Talk:Islamic State

Template:Syrian Civil War sanctions

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.)

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)

Name of article

Why is this still called (the expansion of) "ISIL"? All the news organizations I can find (and the same point is confirmed by someone else's list above) call it either ISIS or IS. The entity itself apparently calls itself IS. There may have been a time a few months ago when ISIL seemed OK as a title, but now it looks behind the times. W. P. Uzer (talk) 08:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

W. P. Uzer, I generally agree but use of Isil persists in the news and it remains a recognisable name. The original discussion on the topic was: Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/Archive 10#References in the text: ISIS or ISIL? which may now be dated. GregKaye 11:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Seems to me ISIL is being used less and less in the news. But even if that's the title we're using for now, we should still follow normal Wikipedia practice and put the other common (more common, in this case) English names in the first sentence, otherwise it looks as if we're taking a stand as to what the group "ought" to be called. I think also the Arabic form of the self-appellation "Islamic State" should appear somewhere - I assume it's just the first two words of the full name. W. P. Uzer (talk) 12:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

You are wrong. See the recent RM at the top of this page, where such evidence was provided (it just closed yesterday). I'm not sure if you are American, but "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" with the ISIS acronym dominates British and Irish usage. RGloucester — ☎ 14:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Reverted. I agree that ISIS is more common than ISIL, but we can't claim it stands for Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Rothorpe (talk) 14:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

It is not a "claim". This usage is standard in RS. I provided the sources in the RM discussion above: The Daily Telegraph, the Financial Times, the Daily Mail, The Guardian, the Daily Mirror. RGloucester — ☎ 18:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• DeCausa, why you claiming that "ISIS" is an abbreviation for "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria"? It isn't. It is an abbreviation for "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant". Sources have been provided. Please do not remove sourced content. RGloucester — ☎ 18:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

That creates an absurdity. All those sources show is that in the abbreviated form ISIS is more common than ISIL, even when the source uses the long form "...and the Levant". It's SYNTH (and obvious nonsense) to believe those sources they are saying that those initials stand for that long form. There is no useful purpose to the reader to include "ISIS" twice. I find it difficult to believe that it is even necessary to explain that. DeCausa (talk) 18:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I made no comment about what it "stands for". I said that "ISIS" is used an abbreviation for "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant". This is a fact. "ISIS" is not proper to "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria". The proper abbreviation for "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" must be shown. "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" should not even be granted an abbreviation. I say write "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS)", and write "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" with no abbreviation at all. RGloucester — ☎ 18:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I thought I'd seen some nonsensical positions while editing WP but that really takes the biscuit. DeCausa (talk) 19:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

HH (which stands for: I agree with DeCausa). Rothorpe (talk) 19:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

You may agree, but the fact remains that "ISIS" is an abbreviation for "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant", and is widely used by RS. RGloucester — ☎ 20:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The sources you cite don't say that at all. I'm afraid you've disappeared "up" your own rabbithole. DeCausa (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

If a source writes "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isis)", that fairly obviously means that they believe "Isis" to be a suitable acronym for "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant". "Isis" may well be derived from "Sham", and not "Syria", given that "Syria" is plain wrong, and that the long form "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" predominates in RS, and has done so, though some have converted to "Islamic State". Regardless, all long form translations take "Isis" as an acronym. Isis, one could say, has taken on its own life. Many sources use "Isis" without any long form, something I also demonstrated in the above discussion. Certainly, Isis might not be considered an acronym or abbreviation at all, but a name in its own right. RGloucester — ☎ 21:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Pure WP:SYNTH, Alice, which even if true still would not support your bizarre edit. 22:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

How can it be "SYNTH"? One source is enough, and there is nothing bizarre about it. ISIS is not proper to "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria". RGloucester — ☎ 22:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Probably ISIS or Isis is becoming the most common name, and possibly ought to be what the article is eventually titled. The introduction is always going to look a bit bizarre at the moment, since it needs to link in with the current title, which is not really the right one. Maybe rather than put ISIS in parentheses after something, we should write "...also known as ISIS (an acronym for ... or ...)". W. P. Uzer (talk) 07:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

RGloucester, you say that "it fairly obviously means thay believe "Isis" to be a suitable acronym for "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant". Of course it doesn't. You've drawn a conclusion which isn't stated in the source. This is excacerbated by it being a particularly bizarre conclusion. None of your sources say it is an acronym for the "...and the Levant" version of the name, they're using it as an alternative name. Apart from the fact that they don't actually say it is an acronym, how do we know that? Because a wording beginning with an L doesn't figure as an S in an acronym of course. I can't believe I'm having to write this. On the other hand, however, the Washington Post article currently cited aginst that line in the article says "The Washington Post has been referring to the organization as ISIS, shorthand for the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria". So that it is a source which explicitly states it. Your sources are allegedly make your Alice-in-Wonderland point in an implied way. This one makes the opposite point explicitly. Sheesh. DeCausa (talk) 12:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

You're the one that's nonsensical. Acronyms need not align with the long form. The fact remains that "ISIS" is often attached to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. It is not owned by Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. It is proper to all long forms, even Islamic State. RGloucester — ☎ 15:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

"Acronyms need not align with the long form." Now that's nonsense. Rothorpe (talk) 16:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

RGloucester I believe your suggestion somewhere above of having a seperate section on names is a good idea and is reflected within our guidelines. We should keep one name in the lead and document the other names in a separate section. Also Islamic State of Iraq and Syria are not the sole proprietors of ISIS. The acronym also represents Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant as taken from its Arabic alternative of Islam State of Iraq and al-Sham. However I should say that ISIL is still commonly used within the sources. Mbcap (talk) 17:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I checked through here and I don't believe anyone has mentioned that al-Shaam in Arabic means Damascus (in Shaami/Levantine dialect), Syria, and Levant. That's the reason for so many different names. So just choose the most common one. ISIL is technically more correct thing as they envision control over the entire Levant and so it would be great and accurate if thats how the RSs treat it. Just so everyone has a bit of perspective. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 25 Adar 5775 17:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

As both ISIS and ISIL are still commonly used by news organizations, I think sticking with the most accurate translation of ad-Dawlat al-Islāmiyah fī al-ʿIrāq wa sh-Shām (ISIL) makes sense. I understand many moderate Islamic groups have objected to the IS name, as the name plays into ISIL's desire to be seen as the Islamic State of Mahdi predicted in Islam at the time of the apocalypse. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 15:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

"Groups" objections to the Islamic State's name are pretty irrelevant on Wikipedia, don't you think? Don't we go by what the WP:RS read? By the way, here is a headline from today's Wall Street Journal: "Islamic State Claims Responsibility for Tunisia Museum Attack". Don't like the headline? How about the text? Here's the first sentence: "Islamic State claimed responsibility on Thursday for the attack on a museum in the Tunisian capital that killed 21 people, including 18 foreign tourists." XavierItzm (talk) 21:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Nothing in Gouncbeatduke's reply suggests that he was advocating a name change based on the feelings of other groups (personally, I'd prefer Khawarej Daeshbag swine, but that wouldn't fly), merely that he understands their position. Understanding means you get why someone feels that way, not that you agree or disagree with them. Gouncbeatduke also said in the first part of his post that he was basing his choice on what most news organisations say and these are often our reliable sources for these matters. Please remember this in the future before posting replies that come off as rude and combative, XavierItzm. Thank you. Also, Gouncbeatduke, I did not know that shin was a sun letter (changes the sound of the definite article). Thank you. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 28 Adar 5775 23:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Official name

• This is only discussing one of the alternative titles, not the article title (i.e. not the name of the article). Discussions of the article title should not be done in this section. Widefox; talk 01:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
• The official name is Islamic State. That should be listed as such in the lede as a valid alternative title (irrespective of the current title per WP:COMMONNAME). It is against policy to hide per WP:CENSOR or disagree with that fact per WP:NPOV. The argument that the name is invalid as it is self-chosen is folly. Organisations chose their own name (generally). Attempts to delegitimise the name by that argument seem to be conflating the factual organisation name with the controvercial territorial claim (which of course the name asserts). That valid argument is best utilised in discussing the legitimacy backing the name as a self-proclaimed caliphate and unrecognised country, which is important, and should be detailed per WP:BALANCE and WP:WEIGHT but not used in delegitimising the latest of a string of names this group call themselves this minute.
• User:Legacypac and User:Ljgua124 re this undo [1], if we can not conflate the legitimacy of the name and the legitimacy of the territorial claim there may be a way forward. Widefox; talk 10:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Official name according to who? Groups do not get to pick their own name without restriction. I can't form "The United States" or "The Catholic Church" and expect anyone to call my group that. If I want to form a legal group in Canada/Iraq or Syria I need to register the name with the government. They are not a legally registered anything. They are not any kin of country either according to all reliable sources. The world community generally rejects the territorial claims (claim of up to the entire world), religious claim (all muslims must follow) and political claims (all governments are void) and the name that demands all this. What is in it for you to push terrorist propaganda at Wikipedia that goes against the condemnation of many world leaders, muslim leaders, and the standard name DAESH used in the region? Your proposed name has been rejected here repeatedly, so why push again unless you are trying to push the terrorist agenda? Legacypac (talk) 10:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Legal registration means nothing when it comes to militant groups. The group has called itself 'Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant', and that was considered legitimate, but removing that describer somehow makes it less legitimate? And we are talking here about the legitimacy of the name, not the territorial claim. The two are independent of each other - just because the name the group identifies itself with changes, it does not mean their integrity changes too. The name is self-styled but there's no reason to pursue a practice of undermining a name change. Mind you, the name is recognised.. I see "IS" and "Islamic State" being used daily on television, to undermine a globally acknowledged change of name seems a pointless exercise. This is a global encyclopedia and I believe it should reflect that in at least being passive and impartial towards whatever this group decides to call itself. It is our job to record history, not try and influence it.Ljgua124 (talk) 10:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:NPOV forms a basis for a major argument here. The group has unilaterally made an unfortunate contraction to their name in the claim of being the Islamic State, as caliphate, to purportedly all of Islam and the world. This is a group that burns purportedly Sunni Muslim prisoners of war, that will behead aid workers and a Japanese man that only came to plead for the liberty and release of another prisoner and that has bombs aimed at it inclusive of the, I think justified, writing "enemies of Islam". We can indicate the groups claims here but we can't indicate such far reaching claims in Wikipedia's voice. Other organisations may fail in regard to their standards of NPOV. This is no reason for Wikipedia to do likewise. Isis, Isil and Daesh remain in common currency. They are all reflective of a name chosen by the group and, in a form such as Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, provision is made for natural disambiguation.

The use of Wikipedia designation is not, I think, done to delegitimise the group. Legitimacy and legality is a matter to be worked out within the context of neighbouring nations and in the wider international sphere. Even under the ISI and ISIL names they were not regarded as a state. The difference now is the contested claim of being the Islamic state in regard to people who don't agree. GregKaye 11:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict with above)

Can we hold off on the name changes at least until we finish being reviewed for A-class article status (or a month, whichever is shortest)? We just had failed move request to Islamic State, so the name is not about to change to Islamic State, however much I believe policy says we should. We are getting nowhere, and we could instead by working on improving the article or other projects. I disagree with Greg's argument, but for some reason in our many past discussions we have been unable to get anywhere

Also, I'd be interested to see if anyone would be interested in Requesting mediation over this and one or two other issues, such as quotes from the Quran? Banak (talk) 11:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

We don't need mediation - we need to follow our NPOV policy and the sources which we have generally found do NOT use only "Islamic State" but instead qualify it or use ISIS or ISIL or so called or "group" etc. The name has been stable on Wikipedia since at least Aug 2013 and does not need to change. Legacypac (talk) 17:33, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment User:Banak Legacypac in case this is in any way not clear....this is not about changing the article name. That is a separate issue per WP:COMMONNAME. This is not about COMMONNAME.
• Legacypac if you're actually serious that you think a bunch of people can't call themselves whatever they want (compare with for example an unincorporated organisation), then who do they ask? Your point about using one that doesn't infringe on the rights of holders of other names is a separate issue (which is dealt with by e.g. for registered companies by entities like Companies House (in the UK), and legal restrictions/enforcement such as trademarks, passing off etc bounded by trading areas and sectors). That's all irrelevant, but we'd need to know about Iraqi law to say about that properly. You seriously think they care about Iraqi law, and trademarks anyhow? Tell me, what's the process then for applying for a terrorist organisation name?!
• User:GregKaye I don't understand your NPOV argument. That is what they call themselves. It is their name. A fact. Backed by WP:RS. To want to withhold that is WP:CENSOR. For instance, their multitude of names is reflected in, for example, the BBC which uses variants "IS" "Islamic State" "so-called Islamic State". The point is that's their name (currently). Let's not conflate that with the issue of their recognition as a state, which is another issue. Widefox; talk 19:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

@Widefox: Thanks for the point about it not being a name change, I missed that somehow. Sorry for accidentally misrepresenting what you were doing,

Wikipedia policy does seem to suggest, for it's purposes that an individual cannot unilaterally change their name (see WP:SPNC). The example it gives (Cat_Stevens) has the name they changed to as the leading name, even though the name hasn't changed, so I agree that a title name doesn't have to match the leading name. Banak (talk) 20:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• Widefox Let's do what it takes to present a NPOV presentation of the group. I don't understand where you are coming from with your WP:CENSOR argument which makes no sense. The wording "Islamic State" is still in and has always been in the name "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant". Its just that the second wording, which provides natural disambiguation, makes geographic reference to the main locations in which they are based. In regard to the title's descriptive qualities it is argued here that "Islamic State" falls utterly flat, way short of the most basic standard of WP:AT. Wikipedia is also not a WP:SOAPBOX for 'SIL's extremist religious claim of being the state for all of Islam. Have you read any of the many news articles relating to the many names that are used for the group? GregKaye 20:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Banak It is an organisation name, not a living person. WP:AT WP:BLP do not apply here as we're not discussing the Article Title, or a BLP. It is even OK to even use a self-published source per WP:ABOUTSELF (although we have WP:RS exceeding that)... "the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim". Also OK.

Greg we're not talking about the article title, so disambiguation is irrelevant. This is only about an alternative title (the ones included in bold in the lede). The fact that the characters "Islamic State" are in "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" is irrelevant. They are both proper nouns, names of the organisation (at various times). (Similar org names happen all the time, we don't call KFC "Kentucky Fried Chicken" for the same reason.) They changed their name. (just to spell this out again, I'm not proposing changing the article title). WP doesn't care what you or I think of the group or their name, it is up to us to present their name and not WP:CENSOR it, or present their name with some caveat.

My point is that the name should simply be included as their current name. We should cover how it is a controvercial name per NPOV/WP:BALANCE/WP:WEIGHT. The current wording actually does that, but I want it underlined here with WP:CONSENSUS, that's all. Ref 27 is not a ref, but a collection (see WP:SYN). They need citing individually. Widefox; talk 19:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

@Widefox: I am aware it doesn't apply, I was trying to point out that as according to wikipedia policy individuals cannot unilaterally change their name, and there is therefore no reason to believe organisations can without seeing a policy that says they can, and therefore it probably follows from common usage, which believe IS has. I was also using the example from that page to point out, that even if a name change is rejected that the title doesn't have to match the starting name, which to me seemed odd.

@GregKaye: The only way I see this could violate WP:SOAPBOX is if you believed it counts as "Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment", to refer to IS as such. I consider it no such thing. Calling the "Democratic Republic of the Congo" by this name doesn't imply it is democratic and the only democratic republic in the Congo. Similarly calling "Islamic State" such doesn't imply it is Islamic, a State, or the one and only Islamic State. Banak (talk) 19:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Banak, of course it works as soapbox as just one of the objections. The group claims authority in governance over all of Islam. They call themselves Islamic State. Why do you thing Arabic nations call them Daesh? GregKaye 00:26, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• Banak To clarify, when people and orgs change their name (of course they are free to), that is reflected in the WP article as an alternative title, even if self-sourced (per guidelines above).
• WP:SPNC is about changing the article title (the name above the article). The article title lags that change due to being based on the most used common name in sources. WP:NCCORP is the naming convention similarly for companies, WP:NCPP for political groups, WP:NCGAL for government and legislation (WP:PLACE for the geographical claim). This is all off topic as this isn't about the name of the article.
  • WP:NCPP does say "and place the original native name or names on the first line of the article" so there's an expectation that the names are in the first line (unless there's many like here). Interestingly, WP:NCGAL says to "Use official names". WP:POVNAME is also worth a read.
• Anyhow, this isn't about the article title.
• This is Wikipedia:Article_titles#Treatment_of_alternative_names "If there are at least three alternative names, or there is something notable about the names themselves, a separate name section is recommended (see Lead section)."
  • Importantly "All significant alternative titles, names, or forms of names that apply to a specific article should be made to redirect to that article." So we should have a redirect from Islamic State which we currently don't have (due to an old consensus in discussion of that redirect)

(see also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic_names)#Alternative names has details of 2 or 3 alternative names in bold in the first line (more in a paragraph), and "Local official names are often listed first". )

Greg conflating the issues of name and the claim doesn't help. Widefox; talk 00:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Widefox, I agree that conflating of issues should not be encouraged but this is exactly what I regard to have already happened at the time that this theologically questionable group pronounced themselves as "Islamic State". I don't think that it is right to side with the group and against all the Arab nations all around. GregKaye 01:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out here that I have never heard it being called Daesh either on television, newspapers etc. It seem to me that 'Islamic State' or some variant thereof is the English name in its most common usage. Many people and many organisations don't recognise many other entities around the world, but those names are never conflated with their claim. Ljgua124 (talk) 09:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Ljgua124 I don't know if you have noticed this. In many news interviews I have seen with a wide range of expert and other interviewees, the reporting team may, as you say, refer to the "Islamic State" or "IS" but the interviewee will often make reference to ISIL or ISIS. From what I have seen this happens on the vast majority of such cases. I have not known, when the interviewer starts by speaking of ISIL, that the interviewee will then talk of "Islamic State" or "IS". GregKaye 14:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Widefox that Islamic State is "what they call themselves. It is their name. A fact. Backed by WP:RS. To want to withhold that is WP:CENSOR. For instance, their multitude of names is reflected in, for example, the BBC which uses variants "IS" "Islamic State" "so-called Islamic State"." The point is the current official name is "Islamic State". XavierItzm (talk) 15:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• Entity cannot have an official name, as it is not "official" anything. RGloucester — ☎ 16:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
• On the subject of "official"/self-designated names and what us using them means: there is a terrorist group calling itself the Real Irish Republican Army, and there was once another calling itself the Official Irish Republican Army. Despite the only organisation that could legitimately call itself by either of those names being the actual Irish armed forces, we still refer to the terrorist groups by their chosen names. I don't see why the same shouldn't apply here - within the article, at least initially, refer to IS as IS (or whatever they are calling themselves today), regardless of whether or not they are really "Islamic" or really a "state". Calling them by their name doesn't mean we recognise their claims (any more than having an article on Emperor Norton does). Iapetus (talk) 14:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Poor examples. Also, nope. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 16:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Can you expand on those points? Iapetus (talk) 11:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, these are pretty good examples. The standard is to let people call themselves what they will, and it is seen as an infringement on their rights to call them other than that. This is why you have a Wikipedia entry for the Real Irish Republican Army. In the case of the Islamic State, that's their name. That's why media as diverse as The Guardian and the BBC have created sections on the Islamic State, and named them as such: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/islamic-state/, ISLAMIC STATE CONFLICT (BBC). XavierItzm (talk) 14:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

RGloucester yes, agree. I use "official" here only as shorthand for "self-designated name" (just like we have {{official}}). Both terms are either side of neutrality/illegitimacy. "the name of the organisation". Widefox; talk 15:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

This article is not called "Islamic State" for a variety of reasons, including disambiguation, neutrality, and lack of commonality. Such a renaming has been rejected enough times. That's that. RGloucester — ☎ 17:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

RGloucester, More accurately we have reached no consensus on the last three attempts to do so, rather than the proposal being rejected. Banak (talk) 19:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

RGloucester, this thread is not a proposal to rename the article, from the original post: "This is only discussing one of the alternative titles, not the article title (i.e. not the name of the article)" Gazkthul (talk) 21:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

So Private Manning self-identifies as "Chelsea" and Wikipedia has to use that name, but several thousand people self-identify as the "Islamic State" and the article hasn't been renamed yet? Gee, that's consistent. 208.163.245.159 (talk) 04:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• 208.163.245.159 If Private Manning had called herself something like "Pope of the Catholic church" then it is possible that Wikipedia might not use such a title without some form of disambiguation. GregKaye 18:19, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The argument (well, this particular argument) isn't about what the article is called. I personally have no objection to keeping the article at "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant", or to using "ISIL" in the body of the article whenever they are referred to. As far as I can tell this particular argument is about whether the lede should begin with some variant of "Islamic State (الدولة الإسلامية), formerly (and still commonly referred to in English sources as) Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and also known as X/Y/Z", or if - as at present - it should begin "The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, also known as X/Y/Z and Islamic State". While I'm not too bothered about it, I would support giving its "real" (self-chosen) name first, simply because that is (currently) its "real" name. (I don't care about allegedly "infringing their rights", just clearly and accurately reporting what they call themselves). Conversely I don't think the accuracy of their name in describing what they really are is relevant, any more than it is for all the different Real/Official/etc IRAs, and I don't think the lede should get bogged down in describing how other people don't like it calling itself that. Another article would could perhaps use as a guide is North Korea, which begins "North Korea, officially the Democratic People's Republic of Korea", which gives the common name immediately followed by the official (but completely untruthful) full name. Applied to IS, that would probably correspond to something like "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), officially [The] Islamic State". Iapetus (talk) 14:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree it should read along the lines of "The Islamic State, otherwise known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant...". Mbcap (talk) 15:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Also agree it should read along the lines of "The Islamic State, otherwise known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant..." XavierItzm (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

ISIS has no official name. They are not a recognised state, unlike North Korea. The group doesn't get to decide what they are called. That's not how it works. Sorry. RGloucester — ☎ 17:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Is there a WP:RS to back up the assertion that "The group doesn't get to decide what they are called. That's not how it works."? XavierItzm (talk) 15:05, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I have just started a thread at: Wikipedia talk:Official names#Can the article make a clear statement on the Wikipedia definition of official name? I currently did not find the content very clear. RGloucester , My interpretation is that "Islamic State" is the groups "official name". However I think that it has been rightly argued that the name is laden heavy with POV which is disputed and that an NPOV approach indicates that this designation should not be adopted by Wikipedia. This is the understanding that I have had of the situation but the lack of clarity at WP:OFFICIAL does not help. GregKaye 20:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

"it has been [...] argued that the name is laden heavy with POV". Kindly explain the relevancy of such arguments. Isn't there primacy in the Wikipedia to go by WP:RS? XavierItzm (talk) 00:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: What the Islamic Society of Britain, the Association of British Muslims, and the Association of Muslim Lawyers call this group should carry more weight than a translation of what this bunch calls themselves. Just because Charlie Manson wanted to be called Jesus Christ, that doesn't mean Wikipedia has to do it. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 19:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Martin Luther called the Catholic church "the Whore of Babylon" yet somehow the Wikipedia article on the Catholic church fails to mention this. Why is that? It is because the Wikipedia's policy is to rely on WP:RS, not on propaganda by religious partisans. XavierItzm (talk) 12:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

State/ organisation - can we reword the language?

Something strikes the ear and mind as very odd to say that "The Islamic **State** of Iraq and the Levant is an Islamic extremist rebel **group** controlling territory in Iraq and Syria". It sounds odd to say the "The .... state .... is a .. group ...." Can we not say: "The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant is the **name** used by the Islamic extremist rebel group controlling territory in Iraq and Syria? Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 16:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant is not the name used by the group, Islamic State is. Gazkthul (talk) 21:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I just hate getting replies from people who don't address the question. If you don't understand the issue, don't bother replying. You can help by NOT confusing the issue. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 08:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia You raise an interesting point but I fear that it is one that is out of our hands. "Group", in these cases and as far as I have seen, it the most regularly used reference to a similar form of large collection of people. The problem is that, since they first called themselves "Islamic State of Iraq" their name has been at odds with realities as perceived both in academia and internationally. Their more recent usage of "Islamic State" noted by Gazkthul only exacerbates or otherwise highlights the conflict and I would agree that the situation is rightly described as "very odd". "Rebel" is a common description of "collectives" that operate within the acknowledged borders of nation states and group is the word used in article content such as the linked List of active rebel groups#Groups that control territory. Rebel, in itself, is merely a form of description which is perhaps best known from its context in Star Wars. Searches tend to suggest that ISIL is most commonly regarded as a group.

• (isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND group gets "About 13,900,000 results" in news

(isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND group gets "About 397,000 results" in books

(isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND group gets "About 344,000 results" in scholar

• (isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND (organisation OR organization) gets "About 10,900,000 results" in news

(isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND (organisation OR organization) gets "About 244,000 results" in books

(isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND (organisation OR organization) gets "About 133,000 results" in scholar

There is not a huge amount of difference but I also don't see how calling them something such as a "rebel organisation" would clarify anything. GregKaye 13:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, "terrorist organization" is rather descriptive and it or part of it what is used in the French Wikipedia (État islamique (organisation)), the German Wikipedia (Islamischer Staat (Organisation)), the Spanish Wikipedia (Estado Islámico (organización terrorista)). The Italian Wikipedia is more clear-headed and just calls it what it is (Stato Islamico). XavierItzm (talk) 21:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Greg. Yes, it is a tricky one. As for "rebel" reminds me of the Angolan civil war, with UNITA being referred to as "rebels" or "freedom fighters", depending on whether you liked or disliked them. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 14:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

RfC: What content should be used in the "Ideologies" section of the ISIL infobox?

Content that has, at various times, previously been included in "Ideologies" section of the infobox include:

• Sunni Islam/Sunni Islamism, Anti-Shiaism[5], Extremist Islamism, Fascism, Salafism, Salafist Jihadism, Takfirism, Wahhabism

(and these entries represent all the content that I have found when trawling through the article's revision history).

Results (which just mean that sets of wording happen to be found in some way on the same pages) relating to this content are as follows:

• (isil or isis or daesh or "islamic state") AND "Fascism" got "About 1,180,000 results"
• (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"
• (isil or isis or daesh or "islamic state") AND "Sunni Islamism" got "About 270 results"
• (isil or isis or daesh or "islamic state") AND "Anti-Shiaism" got "About 192 results"
• (isil or isis or daesh or "islamic state") AND "Extremist Islamism" got "About 198 results"

At most recent edit the ideologies were edited to/down to:

• Salafist jihadism
• Salafism[6][7]

Editor comment would be welcome on this but I suggest that a content might be:

• Sunni Islam
• Salafism/Wahhabism
• Takfirism

I also provisionally think that the selectivity of "facism" has a great relevance, so also:

• Facism

I think that justification for inclusion of "Salafism" may be weak. I don't think that there is justification for inclusion of "Salafist Jihadism" which is a neologism and which, in any case, seems to me to be synonymous with "Salafism" and "Wahhabism". Despite the fact that one of the clear drives within the group has been to engage with proponent of Shia Islam, I don't think that a reference to Anti-Shiaism is supported. However, given the context of its religious cleansing and persecution of people who do not share the groups Sunni based philosophies, I think that a reference to "Sunni Islam" is warranted.

I thought to raise the subject here to hopefully protect the content from wp:tendentious editing. If it is possible to establish the relevance of the ideologies here I don't see that there would be relevance of including source references to the content in the article. The validity of one of the ideological references is not increased because an editor has found that a particular source has made that reference to the group.

Here are notifications to/of contributory editors

• @Nulla Taciti: removed [[Takfirism]] and [[Anti-Shi'ism|Anti-Shiaism]] in Revision as of 20:30, 16 January 2015
• @Imfeelyoung: changed [[Sunni Islam|Sunni]] [[Islamism]]<br />[[Wahhabi|Salafism]] → [[Extremist]] [[Islamism]]<br />[[Wahhabi]]<br/>[[Salafist Jihadism]] in Revision as of 10:09, 23 January 2015
• @Ritsaiph: removed [[Extremist]] [[Islamism]] in Revision as of 01:36, 11 February 2015
• @Mbcap: added [[Salafism]]<ref name="NS">... in Revision as of 19:11, 15 February 2015
• @Fraytel: added [[Fascism]] <ref>... in Revision as of 19:30, 21 February 2015
• @KahnJohn27: removed [[Wahhabism]]<ref>...<br />...[[Fascism]] <ref>.. in Revision as of 12:21, 22 February 2015
• @Vietcong nuturlizer: changed [[Salafism]] → [[Wahhabism]] in Revision as of 22:28, 22 February 2015
• @Mbcap: changed [[Wahhabism]] → [[Salafism]] in Revision as of 22:53, 22 February 2015

GregKaye 12:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

GregKaye's research shows that fascism is the most well-supported ideology as per reliable sources, from among the proposed terminologies. The second-most supported terminology is Wahhabism, and we may mention both, they have not been rejected by any reliable source I know of. We may also add to it: extremism (as per GregKaye's earlier research found here). Some other terminologies, especially controversial neologisms like "Islamism", have been shown to have explicitly rejected in reliable sources. Including the controversial neologisms in the infobox would be making this article biased and non-neutral. So in conclusion: I think only "fascism" and "Wahhabism" should both be mentioned in the ideology section of the infobox, and possibly "extremism" as well. Khestwol (talk) 14:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Khestwol "Extremism" is not in itself an ideology. I do not necessarily see that their motivation is to be extreme. I think that they have particular and specific motivations which come first and these these run to levels and along routes that commentators widely interpret to be extreme. GregKaye 17:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Please read the article for Takfiri: this theological term has become a sectarian

insult when used by more extremist Shia factions like Hezbollah, or questionable news sources like Press TV (a Tehran propaganda outlet). Wikipedia policies prohibit the use of such terms. Also Wahhabi should not be used as this is also used pejoratively. As for fascism? That is just inaccurate—fascism is a secular ideology, ISIS are Islamic extremists. Also using this latter term evokes the cringeworthy Islamofascism label. Nulla Taciti (talk) 16:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Nulla Taciti, The article on the topic Takfiri begins, "A takfiri (Arabic: تكفيري‎ takfīrī) is a Muslim who accuses another Muslim (or an adherent of another Abrahamic faith) of apostasy." As far as I can see, this is exactly what the group has done time and time and time again. Its habitual. Besides this it is a term that has been widely used in relation to the group and this warrants comment. Given the prevalence of this use I was surprised to see that previous reference to Takfiri within the text has been removed and this strikes me as a sign of tendentious editing.

A useful source on fascism may be the article on definitions of fascism. A major theme seems to be a tendency towards dictatorship and that a "fascist regime" is foremost an authoritarian form of government". I agree that this form of behaviour may well be regarded as cringeworthy but, if the description is apt and well cited, then it should be included. Italy is a predominantly religious country and, in the time of WWII and to arguably his shame, the Pope supported its fascism. I do not see that fascism is an exclusively secular term. GregKaye 17:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

We don't even need to use "Takfiri" if we can use the more inclusive and the more supported term "Wahhabism". Khestwol (talk) 17:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

GregKaye you aren't addressing the key part of what I was saying: Takfiri is a sectarian hate word. It absolutely can't be used in this context. If you can find a source where ISIS specifically refer to themselves as Wahhabi, that is fine, although I doubt you'll be able to find such a source for "fascism". Personally I think the ideology section is fine as it is. Nulla Taciti (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

See the Zelin & Smyth article "The vocabulary of sectarianism" (can be easily found on Google). Nulla Taciti (talk) 19:19, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Nulla Taciti I think that you are confusing accurate description with self designation. The question as to whether the group likes or uses the description is irrelevant. The only question is accuracy. We are here to build an accurate encyclopaedia. We do not toe party lines. Takfiri is an accurate description that is widely used. When ISIL persecutes and kills Sunnis that don't follow their view of things, Shias and more or less everyone else I think that it is perfectly possible that they will receive hate from some quarters. This, however, is irrelevant. Just because people may or may not have emotion is of no relevance to the use of accurate description. BTW if any of the other groups involved are indicated to be Takfiri then these issues should also be fairly addressed. We cannot show bias or partiality here. GregKaye 19:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Takfiri isn't even an "ideology". Takfiri is a very specific Islamic theological term that has been used as a sectarian slur. It isn't accurate or appropriate for the ideology section, and that has nothing to do with whether ISIS "likes" the designation/description. Nulla Taciti (talk) 20:01, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

The ideology section is accurate the way it is in reference to Salafism. Salafi Jihadism I am not sure about. Jihadism has always been part of Salafism and Salafism has always been part of Sunni Islam. The google searches have to be taken with a pinch of Salt because the results do not only include reliable sources. Salafi Jihadism and Salafism both has been attributed to this group by the latest report to have come from the Brookings institute. Facism is not a label used in referring to this group by reliable sources. Wahabism is used but its use is not as prevalent as that of Salafism. Mbcap (talk) 20:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Mbcap top of the list of the search on fascism (which by far outstrips all related searches in terms of the number of its results) is an article from the Huffington Post. GregKaye 09:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Greg I will answer below. Mbcap (talk) 15:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Salafi Jihadism is more accurate than just Salafism, as the later refers to millions of people around the world, including those that explicitly reject political violence (see Madkhalism). Salafist Jihadism is an academic term used specifically for those that have come out of the Salafi tradition that do accept political violence, such as Al Qaeda etc. As Nulla Taciti has stated, Takfiri is a pejorative and occasionaly sectartian word (and one that IS has explicitly rejected) and is inappropriate to use in an encyclopaedia. Wahhabism is essentially a "politically incorrect" term for Salafism and one that is considered pejorative by Salafis around the world. While the group has certain fascist attributes, I would be uncomfortable with us explicitly saying it has a fascist ideology, as they probably don't fall within the formal definition of the word. Gazkthul (talk) 22:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I oppose the use of "fascism". Authoritarianism would be less inaccurate from my POV, but I doubt will be added. I have no opinion beyond that on the rest of the suggested labels atm. Banak (talk) 23:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Oppose "fascism." The Islamic State's ideology, which is of a religious nature, is not on the same universe, let alone the same plane, as fascism, which is a devil's brew of dirigisme, national syndicalism, with elements of left-wing politics, and is in opposition to liberalism, Marxism, and traditional conservatism. It's all clearly explained in the Wikipedia entry for "Fascism" in case anyone is curious.
With regard to the Islamic State, why don't we just settle for the BBC's description, which reads, and I quote: "Islamic State (IS) is a radical Islamist group that has seized large swathes of territory" XavierItzm (talk) 03:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

"Fascism" provides very accurate representation of this and several Islamic extremist groups but I think it is fair to me say that I think that the term Islamofascism is as, to me, as questionable as Islamic terrorism. Islam as a whole is not generally characterised as either fascist or terrorist. And, in the second case I would prefer "Islamist terrorism" as more accurate. However, in specific instances, a clear principle of accurate and truthful representation is well demonstrated in the phrase [dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/if-the-cap-fits-wear-it if the cap fits (wear it).]

See Huffington post ISIS and Clerical Fascism and the American Muslim Is it Accurate to Call ISIS Fascist? GregKaye 09:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Is there a serious proposal to use a blog entry at the Huffington Post and a propaganda website as if these were WP:RS? These can only be condoned if there is substantial peer review agreement, and in any event, wouldn't the BBC's definition that "Islamic State (IS) is a radical Islamist group that has seized large swathes of territory" have primacy over such weak sauce "sources"? XavierItzm (talk) 12:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Gazkthul hit the nail on the head; Wahhabism is essentially a "politically incorrect" term for Salafism, and it is often used by Shia groups to disparagingly refer to all Sunnis. So obviously Wahhabism, fascism, and certainly not the non existent ideology of takfiri(sm) are appropriate. All these terms are essentially used in a derogatory manner, and 2/3 carry unpleasant sectarian connotations. Nulla Taciti (talk) 15:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

XavierItzm I agree with you that "Islamist" is a better term for this group. As for radical; I am not sure. The ideology of this group is through and through Salafi. They have been called both Salafist and Jihadi Salafist by the majority of reliable sources. These two would be accurate names for the groups ideology. What has to be understood is that the Ideology of a given Muslim is depended on the Aqeeda or creed which they follow. Islamic State follows the Aqa'id of the Salaf which is known as Athar. This can be seen in their literature where they quote the Salaf and the scholars who followed them after, on endless occasions. A good analysis of the groups Ideology is contained within this document[2], written by Cole Bunzel from Princeton University. As for Fascism, Google news searches are not a good way to ascertain the popularity of a give word within reliable sources as the search is unable to sift out unreliable sources including blogs. As for Wahhabism, it is a derogatory term for someone who is a Salafi. All Wahhabi's follows the Athari Aqeeda so they too are Salafi's. Mbcap (talk) 15:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

First thing to point out is that I get the impression that to use Salafist terms would be to use minority terminology as per searches in books:

• Wahhabism gets "About 28,600 results"
• Salafism gets "About 6,550 results"

Here are some other results in books

• "About 985 results" from "fascist" AND (isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND (-nazi AND -hitler AND -Mussolini) AND (iraq OR syria OR baghdadi OR mosul)

• "About 918 results" from "Wahhabi" AND (isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND (iraq OR syria OR baghdadi OR mosul)

• "About 890 results" from "Sunni Islam" AND (isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND (iraq OR syria OR baghdadi OR mosul)

• "About 787 results" from "Salafi" AND (isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND (iraq OR syria OR baghdadi OR mosul)

• "About 740 results" from "Radical Islamist" AND (isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND (iraq OR syria OR baghdadi OR mosul)

• "About 584 results" from "Radical Islam" AND (isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND (-nazi AND -hitler AND -Mussolini) AND (iraq OR syria OR baghdadi OR mosul)

• "About 516 results" from "Sunni Islamist" AND (isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND (iraq OR syria OR baghdadi OR mosul)
• "About 465 results" from "Takfiri" AND (isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND (iraq OR syria OR baghdadi OR mosul)

Mbcap per your suggestion:

• "About 33 results" from "Jihadi Salafist" AND (isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND (iraq OR syria OR baghdadi OR mosul)

again this is a minority term.

The problem with the use of the term Islamist without qualification is that it if is a gross misrepressentation of reality. The group is primarily at war with other people of Mohammedan based faiths, Shias, Sufis and other Sunnis as well. To say that they are working to advance the cause of political Islam without giving any indication of an interpretation of Islam that was being promoted would be flagrantly dishonest.

We have to present honest and representational content. I opened the thread #Has ISIL done any good? really just opening things up to see if we might be suppressing positives about the group. On the same token I think it is valid to ask about a fair and representational view about their ideology. PLEASE keep in mind that Wikipedia is not here to WP:CENSOR content. We have to present the big picture. GregKaye 17:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC) results edited added to, GregKaye 20:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Greg I appreciate that we do not censor information and I would not wish that anyway. I would also agree that we have to present the big picture. I will make the following points:

• I have no idea how google books returned so many results because as far as I am aware, there are only one or two books which have been published on this group so it is not possible to get so many results. This is one of the reasons why we should not rely too often on Google searches. Even within the results served, one word can be in one paragraph and the other in the second whilst the issues discussed may be different.
• Islamist is a label that has been used by reliable sources so I do not see why we cannot use it. Yes they do fight other groups which include Muslims and Non-Muslims. They regard anyone who does not rule according to the Qur'an to be unbelievers so they fight them for that reason. We have to keep an eye on the bigger picture here too. This group was acting in this fashion since its inception. When Zarqawi was running things, they were behaving in a similar manner; killing Shia's and destroying shrines and their mosques. Bind Laden at the time thought this was bad PR so they engaged in extensive discourse to make Zarqawi change course. What was interesting though was that, at no point did Bin Laden or Zawahiri say that they were going against their version of Islam but that it was simply bad PR at the wrong time. This has been discussed extensively by Scheuer in his books Imperial Hubris, and America and Islam after Iraq. I understand this is original research but I wish to explain my position. Even discounting this, they are referred to as islamists by a wide array of reliable sources.
• In all my reading of the different ideologies of Islam which include; Athari, Ash'ari, Maturidi, Mu'tazilla, Murjia, Khawarij, Ithna Ash'ari, Alawi and Esmaili, I would say that their ideology falls squarely into Athari which is the creed of the Salafi school. This has been attested to by reliable sources including the Guardian and the Brookings institute. The latter labels them two folds; Salafists and Jihadi Salafists. In their report in the appendix, their ideology is detailed point by point.
• In terms of positives for the group; we can certainly document such things if reliable sources are presented.

Mbcap (talk) 19:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Mbcap The only reason that I have presented the search data is that, after looking at the history of the editing of the ideologies content, I regarded that editors did not necessarily have much genuine interest in the actual definitions of the terms and their applicability. There has certainly been utter disregard to the preponderance of the usage of the terms. Let's get this straight. Sunni Islam is by far the largest faction amongst Mohammedan faiths and the extremists that are known as Wahhabists or Salafists are a significant group amongst them. Regardless of this Wahhabi terminologies are the ones that are most predominantly used. They also add direct and accurate description and, by rights, it would be easy to recommend Wahhabism to be the one reference made, or at least to present Wahhabism first. My suggestion of presenting "Salafism/Wahhabism" gives more than enough ground and, if anything, goes too far in regard to compromise.

I honestly do not think that you have taken it on board that this group kills people who have an equal regard for themselves as being Islamic. How can we make unqualified reference to them as being an Islamist group? They kill muslims/"muslims". Where is the NPOV in calling them Islamist? Where? What kind of Islamism are they following? Where is the perspective here? The Jordanians write enemies of Islam on their bombs and you want Wikipedia to declare, in its own voice, that they are fighting for Islam. This is utterly ridiculous. We cannot push POV. You may perhaps decide that they are being faithful to Islam but we cannot push original research or individual opinion here. Sources may, on occasion, make passing reference to them as being Islamist. What we are doing in the ideologies section is, by nature, presenting something definitive.

Despite the fact that the group recently burnt alive a Jordanian, Sunni Muslim prisoner of war, I think that a reasonable base for a definition would be "Sunni Islamism". The context remains that many do not regard them as being representative of the Sunnis and certainly that they are not representative of Islam. None the less, one of the defining issues of the group is that they are sectarian .. very sectarian and i think that it is reasonable that something along these lines be clear in our presentation.

The descriptions of Fascism, Takfirism remain very apt. GregKaye 21:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Is this an encyclopaedia or a Google popularity contest fuelled by WP:OR? Please bring WP:RS that are substantive to the case, or use what we already have, i.e., the BBC having defined the Islamic State as "radical Islamist." XavierItzm (talk) 21:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

XavierItzm As a British citizen it (genuinely) pains me to say that the BBC also considered Jimmy Saville, despite ongoing occurrences of misbehaviour, to be safe to work with children. Questions about their various seeming irrational biases abound and, from personal view point which is still pained to say, I count them to be one of the least reliable of RS. They cover up, are unaccountable and have a policy of not permitting reader comment on their content. Its a closed shop that I consider to be a cause for concern on a number of issues all of which can be researched. Your repetition seven times of your one BBC source on this page does not make it any more valid. Of course predominance of use is an issue but the predominance of the quotation of a single source is not. I have no problem in saying that radical Islamist is a lesser used description of ISIL. There ideology is very clearly more specific than that. They do not equally promote all of what is commonly called Islam. GregKaye 09:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

And there should be no issue with using RS other than the BBC's definition of the Islamic State as "radical Islamist". As you say, if there are other RS that call it something else, fine, please add them to the article and then the article can say something along the lines of "some have defined the Islamic State as "x", some have defined it as "y" and some have defined as "z." Some may classify the IS as a bunch of Mahometan thugs; however, if there are no RS calling them such, it can't be added to the page, and no, Google popularity contests should not be alternative to RS. XavierItzm (talk) 17:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Greg I cannot speak for other editors but as to myself, I do take interest in the nomenclature related to this topic. I agree that there was utter disregard to the preponderance of the usage of the terms but that issue is rectified with the current content in the infobox. Their ideology as described by reliable sources is Salafism and Salafist Jihadism. Your suggestion that Wahhabism is the predominant attributed ideology is false.

As to their actions, I do not wish to hold a discussion on this. My comment on the Islamist label was because Xavierltzm has provided a source for it, that being the BBC which is a very reliable source. Regarding the various question you ask; I would say that we simply write what reliable sources say. It is NPOV if reliable sources say X is the ideology and we document it so. Sources may make a passing reference to them being Islamist but that is also the case with reference to Wahhabism. In this regard, we can take a consistent approach so we can include both or leave out both. However their identification with Salafism is well substantiated and covered in detail by the Brookings report, as well as with less detail, in other sources.

Yes we can use Sunni Islamism if sources use this attribution but Salafism and Salafist Jihadism will have to get most weight due to reasons stated above. Fascism and Takfirism are not labels corroborated by reliable sources. It is irrelevant if I think they are representative of Islam or not. You say we cannot push opinion here. May I ask, who do you think is doing so?

Lastly XavierItzm do you know of other sources which call them Islamist? I would do it myself but time wise I am constrained. Mbcap (talk) 19:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. The Telegraph states it right there at the top of its section dedicated to IS: "Islamic State is a radical Islamist group which has seized territory across northern and western Iraq and eastern Syria.". Let me know if you need more. XavierItzm (talk) 18:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Seeing as how they call themselves a caliphate and Abu-Bakr al- Baghadi called for all Muslims to obey him, I think Pan-Islamism can also be listed as their ideology just like it is of Al-Qaeda. KahnJohn27 (talk) 14:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree with you KahnJohn27 that these thugs are, among other things, pan-islamists. However, the Wikipedia can only go by WP:RS. Do you have one? Otherwise, we'll just have to go with the WP:RS we do have, such as: "Islamic State is a radical Islamist group" (The Guardian) and "Islamic State (IS) is a radical Islamist group" (the BBC). XavierItzm (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Apologies, after starting discussion here, I have stepped back as much of my wikipedia time has been absorbed with involvements surrounding this discussion and, again, Israel. My research on Wahhabism only went as far as a proponderance of comment that the group is influenced by Wahhabists of the past. In line with comments that you have already made a first article found (from Brookings Institution). The content of the document] talks of "The Islamic State’s Brand of Jihadi-Salafism" which indicates a brand of Mbcap's suggestion.

This result was found from a web search on: "the ideology" AND (isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND (iraq OR syria OR baghdadi OR mosul) which can also be conducted in books and scholar. I will have to do some more reading with time although a few of the scholar papers required subscription.

XavierItzm I agree that "Radical Islamist" is used within the press as a description of the group. My problem is that this description isn't very specific. Radical can either mean doing the whole thing greatly, that it is working at an extreme agenda within the whole or a mixture of the two. Sunni Islamism and Jihadi-Salafism at least specifies a bit. GregKaye 15:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

If there is discomfort with the adjective "radical" which qualifies the noun "islamist," you can always just drop he adjective and stick with the noun. It's like saying "sweet love" and, not feeling the adjective "sweet" appropriate, just sticking with "love." In that case, the sentence could read: "Islamic State is an Islamist group."
Having said that, we should stick with WP:RS, and since the above cited WP:RS read "radical islamist", that's what should be used, no matter how "unspecific" it might appear to some. The Wikipedia should reflect WP:RS, not feelings. Thanks, XavierItzm (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

XavierItzm So we go to sources that have some level of credential in assessing issues like ideology. The idea of presenting an unqualified definition of this group as Islamist is preposterous. They just burnt a Sunni Islamic pilot. They wage war with groups that also claim to be Islamic and that don't do un-Islamic things like cutting the heads off aid workers. Which form of Islam are they promoting exactly? GregKaye 21:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Is there a Wikipedia policy to ascribe "superior" WP:RS to one source or another, as it seems advocated on the preceding comment? Otherwise, the BBC and The Telegraph's cited definition of "Islamic State is a radical islamist group" seem quite appropriate. With regard to the question "Which form of Islam are they promoting exactly?", it is hard to say. All one can say is that they say they follow the precepts of Mahomet. XavierItzm (talk) 21:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Now this discussion seems to be going out of hand. Let's all cool down here. First of all I think Islamic extremism or Islamic radical can't be both used here since people following both of these ideologies aren't always necessarily violent. I think Islamic terrorism is the better term suited for here. Second, none of this however ever implies that people following these ideologies are completely "Islamic" or they are following the true religion of Islam. It's just implying that the ideologies of these people are based on their interpretation of Islam. All interpretations aren't necessarily correct. KahnJohn27 (talk) 09:01, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

XavierItzm, We have got to a point where WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is becoming more applicable. Please note the difference between a description of the group and the description of its ideology. As a parallel, I could describe myself as a mammal and yet this does not say a great deal about what let alone who I am. This is something that is further governed by my genetic make up and my personal path of development. I am perfectly in agreement that "radical Islamist" is a description of the group but all its boldface usage on this page (bordering on WP:SHOUTing) will not make it an ideology. You understand that this will not make this an ideology. I agree that their ideology constitutes a form of radical Islamism but can you find an RS that says that their ideology is "Radical Islamism"? You state, "All one can say is that they say they follow the precepts of Mahomet". There is far, far more that "one can say" due to the fact that this group wages war against and kills practitioners of Sunni, Shia and Sufi Islam who may similarly make the claim that "they follow the precepts of Mahomet". An inclusion of "Radical Sunni Islamist" might be more closely descriptive of their actual ideology.

As far as descriptions go: Fascism and Takfirism seem to me to fit the group extremely well but, as is rightly noted, this must be backed up by sources whose attribution can be relied upon in relation to the particular topic. GregKaye 10:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

When the BBC and The Telegraph both write that "Islamic State is a radical islamist organisation", they are making reference to an ideology. They could have written that IS is "an armed group" (making reference to a bellicose position) or "an extortionist mafia" (making reference to a type of association), but instead we have two WP:RS making unambiguous reference to the ideology that animates it. XavierItzm (talk) 15:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

XavierItzm That is understood. Isil have a form of radical Islamist ideology. They also have a form of Islamic extremist ideology. They also have a form of religious ideology. The question here is not which sphere or spheres their ideology is found. The relevant questions are what is their ideology and how can it be accurately and meaningfully be described?

Without this we might just go back to me calling myself a mammal.

Perhaps another analogy might help. Please consider sport as a more friendly potential parallel. The ideology of most sports teams is not typically defined as the promotion of that sport. Instead the sports teams are competitive. Making the comparison to Isil, this group has a very specific brand of Islam and they apply it by wanting to bring other groups like the al-Nusra Front and Hamas into submission. They will not only compete. They kill so as to pursue domination against other "clubs". They are also more presently focussed in dealing with clubs like Hamas than they are in addressing rival "sports" like Judaism.

So what is the ideology of Isil? It has something more specific than just a "religious" ideology; something more specific than an "Islamic" ideology; something more specific than an "Islamist" ideology and, as far as I can see, something more specific than a "Salafist" ideology or a "Jihadi Salafist" ideology. The Brookings report speaks of "The Islamic State’s Brand of Jihadi-Salafism" and I think that it may be fair to say that they have a "variant form of of Jihadi-Salafism".

Any editor research into how the group's actual "ideology" is actually interpreted would be appreciated. I have found one possible reference from the Brookings institute. GregKaye 18:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Greg and XavierItzm you both raise interesting points about the group. The problem here is, that we have a limited space within the ideology section of the infobox to document all of this. Because this topic is notable, I have created the article Ideology of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, which at the moment is laughable in quality as I did not have the time to adequately expand the article but it is a suitable place where we can document all that reliable sources have said about the ideology of this group. Hopefully we can give due weight to all the different qualifications that have been given. The group is variously described as Jihadi Salafist, Salafist, Islamist, Sunni Islamist etc. I do not remember where, but I think I have also come across Takfirism in a source but it is not so prevalent. There are also other labels such as radical, extremist, terrorist and so on and so forth. I am not sure how relavent this is to their ideolgy but a thorough discussion will only improve the content we have. Mbcap (talk) 19:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Mbcap At least in current condition this looks truely excellent. The wording, IMO, covers things well: "The ideology of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant is based on Salafi-Jihadism and Salafism. Thank you "Based on", "stems from", it roughly the same thing. GregKaye 19:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

With regard to the request for "research into how the group's actual "ideology" is actually interpreted" as requested above, here is what the BBC states about it:
* The group aims to establish a "caliphate", a state ruled by a single political and religious leader according to Islamic law, or Sharia.
* 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.
These are straight quotes from the WP:RS, to be found at this link at the BBC's website. I hope it is useful to you in trying to determine the ideology of the jihadists. XavierItzm (talk) 01:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@GregKaye: I think you can swap the word "Salafist" with the more supported word "Wahhabist" in the infobox. We can go by the terminology that more reliable sources consider them. Khestwol (talk) 02:37, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

XavierItzm I agree that with the base content that you present and suggest that a presentation such as Extremist Sunni Islamism would be descriptive. The rest of the world is, in many parts, eager to protect educational rights to citizens on a range of subjects such as Darwin's theory of evolution and the cultural history of the world and also to protect the equal rights of women. Many may argue that a belief system in an invisible entity that authorises them to kill aid workers and run entire communities up mountains certainly needs to be dealt with. Also, when a group has expansionist policies where they threaten to place "the black flag" on various iconic buildings of other cultures around the world, then this will be responded to. This is a group that is determined to wipe out other cultures and identities as has been most clearly shown in the treatment of the Yazidis and the bulldosing of some of the world's most precious cultural sites. (BTW I have long thought that west deserves a good measure of comparable contempt due to their abject failure to protect locations such as museums from looting at the time of the Iraqi invasion).

As mentioned I would recommend searches on: "the ideology" AND (isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND (iraq OR syria OR baghdadi OR mosul) which can also be conducted in books and scholar. I have no reason to believe that the news media have certain credibility in assessing ethics and ideologies especially within considerations of the ethics of the media.

Khestwol the many related results that I have seen on Wahhabism mainly relate to ISIL having taken on aspects of Wahhabist teaching but, for some unknown reason, the sources have tended to more directly describe the group by the lesser used term Salafist.

I also think that there is relevance in that Jihadism is a neologism and that there little if any discernible difference between Salafism and Salafist Jihadism. The Jihad in the Koran is about the defense within the individual lives of believers of their own spirituality and the defense of believing communities from outside attack. This is an aggressive group that attacks other communities. Similar groups describe themselves as "mujahideen" but their ideologies have little to do with scriptural jihad. GregKaye 03:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

That is very correct, the medieval jihad or the jihad described in the scriptures is totally different from the ISIL "jihad". Perhaps we have to remove "jihadism" also, and leave only either "Wahhabism" or "Salafism"? Note: it is only one user who has been trying to put "Salafism" in the infobox and remove "Wahhabism" in February 2015 in undiscussed edits. Khestwol (talk) 16:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The following WP:RS address the issue of the jihadists of Islamic State:
* "The Islamic State, like al-Qaeda, identifies with a movement in Islamic political thought known as Jihadi-Salafism, or jihadism for short" - Brookings Institution.
* "IS members are jihadists" - The BBC
* "On most matters of doctrine, Maqdisi and the Islamic State agree. Both are closely identified with the jihadist wing of a branch of Sunnism called Salafism" - The Atlantic
To anyone considering deleting the word "jihadist" from the infobox: please provide WP:RS that support any such contention. XavierItzm (talk) 23:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

There are important differences between Salafism and Salafist Jihadism. Salafism is the ideology of many millions of Muslims around the world, including pluralities in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait. Salafist Jihadism is a small offshoot that is followed by a fraction of the people, and is the ideology of violent non state actors such as Al Qaeda, IS, Al Shabaab and others. To put it into context, Salafists consider Saudi Arabia to be run by good, Allah-fearing men, whereas Salafist Jihadists consider them to be Tyrants and Apostates worthy of death. Gazkthul (talk) 03:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• Definitely oppose fascism; identifying the primary ideology of a state can't be done just by looking at the count of Google searches. That shows that it has been compared to fascism, sure, and that's definitely enough of a reason to look up good sources and discuss the issue in depth in the article (who has described it as fascist, what their arguments are, what features it has in common with it, what responses there are to that description if any exist, etc), but I don't think that that's nearly enough to put fascism as part of their official ideology in the infobox, where we can't really present any nuance. Putting it there feels like it basically implies that it has a direct ideological descent from Mussolini et all, which I think is a hard sell without much better and more detailed sources identifying it as such. --Aquillion (talk) 07:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

---

References

Editrequest:Protection icon

Please add the protection icon template to the page to indicate protection level -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Done NiciVampireHeart 11:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Done 09:29, February 9, 2015 Seicer (talk | contribs) changed protection level of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant‎ ‎[edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 10:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC))‎[move=sysop] (indefinite) (Lengthening to original timeframe for edit pp) (hist) is the top item in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=protect&user=&page=Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&hide_patrol_log=1&hide_review_log=1&hide_thanks_log=1 so I've fixed the expiry. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 11:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect closure of previous discussion concerning map

I was just made aware that a previous discussion concerning the map was closed by a heavily involved editor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant/Archive_26#RfC:_File:Syria_and_Iraq_2014-onward_War_map.png_not_used_to_highlight_Israel

The discussion was closed by heavily involved user:Legacypac. He closed it as "Consensus is that map legend should exclude reference to Israel, Disputed or Occupied and the Golan Heights should be light gray like all surrounding areas are." Anyone who reads the discussion can clearly see that his claims are inaccurate. There is no such consensus. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

There are at least 2 more major issues with this RFC, I'm going to need a minute to write them up, but this is actually seriously concerning. I believe I majorly screwed up here, in addition to any mistake that user made. You may wish to ping them. Banak (talk) 23:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

@Legacypac: I believe we have both screwed up to say the least, though I have not heard your side of the story.

Here are my concerns:

My Behaviour:

• I commented under two different names on the same account without making it clear I had changed names.
• I was counted as "Banak" and "John smith the gamer" (the username I had changed to), so appear to have been counted twice. Whilst my comments under the name "John smith the gamer" were intended to only clarify and not offer any opinions at all, it was counted as support. In effect, I have may have accidentally sock/meatpuppeted therefore (Though not technically falling under either definition, I'm not trying to wikilawyer myself out of my own screw up). This was not an intentional abuse of the name change feature.
• I updated later versions of the map in accordance with this "consensus" after Spesh531 removed the stripes without checking the consensus actually existed, for 19 versions of the ISIL map, the most recent of which was a couple hours ago.

Behaviour of Legacypac:

• As an involved user they closed the discussion
• They treated a RFC as a vote
• They decided 7 to 5 was consensus
• They included my "John smith the Gamer" comments as a vote for the proposal, which I believe to be neutral clarifications.
• This user was not new at the time this happened, so this conduct seems very odd, and I cannot think of an explanation for. That said, I am not assuming bad faith, particularly as I have not seen this user act in bad faith before.

Banak (talk) 23:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: has anyone seen the topic here? The article concerns the armed group, Isil, Daesh, Islamic State, whatever we want to call it. What is the relevance of including the golan heights on the map? The golan heights are not mentioned in the article; Israel is not amongst nations that have designated Isil as terrorist and it is not amongst nations listed anongst the "Countries and groups at war with ISIL".

'PLEASE, PLEASE, if editors do want to take up issue on Israel related issue then join me in discussion at Talk:Israel,discussions at and related to: Template talk:Largest cities of Israel and any other Israel related topic. On a side issue I don't typically agree with discussion closures and collapses on the personal view that these often fringe or may violate WP:CENSOR. However I really question the relevance of this particular question in this particular location. GregKaye 10:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

My closure was very clear, starting with the statement I was involved in the discussion. Supreme Deliciousness has been using forum shopping to push highlighting the golan heights on Syrian Civil War maps all over Wikipedia for months. Every time his changes get reversed or outvoted he tries another spot, often on maps related to the Kurds or ISIL that have nothing to do with Golan. Raising this issue for the umtinth time is not very helpful. Legacypac (talk) 01:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I am completely guilty of commenting on the contributor instead of the content on article talk pages. I don't think yours was too out of line but who knows. To be open and because the topic area could use some direction, this conversation was brought up here due to a recent request for administrator input at AE. Any discussion regarding poor behavior should be there instead of here.Cptnono (talk) 04:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

It is fully legitimate to discuss whether the map should mark the Golan in striped color or not. It should, because the areas that the Islamic State has conquered include a good chunk of Syria, and Syria owns the Golan, according to the United Nations, even though Israel possesses it, by right of military conquest. Now, since a map of Syria is necessary on account of Syria having lost territory to the Islamic State, it is improper to show as non-Syrian that territory which either properly belongs to Syria, or that is internationally disputed. Therefore, per map-making tradition, the Golan disputed territory should be shown in striped colors.
One would be remiss not to note that it is rich of the UN Security Council, created by FDR and his friend Stalin, to deny the right of military conquest from the point of time immediately after the Russians took, apparently forever, giant portions of Japan, Finland, Poland and other countries, while denying Israel that which it obtained by similar means just a couple of decades later. XavierItzm (talk) 22:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

XavierItzm what point in relevance to the situation with ISIL do you want to make via a highlighting of Israel on the war map? GregKaye 20:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Golan is Syria's (according to UN) and is in any event a disputed territory. Therefore, per map-making tradition, a map of the Islamic State's territory taken from Syria should show the Golan as disputed Syrian territory and should be shown in striped colors. XavierItzm (talk) 21:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

From my point of view, the map is of the Syrian Civil war, not of de jure Syria. Therefore, for me, it makes sense to only show de facto Syria, as this is where the Syrian Civil war takes place. The dotted line, to me, is sufficient to show it is not an international border.

I think a new RFC should take place if you wish to change the stripes. There probably should be a note to the closing admin about the previous "consensus", so if there is no consensus they say what the status quo we stick with is. Banak (talk) 04:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

XavierItzm So you do not have any point of relevance related to the situation with ISIL that would be achieved via a highlighting of Israel on the war map? What WP:POINT are you trying to make exactly? PLEASE, remember that Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX for the pushing of unrelated and agenda laden issues. We present relevant information in relevant places. That's what an encyclopaedia does.

I strongly agree that there are major issues related to the presentation of the Golan Heights and the yet to be defined and as yet not specifically limited Palestinian territories. I hope that editors, from any persuasion, can join in debate on this issue in the content and talk pages of relevant articles. This is not one of them. This is an article about ISIL. GregKaye 08:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

It is not clear why Israel keeps getting dragged into the conversation. The issue is that the United Nations considers the Golan part of Syria, and since Syria's map is necessarily part of the Islamic State's operational theater, Syria's map must perforce be included. Now, Syria's map should show its territories, and if any are in dispute, map-making traditions indicate any such territories should be shown in striped colours. XavierItzm (talk) 15:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Greg, they only wish to include de jeru Syria not Israel as such in the shading.

Xavier, see my previous comment on why the Syrian civil war (IMO) is not taking place in de jeru Syria, rather only in de facto Syria, and therefore I believe that doesn't apply. Banak (talk) 16:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Including an additional category and colour to the map shown to the right would have absolutely zero relevance to the topic of the article. It is a small, unnecessary and irrelevant detail. The Golan Heights constitutes 0.97% of the area of Syria. It constitutes less than 0.29% of the combined area of Iraq and Syria. In any case, the area of the Golan Heights is already indicated by the use of a dotted line. There is no point in cluttering the legend with content that is of zero relevance to the article subject or is there. I have asked, "what point in relevance to the situation with ISIL do you want to make via a highlighting of Israel on the war map? There has been no answer.

There was recently a discussion at Talk:Israel/Archive 47#UN and Israel views on borders where views and inputs would have been relevantly welcome and there are many other discussions where contributions would be greatly appreciated. Other discussions continue with regard to the presentation of locations within various territories in Israel/Palestine where comments might, I think, result in a genuine improvement in the NPOV presentation of the encyclopaedic content in Wikipedia. GregKaye 19:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Request

GregKaye, could you please explain the edit you made here? Why did you remove Iraq and Israel from the list of countries that consider the Islamic State a terrorist group? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• FreeKnowledgeCreator Thank you for taking responsibility for checking up on content. Reason, we are an encyclopaedia. We don't exaggerate and we don't present unsubstantiated content. For Israel please see my content here: titled Talk:List of designated terrorist organizations/Archive 5#Israeli, Declaration, as [an] organization, [of] terror, "from mouth", [of the] Ordinance, [of] prevention of, Terror". (That's my personal translation for genuine Israeli designations which has not been applied to Daesh as Israelis call it). For Iraq, if you can find an authoritative and citable reference this will be appreciated. GregKaye 22:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

English if at all inclusion of reference to Israel

• XavierItzm can you please explain your edit here which you rightly summarised "Removed Israeli classification of Islamic State as "Terrorist"; the source and two separate Talk discussions are clear that IS is classed as "prohibited" organisation. Also removed Iraq flag as it had no ref" as per my private request here? The section is entitled: The section is entitled: "Designation as a terrorist organisation" The section is entitled: "Designation as a terrorist organisation". Can you explain the addition of the text: "On 3 September 2014, Israel declared that "the 'Islamic State' is an unlawful association (יעלון הכריז על ארגון "המדינה האיסלאמית" כעל התאחדות בלתי מותרת)" which was not otherwise mentioned your edit summary?

As history it is fair to comment that other editors have previously wanted to fallaciously add Israel to both the list of nations at war with Isil and the list of nations designating the group as terrorist, both with the addition of three irrelevant citations each which, when most inclusions were given no citations, seemed excessive.

Now the one piece of foreign language non Arabic text on the page is this bit of Hebrew.

Firstly I think that the section on The section is entitled: "Designation as a terrorist organisation" should present only that information and secondly, unless an English reliable source can is provided there is even less validity to this inclusion. I don't see that this is is in anyway relevant to the article.

As far as I can see, a string of editors have been involved in a POV push to imply an involvement of Israel that just is not there. Even from the group's point of view, it has stated that its first target in the wider Palestine area is Hamas. It would target Israel later. How specifically "Islamist" is that?

GregKaye 09:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I made an edit and both the reference and the supporting WP:RS ref and in-line textual citation for designation as a forbidden group and not as a terrorist group are what seemed appropriate for full avoidance of doubt. If any other Wikipedia editor feels differently, it would be great if they would further edit. XavierItzm (talk) 15:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Last sentence of lead

The last sentence in the lead section reads, "This territorial loss implied a failure of US foreign policy, and almost caused a collapse of the Iraqi government that required renewal of US military action in Iraq." One of the reviewers in the peer review mentioned that the "required renewal" part of the sentence wasn't a factual statement since a renewal of the military action would never be "required" in a literal sense. I agreed with the nominator that it should be rewritten, but wasn't sure exactly how. If anyone has suggestions on how to reword this sentence, feel free to reply below. Tonystewart14 (talk) 04:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Personally I don't think that sentence belongs in the lead, particularly the implied a failure of US foreign policy line, which would be better placed in an article involving the actual military conflict. The preceding sentence ...members of the US House Committee on Foreign Affairs saw as a re-emergence of Sunni insurgents and al-Qaeda militants sticks out even more, since IS feuds with both mainstream Iraqi Sunni insurgents and al-Qaeda. Gazkthul (talk) 07:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I removed this sentence and a reference to CATO. That reference contained analysis and opinion that wasn't encyclopedic. Tonystewart14 (talk) 03:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the sentence needs to be restored after reworded for accuracy but I don't know how. Perhaps some other user could do it. The lede needs to talk a bit about the US foreign policy because it is one of the main factors contributing to the present-day political situation of that region. Khestwol (talk) 05:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Khestwol. XavierItzm (talk) 18:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Historians write history (i.e. interpretation), not encyclopaedias. ~ 82.20.70.218 (talk) 15:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

One of the edit warring issues that I have noticed in Middle-East related articles is a tendency of presenting disproportionate U.S. related references. As a British citizen I demand our share of the blame lol.

At present we are presenting the opinions of others in Wikipedia's voice as, ""This territorial loss implied a failure of US foreign policy". Who says? Us? Is that how we work now? And how did we choose this as the one issue to focus on? The fact is that there were successes and failures and from my POV one of the most striking failures was the lack of coalition protection of Iraqi museums and historic sites that permitted an initial horrific looting of heritage. Successes included the removal of a Kurd persecuting dictator. Failures included the institutionalisation or personality politics in Iraq with a resulting increase in the Shia-Sunni schism. Arguably successes include the establishment of democracy in Iraq, the fact that Coalition troops were able to leave the region and that an Iraqi regime was able to stand on its own feet. I don't think that quoting an American think tank and the NY times so as to develop content for Wikipedia is necessarily the best or most even handed way to go. There is a ref to Britannica but it needs a quote from someone with subscription. I also think that a finger of blame for many issues may, with validity, be placed on characters such as Blair and Bush who, to my knowledge, have not been held fully accountable for apparent misrepresentations regarding WMDs and the like. At one stage I think that it is fair for blame to be cast a broad sense and in other ways it is of relevance to be specific. Since the Coalition withdrawl a whole host of Arab nations have taken up arms against ISIL. The "territorial loss" could equally be ascribed to the failure of any of these groups to be more involved at an earlier stage. Perhaps a success of the US is its partial withdrawl from a role as "global policeman". However this is all interpretation and I totally agree with contributor 82.20.70.218 . GregKaye 13:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The focus in the previous sentence on a US point of view

US is mentioned four times in the two sentences. The first of the two sentences reads: "It gained those territories after an offensive, initiated in early 2014, which senior US military commanders and members of the US House Committee on Foreign Affairs saw as a re-emergence of Sunni insurgents and al-Qaeda militants." While US involvement is significant it was the UK that were, for instance, the first to proscribe the group as terrorist and there are many other nations that have done similarly and/or that are directly involved in the war against the group. I see this as part and parcel of a POV push from various editors to go overkill on US and Israeli related references to the article regardless of relevance. GregKaye 06:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

official website

I suspect , IS has something like official website , probably operated as TOR hidden service to prevent censorship. Knows anyone the address ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.87.99.186 (talk) 13:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

They have no official website. They have official Twitter accounts and online services like YouTube, Archive.org and justpaste.it, all of which are constantly being removed and reuploaded. Gazkthul (talk) 21:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Probably they will create a TOR hidden server soon for publishing because it cannot be removed by CIA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.160.215.12 (talk) 12:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I looked on TORsearch for ISIS/ISIL topic with no success. Probably TOR hidden server is not created (yet). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.41.20.112 (talk) 12:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

https://isdarat.org/ StanTheMan87 (talk) 10:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Why Nigeria?

Why is Nigeria included in the list of territories controlled by ISIS? It is Boko Haram who has swore allegiance, but that means this fact also? RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 12:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Boko Haram swore allegiance and ISIL accepted and so now the portions of territory they control are effectively under ISIL control. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 3 Nisan 5775 12:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Swearing allegiance to and being are not necessarily the same thing. I think that the current interpretation is likely but is not certain. GregKaye 12:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Nigeria is NOT in any 'list of territories controlled by ISIS', don't make or see a problem where there is none. --Corriebertus (talk) 18:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Stealing?

The lead currently says; "To finance its activities, the organisation is also stealing ancient artefacts from Syria and Iraq." Stealing from who and how? Similar to the stance that we do not say murdering as it implies illegality or executing as it implies legality I think that perhaps "stealing" should also be looked at. How should this be phrased? GregKaye 14:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with "steal". It seems to me, from the 3 sources given, that insurgents have looted at least one occupied museum. Unlike the killing of prisoners, stealing is not called an act of terror, so it doesn't seem to be controversial wording. However, it might be simpler and clearer to say:

The organisation has sold ancient artefacts from occupied sites.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 18:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Hroðulf I have changed the lead text to, "A trade in ancient artefacts is used to fund group activities." There is plenty of content in the article to allow readers to come to their own conclusions regarding stealing, looting and, perhaps, plundering. I am still not sure what the best presentation on this might be. A comparable article content on Nazi plunder makes rapid reference to "art theft". I am not sure what differences between "transnational war" and "insurgency" might make on this. GregKaye 07:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Artifacts have recognised owners, in this case the Iraqi and Syrian governments, therefore from a legal perspective ISIS is seizing properties without owner's consent, i.e. stealing.--Kathovo talk 12:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

This issue is apparently solved. Today it reads: "A trade in ancient artefacts is used to fund group activities." Still rather funnily formulated, though. But anyway: why just that one remark about its fundings in the lead? 'Funding' has a separate section (§9.4), and a proper summary of that section in the lead will probably not be this sole sentence about '...artefacts'. --Corriebertus (talk) 16:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Flags...

...in the 'opposition' section. Far too plethoric. Reckon I'll get rid of them as per WP:FLAGCRUFT. But feel free to discuss it here before I WP:BRD. Cheers! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 19:39, 26 March 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) 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)