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.)

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

This sentence is in the first paragraph of the lead;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lead (reader opinion)

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

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

Discussion re: Graeme Wood quote in lead section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ISIL does not control territory in Nigeria.

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

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

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

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

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

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

How should we address those territories outside Iraq and Syria?

The lead says;

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

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

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

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

Mbcap, the problem is that reliable sources do not say that ISIL controls territory in Libya and Nigeria. They do say that groups in these territories have sworn allegiance to ISIL, but there is no consensus on the implications of this. As Wikipedia editors, we cannot connect the dots on our own and conclude and ISIL controls territory in these countries; to do so amounts to original synthesis.

Banak, I think that's a fine proposal, though obviously it's too clunky to be the opening sentence of the article.TheBlueCanoe 13:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Not sure there's anything against having a note in the lead, other than that we want to keep it concise. I'm suggesting it look like:

"Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant is an Islamic extremist rebel group controlling territory in Iraq and Syria, and, according to some sources, Libya and Nigeria ."Banak (talk) 14:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Banak your suggestion, I think, is an improvement and would address the issues surrounding territories in other areas. Mbcap (talk) 11:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Yep, it's a good compromise. Though I'm not sure what the "some sources" are that directly claim ISIL controls territory in Nigeria.TheBlueCanoe 00:27, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Confusion between Wahhabism and Salafism

The two movements are similar but distinct. Wahhabism has recently merged with Salafism. For historical purposes Wahhabism is still used by academics and various other news agencies. This analysis might make it clear for editors. [13] Blizzio (talk) 00:32, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Salafism's roots date back to Ibn Taymiyyah. Sunni scholars such as Ibn Abidin and those before him rejected Ibn Taymiyyahs's teachings until Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Wahhab revived them. Around the same time as the Saudi Wahhabi movement, began Islamic Modernism in Egypt led by Rida, Abduh and Jamal. The modernists developed the Salafi methodology as a rejection of the Traditional Sunni School establishments such as Hanbali Hanafi etc. Wahhabis originally referred to themselves as unitarians but Saudi has most recently adopted the term Salafi. The adoption of the Salafi term by the Saudi's was beneficial because Salafi's already reject traditional Sunni schools although Wahhabis reject Sunni schools only partially. Both the Salafi and Wahhabi view Ibn taymiyyah as one of the best scholars of Islam. Unlike Salafis, Wahhabis use Hanbali jurisprudence to some extent. Salafi scholars such as Muhammad Nasiruddin al-Albani (noted for being the first scholar to label himself salafi) criticizes Wahhabis for this as mentioned in this article [14]. Albani's criticism of Abdulwahhab as not being "pure salafi" are just some of the quarrels within the movement. Other Salafists declare the Saud family as illegitimate rulers of Arabia, however since Wahhabis were able to militarily oppose ottomans with the help of Saud, and Saud was able to ideologically oppose Ottoman rule using Wahhabism. Both Wahhabis and Saudis have mutual interests to back one another. Blizzio (talk) 07:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Appropriate addition of Wahhabism to the ideology content

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think that a content in Ideology could encyclopaedically present:

• Based on Salafist jihadism and Salafism

in the context of Wahhabism

or simply:

• Based on Salafist jihadism

in the context of Wahhabism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My thoughts on this issue have already been discussed on the Al-Nusra Front talkpage - [16]. To put it simply, I'll support the inclusion of the term Wahhabi into this article once every single reference to the term Alawi/Alawite has been changed to Nusayri to denote followers of the Alawite faith. Both Wahhabi and Nusayri are used in derogatory ways. Wahhabi is almost always used by non-Muslims to reference Muslims that emerged 300 years ago in Arabia who wished to return to following Muhammad's teachings, as laid down in the Sunnah, the Qu'ran and the Sahabah. The followers of this Salafist revivalist-movement were led by Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab. His opponents used the term Wahhabi, so as to de-legitimize his followers, that instead of following the Sahabah and God, they were following Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab. Likewise when radical jihadists use the term Nusayri when referring to Alawites, it's to highlight the fact that instead of following God, they are following a mere mortal, Ibn Nusayr and his teachings. If Wahhabi is included into this article, than I must insist that the term Khawarij also be used when denoting the groups ideology, simply becuase the group dislikes both terms and by including one, you should include the other. Also becuase IS has been referred to as being Khawarij by various other groups, including al-Qaeda.

1. IS spokesmen Abu Mohammad al-Adnani mentions al-Qaeda denouncing Islamic State as 'Khawarij' - [17]
2. Islamic State magazine Dabiq retorts accusations of being labeled as 'Khawarij' - [18]
3. Member of al-Qaeda affiliated Al-Nusra Front asks the leader of the group, Abu Mohammad al-Julani to defeat the "Khawarij and ghulaat (extremists).” - [19] StanTheMan87 (talk) 10:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

All sects view themselves as the “TRUTH” and if you try label them they find it abit offensive, however labeling them by whom they follow should not be derogatory. The Sunni’s were labeled by which Imam they followed [20] but nobody found it as derogatory until Wahhabis came along. Heck even the Ahmadiyya don’t mind. To refuse a label and present yourself as following the true path is not accurate representation. Your incorrect about "Wahhabi is almost always used by non muslims", the muslims use it today in all parts of the world. Some known Anti Wahhabi groups such as The Indonesian Nahdlatul Ulama, South Asia's Barelvi & militant African group Ahlu Sunna Waljama'a. Your analogy of comparing Nusayris to Wahhabism is not correct either. Nusayris or Alawis did not call themselves something else and then recently change their title. Wahhabis refered to themselves as Unitarians and was scholarly refered as followers of Abdulwahab for hundreds of years. Recently in the 70's the Saudis switched to promoting Salafism as their title. Now you can see how confusion comes to play when a movement called Salafi became active in Egypt prior to the Wahhabi or Unitarian name change. I disagree with including Kwarij because Al qaeda said so. Are we now going to take Al qaeda at their word? Blizzio (talk) 11:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

For some Muslims (Muslims who actually know about their faith and aren't hypocrites), it is derogatory. You are using one of the names of Allah to refer to a mortal person. Al-Wahhāb (The Bestower) is one of the 99 names used for God. If you say Wahhabi to denote someone, you are either saying it as an insult or out of ignorance. You are twisting a name for God in order to label someone. Find me some Sunni scholars from the Islamic Ulama who mention the term Wahhabi when referring to those who take inspiration from Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab. Shia sources are plentiful and probably Sufi as well but show me Sunni ones please. Salafi would be even better. Any Islamic scholar who uses the term Wahhabi when referring to a group of people is pretty much using the 'Lord's name in vain'. So what, the point is those who took inspiration from Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab did not label themselves as Wahhabis, this term came from those hostile to these people for their beliefs. Please show me a source indicating when the Saudis changed to using the term Salafi. I hope it's not the same conspiracy source that stated Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab was a British spy. There are many Islamic sources from scholars which have labeled IS as being 'Khawarij':[21],[22],[23],[24],[25]. If you have an hour and a half to kill, this guy explains the IS-Khawarij relation pretty well [26]. StanTheMan87 (talk) 13:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The Ottoman Sunni scholars first labeled them “Wahhabi” see the Ottoman-Saudi War and analysis [27]. Mainstream jurists at the time [28] I already gave you a source on Saudi Wahhabi-Salafi Transition on Al-Nusra Page. Repost [29] p.4. Also Explanation of complete change 1970 [30] p.152 Accusations of being Khawarij can be inserted with quotations . I don’t think it has any place in the infobox. Blizzio (talk) 14:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

But your justification for labeling them as Wahhabi is essentially the same as calling them Khawarij. The fact that they follow certain practices attributed to the followers of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab make them Wahhabi in your eyes. Granted, people label them as such. However, the exact same can be said for labeling them 'Khawarij', in that they share similar beliefs e.g declaring Takfir on fellow Muslims when they commit only minor sins and making it obligated to kill these people, even though it isn't accepted by many Muslims that minor sins be rewarded with execution. And the sources I have shown above show that they have been likened to as being almost the 'Khawarij of the 21st century'. The source you cited, [31] is also incredibly opinionative. It's almost as if the author, Khaled Abou El Fadl, is seeking to whitewash Islam and Salafism by disassociating these Muslims who he labels as Wahhabis from being Islamic at all. StanTheMan87 (talk) 16:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

My "justification" is based on reliable sources. Your Islamic fatwa sources are unreliable. We cant WP:SYNTH, and conclude ISIS are khawarij because of links to Wahhabism. Al-Azhar University scholar on the subject [32] Blizzio (talk) 22:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Definition of extremism

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

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

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

Ian, labelling them as "sinners" would not pass NPOV by any means. They do believe they have the right to excommunicate. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 15:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Takfiri is not used by western media outlets. Blizzio (talk) 13:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Media outlets are not required to be western. They are required to be in English on en.wikipedia Justttt (talk) 17:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

We are not resorting to foreign terminology when an English word on the English Wikipedia is a 100% apt, accurate, and appropriate description of the subject. Tarc (talk) 17:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Tarc makes a good point. In searches in news:

• (isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") and (extremist OR extremism) gets to "Page 68 of 679 results" while

(isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") and (takfiri OR takfirism) just gets to "Page 35 of 344 results"

From what I have seen the references typically apply to the group itself.

GregKaye 11:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Renaming categories to use "ISIL"

FYI, there's a proposal to rename the categories for ISIL to use "ISIL"; for the discussion see WP:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_11#ISIL_categories -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 02:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 14 May 2015

• Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
• List of terrorist incidents linked to ISIL → List of terrorist incidents linked to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
• Killing of captives by ISIL → Killing of captives by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
• List of wars and battles involving ISIL → List of wars and battles involving the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
• Persecution of Christians by ISIL → Persecution of Christians by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
• Persecution of Yazidis by ISIL → Persecution of Yazidis by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
• Human rights in ISIL-controlled territory → Human rights in Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant controlled territory
• Timeline of ISIL related events → Timeline of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant related events

– WP:CONSISTENCY with the main article Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant -- we have discussed the naming of the main article many many many times, so all subarticles should be consistent with the titling of the main article due to the extensive existing discussions, instead of trying to use a title that was rejected for the main article -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Support

• Support I am the nominator. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:49, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support Proposal seems reasonable and provides clarification.--DThomsen8 (talk) 03:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

• OPPOSE, because the full name is less common in usage in sources as compared to the more common acronyms "ISIL" and "ISIS". Per WP:ACRONYMTITLE. "Acronyms should be used in a page name if the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject (e.g. NASA; in contrast, consensus has rejected moving Central Intelligence Agency to its acronym, in view of arguments that the full name is used in professional and academic publications)." Per NASA. Khestwol (talk) 05:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose the current titles have high recognisability and are more readable than the proposed titles. There are some instances in which an additional "the" is warranted. This isn't one of them. We wouldn't propose a move such as List of U.S. Highways in Georgia → List of United States Highways in Georgia or John Kelly (U.S. politician) → John Kelly (United States politician) and that's with a country that is a state. Request speedy closure. GregKaye 06:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Current titles are easier to read and in fact whenever we talk about these subjects in real, we mostly refer the organization as "ISIL". OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose ISIS is still in use and ISIL is occasionally used, whereas the only full names being frequently used are Islamic State and Da'ish. Don't use an obscure name that lengthens titles, even if it would be slightly better for consistency. Banak (talk) 11:21, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I would greatly prefer for all the ISIL/ISIS articles be moved to Da'ish if possible -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 14:54, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose All per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:COMMONSENSE. Almost no one will be searching for these articles using the newly proposed titles. Also, as others have pointed out above, the proposed new titles are cumbersome and excessively long. If there are concerns for someone actually doing a search using one of these titles, this can be resolved with a redirect. Bottom line; if it aint broke, don't fix it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:24, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Since the articles are at titles invented by Wikipedians as descriptive titles, no one will be searching for them by the exact format used anyways, since they are titles created to describe their content. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 14:54, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• 65.94.43.89 Google trends demonstrates that searches are made in the sequence: 1st, "Isis" (way ahead of the rest) so, just so we can see other results in perspective the trend results without "Isis" are repeated here. "Isil" comes a strong second, then "Islamic State" then "Daesh". Anyone searching on "Isis" or "Isil" will find our main article at the top of their search lists and anyone searching on "Islamic State" (from which our title is disambiguated) or on "Daesh" will similarly find our main article high up in listings.

On various rationales relating to representation we have not opted to present "Islamic State" but to disambiguate to the historic name "Islamic State of Iraq ant the Levant". This works with the main title but in other titles there is a difficulty that the Islamic State ..." beginning of the phrase can get lost following the preceding words. An "... ISI..." content is a lot more accommodating on the eye and is, with the use of several terms, is still very searchable. GregKaye 18:16, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

See also WP:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_11#ISIL_categories for related discussion on category names. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Counterproposal

• Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → ISIL

– Per comments above. Per WP:RECOGNIZABLE, the proposed title "ISIL" has high recognizability. Even the article ISIL itself mostly uses "ISIL" rather than "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant". Per WP:CONSISTENCY, because many articles are already using "ISIL" in their titles. Per WP:CONCISE, "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" has 36 characters (including spaces), but "ISIL" has only 4 characters (i.e. I, S, I, and L). Per WP:COMMONNAME. "ISIL" is about 30 times as common as "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant". Google Search (-wikipedia) for "ISIL" gets about 22,300,000 results for "ISIL", but only about 755,000 results for "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant". (Note that our other options, i.e. "ISIS" and "Islamic State", refer to many other things besides ISIL, so their Google Search will get many results which are not about ISIL but other things. "ISIS" and "Islamic State" have been rejected on this talk page multiple times, so I am not including them here.) Per WP:ACRONYMTITLE. "Acronyms should be used in a page name if the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject (e.g. NASA; in contrast, consensus has rejected moving Central Intelligence Agency to its acronym, in view of arguments that the full name is used in professional and academic publications)." For "ISIL", both the conditions at ACRONYMTITLE's guideline, i.e. the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation, and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject, are easily fulfilled, because the full name "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" is not so commonly used. Per NASA, which is located at "NASA", not "National Aeronautics and Space Administration". Also, in Arabic Wikipedia, the article on ISIL is located at ar:داعش. Its title is using the native Arabic acronym داعش (DA'ISH) for ISIL, not the full Arabic name. Khestwol (talk) 07:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Survey (counterproposal)

• Support move to "ISIL" per above. Khestwol (talk) 07:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment, in the comments on 65.94.43.89's proposal above, users have so far favored to use the acronym "ISIL" in the proposed titles, not the full name. So, what is their opinion regarding using the acronym "ISIL" in this title too, not the full name? Ping all the !voters there 65.94.43.89, GregKaye, OccultZone, Banak, Ad Orientem. Khestwol (talk) 21:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose – Please stop this stupid time wasting and leave the title alone. RGloucester — ☎ 14:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Stupid? Did you read anything written above and in the comments? On what rationale do you oppose? Khestwol (talk) 14:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:TITLECHANGES, for one. There is no justification for moving a stable article from one controversial title to another. What's more, this group is not primarily known as "ISIL" by anyone. The full name is required. Please stop this pure disruption, which has no goal other than to harm the stability of the encylopaedia. RGloucester — ☎ 14:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

RGloucester, you have provided no rationale to oppose. Why is "the full name required", even when the article itself mostly refers to the group as "ISIL"? There is of course a justification provided above, hence your assertion to discourage a title change does not apply. Khestwol (talk) 14:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I only want to move towards a more recognizable, consistent, and concise COMMONNAME that is clear and unambiguous, and suitable per Wikipedia's guidelines. You are free to !vote, but please state your rationale and do not oppose because you WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT.
Please do not WP:PERSONAL attack me by calling this proposal stupid. Because it will only discourage our consensus-building process. Khestwol (talk) 15:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• Weak support The name ISIL is in use, as is ISIS. But I would prefer Islamic State. Banak (talk) 21:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

"Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" is indeed too long, which obscures its recognizability. As a result, "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" is not as much in use as ISIS and ISIL. As for "Islamic State" however, many users have disagreed in past discussions. Khestwol (talk) 22:20, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I was the editor that proposed Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → ISIS. While the proposed change has the advantage of increasing consistency while maintaining recognizability, I have recently also really recognised that editors search for the article under a range of terms such as "ISIS", "ISIL", "Islamic State" and, it seems, "Daesh". The proposed change may have effect with regard to some of the searchability of the main article. GregKaye 03:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

GregKaye, doesn't "ISIS" have the same sequence of letters and pronunciation though, as the ancient Egyptian goddess Isis? I think the two names "Isis" and "ISIS" are too similar and "ISIL" provides a natural disambiguation to avoid ambiguity. Khestwol (talk) 08:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Khestwol I personally see strengths in both options and think that yours is a very valid proposal. I certainly think that "Islamic State" is problematic for mainy issues regarding NPOV, international usages and a need for disambiguation but I think that "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" provides one suitable route to resolve these issues. "ISIL" would provide commonality in terminological use with other articles. I think that there are advantages either way. I have read the arguments that you have presented. GregKaye 09:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

GregKaye: Thank you! At least someone is supporting. Khestwol (talk) 12:14, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose There should be quick way to know the full form of ISIL, I usually prefer the full form for titles. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:51, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

OccultZone: But earlier above you opposed moving article titles to use the full form. And here you are also opposing from using the acronym, and yet within the comment only referring to the group as "ISIL" rather than the full form? Khestwol (talk) 12:14, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Typo in 2nd Paragraph

Hi all, I don't have an account to edit this protected page with, but there's a typo in the second paragraph which begins:

The group is known in Arabic as ad-Dawlah al-Islāmiyah fīl-ʿIrāq wash-Shām, leading to the acronym Da'ish, Da'eesh, or DAESH (داعش, Arabic pronunciation: [ˈdaːʕiʃ]), the Arabic equivalent of "ISIL"[33]) On 29 June 2014, the group proclaimed itself to be a worldwide caliphate, with Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi being named its caliph,[37] and renamed itself "Islamic State" (الدولة الإسلامية, ad-Dawlah al-Islāmiyah).

Right after the [33] citation is an unmatched right parenthesis which should not be there.

Would be great if someone who can edit this page would remove it

74.67.209.64 (talk) 23:42, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Done Thank you for pointing it out. Mbcap (talk) 00:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Yemen

Ansar al-Sharia controls a large portion of Yemen, and they have apparently pledged allegiance to ISIL. Does that mean that ISIL also controls Yemeni territory? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MassachusettsWikipedian (talk • contribs) 05:25, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

No they don't control any territory in Yemen, they have a number of Wilayahs operating in the country but so far these seem to be small groups of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula defectors (AQAP) carrying out hit and run operations against the Houthis. AQAP controls some territory but is an independent group. Gazkthul (talk) 13:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Quranic justifications

@Mbcap: I read your edit summary. Sorry for not pursuing the thread regarding the issue. Could I have the link to that discussion? Mhhossein (talk) 13:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

MhhosseinThere was a discussion a while back about this where the justification section was trimmed down. It should be in the archives. I am bogged down with exams so apologies for not posting a link. If you find no consensus for it, please do revert the edit. Mbcap (talk) 14:32, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Citation overkill

GregKaye just removed some sources, stating "citation overkill".[33] It was a good edit and we need to remove more. There are over 620 sources with the repeated information. It takes pretty long to edit this article. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you OccultZone

Can editors please note that the initial text at Wikipedia:Citing sources only goes as far as to say that: "Wikipedia's Verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, ..."

Also at: WP:Manual of Style/Lead section#Citations presents: "Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article."

Given the nature of the ISIL article I see little need for citations in the lead.

I think that it may often be fair to present two citations especially if from less than mainstream organisations in case one of them goes dead. I also think that the use of multiple citations is warranted when multiple groups are mentioned as in the cases of the texts, "This name and the claim of caliphate have been widely criticised, with the UN, various governments, and mainstream Muslim groups" and "Media sources worldwide have also described ISIL as terrorist." However, in the later case I have deleted unique citations and have begun adding "{{ref name = "foobeedoo" /}}" type citation repetitions. GregKaye 12:55, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

We need many citations as many claims are extraordinary. However, we can replace several citations about different non-extraordinary claims by a single citations reused multiple times. Also glad someone else realised we don't need citations to summarise the article. Banak (talk) 13:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Isil's "remaining" slogan or motto

I was dubious in regard to the motto reference after seeing that the cited source also used a discredited map. I really wonder how current it actually is. To make comparisons I did these searches in news:

• "In God we trust" AND ("United States") AND (slogan OR motto) got "About 433 results" from 1 May 2014 to today

"baqiya wa tatamaddad" AND (isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND (slogan OR motto) got "8 results" from 1 May 2014 to today

I know that there is potential difficulty with language and transliteration here but I have to wonder how notable this claimed slogan is. The things that I have heard, which is not an ISIL slogan, include "Allahu Akbar" and other things.

Is there anything that we are missing here?

The Independent quoted a slogan use as just "baqiya"

GregKaye 17:24, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Additional (more reliable?) sources:

Washington Institute for Near East Policy [34] which is evident in its famous slogan baqiya wa tatamaddad (remaining and expanding)

European Council on Foreign Relations [35] The familiar slogan of the Islamic State, baqiyya wa tatamaddad (“remaining and expanding”), is indicative of the group’s aggressive, expansionist outlook

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace [36] Its slogan, “baqiya wa tatamaddad” or “lasting and expanding,” originated in a speech by Baghdadi in which he responded to al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri’s call for ISIS to leave Syria.

Also The Wall Street Journal has a video on this topic [37]

Gazkthul (talk) 04:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Gazkthul thank you. I was particularly curious about that "famous slogan" reference particularly in the light that it receives so little coverage. Its also interesting that it originated in a speech by Baghdadi. I was wondering about actual usage. The only instance I know of (multiply reported[38][39][40][41][42][43] is of the use of “baqiya”. I don't know if this was an anomaly or general usage. GregKaye 12:19, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

PNG or SVG emblem?

The file https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Seal_of_the_Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant.svg is a clearer and scalable version of the somewhat blurry .png file that is currently used in the infobox. The wikimedia description of the .png even recommends that the .svg version should be used whenever possible. Plus, all other emblems in infoboxes seem to use the scalable versions. Stygmax (talk) 22:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

The use of this image was discussed in February at: Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/Archive 30#Emblem by Kathovo, Legacypac, Mbcap, Banak and LightandDark2000 and was removed. The last edit in the thread was a request to: "provide sources that corroborate the view that they use this emblem." It was re added by StanTheMan87 in a Revision as of 06:40, 6 May 2015 but I do not see how the inclusion of the image is warranted. GregKaye 04:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

It was mentioned in an article detailing a journalist's trip to ISIL-controlled territories. It stated that he had received ISIL's Seal on a letter (implying that they are still using seal), which authenticated their approval for his visit. LightandDark2000 (talk) 06:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Aside from that, the current version of the Emblem is more detailed and better formed (in terms of the shapes and the writings), so it should be used in place of the other version. LightandDark2000 (talk) 06:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

LightandDark2000 Was this a newly printed emblem, a usage of an old piece of stationary, something else? Where can we see the image? How is it notable?

Re: "the current version of the Emblem is more detailed and better formed" is this in reference to the original version of the emblem as presented by the group or the representation produced as Wikipedia installed fanart? In whose opinion is it more detailed and better formed? Where have you seen it? GregKaye 04:19, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Obviously, I'm referring to the original version of the emblem as presented by ISIL , as the closer to the original, the better. LightandDark2000 (talk) 06:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Can anyone please "provide sources that corroborate the view that they use this emblem" as discussed GregKaye 12:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

There is no source for this emblem. The emblem has the old name so I doubt there would be any credible source for this emblem. I have removed it. Mbcap (talk) 22:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Not sure how you define a source, but there are many, many images available online with that emblem clearly visible, see [44], [45] for examples Gazkthul (talk) 22:42, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree the emblem is visible but it is not the one we have on this article. On this Wikipedia article page, the emblem reads ad dawla islamiya fee iraq washam encased around the seal but the emblem in the sources you have posted are different all together and consist of just the prophetic seal. Considering this, I have no idea why the current unsourced emblem has been re-included on this page. Mbcap (talk) 01:56, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

From what editors are saying it may even be possible to develop a whole content on imagery used by the group. However, depending on images used, it may be difficult to pick one and to encyclopaedically say that this is their emblem in the way that we have done. GregKaye 04:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

related images were added in a Revision as of 01:08, 21 May 2015 by Illegitimate Barrister this time with use of File:Seal of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.svg instead of File:Emblem of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.png. Either way, this can work if images are representatively captioned. I have used: Emblem of Isil although, perhaps with the emblem reading ad dawla islamiya fee iraq washam, a direct indication of Daesh might be more applicable. Previous consensus was to use "emblem". GregKaye 05:41, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

No single source has yet been provided for the emblem or seal. If there is no source, we should delete the emblem. Mbcap (talk) 07:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. It would be helpful if an editor such as StanTheMan87 or Illegitimate Barrister could do so. There has already been too much edit warring on this article. GregKaye 21:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2015

The map for ISIS depicts ISIS as having control of Ramadi, yet they only fully captured Ramadi on the 17th. The description of the map says it is depicting ISIS as of 12 May. Revise the description of the map to say it is depicting ISIS as of 19 May or 17 May.

Austinharig (talk) 23:01, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to take advantage of this talk page section to request a separate edit - there's an awkward line in the article that's been bothering me for what feels like quite a while. The final line in the opening section (This territorial loss almost caused a collapse of the Iraqi government that prompted renewal of US military action in Iraq.) I feel it ought to be changed to "The territorial loss almost caused a collapse of the Iraqi government and prompted renewal of US military action in Iraq." 24.163.57.88 (talk) 06:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

IS Map

First of all, thank you to whomever has been updating the map at the top of the article. I check in every other day or so to see how things have changed.

Is there anyone here with the expertise to combine these successive maps into a gif? I realize the image quality may have to be scaled back to make it a reasonably sized file, but it would be fascinating to watch the area progress in one animation. I have no idea how difficult this is to do. If I knew that much I would probably just try to make it myself. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 01:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I've seen animations on YouTube and one gif on reddit, but don't have the links to hand. Banak (talk) 07:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)