Talk:Islamic State/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Requested Move

The following discussion is an archived 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 for the original proposal and there's also no consensus that "the Levant" should be changed to "al-Sham". However, there is a consensus to change "in" to "of" and thus the new title will be Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Jenks24 (talk) 15:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State in Iraq and Syria – The WP:COMMONNAME for the group has clearly shifted:

(Note that these numbers are likely to change over time) Philpill691 (talk) 17:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


  • Support as nominator --Philpill691 (talk) 17:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Striking per the more accurate search results presented by others and dispute over what the second "S" in ISIS stands for. --Philpill691 (talk) 15:23, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 18:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Strongly Agree as ISIS Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 18:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support In searching for this article I first landed at the Egyptian god article and then this disambiguation page. I haven't heard or read the current article title being used for this unrecognized state until arriving here on Wikipedia. (I'll admit to not having a very wide variety of sources, but ISIS seems to be the most commonly used name). --User talk:IP.303 04:35, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose - When you do Google searches without quotes you will be picking up huge quantities of articles that have nothing to do with this group, but simply contain the words, Islam, State, Iraq and Syria. Similarly, ISIS can refer to a lot more things that ISIL does. A search for these exact names give:
  • "Islamic State in Iraq and Syria" 813,000 search results and 5,580 Google News results
  • Strong Oppose - Philpill691's search results are incorrect. They are very very wrong and were not done in line with Wikipedia:Search engine test. When doing a search for an exact name of something, you need to search that name within speech marks so it searches for that exact phrase; otherwise it searches for anything with them words not necessarily that exact phrase which you're looking for. Also when doing a google search, you need to exclude wikipedia from your search. Here are the real results.
Google News: "Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant" = 7,960 results whereas "Islamic State in Iraq and Syria" = 5,690 results
Google Search: "Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant" -wikipedia = 1,820,000 results whereas "Islamic State in Iraq and Syria" -Wikipedia = 107,000 results
It is clear that Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant is the overwhelming Common Name and per WP:Commonname I oppose this proposed move. Regards IJA (talk) 11:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Support The news reports (both printed and televised) that I've seen regarding this group all refer to them as "ISIS" or "The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria." Lithistman (talk) 15:21, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
@ Lithistman: Can you back that up with evidence please? IJA (talk) 16:58, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes. Upon digging further, a simple Google search including both the acronym "ISIS" and the word "Iraq" yields over 22 million hits, while a search for the acronym "ISIL" combined with the word "Iraq" yields about 4.7 million. It's not really even a close call, so I'm changing the above to a "strong support." Lithistman (talk) 17:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
@ Lithistman, the acronyms "ISIL" and "ISIS" do not tell whether "Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant" or "Islamic State in Iraq and Syria" are the Common Name. For example, the BBC uses the acronym ISIS, yet when using the full name, they use "Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant". These articles are from today [1] and [2]. Do a search of the full name (as I have shown previously) and you will clearly see that "Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant" is by far a more common name. IJA (talk) 15:44, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
@ Lithistman, also the acronym "ISIS" doesn't always refer to "Islamic State in Iraq and Syria", it can also refer to "Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham" / "Islamic State of Iraq and Sham". I think there are too many holes in your argument. IJA (talk) 09:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - the google search count is irrelevant. a common name popularized by media does not make it the correct name. the closest translation the Arabic name should be used. Jonpatterns (talk) 18:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment ISIS is being increasingly and far more being used so you might as well move it to "ISIS".
 Done - Technophant (talk) 20:10, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

*Support - When the acronym ISIS is taken into account, ISIS & Islamic State in Iraq and Syria is probably more common than ISIL & Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant. A possible compromise could be Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham, though that's the least common of the names I've seen (which is why I'd oppose it). I now support Islamic State in/of Iraq and al-Sham (I have no preference between in or of). Blaylockjam10 (talk) 08:04, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Strong support. In adition to the Google searches above, here in the UK the media is universally using "...and Syria" and "ISIS". Clearly, there has been a shift. You just don't see ISIL. WP:COMMONAME.DeCausa (talk) 08:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd prefer Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Regardless, I utterly oppose the use of the word Syria. Levant or al-Sham; not Syria. AntiqueReader (talk) 09:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Here's a collation of a few names and acronyms:
The Wall Street Journal: Islamist State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS)
The New York Times: Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS)
The Washington Post: Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)
Los Angeles Times: Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS (ISIS)
USA Today: Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)
The New Yorker: Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS)
Al Jazeera: Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)
CNN: Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS)
ABC News: Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)
CBS News: Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)
BBC News: Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIS)
Channel 4 News: Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) (though they now sometimes seem simply use the word Isis without introduction, assuming people know what it stands for)
ITV News: Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) (again, don't even seem to bother introducing the term ISIS sometimes)
Sky News: Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS)
Financial Times: Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS)
The Guardian: Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIS)
The Times: Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS)
The Independent: Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS)
The Telegraph: Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS)
The Economist: Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria (ISIS)
Reuters: Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)
Associated Press: Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)
Bloomberg: Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)

AntiqueReader (talk) 20:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Also The Associated Press: Islamist State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) -Technophant (talk) 19:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
I think with that one that, perhaps, the WSJ changed the original terminology of the AP report to maintain consistency. AntiqueReader (talk) 08:06, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Move to Islamist State of Iraq and Sham or Islamist State of Iraq and al-Sham A review of the list above and the current Western media coverage shows definitively that the accepted acronym should be ISIS, but what does the S really stand for? US media has conveniently assigned it to Syria, but that's not what the name al-Sham means. I had to look up the term Levant because I never heard it before and neither have the vast majority of Americans. Pakistan Today uses the name Islamist State in Iraq and Sham in this article. The google search for this combination of terms leads to 35,400 ghits and 42 for news.
We need to try to look into the future and try to what this group (who may well succeed with their stated goals of being the governing body of most of the Levant and Iraq) will be called. I think that the name "Islamic State in Iraq and Syria" should be recognized as a valid name that Western media is using, but the name "Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)" just doesn't make sense for this article's title, or as an acronym. -- Technophant (talk) 15:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - I would like to call for a speedy close to this move discussion. There's over 45k pageviews a day and the name is leading to a lot of confusion. I'm fine with Islamic State in Iraq and Syria however some are not. If the WSJ, the AP, and The Telegraph and several regional scholars all think that direct translation of al-Sham is the official name, why are we going with old google search results? Best to follow the experts. - Technophant (talk) 19:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Sources appear to be divided on the exact name, but they appear to prefer the acronym ISIS over ISIL (even some using the name Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant use the acronym ISIS). Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:12, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I think the terminology and acronym used by Reuters and the AP is fine, i.e. that the article is fine as it is. It seems totally ridiculous to refer to them as the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant but then use the acronym ISIS, as if you were calling them the Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham. Well, either leave it as it is, or move the article to Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham and use ISIS. AntiqueReader (talk) 08:17, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Acronyms are based on the group's Arabic name. There's other examples of this such as Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn, "The Organization of Jihad's Base in the Country of the Two Rivers" (TQJBR) - Technophant (talk) 17:12, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
For sure. Italian Communist Party. AntiqueReader (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Would add that, as Fawaz Gerges points out, their Arabic acronym is Daish. AntiqueReader (talk) 22:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose There is not one clear favorited name at the moment, so we should keep the article as it stands now. Although I do favor using ISIS over ISIL in the article itself. --Tocino 09:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Move, most of the mainstream media networks that I am familiar with have been referring to the group as ISIS, not ISIL, Wikipedia is the only place I've heard the term Levant instead of Syria for the name of the organization. Abrahamic Faiths (talk) 22:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • STRONG OPPOSE ISIS stand for Islamic state of Iraq and al-Sham not Syria. The word Syria dose not equal Sham (Bilad al-Sham). if u wanna move it then move it to the right name "Islamic state of Iraq and al-Sham" 37.105.0.186 (talk) 23:31, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose It is funny to choose the name based on the media instead of what ISIL calls itself. "الدولة الاسلامية في العراق والشام‎ ʾad-dawla ʾal-islāmiyya fīl-‘irāq waš-šām" means "Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant". Levant is not restricted to Syria and ISIL clearly declares it does not believe in the modern borders. "The Levant is an old term referring to countries of the eastern Mediterranean. Some scholars include in it Cyprus and a small part of Turkey. But basically the Levant has throughout history meant Syria, Lebanon and Palestine. This means Jordan, the West Bank (now under Israeli occupation) and Israel itself are part of the Levant."[3] I think the western media will wake up after the fall of Jordon or Lebanon!!!--Seyyed(t-c) 06:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose But support move to Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham based on all the news coverage I've seen in the UK and what people say about the Arabic above.  Philg88 ♦talk 09:17, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose The last S in "ISIS" stands for "al-Sham", not Syria, and these two things are not synonymous. For now, evidence has not been shown to support a different common name, so the article should remain at its present title by default. Xoloz (talk) 15:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Actually, no. The article was moved from the proposed name in the last year. So it would be reasonable if there is no consensus to retain at this name to move it back. Part of that discussion was that the current name was the one in use at that time. If usage changes then the article should move. This comment does not address the usage of Syria v al-Sham which is an additional consideration. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:56, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
      • The rename to which you refer was the result of prior sucessful RM. If this RM results in no consensus, standard practice is to defer to the consensus established in the first RM. Xoloz (talk) 20:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, "Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant" = 7,530,000 results, "Islamic State in Iraq and Syria" = 893,000 results. Nomination is based on flawed google search.--Staberinde (talk) 16:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose both. It should be "Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham", because (a) it doesn't exist geographically (yet) so it can't be "in" any country/area, and (b) "al-Sham" means not "Syria", but "Greater Syria" (which from what I understand includes other countries as well). --P123ct1 (talk) 23:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment The acronym that's now deployed by many agencies as well as the United Nations and the U.S. State Department -- and President Obama -- is ISIL, for the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. [4]
  • Oppose per Xoloz. Neljack (talk) 02:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Faced with two common names, go with the one that is more precise. —  AjaxSmack  05:23, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose – There is no reason impose an incorrect translation, "Syria", on this title. Let's be as precise as possible, here. "Al-Sham" is no good. We use English here, and we are also WP:PRECISE. If the name of this organisation in Arabic included "Syria", fine. But it doesn't. It reads "Levant" in English, meaning areas outside of the modern state of Syria, such as Lebanon. We can't afford to be misleading here. Especially, of course, given that neither of these titles is the unambiguous common name. RGloucester — ☎ 19:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Additional request

Whichever title is decided upon above, I suggest the word of be used instead of in in the title, as of seems to be used in more sources than in for virtually all translations of the group's name. --Philpill691 (talk) 03:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Support usage of of instead of in as nominator --Philpill691 (talk) 03:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support AntiqueReader (talk) 09:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - I don't suppose it matters either way as both are commonly used, however "of" rolls off the tounge better. IJA (talk) 11:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support because it only exists as a concept so far! It can't be "in" anywhere (except the mind). --P123ct1 (talk) 23:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Wait - as per WP:TITLECHANGES. Too soon to know what the most accepted name is going to be. Changing "in" to "of" is a minor change that will result in many hours of fixing links in the many many pages linking here. There's also more redirects to this page than perhaps any other page on enwiki. If you look at this list you'll see there's almost 100 redirects, along with every combination of is/of possible. - Technophant (talk) 03:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
    • WP:TITLECHANGES is about changing from one controversial title to another. Thus it is not relevant here, as the of versus in question is hardly controversial (as you say, it’s a relatively minor change). Yes, it isn’t possible to know what the most widely accepted preposition will be in the future, but we do know what it is now: of is currently more commonly used than in, so the title of this article should reflect that. Also, the logistics of incorporating the name change into the encyclopedia should not be a factor in the discussion about what the title should be. (I mean absolutely no disrespect here) --Philpill691 (talk) 04:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
I guess I should have been more specific. The part of Titlechanges I'm citing is "If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed." I guess I don't feel there's a good reason to change it. The Guardian and Al Jazeera both use the current title. Can I see some numbers? - Technophant (talk) 06:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Sure. (On a side note, these results do seem to indicate that "the Levant" is in fact the most commonly used translation). --Philpill691 (talk) 15:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Islamic State of/in Iraq and ... "of" used "in" used
"Syria" 4,290,000 results 1,070,000 results
"the Levant" 8,800,000 results 4,060,000 results
"al-Sham" 1,140,000 results 816,000 results
"Sham" 4,650,000 results 996,000 results
  • Comment I think there's some contributors here that read and write Arabic. Which way is the better translation and why? - Technophant (talk) 06:53, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
The best translation is using IN because the new name of the state is "الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام" the word في in Arabic means IN so the right translation is Islamic state in Iraq and the Levant/al-Sham while the old name was "دولة العراق الإسلامية" which is better translated as "Islamic state of Iraq" 3bdulelah (talk) 02:06, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per all. With the US State department announcing that The Islamic State of' Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) is going to be the primary designation for the group, plus the AP agreeing, I'm going to have to concede. It was interesting to note that Obama's speech today referred only to I-S-I-L several times. News sources in the US now have to started adding parentheticals about the different names. Add argument WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL also.Technophant ([[User talk:Technophant|talk]:]) 02:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Since this is an uncontroversial technical move, do we need to wait 7 days for this discussion to close? Couldn't an admin just 'make it so"? - Technophant (talk) 03:42, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment if u wanna know the official name used by ISIS itself here is this new video they use Islamic state of Iraq and Sham http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvRALYYThxk 3bdulelah (talk) 00:16, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
The only 'official' videos seem to come from Furquan Media Productions. The name they use in the English subtitles at 23:52 of Saleel Sawarim 4 is Islamic state of Iraq and Shaam. Levant is an antique name for Sham, like Mesopotamia is for Iraq. - Technophant (talk) 10:15, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
There is nothing "antique" about "Levant". It is modern usage, and a modern word. If you are not familiar with the region, that isn't the fault of the word itself. RGloucester — ☎ 19:48, 23 June 2014 (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.

Has merged with al-Nusra Front

See [5]. 68.118.53.183 (talk) 15:45, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

This has now been added to the "2014 events" section and the section on Al-Nusra. --P123ct1 (talk) 17:21, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Rename?

Should this page be moved to The Islamic State to reflect its new name? — Zcbeaton (talk) 17:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

  • I think it should be moved as well, it's the new official name and reflects the group's claims over a wider region of the Islamic world than Iraq and the Levant. Hello32020 (talk) 18:16, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • If you want the paged moved you should make a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves.--WikiU2013 (talk) 20:14, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

The date of the Islamic State's proclaimation

The establishment date of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant is listed as 3 January 2014, the source is a Reuters piece about militants taking over parts of Fallujah and declaring an 'Islamic state', with no exact quotes given. However, this group has been a self proclaimed state since 2006. Reports on the declaration of a state from 8 years ago - 'The Mujahideen Shura Council, al Qaeda in Iraq's front group designed to legitimize its actions, has released a video announcing the formation of a Sunni Islamic State of Iraq, which is comprised of "Baghdad, Anbar, Diyala, Kirkuk, Salah al-Din, Ninawa, and in other parts of the governorate of Babel," according to the SITE Institute. The Sunni Islamic State would "will judge according to the Islamic Shari'a (law), using such as an aegis for the people, and to defend the religion."'The Rump Islamic Emirate of Iraq

'The individual who delivers the message, whose face is obscured (see photo below), is identified in the video as "the official spokesman of the Islamic State." He explains that, since the Kurds and the Shi'ites have established de facto states of their own in Iraq, and since the Iraqi government headed by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki has betrayed the Iraqi Sunnis and robbed them of their rights, the jihad groups that have recently taken the "oath of the scented ones" [2] have decided to establish an Islamic state which will incorporate the Iraqi provinces of Baghdad, Al-Anbar, Diyala, Kirkuk, Salah Al-Din, Ninveh, and parts of Babil Province (see map below). The announcer adds that the purpose of establishing the Islamic state is twofold: to unite the mujahideen and prevent fitna, and to make the word of Allah supreme in the region. He calls upon the Sunnis around the world to support the newly established Islamic state, and urges the Sunnis in Iraq to pledge allegiance to 'Umar Al-Baghdadi, who is referred to as amir al-muaminin, a title traditionally given to the Muslim Caliphs. The Shura Council of the Jihad Fighters in Iraq Announces the Establishment of an Islamic State

Based on Baghdadi's group proclaiming themselves to be a state in 2006, I am updating the infobox to reflect this. Gazkthul (talk) 23:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The Islamic State of Disobedience: al-Baghdadi Triumphant
The first thing one sees on many jihadi web forums (www.shamikh1.info/vb, www.alfidaa.org/vb/, www.alplatformmedia.com/vb/, among others) is a banner marking time passed since the Islamic State’s founding in 2006. Today the banner reads: “2549 days have passed since the announcement of the Islamic State and the umma’s forthcoming hope…and it will continue to persist by the will of God.” The symbolic centrality of the Islamic State across jihadi media goes some way in explaining the current outlook of the Islamic State qua a state—not a group—and its wide appeal among jihadis.
This prophetic model has been a standard feature of the Islamic State’s propaganda and intellectual production. A 90-page document from 2006 explaining the state’s raison d’être, authored by a member of ISI’s Shari‘a Council, likewise portrayed ISI as “the new Islamic state”: “This state of Islam has arisen anew to strike down its roots in the region, as was the religion’s past one of strength and glory.” As to its claimed jurisdiction, the author wrote: “There exists no legal proof-text from the Qur’an or sunna stipulating a decreed limit to the territorial expanse on which the Islamic state ought to be erected.” Gazkthul (talk) 23:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

That was the date the group was founded, not the nation. It didn't become an unrecognized state until it seized control of Fallujah in 2014. Their is a major difference between the date the group was founded and the actual foundation of the state. 205.232.106.254 (talk) 20:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Any citations for that? You realize that they exercised exclusive territorial control over Raqqa and other towns and cities in Syria before taking control of Fallujah Gazkthul (talk) 22:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The ISIL was an insurgency in 2006, with no control over any territory, so at that time they didn't fit the definition of an unrecognized state. Furthermore, until late 2013, the group was working with the FSA and the other Syrian opposition groups, so it can be argued that they were still just another faction of the Syrian rebels at that time. As the source I provided claims, it was on January 3, 2014, that they proclaimed an independent state in Fallujah. By then, they had firm control of areas in both Syria and Iraq, and were no longer associated with the other Syrian rebels. Therefore, as is stated in the category section of the article, the 2014 date is the legitimate date of the state. I suppose it could be argued that the group could be considered an unrecognized state in 2013, but because of the fact that they were working with the other Syrian rebels, I don't think it should be included in the establishment date of the UNRECOGNIZED STATE info box, but it can be included in the war faction box. The 2006 date could also be included in the war faction box, but it definitely doesn't belong in the country info box. Toolen (talk) 18:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Establishment date

Further to the above, the article variously gives 2003, 2004, and 2006 as the year in which the group was established. It would be helpful if someone with knowledge of the subject matter could clear this up. --Nizolan (talk) 12:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

2004 is the year that the group emerged, 2006 was the year that it announced a self-proclaimed state. Following the source for the 2003 claim, it says "The first name of the group when it emerged in early 2004 was Jama'at al-Tawhid wa'al-Jihad", however it goes on to state "Jama'at al-Tawhid wa'al-Jihad was allegedly established by Abu Mus'ab al-Zarqawi some time in 2003 or early 2004. However, the first statement of the group which appeared on 24 April 2004". So it was operating underground and carrying out attacks in late 2003 but did not make any public statements until the following year. Gazkthul (talk) 22:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

In 2006 they did not control any territory. As you said, they were an underground insurgency movement. Thus, in that year they did not fit the definition of an unrecognized state. That date can go under the war faction infobox, but not the country info box. Toolen (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that's not true. In 2006 when ISI was formed, they had control of large portions of the Sunni Triangle. Quoting a 2006 Reuters report (http://uk.reuters.com/article/2006/10/18/us-iraq-qaeda-idUKL1229983620061018) 'Dozens of al Qaeda-linked gunmen took to the streets of Ramadi on Wednesday in a show of force to announce the city was joining an Islamic state comprising Iraq's mostly Sunni Arab provinces, Islamists and witnesses said...."We have announced the Islamic state. Ramadi is part of it. Our state will comprise all the Sunni provinces of Iraq," he told Reuters in a telephone interview.' In 2006 they were openly administering territory, applying Shariah law, appointing Emir's to rule towns. Once they started imposing their interpretation of Sharia Law on people, many Sunni tribesmen and former insurgents joined the Awakening movement and fought against them. Gazkthul (talk) 07:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Institute for the Study of War says it was announced in a Twitter posting of 19 November 2013:

the narrative contained in many of the ISIS Wilayat Twitter pages in Syria, which focus more on education, Shari‘a law, and reconstruction, especially in ar-Raqqa, which ISIS declared to be the beginning of the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham.

Source for "declared to be the beginning" is endnote 11:

The Wilayat of Raqqa Twitter account was set up on November 19, 2013, although attempts to establish governance pre-date this. [“Wilayat of Raqqa”], Twitter post, November 19, 2013, https:// twitter.com/raqqa98/status/402766535829098497

AntiqueReader (talk) 20:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
It would serve us well to note that, given ISIS wasn't established till November 2013, the following in the lede is utter nonsense: "It was established in the early years of the Iraq War and pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda in 2004." AntiqueReader (talk) 20:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, let's get this declaration nailed down! Some seem to think declared January 2014 in Iraq, but I have an ISW report saying November 2013 in Syria. AntiqueReader (talk) 17:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, went back and checked an ISW timeline from January 2014:

January 3: Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) announces an Islamic state in Fallujah and detains 75 members of the Iraqi Army. Reportedly, an AQI commander addressed a crowd at major Friday prayers and announced that the group is in Fallujah to "to defend Sunnis from the government." AQI increases its presence in Fallujah while the Iraqi Army calls up reinforcements outside the city and begins a bombardment of suspected enemy positions. These events produce a humanitarian crisis in Fallujah with at least hundreds of families fleeing the city. Meanwhile, a political standoff has renewed between Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and speaker of the Iraqi Council of Representatives (COR), Osama al-Nujaifi.

AntiqueReader (talk) 17:33, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
ISI was declared on 2006 and ISIS was declared on 2013 There is nothing as Independence declared on 3 January 2014. Anbar Wylaiah was declared on 2006 and raising the flag is just a declaration of Liberation of what they believe is their occupied land not declaration of Independence.

we shouldn't add wrong information just because of a journalist who knows nothing about ISIS. 3bdulelah (talk) 06:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you, and I retract everything I wrote about the state being "declared" in November 2013. I deleted this January 2014 date. Will go into more detail if anyone wants. AntiqueReader (talk) 21:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Possible Relationship to Pakistani Taliban

I have found an article from what appears to be a Pakistani Taliban source which claims a sort of alliance (albeit informal) between the Pakistani Taliban and what is known as ISIS (based on a harmony of purpose). I do not know whether this source is definitively valid or trustworthy enough to be cited, but I think it is a connection worth being investigated at some point. If these groups do officially collaborate, that would effectively double the current estimated size of either independently (from ~30,000 to ~60,000 combined) in militant member numbers. The web site I will link to also includes information of global support for ISIS, including in Indonesia. If this information is correct, it may be possible for us to have a more clear understanding of how widespread the influence of ISIS may quickly become.

Aforementioned source: abu al bawi blogspot - pakistani-taliban-stance-on-isis... BillyHamsterdave (talk) 02:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Article could use a map

Maps are very helpful to those like myself that process information visually Nickjbor (talk) 16:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The map that is there is horrendously out of date Nickjbor (talk) 04:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


Thank you to whoever updated the map! 198.96.35.90 (talk) 07:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The map needs to show the Iraq-Syria border, if it is to be of any use to the general reader not familiar with the geography of the region. Every map I have seen in the media during this conflict has the countries marked out. --P123ct1 (talk) 11:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Length of Lead

@Technophant: Is the lead still too long? I refer to my revision at 16:17 today. It seems to me about the right length for an article of this size, judging by other Wiki articles. (AntiqueReader cut it right down and with his agreement I restored some of it, but I think he disagrees about the length it is now. I don't want to get into an edit war over this!) --P123ct1 (talk) 15:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I know this is directed to a particular user, but it looks just fine now. Coinmanj (talk) 18:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I directed it to Technophant as he is the one who put up the banner about shortening the Lead. --P123ct1 (talk) 19:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Error in Template:Reply to: Input contains forbidden characters. I've been taking a break on editing for the last few days. I didn't put up the banner, which seems to be removed now. The lead seems to appropriate length for now. - Technophant (talk) 19:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Mujahideen Shura Council (Iraq)

Is there a reason that this article exists, it says that it's the same group with a different name. Charles Essie (talk) 20:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I always asked why do we have separate article for Mujahideen Shura Council (Iraq) while Islamic State of Iraq and Jama'at al-Tawhid wa-al-Jihad dont have their separate articles. I would go with the creation of a separate article for each with former country infobox in Islamic state of Iraq's article. 3bdulelah (talk) 02:39, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
If the article becomes too big or it's decided that each incarnation before ISIS deserves an article, turn the redirects into an article for each incarnation. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 10:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
It's already too long 3bdulelah (talk) 20:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
It does seem big enough that I don't think it'd be hurt by turning the redirects into an article for each incarnation. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 04:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Treatment of civilians

In a recent edition by @User:AntiqueReader some omissions are seen two of which are as such:

  • Nadim Houry, deputy Middle East and North Africa director at Human Rights Watch said, "ISIS are doing atrocities such as executing the civilians, " A local official entered the village that morning said that he saw a 7-year-old child shot in the head.
  • by the most radical jihadist group fighting in Syria

I'd like to know the reason of this editions, since nothing were mentioned in the edit summary. Note that, for the second one, same phrase was used by the News Website and I think it has nothing to do with NPOV or sth.Mhhossein (talk) 13:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey! I removed it simply because the detail for that one incident is excessive. Thousands of people are being killed, so detailed discussion of anything but the very worst incidents is just not possible. That was my thinking. AntiqueReader (talk) 18:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your attention @User:AntiqueReader! But I meant to focus on the child murdered by head shot, and the point that executing the civilians according to what the UN officials say. And whats your Idea about " the most radical jihadist group fighting in Syria" which is mentioned by the mentioned News Website? Mhhossein (talk) 19:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
In my unsolicited opinion, something's either radical or not. There's no more or less. Once you come close enough to the center, you simply stop being radical. Move away, and you switch over. Dictionary.com defines "most radical" (and "more") as just radical. Talking about more or less suggests the author is trying to make a biased point. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:08, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Citations

When adding information, please take care to reflect citations accurately. I have found some glaring inaccuracies.

P123ct1 (talk) 03:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Map of the Territorial control of the ISIS

ISIS now claims control over all the world, so I don't think it's relevant to show which areas do they claim, in orange. Either the legend should be corrected, or the file itself should be corrected, I suppose.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 20:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think "areas claimed" should be taken to mean the full extent of the organisation's territorial ambitions—it only means the areas in which the organisation claims to already have full authority, even when these areas are de facto governed by someone else. (The darker red represents areas where their claim of control is actually true.) Therefore, the map is fine. Zcbeaton (talk) 23:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
If that is the case then it should be clarified in the article and at the image description page. Currently the map seems to contradict the fact that the organization claims much more territory than depicted. --Philpill691 (talk) 05:12, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
It's based on this map [6], and represents where the group have active 'Wilayah'. Gazkthul (talk) 08:00, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Ok that makes sense, but that still needs to be clarified in the article. Perhaps the pink could be labeled something like "areas claimed to be under the current administrative authority of the Islamic State". That's kind of long, but its more fully descriptive of the situation, leaving a lot less ambiguity. --Philpill691 (talk) 17:04, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
How about showing which part is Syria and which is Iraq? You can't tell from looking at that map and readers not familiar with the geography of the area will be lost. Nearly all media reports of the crisis are accompanied by maps that clearly mark the borders of the different countries in the region. Why not Wikipedia? --P123ct1 (talk) 15:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Name (ISIS/ISIL vs. "Islamic State") in the Lead and Body

I think we should refer to this organization primarily as ISIL (with a note that it and its allies insist it should be called "The Islamic State") until most notable, reliable sources refer to it by the new name outside of quotations. In particular, I changed the lead from

The Islamic State[1] (Arabic: الدولة الإسلامية al-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah), formerly known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (alternatively translated as Islamic State of Iraq and Syria and Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham) (Arabic: الدولة الاسلامية في العراق والشام al-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fī al-ʻIrāq wa-al-Shām), abbreviated ISIL, ISIS, or from its Arabic acronym as DĀʻiSh or DAISH (Arabic: داعش Dāʻish), is an unrecognized state and active jihadist militant group in Iraq and Syria. In its self-proclaimed status as a sovereign state, it claims the territory of Iraq and Syria, with implied future claims over more of the Levant region, including Jordan, Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Kuwait, a part of southern Turkey—including Hatay, part of the former Aleppo Vilayet of Ottoman Syria—and Cyprus.[2][3]

to

The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (alternatively translated as Islamic State of Iraq and Syria and Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham) (Arabic: الدولة الاسلامية في العراق والشام al-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fī al-ʻIrāq wa-al-Shām), abbreviated ISIL, ISIS, or from its Arabic acronym as DĀʻiSh or DAISH (Arabic: داعش Dāʻish), now officially calling itself The Islamic State[1] (Arabic: الدولة الإسلامية al-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah), is an unrecognized state and active jihadist militant group in Iraq and Syria. In its self-proclaimed status as a sovereign state, it claims the territory of Iraq and Syria, with implied future claims over more of the Levant region, including Jordan, Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Kuwait, a part of southern Turkey—including Hatay, part of the former Aleppo Vilayet of Ottoman Syria—and Cyprus.[2][4]

for the time being, until there is a consensus among Enlish-language RSs and Wikipedia editors that we should use the new official name here as the main one. The infobox and references within the article should be consistent with this. This is in keeping with the convention still present in This AP article and most other sources too. On the other hand, at least two (the Telegraph and AFP) have adopted the change. We should keep a close eye on what sources do -- I suggest keeping track of which sources follow which conventions in this section. I think we should weight Al Jazeera, AP, the BBC, NPR, and AFP heavily in deciding which convention to follow. Josiah Stevenson (talk) 22:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


Partial list of reliable sources that still call it ISIS/ISIL despite acknowledging the name change announcement by the group (as we should too, as long as there are a significant number of sources here):


Partial list of reliable sources that have adopted the name change:

  • AFP, in its tweet


Josiah Stevenson (talk) 22:44, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

@Josiahstevenson:, I agree with your proposal, it also reads better. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 09:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


It seems Al Jazeera has made the switch. Once one or two more follow suit, I think we should do so here too (should be clear in the next 24 hours). Josiah Stevenson (talk) 10:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I'd wait for the results of "Requested move 2" before doing anything. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 10:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Of course! I just mean I'm likely to change my vote up there if others do what Al Jazeera's done, and it seems like many of the other "oppose" votes will too. Josiah Stevenson (talk) 11:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Surely, the territorial claim would have to change as well. Isn't the point of the name change that they no longer claim to be limited to Iraq and al Sham but now claim to be the universal Caliphate I.e. global leader of Muslims? DeCausa (talk) 21:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree; I think the statement of its claim should be updated to reflect the universality. Some distinction may be warranted (not sure if the group draws it) between (1) the broad, aspirational borders that contain substantial parts of Europe that the group seeks to eventually bring under its control; (2) the territory over which it claims more immediate control; and (3) the boundaries of its actual current military control. I would tend to put Syria, Iraq, and the rest of the immediate Levant area in category (2), but we should look more carefully about whether any distinction along the lines of (1) and (2) exists in terms of the group's current claims. Overall, though, yes -- the second sentence should primarily state that the group "claims to be an Islamic Caliphate with universal authority over all Muslims and aspires to establish political control over the parts of the world inhabited by Muslims", or something broadly like that. The lead should also say of course that the group currently controls parts of Iraq and Syria, and perhaps that its current military campaign aims to bring the entire Levant under its sway. Or something like that. Josiah Stevenson (talk) 23:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I think we should change the lead to
The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (alternatively translated as Islamic State of Iraq and Syria and Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham) (Arabic: الدولة الاسلامية في العراق والشام al-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fī al-ʻIrāq wa-al-Shām), abbreviated ISIL, ISIS, or from its Arabic acronym as DĀʻiSh or DAISH (Arabic: داعش Dāʻish), now officially calling itself simply the Islamic State[1][5][6] (Arabic: الدولة الإسلامية al-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah), is an unrecognized state and active jihadist militant group in Iraq and Syria. In its self-proclaimed status as the Caliphate, it claims religious authority over all Muslims and aspires to bring much of the Muslim-inhabited regions of the world under its direct political control,[7] beginning with the nearby territory in the Levant region.[2][8]
or something similar very soon, per your suggestion, my agreement with it, reliable sources to that effect already cited at the name itself, and no objections so far. Suggestions for improvement are more than welcome. Josiah Stevenson (talk) 09:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Changed just now. Josiah Stevenson (talk) 23:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The Economist is now using "The IS". -- Ypnypn (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Josiah Stevenson (talk) 02:36, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
@Josiahstevenson: More sources are switching to "Islamic State". I think it's time now. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 00:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)}

Kuwait is not apart of the Levant or Al-Shams region, it is not mentioned in the two sources either. Levant area is near east and includes Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria.

refs

  1. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference newname was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b c "THE SHORT ANSWER:Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham". Wall Street Jounal. Jun 12, 2014. Retrieved 15 June 2014. Cite error: The named reference "WSJb12-6-2014" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  3. ^ Tharoor, Ishaan. "ISIS or ISIL? The debate over what to call Iraq's terror group". http://www.washingtonpost.com. The Washington Post. Retrieved 18 June 2014. {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help)
  4. ^ Tharoor, Ishaan. "ISIS or ISIL? The debate over what to call Iraq's terror group". http://www.washingtonpost.com. The Washington Post. Retrieved 18 June 2014. {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help)
  5. ^ "ISIL renames itself 'Islamic State' and declares Caliphate in captured territory". euronews.com. Retrieved 30 June 2014.
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference Ibrahim was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ "Isis rebels declare 'Islamic state' in Iraq and Syria". bbc.com. Retrieved 30 June 2014.
  8. ^ Tharoor, Ishaan. "ISIS or ISIL? The debate over what to call Iraq's terror group". http://www.washingtonpost.com. The Washington Post. Retrieved 18 June 2014. {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help)

Wahhabi movement

Is "Wahhabi movement" suitable to be included in "See also" section? some websites claim it to follow wahhabi ideology. Mhhossein (talk) 12:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

No, reliable sources do not use Wahhabi to refer to ISIS or other active Sunni Jihadist groups around the world. Terms used much more widely by academic and journalistic sources include Jihadism and Salafist Jihadism. Wahhabism is inaccurate to use to describe them, as they are influenced by sources beyond al-Wahhab, such as Sayyid Qutb. In addition, the provided link does not contain the term Wahhabi. Gazkthul (talk) 23:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
But they are following similar ideology in practice! needs to be verified?Mhhossein (talk) 05:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Similar but not the same. Wahabism refers to a specific ideology that originated around the teachings of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab in (Saudi) Arabia, however it has come to be used as a vague term to describe any radical Sunni movement. Salafist Jihadism is a more accurate term because these groups draw from influences beyond al-Wahhab, such as Sayyid Qutb. Gazkthul (talk) 08:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Why The Name Change?

Why was this page moved? The former title doesn't even redirect to this page. I suggest we return the former title. See. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibrahimsqureshi (talk • contribs) 17:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I have moved it back to the original title. The move made by User:Teaksmitty was improper while the discussion above is still ongoing. De728631 (talk) 18:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Reversion of Ideology and beliefs

@Sa.vakilian The following part of the article mentioned in Ideology and beliefs section is omitted merely for being published in PRESS TV:

Zaid Hamid, a Sunni Muslim defense analyst from Pakistan, says that ISIS and related terrorist groups are not Sunnis, but Kharijite heretics serving an imperial anti-Islamic agenda.[Barrett, Kevin. "'Is ISIL really 'Sunni'? Not at all'". Press TV. Retrieved 6 July 2014.]

It should be mentioned that this claim is quoted from an article by Dr. Kevin Barrett, a Ph.D. Arabist-Islamologist, who is one of America's best-known critics of the War on Terror. Dr. Barrett has appeared many times on Fox, CNN, PBS and other broadcast outlets, and has inspired feature stories and op-eds in the New York Times, the Christian Science Monitor, the Chicago Tribune, and other leading publications. Dr. Barrett has taught at colleges and universities in San Francisco, Paris, and Wisconsin, where he ran for Congress in 2008. He is the co-founder of the Muslim-Christian-Jewish Alliance, and author of the books Truth Jihad: My Epic Struggle Against the 9/11 Big Lie (2007) and Questioning the War on Terror: A Primer for Obama Voters (2009).

@Gazkthul & @Septate So please do research before doing such omissions and let other editors comment on these matters by discussing them in the article talk page before doing any thing. Thanks Mhhossein (talk) 06:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Zaid Hamid - "Through his TV programmes, Hamid has claimed that a nexus between RAW, Mossad and the CIA is responsible for the destabilization of Pakistan. He also claims that the November 2008 Mumbai attacks, were part of a plan hatched by "Hindu Zionists"", and that it was an attempt by the Indians to stage an attack just like the Americans executed the September 11 attacks."
Kevin Barrett - "'As a Ph.D. Islamologist and Arabist I really hate to say this, but I'll say it anyway: 9/11 had nothing to do with Islam. The war on terror is as phony as the latest Osama bin Laden tape." Barrett has also alleged the 2005 London bombings and the 2004 Madrid bombing appear to have been committed by U.S. or western military intelligence and not Islamic terrorists."
"In an interview with Iran's Press TV which aired on March 30, 2014, Barrett suggested that Israel may have been behind the recent disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, explaining that "Christopher Bollyn just found that there is an identical twin of this plane. It has been sitting in a hangar in Tel Aviv, Israel, for the past couple of months. There was a shell-game played with this aircraft. It was in the south of France, and then they moved it down to Israel. Speculation is that there was some sort of false-flag plan afoot, perhaps another planes-into-buildings deception like 9/11. We have so many parallels between this event and 9/11.'"
Without taking any stance on those above opinions, I believe as sources they fall within the category of WP:FRINGE, what do other editors think? Gazkthul (talk) 08:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
There are the other sources which support this viewpoint.
  • " In January, shortly after the fighting between ISIS and insurgent groups began, Tartusi issued a fatwa calling on Muslims to fight ISIS, whom he said were Kharijites, a sect distinct from Shia and Sunni Muslims."[7]
  • "Zaid Hamid, a Sunni Muslim defense analyst from Pakistan, says ISIS and related terrorist groups are not Sunnis, but Kharajite heretics serving an imperial anti-Islamic agenda. (The Kharajites were an ultra-radical group that rejected early versions of both Sunni and Shia Islam and stepped outside of the Islamic community – hence their name, which means “those who step outside.”) Hamid argues that the ultra-radical groups destabilizing Pakistan, Syria and Iraq have indeed stepped outside of Islam, and are making war on Islam and Muslims on behalf of Zionism and imperialism.[8]
  • Adnan Arour: "حذر الداعية السلفي التكفيري عدنان العرعور السوريين من ما يسمى بـ "الدولة الاسلامية في العراق والشلام" (داعش)، واصفا أفرادها بأنهم "إما خوارج أو يخترقهم النظام ليشوه ثورتكم"، على حد تعبيره." [9][10][11]

Therefor, I suggest to add a sentence which says some of the Muslim scholars resembles/describes ISIS as Kharijites.--Seyyed(t-c) 07:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like a reasonable compromise Gazkthul (talk) 08:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree that Kevin Barrett is a fringe, unreliable source. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Sunnis who don't subscribe to Takfiri ideology are always refered to as modern day Kharwarij (not Kharjites),by the Muslims who don't believe in Takfir, but every group fighting Assad isa Takfiri, or they cojuldn't fight him, as usualy by those without understanding of the basis of takfir, and its practice among the ASahaba (Abu Bakr fought a Muslim group just for giving up one aspect of sharia, PAYING ZAKAT, SO WHAT OF THOSE WHO ABANDON IT COMPLETELY? wAS ABU bAKR AS-SIDIQ A Kharwarij? Yassin.

Al-Qaeda and "too extreme"

I have already once removed (giving reasons in the edit summary) the statement about Al-Qaeda cutting ties with ISIS because it was "too extreme", but it has been put back in by the same person. The footnotes appended do not back up the statement. "Too extreme" is a quotation from the headline in an article cited in one of the footnotes. Al-Qaeda has never said in so many words that ISIS is "too extreme". If everyone is happy for this misleading quotation to remain in the article, so be it; I am not reverting it again as I do not want to edit-war. --P123ct1 (talk) 09:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Various sources (including the one that accompanies the the statement) says this. Therefore I'd say it's relevant in this case, maybe it should be reworded. I'd be happy to remove it though. Actually, you can also go ahead right now too. However, I can't find the footnote you're talking about but it doesn't really matter. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 13:30, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for responding. Footnote #39 (Ken Barrett's article) has "too extreme" as part of a headline. Although this probably is one reason why al-Qaeda kicked ISIS out, I think we should be careful about how we report this. If one reads both articles carefully, AQ did not actually spell this out as a reason. It seems to be an inference made by journalists and now the world. If you can find sources where AQ actually did say this, we can add it back in. I wouldn't normally be so pedantic, but it doesn't seem right to put such a huge statement into AQ's mouth. I have put in some alternative wording which I think covers it. --P123ct1 (talk) 15:30, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
PS From what AQ actually said at the time, ISIS was thrown out because it fought too much with the other AQ factions, refused to listen to AQ (its master), and was more interested in building an Islamic caliphate than promoting the AQ cause. --P123ct1 (talk) 16:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
"Too extreme" is in the body of the piece as well as the headline, but I agree there's journalist interpretation going on here. The third cite also talks sbout extremism being a cause. I've edited it to read "reportedly for being "too extreme" or for its "notorious intractability"", which I think brings in the WT's interpretation that it is intractability that was the cause, and also that all we are doing is passing on media interpretation. DeCausa (talk) 08:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. Interestingly, the third cite (which I unearthed) reports one commentator's view that the idea that extremism was a cause is overblown (which is why I added it). --P123ct1 (talk) 10:58, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
We should never depend upon headlines, which are not normally written by the reporter but by someone like a subeditor and are meant to be attention grabbing, not necessarily accurate. Dougweller (talk) 18:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely. Boko Haram is also called "too extreme" by Reuters (and similar or copy-pasters). Not in the body, though. This is the closest I've seen to an explanation. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I got rid of "too extreme", which really is such an empty phrase. Extreme how? The word extreme gets bandied around out of sheer laziness half the time. Anyway, I switched it to wanton brutality, which is something al-Zawahiri has repeatedly criticised AQI/ISIS about. AntiqueReader (talk) 12:09, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
"Extreme" is a word used in the citations. "Wanton" is a quaint, old-fashioned word hardly in use today and one I doubt many modern readers who don't have English as their first language will have heard of. --P123ct1 (talk) 14:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
It looks the way it is in my opinion. For example, "Levant" is also a quaint, old-fashioned word. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 18:08, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Still common currency in academic circles. --P123ct1 (talk)
Common, but odd. "Too" means to a high degree or extent: very or extremely or more than what is wanted, needed, acceptable, possible, etc. "Extreme" (seemingly) still means very great in degree or very far from agreeing with the opinions of most people. It's like a play on words, except apparently serious.
Maybe Extreme parroted it best themselves with III Sides to Every Story. Or maybe it was 2 Unlimited's Real Things. Just one more third album, since I'm Too Legit to Quit. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Ideology & Belief

The article lacks a section describing the ideology and beliefs of this ISIL. It should be notified what makes them toward such a movement. Mhhossein (talk) 13:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I Think the form of Government were Wrong, Caliphate was not Monarchy which Based on Bloodline, while Caliphate based on Majlis Shura or Islamic Scholars Parliament — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahendra (talk • contribs) 21:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
A Monarchy does not have to be hereditary, and a Caliphate seems to fit within the category. See the linked wikipedia article on "monarchy" in general, especially "cases in which the monarch's discretion is formally limited (most common today) are called constitutional monarchies. In hereditary monarchies, the office is passed through inheritance within a family group, whereas elective monarchies use some system of voting. Each of these has variations: in some elected monarchies only those of certain pedigrees are eligible, whereas many hereditary monarchies impose requirements regarding the religion, age, gender, mental capacity, and other factors." Josiah Stevenson (talk) 04:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

In That Case then it was not "Absolute Monarchy". but "Constitutional Monarchy" at best. you cannot Ignore the Shura Council Factor here, and we were talking about Government System, not Religion or Age etc

Look, the Vatican City is listed as an absolute monarchy, among other things. The relevant question is "does the autocrat wield absolute power once chosen?". I think the answer is "yes" here, so ISIL is an absolute monarchy. It's also perhaps some of "sacerdotial-monarchial", "elective monarchy" and/or "elective theocracy" (although really, I doubt the "elective" part), or other things like that, but that doesn't mean it isn't also an "absolute monarchy". Josiah Stevenson (talk) 21:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

the Link of 'Absulute Monarchy' of Vatican city http://www.catholic-pages.com/vatican/vatican_city.asp and the website's for description of Government System were Superficial, and again if you think "Monarchy" same as "theocracy" then it was all wrong(Ahendra (talk) 17:47, 6 July 2014 (UTC))

I don't think "monarchy" and "theocracy" are the same, but the Vatican is very clearly both, and so is a caliphate. It's not one or the other here. Josiah Stevenson (talk) 18:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2014

The date in the caption of the map near the bottom of the article (in the section "2014 events") reads "Current (June 2014) situation". The map was last updated today, July 11, and so the date in the caption needs to be "July 2014". Thanks. SaltySeas (talk) 22:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Done Supersaiyen312 (talk) 23:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Weapons and equipment

This section makes a variety of unsourced claims about weapons and equipment, including the claim that ISIS fighters wear US uniforms and body armor. It would be get a source for this claim, because it seems unusual that a militant jihadist group would wear US uniforms.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 16:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

the uniforms and armour mentioned are likely not US uniforms but rather, US supplied to the Iraqi army. There are various reports of IS militants wearing iraqi uniforms and impersonating iraqi forces. As for the body armour, they will obviously use what they capture.XavierGreen (talk) 19:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia and ISIS

Article by Patrick Cockburn about Saudi and ISIS. I don't have time to add it just now, but can do so later today. If anyone else wants to add it before then, feel free, obviously. AntiqueReader (talk) 08:40, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit Revert

User:Ahendra has been Reverting my reverts for him. He thinks that this section of the article is "Propaganda", while I see it as well sourced and relevant. Should it be deleted, or is User:Ahendra just causing trouble?Staglit (talk) 23:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

A couple of those sources look pretty iffy to me: CNSNews.com and The Clarion Project. Quote from the latter page: "The group has been involved in the production or distribution of films such as Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West, The Third Jihad, and Iranium." The Inquisitr uses the Clarion Project report as it's source. The Sexual jihad claim seems disputed, with the cleric alleged to be behind it denouncing it as a hoax. The Buzzfeed source contains the following disclaimer: It is difficult to establish whether, or how much, sexual violence may be occurring in Mosul. Hannaa Edwar, a leading women’s rights advocate in Baghdad who runs an NGO called al-Amal, or Hope, said that as soon as she heard the rumors of sexual violence in Mosul, she scrambled to check them with her contacts there. None could confirm new cases of rape. All in all, I don't think this is very well sourced. Perhaps a line could be said about unproven allegations having been reported etc. Gazkthul (talk) 02:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
@Staglit After all these materials might be found in lots of other creditable sources, some of which are as follows:

...who went door to door in Mosul, the second largest city in Iraq, taking "women who are not owned" for "Jihad Nikah" or sex Jihad. Between June 9th and June 12th, women's rights activists documented 13 cases of women who were kidnapped and raped by militants of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)...

according to this source and some other sources,"The reports came from Al-Masryalyoum, a well-respected Egyptian daily newspaper as well as other sources in the Arab press."

@User:Ahendra So, the mentioned materials are creditable and verifiable. These article is viewed many times per day. So, be careful about what you write or what you omitt and revert. As I said before, do a little research before doing such reversions. Mhhossein (talk) 05:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I only read English, but that Shoebat has a clear Christian agenda, and the Free Republic is hardcore American Conservative ("We're working to...champion causes which further conservatism in America. And we always have fun doing it. Hoo-yah!")
These sites don't seem to care for fact-checking. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

It looks like many ppl were Pissed because im telling the truth, it looks like i must point my Evidence,

lets take Example Al-Arabiya report about 'sexual Jihad' http://english.alarabiya.net/en/variety/2013/09/28/Kidnapped-Syrian-women-forced-to-make-sexual-jihad-claims-on-state-TV.html

and THEN ONE RESEARCH CAST DOUBT OF IT AS VIRAL PROPAGANDA IN SYRIA-IRAQ WHICH EMULATED BY STIRRED OPINION AND ANOTHER SETUP WHICH IS REPORTED BY BIASED MEDIA! http://www.moroccoworldnews.com/2013/10/107183/sex-jihad-in-syria-a-mere-hoax/?print=pdf YOU ALL SHOULD TAKE SUSPICION TOO(Ahendra (talk) 07:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC))

this is Opinion which doubt the credibility of report about 'Sexual Jihad' in Syria

The Syrian regime published testimony by female teenager who was a purported victim. Rawan Qadah narrated a story of such proportions that only the Syrian regime could have fabricated it. Rawan narrated an incoherent story of how her father conspired against her and used her as a sexual commodity.

Perhaps the story which Rawan narrated is itself a crime committed by the Syrian regime; it doesn’t stop at anything for the sake of staying in power. The tragedy of Rawan, who was kidnapped months ago and whose father is an opponent of the regime, urged several media outlets to dig into this made-up phenomenon dubbed “sexual jihad.”

French daily Le Monde and American magazine Foreign Policy wrote articles and conducted investigation reports on this lie. After that, a torrent of Western and Arab articles were published in media outlets around the world in an attempt to compensate for falling in the trap of such a lie.

Perhaps the best means which Le Monde and Foreign Policy adopted in solving the case was beginning their investigation at the root of the issue. The sheikh whom the fatwa was attributed to has confirmed several times that he did not issue this fatwa. The media outlet which marketed this story for the first time was one that supports the Syrian regime. Not a single case of sexual jihad could be proven. Tunisian officials who spoke on the subject did not present solid evidence either. It later turned out that they had personal interests to achieve by making these statements.

http://www.aawsat.net/2013/10/article55318787


i Revert it not because im vandalist, i Revert it because the topic were full of Opinion and Suspicious, if i want to Vandal then i will not Delete it Instead change the Information about 'Sexual Jihad' to 'Mutah Marriage of Shia'and then i delete the Entire Section about the treatment to Civilian,

All i want is Wikipedia should be Accurate and Objective article instead of Propaganda Media(Ahendra (talk) 07:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC))

@Ahendra @Sa.vakilian @P123ct1 Syria, Syria and again syria. How about Mosul and Iraq? you can't forget these sources only for some issues in Syria. Please avoid reverting. as I believe you are involving a war edit and I avoid further editions on this part until the dispute is resolved. and another point: You are going to deleted the entire section about treatment of civilians on which basis? Mhhossein (talk) 08:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I am not aware of having reverted anything. I would like an explanation. Please see my message to you on your Talk page. --P123ct1 (talk) 08:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
@User:Ahendra, I think we can reach compromise by adding the other viewpoints to the article. I propose "Sexual violence allegations" as the NPOV title. --Seyyed(t-c) 08:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
@User:Ahendra, @User:Sa.vakilian Ok, It's a good idea to replace the title with the proposed one, maintain the previous material and add the other point of view to the existing one. Mhhossein (talk) 05:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Okay everyone, I agree now that due to the limited access of reliable sources, we shouldn't include all of this information. It is obvious that sexual violence is happening, but we cannot guess, we have to have actual facts. I would propose having only a small section based on the little information we have instead on a large one filled with info from unreliable sites, be it Huffington Post, which has a very liberal bias, or a conservative bias. And finally, omg people, format this carefully! It looks like a toilet :(. Staglit (talk) 21:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
that's more proper as Objective Article(Ahendra (talk) 17:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC))

Copyright status of al-Furqan Media Productions / Global Islamic Media Front productions

Since they don't go by modern law this might be kind of an absurd question, but because of the rules for putting content on Wikimedia Commons I'm wondering what the copyright status is for media like "Clashing of the Swords IV". Has al-Furqan Media Productions (which is listed as producing that video) or Global Islamic Media Front (GIMF) ever made a statement about public domain status or Creative Commons licensing for the materials they distribute? (See also the Commons thread and a user there whose uploads were deleted or pending deletion for lack of copyright status) Wnt (talk) 12:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Well to start with as a united states entity, wikipedia does not need to pay any regard to the copyright laws of a state the united states does not recognize. Even if wikipedia is registered as an entity in other countries, since no country recognizes the Islamic State no country recognizes its copyright laws which i would assume it does not yet have anyway. That is assuming the agencies in question are affiliated with the islamic state.XavierGreen (talk) 00:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
You might want to ask this on Wikipedia:ELN. Possibly relevant, the Inspire (magazine) page does not link to issues of the magazine. Gazkthul (talk) 01:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
This is only incidentally relevant. I'm asking if anyone knows what the underlying copyright status is of these particular publications for our purposes. It is preferable to have the material on Commons in a fully open format rather than linking to a third party site. However, even if copyright prevents Commons from hosting the content, a Fair Use claim may protect Wikipedia when hosting a local copy. Third party sources hosting such content may have Fair Use also, or be authorized, and should not assume to be a copyvio issue without evidence. Wnt (talk) 02:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
The curators at Archive.org have collected the some of their releases and have assumed a Public Domain license. Take a look here. - Technophant (talk) 01:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Citations and paywalls

It does not seem right to use publications that have subscription paywalls in citations, such as the Financial Times. Perhaps these should be avoided in footnotes, for the sake of transparency. --P123ct1 (talk) 12:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Please note that I did not add the list below. It is unsigned. --P123ct1 (talk) 12:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

@user:P123ct1 I added a reflist to the lead section above to keep unwanted refs from appearing at the bottom of the page. - Technophant (talk) 04:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
No, so far as we have the date of the publication and the full title (and author if pertinent), then that's fine. We shouldn't avoid reliable sources such as the New York Times, etc. simply because you have to pay to read their websites. See WP:VERIFY. Dougweller (talk) 08:29, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I had already read WP:VERIFY and meant avoid them if there is not a reliable alternative, of course. Anyone who uses a source with a paywall should make the effort to find an equally respectable citation to add to it or replace it. Wikipedia needs to help its readers. If I see a link to the same paywalled publication on google that is freely accessible, I will note this on the footnote beside "Subscription required". What did you mean by "if pertinent"? Did you not mean "if available", or is there some rule about this? --P123ct1 (talk) 22:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
If you can find a source that has the same information that is not paywall then it's best to use that one instead. Also, it is good practice to add a quote in the citation of the paragraph you got your information from so a reader on the wrong side of the wall can still verify the source. - Technophant (talk)
That's correct. Sorry P123ct1, but as I have seen people say we should never use paywalled sources I misunderstood you. Dougweller (talk) 12:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
@Dougweller: That's OK. The other point: don't authors' names, if known, always have to be added to the citation? You said "if pertinent" and I wasn't sure what you meant. --P123ct1 (talk) 12:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Careless of me, I meant if known. Sorry. Dougweller (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Twitter as a source

It seems to be a major source here - how does it meet WP:RS? Dougweller (talk) 20:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The number of Twitter sources, and even a YouTube source, in the "Equipment" section makes that section a bit of a joke, in my opinion. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Good to see you have removed them all! --P123ct1 (talk) 09:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islamic_State/Archive_2&oldid=1136827306"