially in the context of media whims which I personally consider to often provide a much less than reliable foundation for addressing some issues. None-the-less I think that the following suggests that there are two sides to the story.

• ("Shia hatred" OR "Sufi hatred") AND (Sunni OR Sunnis) gets "About 29 results"

("Shia rage" OR "Sufi rage") AND (Sunni OR Sunnis) gets "About 357 results"

("Shia anger" OR "Sufi anger") AND (Sunni OR Sunnis) gets "About 84 results"

("Shia hostility" OR "Sufi hostility") AND (Sunni OR Sunnis) gets "About 22 results"

• "Sunni hatred" AND (Shia OR Shias OR Sufi OR Sufis) gets "About 34 results"

"Sunni hostility" AND (Shia OR Shias OR Sufi OR Sufis) gets "About 26 results"

"Sunni anger" AND (Shia OR Shias OR Sufi OR Sufis) gets "About 97 results"

please note that the above is EXTREMELY RAW data giving no indication, for instance, the nature of a particular hatred

I agree that a contextualising of ISIL ideology as in the context of Wahhabist influences is encyclopedic but, IMO, there are many more issues going on with regard to the localised condition of Shia–Sunni relations than just issues like this.

Not to excuse anything but if there are or have been flaming issues in relation to surrounding groups then these will also have relevance in content. GregKaye 06:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Your right there's two sides to the coin but currently ISIS is opposing Shia, Christians etc and as such is being defined in the media. The opposition could be politically against Iran and also religiously. Both Sunnis and Shia have passed harsh edicts against one another in history. Blizzio (talk) 09:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

My thoughts on this issue have already been discussed on the Al-Nusra Front talkpage - [30]. To put it simply, I'll support the inclusion of the term Wahhabi into this article once every single reference to the term Alawi/Alawite has been changed to Nusayri to denote followers of the Alawite faith. Both Wahhabi and Nusayri are used in derogatory ways. Wahhabi is almost always used by non-Muslims to reference Muslims that emerged 300 years ago in Arabia who wished to return to following Muhammad's teachings, as laid down in the Sunnah, the Qu'ran and the Sahabah. The followers of this Salafist revivalist-movement were led by Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab. His opponents used the term Wahhabi, so as to de-legitimize his followers, that instead of following the Sahabah and God, they were following Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab. Likewise when radical jihadists use the term Nusayri when referring to Alawites, it's to highlight the fact that instead of following God, they are following a mere mortal, Ibn Nusayr and his teachings. If Wahhabi is included into this article, than I must insist that the term Khawarij also be used when denoting the groups ideology, simply becuase the group dislikes both terms and by including one, you should include the other. Also becuase IS has been referred to as being Khawarij by various other groups, including al-Qaeda.

1. IS spokesmen Abu Mohammad al-Adnani mentions al-Qaeda denouncing Islamic State as 'Khawarij' - [31]
2. Islamic State magazine Dabiq retorts accusations of being labeled as 'Khawarij' - [32]
3. Member of al-Qaeda affiliated Al-Nusra Front asks the leader of the group, Abu Mohammad al-Julani to defeat the "Khawarij and ghulaat (extremists).” - [33] StanTheMan87 (talk) 10:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

All sects view themselves as the “TRUTH” and if you try label them they find it abit offensive, however labeling them by whom they follow should not be derogatory. The Sunni’s were labeled by which Imam they followed [34] but nobody found it as derogatory until Wahhabis came along. Heck even the Ahmadiyya don’t mind. To refuse a label and present yourself as following the true path is not accurate representation. Your incorrect about "Wahhabi is almost always used by non muslims", the muslims use it today in all parts of the world. Some known Anti Wahhabi groups such as The Indonesian Nahdlatul Ulama, South Asia's Barelvi & militant African group Ahlu Sunna Waljama'a. Your analogy of comparing Nusayris to Wahhabism is not correct either. Nusayris or Alawis did not call themselves something else and then recently change their title. Wahhabis refered to themselves as Unitarians and was scholarly refered as followers of Abdulwahab for hundreds of years. Recently in the 70's the Saudis switched to promoting Salafism as their title. Now you can see how confusion comes to play when a movement called Salafi became active in Egypt prior to the Wahhabi or Unitarian name change. I disagree with including Kwarij because Al qaeda said so. Are we now going to take Al qaeda at their word? Blizzio (talk) 11:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

For some Muslims (Muslims who actually know about their faith and aren't hypocrites), it is derogatory. You are using one of the names of Allah to refer to a mortal person. Al-Wahhāb (The Bestower) is one of the 99 names used for God. If you say Wahhabi to denote someone, you are either saying it as an insult or out of ignorance. You are twisting a name for God in order to label someone. Find me some Sunni scholars from the Islamic Ulama who mention the term Wahhabi when referring to those who take inspiration from Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab. Shia sources are plentiful and probably Sufi as well but show me Sunni ones please. Salafi would be even better. Any Islamic scholar who uses the term Wahhabi when referring to a group of people is pretty much using the 'Lord's name in vain'. So what, the point is those who took inspiration from Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab did not label themselves as Wahhabis, this term came from those hostile to these people for their beliefs. Please show me a source indicating when the Saudis changed to using the term Salafi. I hope it's not the same conspiracy source that stated Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab was a British spy. There are many Islamic sources from scholars which have labeled IS as being 'Khawarij':[35],[36],[37],[38],[39]. If you have an hour and a half to kill, this guy explains the IS-Khawarij relation pretty well [40]. StanTheMan87 (talk) 13:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Re: Muslims, the view is presented that Most Muslims will accept anyone who has publicly pronounced the declaration of faith as a Muslim.

Re: God's self view - I find it difficult to conceive that a god who was powerful enough to create the Earth and the heavens formed into one, with forms of life being generated on the earth prior to a separation of the heavens and who then made the sun, moon, stars and presumably nebulae, quazars, black holes, dark matter, and whatever else there may be up there, I find it difficult to conceive that this god would then be concerned about someone on earth saying a seven letter word. GregKaye 18:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The Ottoman Sunni scholars first labeled them “Wahhabi” see the Ottoman-Saudi War and analysis [41]. Mainstream jurists at the time [42] I already gave you a source on Saudi Wahhabi-Salafi Transition on Al-Nusra Page. Repost [43] p.4. Also Explanation of complete change 1970 [44] p.152 Accusations of being Khawarij can be inserted with quotations . I don’t think it has any place in the infobox. Blizzio (talk) 14:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

But your justification for labeling them as Wahhabi is essentially the same as calling them Khawarij. The fact that they follow certain practices attributed to the followers of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab make them Wahhabi in your eyes. Granted, people label them as such. However, the exact same can be said for labeling them 'Khawarij', in that they share similar beliefs e.g declaring Takfir on fellow Muslims when they commit only minor sins and making it obligated to kill these people, even though it isn't accepted by many Muslims that minor sins be rewarded with execution. And the sources I have shown above show that they have been likened to as being almost the 'Khawarij of the 21st century'. The source you cited, [45] is also incredibly opinionative. It's almost as if the author, Khaled Abou El Fadl, is seeking to whitewash Islam and Salafism by disassociating these Muslims who he labels as Wahhabis from being Islamic at all. StanTheMan87 (talk) 16:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

My "justification" is based on reliable sources. Your Islamic fatwa sources are unreliable. We cant WP:SYNTH, and conclude ISIS are khawarij because of links to Wahhabism. Al-Azhar University scholar on the subject [46] Blizzio (talk) 22:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Definition of extremism

According to wikipedia it means "far outside the (acceptable) mainstream attitudes of society". However, IS holds territory of roughly 100,000 square miles, and has managed one of the largest recruitment campaigns in modern history. Doesn't that make the "extremist" label that is currently in the lede disputable? Instead I propose takfiri. Justttt (talk) 00:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

"Takfiri" implies they have the authority to excommunicate. "Fajarah" would be closer, but we would need an independent source for either. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

The earliest takfiris were the kharijites. They had no authority to excommunicate either, but it didn't stop them from doing so. The question is, does IS engage in takfirism? The answer is yes. Either way, takfiri/takfirist is imo more accurate than extremist. Depressed my entire life (talk) 00:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

This is the English-language Wikipedia, which should not define topics with wholly foreign terminology. Terrorism is far, far outside the accepted norms of civilized culture, i.e. the entire world, East and West. "Extremist" is by far the most fitting description. Tarc (talk) 12:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Takfiri and its derivatives have thousands of returns on google books. Islamic terms are not necessarily "foreign". Justttt (talk) 16:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)