Talk:Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/ISIL

Considering the current unrest in Iraq and prominence of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and the ISIL/ISIS, the article needs some expansion and clarification.

• At what date did the ISI become the ISIL? It would be helpful to know to make better sense of later sections where they are mentioned..
• The history of the relationship between the ISIL and Jabhat al-Nusra is not described clearly enough. Is the ISIL now completely separate from al-Nusra, for example?
• The press refer to the body he heads as both the ISIL and the ISIS, which are the same body, but the article does not mention ISIS at all; it needs a brief description.

-- P123ct1 (talk) 20:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I've added detail on those points, article does need further work though. Gazkthul (talk) 23:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

--Head of ISIL in latest Iraq insurgency (June 11, 2014, ongoing) He may be dead, Kurds released a photo of him dead, and claimed he is dead, but it is not verified. Unsure how to add this to the article, a new section or?

ISIL is what Al Queda morphed into, while ISIS is part Syria/Part Iraq, wanting a new country of Sharia law, taking the middle third of Iraq. ISIL is in the north fighting the Kurds, while ISIL is heading toward Baghdad now (Fri Jun 13 07:18:21 UTC 2014) 8r455 (talk) 07:18, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Certainly that is ISIL's view, but Ayman al Zawahiri's view would be that ISIL was kicked out of al Qaeda by him and that al Nusra is the representative branch of AQ in Syria. But it is what al Qaeda in Iraq turned into. (29 June 2014). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.84.247 (talk) 01:23, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

@Gazkthul Thanks so much for adding that information so promptly. The article makes much more sense now.

@8r455 While events are unfolding and information is not clear, Wikipedia should not act like a newspaper or bulletin board. I think only when he is proved to be dead can we add this to the article. As for ISIS's ambitions, there is a Wikipedia article on ISIL which I think covers this. --P123ct1 (talk) 15:54, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

@Gazkthul Someone has added a paragraph (without a citation) on Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi being an assumed name. I have edited it to make it read more formally, but could you check the facts in it and amend if necessary, please? (My knowledge is limited.) --P123ct1 (talk) 18:50, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Homosexuality

I think this new paragraph should be deleted immediately. Wikipedia must have a rule on this sort of information appearing in its biographies, surely. . --P123ct1 (talk) 16:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

This user LibDutch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LibDutch) has been previously known to sock puppet. Please prevent this user from causing edit wars on this section which has been well cited. --80.203.46.65 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

None of your sources make any mention of al-Baghdadi. It was a convincing effort though. --Jleon (talk) 17:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

You are right that al-baghdadi is not mentioned. The reason for that is his real name has been used and not his nom de guerre. --80.203.46.65 (talk) 17:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Your first source doesn't name anyone specific as homosexual, the second is a dead link, and the third is completely unrelated to the subject. --Jleon (talk) 17:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that the second reference link was broken! I just fixed it. I am afraid I do not understand how you can claim that the third reference is unrelated. Does it not contain a proclamation by al-Baghdadi ? --80.203.46.65 (talk) 17:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Please stop adding such ridiculous crap to the article. AntiqueReader (talk) 17:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I gave user LibDutch a level 2 warning about poorly referenced BLP info. It looks like there may need to be a checkuser investigation about the IP reverts. - 21:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Technophant (talk • contribs)

No sources, sure, but it wouldn't be the first time a 'caliph' is into males, would it? Actually, given the historical tradition, I wouldn't say it's 'ridiculous crap' at all. 121.99.29.137 (talk) 00:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, firstly the hoax information was added by 80.203.46.65, not by user:LibDutch, who removed the section. Secondly, I've blocked the IP for being disruptive. Don't hesitate to contact me, or another admin, if there are similar problems in the future. Finally, thanks to all the editors (including a couple of IPs) who removed this section. PhilKnight (talk) 15:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Add reference to phony name

I added one, but someone deleted it before making this page unwritable. (It's funny how we make things uneditable AFTER making clear the Wikimedia Foundation's preferred politican spin!)

Here's what: ABU BAKR AL-BAGHDADI is as phony a name as you could ask for. First, ABU BAKR was the very first Sunni caliph. Second, AL-BAGHDADI means, "the guy from Baghdad," therefore presumably adding some oomph to his claims of primacy. It's like calling a U.S. presidential candidate George Washington II.

50.128.184.140 (talk) 22:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

His name is a nom de guerre, i.e. a pseudonym. Many leaders of his kind use a nom de guerre rather than their own name. (See Wikipedia article Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, section 7.7.2 table, for many examples of this.) --P123ct1 (talk) 10:22, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Caliphate Established

After "Predecessor" it should say "Caliphate established" instead of "Monarchy established"

On the contrary, it should rather say neither. 121.99.35.103 (talk) 17:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Ibrahim/Abraham

"Ibrahim" is the correct name. I think I am correct in saying that "Caliph Abraham" is merely an Anglicised version of "Khalifa Ibrahim". --P123ct1 (talk) 03:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

We should use his surname, not 'Caliph'

We should not be choosing sides in this dispute by referring to him as the Caliph while Sunnni scholars are saying things such as “But the declaration issued by the Islamic State is void under sharia and has dangerous consequences for the Sunnis in Iraq and for the revolt in Syria,”[1] which by the way should be in the article. Dougweller (talk) 06:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I've taken this to WP:NPOVN#Should Wikipedia state that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is Caliph?. Dougweller (talk) 10:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Have added info re scholar dispute in "As Caliph of the Islamic State" section. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

qaradawi

Referenced with footnote 31 it is stated, that a "scholar in Egypt" has spoken against al-Baghdadi. This is wrong, because al-Qaradawi (although he is an Egyptian) lives in Qatar, because the Muslim Brotherhood is outlawed in Egypt. 137.44.1.153 (talk) 18:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Rewording this so that Wikipedia is not stating he is a Caliph

To keep this article NPOV Wikipedia must not suggest that he is actually the Caliph. I don't want an edit war about wording and am open to suggestions. The current wording has us stating that this actually is a caliphate, that al-Baghdadi is actually a successor to Muhammad, and that he rules over an Ummah. At least the lead says self-proclaims Islamic state, the infobox doesn't even do that. Dougweller (talk) 08:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Have added some words to "As Caliph of the Islamic State" to show there is dispute about the legitimacy of the new caliphate. Have also adjusted the wording in the lead to comply with NPOV - replacing "is" with "has been named". --P123ct1 (talk) 15:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Obviously his followers can call him whatever they want, but we have to follow NPOV. The situation is analogous to the various Popes and Antipopes, where there might be two or more Popes at a given time. Clement VII and Urban VI in 1378, for example. Queen Elizabeth II still holds the title of Duke of Normandy, and rules the Channel Islands in that capacity, regardless of the fact that few French folk would agree. This may end up being a matter of who wins the public relations battle, but for the moment may I suggest that we regard all opinions as fringe opinions held by a few and qualify our wording appropriately? Things might work out for these guys, and I for one would welcome our new Caliph overlord, but at the moment it looks like ISIL/S doesn't have the backing of the established Islamic administration, and until there's general agreement on the matter, it's a fringe view. --Pete (talk) 19:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

This is hardly a public relations matter. The dispute will doubtless be discussed endlessly everywhere, but ultimately it is a matter for the Shia Muslim theologians and scholars to sort out, which I imagine will take some time. Until then, everything that is said by anyone outside those circles - and I expect there will be a deluge of commentary - is really a waste of time. Wikpedians should bear this in mind when making new entries on this matter. It really is as simple as that. There is no need to make it complicated. --P123ct1 (talk) 20:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

If a view is widely held, it becomes less fringey, and must be accorded appropriate NPOV recognition. Wikipedia is not in the business of determining who is the One True Pope or anything like that. We report, based on reliable sources, and if some Islamic thinktank declares one thing and (say) Fox says something else, do we go with the primary source or the secondary? --Pete (talk) 20:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

As an historian, I think that this is obviously not going to be a matter for the theologians to decide, because it always depends on which theologians you ask. Shia and Ahmadiyya caliphs will never be caliphs for Sunni theologians, but we have them as caliphs in Wikipedia. The decisive factor is whether they can secure a territory large enough and call their head of state caliph for a period of time long enough. My two cents. --Damián A. Fernández Beanato (talk) 22:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Not Sure if Sayyid

Shouldn't we report whether or not the current Caliph is a Sayyid? One of the most fundamental requirements of that office is that the occupant must be a Sayyid to be a Caliph. --99.157.108.186 (talk) 19:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

No it's not. The first three Rashidun were no Sayyids and the Ottomans (for example) neither, as well as some other dynasties. 178.203.180.246 (talk) 20:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Video disputed

Same point actually. While the authenticity of this video is being challenged anything mentioning it should not be worded as though Wikipedia is accepting it as authentic. That was in the source used but ignored. Dougweller (talk) 06:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

And now it's been changed to the apparent dispute is not about whether it is really him but if it is the first time. @P123ct1:. Dougweller (talk) 12:07, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I heard on CNN that the video is now confirmed. - Technophant (talk) 11:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Image

I found this page with a small photo of the article's subject with a Creative Commons license of a type I don't recognize. It seems like it should be able to be reused. Any suggestions? - Technophant (talk) 21:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

user:Medtaha2013 is attributed of uploading the photo. I looked on wiki commons but could not find that user as of 3 July 2014. I also looked for Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi on wiki commons but could not find any photos as of 3 July 2014. Geraldshields11 (talk) 02:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

On his talk page commons:User talk:Medtaha2013 I found a file that translates "The faithful Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi" that was deleted as apparent copyright violation. It's odd that this user has only one global contrib, an edit to add the image to this article. If memory serves me right, it is NOT acceptable to use a "fair use" image for a living person because it's possible that free image can be found. Somebody recently tried to use a fair-use image from a screen capture from his appearance at a mosque in Mosul but it was removed. - Technophant (talk) 16:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I found an image of him from the Rewards for Justice website that is explicitly in the public domain. I then uploaded a modified version of it that looks better. As far as using the newer image of him like these they would be considered Fair-Use unless Al Furqaan Media decides to use a Creative Commons license. Fair-Use can't be used unless there's no way a free image can be obtained, and since there is one and Ibrihim is still alive only freely licensed images should be used. I also added an audio clip from the Justice site that is also PD. Somebody needs to go though the audio and incorporate the information about the attack on the Mosque he's alleged to have planned into the article. - Technophant (talk) 11:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Camp Bucca detention

Why does the fact that this guy was held at Camp Bucca, Iraq keep being edited out. This is a vital and important piece of information. He was held and released in 2009. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.172.77 (talk) 05:00, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

He was actually captured in February 2004 and was held at Camp Bucca until early December 2004, when he was released according to DoD records. All the claims that he was captured in 2005 and held until 2009 go back to be the recollection of a single Army colonel who said Baghdadi’s "face is very familiar." and was interviewed by The Daily Beast. In short, the claims that held until 2009 are spurious and unreliable. I modified that section to reflect the initial claims stemming from that article, which were later debunked by the actual records from the DoD. Lestatdelc (talk) 09:54, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Dear user:lestatdelc, Someone edit the info back in. Geraldshields11 (talk) 02:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Dear user:Geraldshields11 Thanks for the heads up. Fixed it and put it back to the fully sourced version. Lestatdelc (talk) 02:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)--86.157.47.215 (talk) 16:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I would not look on politifact as a neutral source. The claim is made that all allegations that he was captured in 2005 and held until 2009 can be traced back to an article in the Daily Beast dated 06/14/14. However the Daily Telegraph 06/11/14 was quoting the 2009 date for release (the article was said to be an update of one which was published on 01/11/2014 although I don't know if the claim was made there) but obviously this means that the claim did not originate with the Daily Beast which published its own article later. I have not tried to trace the earliest mention of 2009 but it does indicate that the Politifact article is untrustworthy and should be removed. 86.157.47.215 (talk) 16:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

1RR restriction

Just in case anyone misses my addition to the top of the talk page, in accordance with a July 2013 motion and community consensus on August 2013, editors of this article are restricted to 1 revert per 24 hours when reverting logged-in users. Read the message at the top of this page for more details. Violations of this restriction will lead to blocks or other sanctions (such as page or topic bans). Dougweller (talk) 12:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

information provided by the IS supporters

http://www.ibtimes.co.in/isis-leader-jew-conspiracy-theory-claims-al-baghdadi-mossad-agent-born-jewish-parents-606213 Based on information provided by the Islamic State supporters, the real name of ISIS leader is Abu Dua, Ibrahim bin Awad bin Ibrahim Al-Badri Al-Radawi Al-Husseini Al- Samarra'i.

https://archive.org/stream/TheBiographyOfSheikhAbuBakrAlBaghdadi/The%20biography%20of%20Sheikh%20Abu%20Bakr%20Al-Baghdadi_djvu.txt --91.10.54.164 (talk) 04:44, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Infobox

Why are people insisting on putting a title before his name in the infobox? We don't do that. See for example, Elizabeth II, Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, Uthman ibn Affan, and al-Mutawakkil III. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

So Director, despite breaking WP:1RR, no response? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

You're right, in spite of having broken WP:BRD.. Of course you were also wrong with the Al-Baghdadi stuff. -- Director (talk) 13:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

"...most commonly known by the nom de guerre Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi" and the title of this article. Who is wrong again? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

You. Because the commonname is by no means necessarily the appropriate name for the infobox heading. -- Director (talk) 15:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Description as Caliph

To me, the language about him being a caliph is only problematic, because the language used to describe IS is too strong. Is there a way of detracting from the legitimacy of IS, more than the simple "self-proclaimed" modifier? It seems, that just because IS, has the word "state" in the name they gave themselves, state doesn't have to be used in the title, e.g., separatists instead of self-proclaimed state might be preferable to many. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.110.241.69 (talk) 22:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Why the fuck does this article portray him as actually being a caliph, rather than merely making the vain claim to be one?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.232.16.82 (talk • contribs) 18:51, July 1, 2014 (UTC)

What criteria do you propose we use to determine who is actually a Caliph and who is merely claiming to be one? --217.42.219.213 (talk) 22:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

If you look at footnote #6, you will find a formal statement from ISIS announcing the new caliphate and that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is appointed its caliph, about half-way down. It is a statement, not a claim, whose authority has not so far been disputed by the Muslim world (although it has unsurprisingly put the cat among the pigeons with the theologians and other branches of Islam. Watch this space. :D). --P123ct1 (talk) 19:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Re your foul language, I refer you to WP:CIVIL. --P123ct1 (talk) 19:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Still, the question remains, why the fuck?— Preceding unsigned comment added by SkyHighSelfregard (talk • contribs) 01:35, July 3, 2014 (UTC)

What, a desert pirate declares itself the Caliph and wikipedia registers it as if were?

Is this a joke?

I thought that was an encyclopedia, with a minimum of criterion.--191.187.141.93 (talk) 08:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Just like any encyclopedia, Wikipedia's job is to record facts, not make judgments. If you want judgments and commentary, read the newspapers and journals. --P123ct1 (talk)

That's correct, and the fact is that he is not recognized as a Caliph by anyone outside of his own group. --Jleon (talk) 16:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

If you can find a written source for that information, why not add this fact to this or the ISIS article and put in a supporting footnote? --P123ct1 (talk) 20:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Well where is your source that states a significant number of Muslims DO believe he is the Caliph? If a madman on the street declared himself the Pope, no one would disagree or disagree -- they would just call him an idiot, like we should all be doing. Where are the vestments, the texts, the institutions, the laws or the history? He's just an upstart idealist. There may be something to be said in the Law of the Sword, sure, but he needs a lot more authenticity than you're currently giving him. PC imbecility once more, it seems, about a murdering idiot. 121.99.35.103 (talk) 06:35, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

You fail to grasp the principle. Wikipedia can only record what happens and what others have said, i.e. facts, it cannot make fresh statements of its own. (You are confusing Wikipedia, an encyclopaedia, with a history book, where facts are discussed and interpreted.) Wikipedia now has one mention of the fact that some people dispute his right to be Caliph, which is supported by footnotes. It cannot say anything more about it until others do, and when they do, it will be recorded, as fact. --P123ct1 (talk) 08:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

The principle that because a madman calls himself the Pope, he must therefore be the Pope? Yes, he and his merry band of beheading, hand-lopping, murdering Medieval Romanticists DID declare that Head Moron #1 was Caliph, but where's the 'fact' in that? It's laughable that you think acknowledging this 'fact' (once more, this is no 'fact') makes you objective. I understand your point, but if James Jeffries from Oklahoma all of a sudden said that, wait a minute, Muslims did in fact worship Termagant, you would hardly add that to the page on Allah, would you? It wouldn't NEED 'facts' against it, because it's absurd, outdated nonsense, just like a Caliphate. Then again, that would support whatever politically correct view then current. 121.99.35.103 (talk) 17:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Or, moreover, an assertion that Al Baghdadi is a homosexual. Where are your 'facts' against that assertion? I haven't seen any. 121.99.35.103 (talk) 17:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I think a number of editors in this thread have misunderstood our policies. The editors arguing for including the assertion that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is the successor to Abdülmecid II need to provide sources, otherwise the assertion is original research. PhilKnight (talk) 02:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed (July 2014)

I see that User:Dougweller added the WP:NPOV tag here here and started a discussion on the notice-board here. He is questioning whether use the use of the title Caliph is neutral. The discussion was newly started and is still open. - Technophant (talk) 16:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree with User:Dougweller about this. I strongly suspect these articles are being used for propaganda purposes. It is clear that this guy is simply a terrorist warlord using fancy titles, it is rather like saying Qaddafi was the "King of Kings of Africa" simply because he said he was. No. This man is not a caliph and if the title is used it should be with quote marks "Caliph" to show the title is asserted and not genuine. User talk: Aetheling1125 23:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

User: Aetheling1125: I really don't think these articles are propaganda! I think the trouble has arisen simply because Wikipedia cannot think of a way to cover these new facts neutrally. It really is quite difficult to see how else it can be done other than the way it has been. I agree that perhaps putting "Caliph" in quote marks, or couching statements carefully to avoid stating outright that he is caliph - as is already being done, in fact - is the best way in the text, but "Caliph" with quote marks in the infobox would look a little silly! It is a real headache to know what to do there. Actually, apart from the infobox, I really cannot see that the article is biased in the way it is handling this. It boils down to that infobox and what to do there. (I think it would be acceptable to put "as self-proclaimed Caliph" in the contents box.) --P123ct1 (talk) 08:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

PS As in the case of the ISIS article, a decision on this (whether to go over to "Islamic State" and how to deal with "Caliph") is fairly urgent. The articles are being read by many thousands of people a day (see the statistics under "Page information", it's staggering) and for as long as Wikipedia dithers on this, the more its reputation is being damaged, IMO. It really must come out with a clear policy, not next month, but now. --P123ct1 (talk) 08:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I started a move request at Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant‎. Dougweller (talk) 16:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I tried making one of the headings in the text (not boxes) "As self-proclaimed Caliph of the Islamic State", and got reverted with the note "We don't need that POV"! --P123ct1 (talk) 08:34, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1, I did not revert you but I think you're misrepresenting the situation. The article still contains the subsection heading to which you refer. The editor who noted "we dont need that pov" removed only the words "self-proclaimed." That edit is justified by the subsection's first sentence:

• On 29 June 2014, ISIS announced the establishment of a caliphate, al-Baghdadi was named its caliph, to be known as Caliph Ibrahim….

One of the sources cited states, "Abu Muhammad al-'Adnani, the official spokesman of the Islamic State in Iraq and Sham (ISIS), announced the group's rebranding as the 'Islamic State,' declaring itself a Caliphate and its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the Caliph Ibrahim." According to this and other sources, the Caliph was not self-proclaimed; the group appointed him. If you wish to challenge that, you should provide reliable sources. JohnValeron (talk) 15:30, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia should recognize him as the Caliph. It should be self-proclaimed or false or something which should clearly state his illegitimacy. Just having him stated as the Caliph on Wikipedia can be used to convince some people to state allegiance to him and confuse them into joining his terrible manslaughter. --» nafSadh did say 05:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm ok with "self-proclaimed" wording. PhilKnight (talk) 10:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

All monarchs are "self-proclaimed", lets not resort to nonsense. This man is head-of-state of a political entity: if he calls himself a "caliph", that's how we must refer to him. He can call himself "Supreme Llama of the Solar System", we'd have to report him as such. There's a lot sillier things of that sort.. Bokassa I, micronation leaders, etc... This isn't about "recognition", its about representing his official status within his state. -- Director (talk) 14:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

1. IS is not internationally recognized as a state, therefore this terrorist can not be a head of state - and also wikipedia should not appoint him head of state or "caliph".

2. This man is recognized leader of a terrorist organization called IS.

3. There is no recognization as "caliph" from muslim leaders for e.g Grand Mufti Shawqi Allam-

4. Caliphate is only a self-description...

Wikipedia should not support IS wording and IS propaganda.. --Empiricus-sextus (talk) 20:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The IS is essentially an unrecognized state, like Somaliland or Transnistria or a whole bunch of other entities. If we're to cover it, we have to use its own terminology. Al Baghdaddy (short for Albert?) is the head of state of this de facto existing entity. His title is "caliph". We can't call him anything else (such as "Non-caliph of the Islamic State" or "Supreme Patient of the Megalomania Ward"). Had he called himself "Grand Clown" we'd call him the "Grand Clown", etc.. The idea is to define and describe his position within the IS.

Point by point:

1. Sure he can. He can be a de facto head of state. If the head of state of that state is called a "caliph", we obviously ought to use that term.

2. On Wiki the IS is primarily treated as a political entity, not an organization, though it is both. "Terrorist" is such a loaded and vague term, you can almost apply it to anyone and anything, but I guess the IS is often described as such..

3. There is no official "Caliph Recognition Committee" that has the power to bestow the title to someone or other. I'm sure his claim is rejected almost exclusively in the Muslim world, but that really has no meaning at all. None of these people were granted the right to be "caliphs" by any committee of "Muslim leaders", whatever that term means exactly. -- Director (talk) 21:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Let me put it this way. If Yevgeny Shevchuk, the incumbent President of Transnistria, dissolved the parliament and declared himself "Padishah Emperor", the Transistria article would refer to him as "Padishah Emperor of Transnistria". Ok? -- Director (talk) 21:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Director has pointed out some important perspective. We can actually put the title as is, but add an note about the status and controversy.

On another note, IS claims jurisdiction over all Muslims; most Muslims do not pledge allegiance to this man. IS has de-facto control over some places but is there a de facto state? IS is, for all it is, still a political organization. --» nafSadh did say 21:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Just for the record "Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi" is not in fact this man's name, its his nom de guerre inspired by Abu Bakr (the first caliph). His actual (first) name is "Ibrahim". -- Director (talk) 02:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

My gosh! who knows what his real name is and what he really wants to be called by; seems to have been changing nom de guerre every now and then. BTW the article address the names issue well. You may help improve it as you deem necessary, please. --» nafSadh did say 05:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

His full legal name by Iraqi law is indeed 'Ibrahim ibn Awwad ibn Ibrahim ibn Ali ibn Muhammad al-Badri al-Samarrai' like the article says. Its all covered very well, as you say. -- Director (talk) 12:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• " User: Aetheling1125: I really don't think these articles are propaganda! I think the trouble has arisen simply because Wikipedia cannot think of a way to cover these new facts neutrally. (I think it would be acceptable to put "as self-proclaimed Caliph" in the contents box.) "

• Pretty good angle on the issues with Wiki and having to make everyone happy. I'd argue though that there is another way to handle neutrality versus factual content devoid of some absolute consensus. The section -- Militant activity -- could be changed to Terrorist Activity. Militant, as we all should know, is a euphemism used to hedge against labeling terrorists too harshly. How about changing that section header? The man is a terrorist, self-proclaimed ruler/Caliph or not. 10stone5 (talk) 22:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I removed the tag. Any alternative wording would be long-winded. zzz (talk) 05:22, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Alleged Snowden leaks

An anonymous user added this interesting diff. It says "On July 15 2014, as part of former US NSA Edward Snowden leaks, it was reported that "the British and American intelligence and the Mossad worked together to create the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)." Since the story was picked up by the International Business Times[2] it may be worth noting on the site, however I don't think it's authentic information. I also posted this at Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Alleged Snowden leaks. Until there's a consensus to use the material there, please do not put it in this article. Thanks. - Technophant (talk) 04:59, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

@Dougweller: @Technophant: Re the very latest addition to al-Baghdadi's military background (possibly by the same IP) on the military training he allegedly had from the US, UK and Mossad, I have just converted the footnotes given in support from the bare URLs, most of which look suspicious to me - quite apart from the fact that two of the eight citations given are repetitions of articles from two other sources and one is a dead link (the International Business Times one, which is on google but has a dead link there as well). The Globalresearch.ca source is on Wikipedia and that site is clearly anti-Semitic and anti-American. None of these except for the IBT are mainstream sources, so you may want to remove this latest addition to the article until better citations can be found. I am not expert enough on Baghdadi and ISIS to revert the edit myself. --P123ct1 (talk) 11:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much for alerting me to this. Those were terrible sources - conspiracy websites, WorldNetDaily which we never use as a source, etc. This reinforces my belief that this 'news' doesn't belong in our article without mainstream sources. Dougweller (talk) 12:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Although there were two IP addresses they seem likely to be the same editor, so I've given the latest a 3RR warning. It may be necessary to semi-protect the article if the IP is going to continue to hop. These sources simply cannot be used in a BLP article where we need solid, clearly reliable sources. There really isn't any doubt about this. If anyone needs to know about GuardianLibertyVoice, see [3] - clearly doesn't meet our RS criteria. Dougweller (talk) 21:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I support semi-protection. - Technophant (talk) 18:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I support it as well. --P123ct1 (talk) 16:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Indirectly, IS and other militant factions indeed are a consequence of American foreign policy. I mean without 2003, there would be no IS. Furthermore, IS has obtained AMERICAN weapons like humvees and lot of American weapons from the Iraqi Army. FSA factions joined IS and therefore, American resources are used by IS. It is like Operation Cyclone. Maybe a blowback or Intention? I don't know. I mean, look at Libya, US and Nato were providing weapons and air power to such groups, which killed the ambassador in Benghazi. --KingOneBozz (talk) 12:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

KingOneBozz, you are new so you won't know that discussing al-Baghdadi or Isis here is not appropriate - this is not like web forum. Here we discuss only the article and how it can be improved, and the article itself has to be based on what we call reliable sources, not on our own opinions - see WP:NOR. Dougweller (talk) 14:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Following it back, the first source of this news is the Gulf Daily News, claiming that it was revealed by Edward Snowden as part of his NSA leaks. However, there's no record whatsoever of Snowden actually saying it, other than Gulf Daily News. There's also no record of Gulf Daily News or anyone associated with them contacting Snowden, nor accessing the files he leaked via any known entity with access, at least that can be found. On top of that, the paper itself is run by the Al Hilal group of Bahrain, who are known supporters of the Hamas Government. I don't know about the rest of you, but it looks pretty shaky to my eye. Churba (talk) 15:06, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually the July 15 Gulf Daily News report is not the first source of this hoax. Gulf Daily News simply revised a story published four days earlier at Som Daily News. Among the details Gulf Daily News judiciously cut out was Som's key clause in its lead: "according to Iranian news agency Farsnews." So not even Som Daily News is the original source. The reference to Iran's semi-official Fars News Agency may be to this story in Arabic published by Fars on July 8. As for Fars being a reliable source, it's useful to recall that in January 2014, Fars also cited Snowden as the source of its classic report "Snowden Documents Proving 'US-Alien-Hitler' Link" that space aliens run the U.S. government. JohnValeron (talk) 18:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Technophant Who says that you present these allegations as fact? Is everything on Wikipedia a fact? This is conspiracy or whatever but this issue has received much attention world wide and a Google search gives too many results. This material should be included in the article with caption Allegation or Concpiracy theories. These theories are correct or not is not the point of concern. But the issue is raised is the main thing. P123ct1 the sites you mentioned may be anti American but you seem to be pro-american and not neutral Wikipedian. The issue meets WP: Notability Guidelines and should be included in the article--Ubed junejo (talk) 20:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Ubed junejo: It was the obvious "anti" stance they take that struck me, more than who they were "anti". Similarly, if they had been jingoistically "pro" American and "anti" others, I would regard them with suspicion and not a reliable source. (I am very pro-NPOV! - see long discussion on the ISIS Talk page. :D.) I agree with you that perhaps these theories should at least be mentioned, as theories, just because they are so widely spoken about. I felt that way about false rumours that have caught the public's imagination; their existence as rumours is notable and deserves a brief word, IMO. (See "Alleged Snowden leaks" on the ISIS Talk page.) --P123ct1 (talk) 20:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The challenge is finding a reliable source reporting these rumors as such. I've been following the story and all the articles I've seen are unquestioning presentations of the rumors as facts. One exception: TIME's "Why Iran Believes the Militant Group ISIS Is an American Plot". JohnValeron (talk) 22:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

JohnValeron: But why do the rumours have to be presented as such? I am genuinely puzzled. They can still be presented in a neutral way, can't they, without necessarily having sources that they say they are just rumours? If put this way, "Assertions have been made by X, Y and Z that such-and-such happened/has been said", giving sources to back that up those assertions by X, Y and Z, that would surely be acceptable in Wikipedia, wouldn't it? Wouldn't it comply with NPOV? Wikipedia is supposed to indicate the differing points of view there may be on a subject, and if it is done neutrally in that way I can't see anything wrong with it. I can't see how if done the way I said it would be spreading rumours either, which was an objection raised earlier about reporting rumours. Have I missed something? --P123ct1 (talk) 07:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

The Time article looks good. But I don't think this belongs here. It would belong on the ISIS/IS article. Dougweller (talk) 09:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1, you're not the only one who's puzzled.

• At 20:53 on 6 August you commented, "Perhaps these theories should at least be mentioned, as theories, just because they are so widely spoken about. I felt that way about false rumours that have caught the public's imagination; their existence as rumours is notable and deserves a brief word, IMO."
• At 07:54 on 7 August you commented, "Why do the rumours have to be presented as such?"

P123ct1, if these rumors are notable "as rumors," then they must be identified thus, not as mere "assertions by X, Y and Z." All assertions are not rumors. We ought not mislead the reader when we, as editors, know these assertions are false—indeed, not just false, but in attributing to Edward Snowden the charge that Mossad trained al-Baghdadi, propaganda traceable directly to al-Baghdadi's avowed enemy, the government of Iran.

• On the ISIS Talk page at 15:26 17 July you wrote, "I think rumours that gain traction should be recorded in Wikipedia, especially since they sometimes become folklore over time. Looks like it is happening already with the ISIS being 'too extreme' for al-Qaeda notion."

That's a persuasive argument. Yet to what extent does it apply to the "Snowden said Mossad trained al-Baghdadi" story? This particular rumor is less than 30 days old. It's a long way from becoming folklore. I'm not even sure it's gained traction, being scarcely mentioned in mainstream media. (TIME's "Why Iran Believes the Militant Group ISIS Is an American Plot" is the singular exception.) I'd appreciate your further thoughts. JohnValeron (talk) 15:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed with P123ct1. No doubt presenting an opinion held by different parties and without making it statement of Wikipedia does not violate NPOV Policy and it is better to present different perspectives to the reader regarding the subject without favouring one or other. Dear Dougweller this material does belong here as well as to ISIS article. Allegations are that Al-Baghdadi is such and such and so these do belong to this article. By not including this we are misleading the reader and taking sidesUbed junejo (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

We aren't taking sides by not mentioning it. The Time article does not say the US trained al-Baghdadi. And it seems to be the only truly reliable source so far found. And for a BLP we need clearly reliable sources, no matter who the person is. Dougweller (talk) 16:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

JohnValeron: I still don't see why rumours have to be presented "as such", never did, so no contradiction there. I would have thought the edit I mentioned on Camp Bucca and al-Baghdadi made that clear. That rumour I edited as '"The Daily Beast" reported [this] ... However, the US Defence Dept said [that]", i.e. refuting it. That never said anything about a rumour, but got the idea, and the truth, across. It's all in the way it is worded. These rumours could be presented as theories, which would clearly get across that they are not the truth and the reader would not be misled. I haven't read the TIME article yet, but it sounds like a useful source as at least they call them rumours. But should the absence of other sources calling them rumours really stop Wikipedia mentioning them? As Ubed junejo said, remaning silent until some other source calls them rumours could be construed as Wikipedia taking sides. That was beginning to happen when Wikipedia still kept silent about ISIS being a terrorist group even as ISIS atrocities were piling up daily. (That has been rectified now.) As for whether these rumours have gained traction, I don't know how mainstream they are yet, so cannot comment on that. Thirty days is indeed not very long and I never suggested they were rumours with traction anyway; your comment there is a bit like the "When did you stop beating your wife?" question! Hope you're less puzzled now. --P123ct1 (talk) 18:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Summary Technophant began this section by directing our attention to the Gulf Daily News report that, according to Snowden leaks, al-Baghdadi "took intensive military training for a whole year in the hands of Mossad, besides courses in theology and the art of speech."

• Technophant advised against using this material until a consensus formed to do so.

• Dougweller expressed his belief that this "doesn't belong in our article without mainstream sources."

• Churba said, "It looks pretty shaky to my eye."

• Ubed junejo argued that it should be included but captioned Allegation or Conspiracy theories.

• P123ct1 said "perhaps these theories should at least be mentioned, as theories, just because they are so widely spoken about."

• Dougweller said, "The Time article looks good. But I don't think this belongs here. It would belong on the ISIS/IS article."

• Ubed junejo said this material belongs here as well as in the ISIS article. "By not including this," he said, "we are misleading the reader and taking sides."

• Dougweller responded that Time "seems to be the only truly reliable source so far found," and pointed out that it "does not say the US trained al-Baghdadi."

This section has now been open to discussion for more than three weeks. Counting Ubed junejo and P123ct1 in favor of inclusion, with Technophant, Dougweller, Churba and myself opposed, I think the consensus so far is to exclude the charge that al-Baghdadi was trained by Mossad. Please understand I don't mean to foreclose further discussion, in which I look forward to participating. My intention is simply to help focus our discussion. JohnValeron (talk) 20:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, JohnValeron, for that useful summary and moving things along. I have read the TIME article and still think the story is worth a mention, as it said the rumour went viral on the internet, so many will have heard it. The story could be stated, with the Gulf News as the source, followed by the refutation, backed up by the TIME article. However, it is probably best to see if it gets any more mention in the mainstream RS press before making any changes. --P123ct1 (talk) 21:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the last revert of someone trying to add this, I see he used VeteransToday, an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory site that cannot be used in a WP:BLP - we have to have solid sources for anything contentious. Dougweller (talk) 15:56, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller, good catch. The Veterans Today article is an English iteration of a French report.

This is like Snowden Hoax 2. Whereas the first Snowden Hoax claimed Mossad trained al-Baghdadi, the sequel claims al-Baghdadi was born Jewish. What's interesting, though, is that they're starting to back off the Snowden connection: "according to sources reputed to originate from Snowden" and "information was attributed to" him. That's a far cry from reporting "Snowden reveals" or "Snowden confirms," as the earlier headlines read. I suspect this bit of Internet lunacy has jumped the shark. JohnValeron (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry I don't know protocol. Politifact has investigated these claims and found them to be a hoax: http://www.politifact.com/search/?q=Israel http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/aug/19/blog-posting/edward-snowden-leaked-nsa-documents-show-us-israel/ The taxonomy of a hoax

In their refutation of the Hornet’s Nest story, Time points out that as early as June, Iranian sources have been accusing America of creating the Islamic State. On June 18, the Iranian Fars News Agency quoted Iran’s top commander, Hassan Firouzabadi, blaming the Islamic State on the West.

"The (Islamic State) is a move by Israel and the U.S. to create a safe margin for the Zionists against the resistance forces in the region," Firouzabadi said. The U.S. and Israel, he continued, are reacting to "the recent victories of President Bashar Al-Assad in Syria" and "in Iraq."

Time -- along with major American news sources, Al Jazeera, Daily News Egypt, the UN, and several other Middle Eastern countries -- say that the Islamic State is an offshoot of al-Qaida. In fact, we wrote last week about how al-Qaida rejected the Islamic State in part because of ideological differences and disputes over authority.

That’s not to say America is completely blameless when it comes to the Islamic State -- the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the weapons deals it struck to try to bring down Assad may have all played a part in ISIS’s rise. But there’s no evidence of an American, British and Israeli plot to create ISIS.

Yes, this is a conspiracy theory

The only lucid defense of the idea that Western intelligence agencies created the Islamic State intentionally comes from the Center for Research on Globalization (CRG), a Canadian website that bills itself as an alternative news source, but has advanced specious conspiracy theories on topics like 9/11, vaccines and global warming.

Kurt Nimmo, writing for the CRG through InfoWars, had four points defending the plausibility of the idea that America and Israel helped create the Islamic State.

First, he claims that Baghdadi was radicalized at a U.S. military detention facility from 2005 to 2009. Baghdadi may have been radicalized by his earlier detainment by the United States and his subsequent detainment by the Iraqi government, but the Defense Department says Baghdadi was not a U.S. prisoner during the period that Nimmo mentions.

Second, Nimmo quotes a Jordanian official claiming that "the U.S., Turkey and Jordan were running a training base for the Syrian rebels in the Jordanian town of Safawi." But that’s a mischaracterization -- the article Nimmo links to clarifies that the fighters "became members of the ISIS after their training," meaning they weren’t trained expressly to be members of the Islamic State.

Third, Nimmo quotes an article depicting Baghdadi as the latest in a decades-long CIA program of successful mind control, including Rev. Jim Jones, the founder and leader of Peoples Temple. That article actually acknowledges that there’s no record that Baghdadi was "held and treated by a secret CIA mind-control unit at Camp Bucca from 2004 until 2009," but argues that, obviously, those records would have been destroyed. That counts as a conspiracy theory in our book.

Fourth and finally, Nimmo quotes an Islamic State member who claims that all current al-Qaida affiliates "work for the CIA," with no evidence besides his word.

So where does Snowden come in?

If there were documents revealing Operation Hornet’s Nest, they’d probably be in Snowden’s NSA cache -- but they aren’t.

Two weeks ago, blogger Alan Kurtz went in-depth on the genesis of the Snowden-Islamic State hoax, tracing it to a July 6 post in Arabic on the German domain shababek.de. From there, the claim spread across Middle Eastern papers, including the Fars News Authority and the Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA), and eventually made it across the Atlantic to the CRG and InfoWars.

Most of these articles referenced other articles that didn’t name sources, but the IRNA, in response to Time’s critique, pointed toward a story in The Intercept, a startup by journalist Glenn Greenwald. Greenwald’s First Look Media is one of three holders of Snowden’s NSA files, along with The Guardian and Washington Post writer Barton Gellman.

But, Kurtz points out, there’s no mention of Operation Hornet’s Nest on The Intercept. Greenwald himself tweeted that he’s "never heard him (Snowden) say any such thing, nor have I ever heard any credible source quoting him saying anything like that."

WikiLeaks and Snowden’s ACLU lawyer Ben Wizner also tweeted refutations of the hoax -- for us, the final nails in the coffin.

Our ruling

Middle Eastern publications have been circulating a rumor that Snowden’s NSA leak reveals "Operation Hornet’s Nest," an American, British and Israeli plot to create the Islamic State to destabilize the Middle East.

This isn’t the first time Iranian publications have mischaracterized the Islamic State as an American creation, but it is the first time Snowden’s name has been attached. Sources with access to Snowden’s documents have directly refuted the hoax. The Islamic State started as an al-Qaida offshoot, and there’s no reason to believe otherwise.

We rate this claim Pants on Fire! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.162.253.252 (talk) 07:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Sermon picture

I am sorry if this has been addressed before, but I don't see it here.

Why is not the sermon picture from (I think) Mosul used in the article? Most of the sources agree it's genuine, except for Iraqi officials, but that can be mentioned in the article (for example, by saying it's "alleged" footage). --- Ɍưɳŋınɢ 19:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it was removed for copyright reasons. --P123ct1 (talk) 07:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Baghdadis jailbreak of Abu Ghraib

"In the same spirit, his greatest coup so far was to free around 500 of his most loyal supporters during a spectacular jail break last July at Baghdad’s Abu Ghraib prison, supposedly the most-heavily guarded facility in the country.", written here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/10891700/Iraq-crisis-the-jihadist-behind-the-takeover-of-Mosul-and-how-America-let-him-go.html So this man was a former prisoner who came back after founding ISIS and freed his former inmates? I think this is relevant to the article as a motive that drives this man named Baghdadi. He seems to be on a revenge mission. --217.82.158.50 (talk) 22:56, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Education

Is the source cited for this information adequate? It is the CNN, who simply say they got the information from jihadist websites. How reliable is that? I have tried to remove the sentence as it is not adequately backed up, in my opinion, but it has reappeared. --P123ct1 (talk) 09:14, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I think is is likely because Ayman al-Zawahiri is also university educated.--KingOneBozz (talk) 18:05, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately likelihood is not proof! . --P123ct1 (talk) 16:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Someone could write a email to the University in Baghdad and ask if this guy is alumni. My Arabic isn't good enough. But, if he was an imam in a mosque, he must have earned a degree. --KingOneBozz (talk) 17:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Is there a University of Islamic Sciences in the Baghdad suburb of Adhamiya? Or was it the College of Islamic Sciences at the Bab Al-Muadham campus of the University of Baghdad, I wonder? Nurg (talk) 08:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

We wouldn't accept an email. Dougweller (talk) 14:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

His education has been widely publicised, there is no need for that any more. --KingOneBozz (talk) 15:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and to put down a marker here in case: he was neither a mullah nor an imam, just a cleric (as per sources), so I hope those don't creep back in again! --P123ct1 (talk) 11:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Is there any reliable info that he has "a PhD in Islamic studies from the University of Islamic Sciences in the Baghdad suburb of Adhamiya"? Is there any reliable info for even the existence of a University of Islamic Sciences in Adhamiya? He wouldn't the first or the last to inflate his CV with a non-existent degree from a non-existent university? Come on, surely someone would at least know if the University of Islamic Sciences actually exists. I have doubts. Nurg (talk) 09:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

@Nurg: It certainly exists but it's the College of Islamic Sciences. It's part of the University of Baghdad.[4] [5] [6]Dougweller (talk) 14:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I finally got it sorted. It was the Islamic University in Adhamiya. Nurg (talk) 12:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

That does throw a monkey wrench at the idea that ISIS doesn't have anything to do with Islam (since it's leader is accredited in Islamic studies) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NWo4lifePT (talk • contribs) 18:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Spin ibn spin

Why does the en Wikipedia article begin "Ibrahim ibn Awwad ibn Ibrahim ibn Ali ibn Muhammad al-Badri al-Samarrai"? ar:أبو_بكر_البغدادي begins with text that machine code translates to: "Ibrahim Awwad Ibrahim Ali al-Badri al-Samarrai" which is also a little handier in that doesn't span the whole page.

I am also concerned that "Ibrahim ibn Awwad ibn Ibrahim ibn Ali ibn Muhammad al-Badri al-Samarrai" only gets 10 results on Google news. Why are we reporting this?

Ibn just means son of so the name just means "Ibrahim son of X son of Y ibn son of Z"

Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories?

Do we really need such a large section devoted to these idiotic conspiracies? I could understand mentioning it, but I think we're placing too much importance on these crackpot ideas. Megalodon22 (talk) 22:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Infobox royalty versus officeholder

I have once again changed the infobox back to royalty versus an officeholder. I first reverted after AcidSnow said that "He is not "royalty" but a lunatic. The claim that he is a "Hashimite" is unsourced and his claim that he is a Qurash is nothing more than a claim. The same can be said about him being a "Caliph"." Him changing the infobox based on his point of view does not seem appropriate. It would also have no bearing on whether is the caliph, or monarchical head of state, no matter how unrecognized that state is by others, of ISIL.

AcidSnow changed it back again later after saying "Sorry but a caliph is not a royalty it's a political office. Very few "Muslims" will recognize him as such. Not even Al-Qadea." Once again international and widespread recognition is not necessary to be the monarch of a state. If others do not recognize ISIL, they wouldn't grant his political leadership legitimacy anyway so I'm not sure why that would be a reason to change it.

I'm posting this here since he changed my edits twice, which I believed to be without substantial and policy-guided rationale. What do others think? Hello32020 (talk) 02:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think royalty is the appropriate infobox to use, one example I would point to is Mullah Mohammed Omar, the leader of the Taliban who controlled up to 90% of Afghanistan between 96-01, he was the Emir, which is like a Prince, but the infobox used is Officeholder. Gazkthul (talk) 04:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Royalty is not the correct infobox, especially since this is a Sunni Caliph. The entire Shia-Sunni split is about the successor to Muhammad. Shia's believe that it should be a blood relative of Muhammad(very royal-like) whereas the Sunni do not. This is explained in detail in Caliphate. From that article:

Sunni Muslims developed the belief that the caliph is a temporal political ruler, appointed to rule within the bounds of Islamic law (Sharia).

Shia Muslims believe in the Imamate, in which the rulers are Imams divinely chosen, infallible, and sinless from Muhammad's family – Ahl al-Bayt literally "People of the House (of Muhammad)" regardless of majority opinion, shura or election.

As we all know, Royalty claims to derive it's authority from diving right. Therefore this current Caliph is a Sunni one, which definitely excludes him from being Royalty. Myopia123 (talk) 23:51, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

• Although ISIL is an organization claiming religious authority, the question here is what political authority that Baghdadi and his organization claims he has. The idea that all royals claim divine right is also false, the British monarchy has not claimed that since the seventeenth century [[7] and I don't see anyone trying to remove infobox royalty from Elizabeth II. The point of the infobox is to convey information on the political status of the leader and, as the leader of an organization claiming to be a "state" he doesn't hold the political office that Infobox Officeholder is used for and instead claims to be monarch. All historical caliphs that I have seen on Wikipedia also use the royalty infobox. Also someone has since changed it to infobox criminal, which I don't think is appropriate as the article is focused on ISIL's activities and not him being wanted by the U.S. government. Hello32020 (talk) 02:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

All of his political status is self-proclaimed. He IS wanted by the US Government. If the criminal infobox is used then more relevant information can be conveyed(crimes, status, reward money, etc.). If the 'royalty' infobox is used, it's going to prevent us from including a lot of information that would be relevant in an infobox and instead focus on the different titles he's held through ISIL's name changes. Myopia123 (talk) 03:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

And to be completely serious, if this article is granting him the same legitimacy as the actual four unambiguously recognised Caliph's, you are going to piss of 99.9% of the world's muslim population. -Myopia123 (talk) 03:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a neutral point of view any discussion of "granting legitimacy" is without merit. Political officeholders in partially or unrecognized states have the appropriate infobox for the office they claim (i.e. Ahmed Mohamed Mohamoud for Somaliland another state recognized by no state) why would we not use the same procedure for claimants to being a monarch/caliph. Hello32020 (talk) 04:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

And what about the point that the royalty infobox having limited utility as opposed to the criminal or even person infobox. Unless you know a way of merging infoboxes, I think it is important that we are able to add info like crimes, status, reward money, and all of the other fun things that come with being a terrorist. -Myopia123 (talk) 05:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• Whether or not he is accepted by the majority of Muslims world wide, this doesn't negate his claim as being 'Caliph' of the Islamic State. The title is not disputed by anyone, not even Al-Qaeda Emir Ayman al-Zawahiri or Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar have claimed the title of 'Caliph'. Currently, his ascension to the position of 'Caliph' is permissible. He received a doctorate in islamic studies from the University of Baghdad, so he is well educated. This is seen when he spoke in Classical Arabic during his sermon in Mosul earlier this year. He claims to be a member of the Quraysh tribe which cannot be disputed as it would be near impossible to determine this already mysterious mans parents, much less his lineage dating back 1400 years ago. Local ulama have pledged allegiance to him in both Mosul and Raqqah, and the Islamic State's Sharia Council have also declared him to be legitimate, so in the eyes of the Islamic State (Which are the ones who have declared him as being their Caliph), he fits the bill as Caliph material of the Islamic State. The point I am getting at is Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia. It is not a politically correct magazine. Wikipedia tells it like it is. And by this, despite being self-proclaimed, he is the Caliph of the Islamic State, as that is what they (ISIS) have declared him as, even if a majority of Muslims who don't live in Islamic State denounce him one way or the other. It is an indisputable fact, that ISIS have declared him as their Caliph, which is why I support the previous info-box of Royalty or an Office holder info-box that Gazkthul suggested. If you are really that afraid of pissing off "99.9%" of 'Muslims', then use the title 'Caliph of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant' instead of 'Caliph' to make a distinction between the Islamic State and the rest of Islam (In your opinion). Furthermore, the information referred to as relevant ("crimes, status, reward money, and all of the other fun things") information was already included within the article anyway. StanMan87 (talk) 12:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• Well, my final two cents on this is that he is more notable for being a terrorist, who is a fugitive from justice with a bounty on his head. The fact the he styles himself Caliph and calls ISIL a Caliphate are his own personal claims. Michael Jackson was frequently called the King of Pop but a royalty infobox is not used for him. The criminal infobox is more useful in this article. The fact that he calls himself a caliph is something that is only worthy of being noted in a summary, not creating a whole infobox for. Myopia123 (talk) 18:10, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

More notable for being a terrorist? Reliable sources and media outlets worldwide seem to disagree with that statement. Whether right or wrong, he is almost always styled as the self-proclaimed or self-designated Caliph of the Islamic State [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14] just to list a few. You may not find his own proclamation of being the Caliph bearing any significant but regardless, it is. There hasn't been a Caliph in 90 years since the final days of the Ottoman Empire and no one to my knowledge at least, has claimed the title since this year of 2014 AD. Your statement "Royalty is not the correct info-box, especially since this is a Sunni Caliph" seems to hold little water, as the last official Caliph, Abdülmecid II, uses the Royalty info-box with the title "Caliph of Islam", as do all the other Ottoman Caliphs on this Wikipedia. The criminal info-box is useless, the information conveyed within is mentioned within the article as I already stated and your contrast to Michael Jackson's title "The King of Pop" is a weak comparison, the "King of Pop" is a title with no historical meaning or connotations spanning more then a millenia. The title of Caliph is no nickname, it's an ancient title, and you do not yet have consensus to unilaterally change the info-box in this article. StanMan87 (talk) 04:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not stopping anyone from changing the infobox back. I won't even have a problem with that elaborate royalty infobox if it can incorporate all of the information that comes with the criminal infobox because that is just as relevant, if not more, than his self declared caliphate. -Myopia123 (talk) 05:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll leave this for others to decide in a vote so that a consensus can be reached. StanMan87 (talk) 10:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

He is definitely not royalty. He is not the leader of a recognized or unrecognized state (regardless what he calls his rebel terrorist group). He is guilty of crimes against humanity and mass human right violations. Criminal infobox is more appropriate as the infobox should detail his wanted status and criminal activity. Legacypac (talk) 02:51, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

According to whom? How can you declare who is royalty and who isn't? The Rashidun Caliphs conquered (or liberated, depending on your POV) great swathes of land and spread Islam in the 7th century. Guaranteed, there was blood shed in the process, it's impossible to deny it. Caliph Yazid I of the Umayyad dynasty massacred 72 at the 'Battle of Karbala' (More like a slaughter), including a 6 month old child simply becuase they disagreed with his ascension as Caliph. Yet he uses the royalty info-box. So where is the consistency when a man claims the mantle of Caliph and has the religious education to make such a claim permissible, compared to the plethora of Caliphs throughout the ages who have also spilled blood in the name of religion? Did the western world decide to make that distinction at the turn of the 21st century? And the fact remains: The land mass in both Iraq and Syria that is under the control of the Islamic State is governed, run and operated like a state. Whether or not you or any other nation recognize the legitimacy of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi or the Islamic State, is entirely irrelevant on Wikipedia. Personal opinion should have no say in whether or not IS is good or evil, right or wrong, illegitimate or legitimate and should not follow a clear one-sided agenda, even if that agenda or viewpoint is the norm. What matters are facts, such as that no state recognizes the Islamic State, that the majority of Islamic scholars don't recognize the ascension of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi as being legitimate and indeed, that he is recognized by the U.S government and no doubt other nations as a wanted man. But the fact stands: He is the Caliph of the Islamic State whether you or I, the U.S or the international community like it or not. It was ISIS not I which has bestowed upon him this title.
This topic being discussed is contentious. I understand your viewpoint that he is listed by the U.S government as being a wanted terrorist, and wish the use of the criminal info-box as being more appropriate. However, in my opinion, him claiming the position of Caliph of the Islamic State, the de facto leader of a landmass roughly the size of England with its own military force, with a means of sustaining itself through oil revenue and taxation no different to many of its legally recognized neighbors, is more indicative of an office-holder info-box. Remember that the Taliban Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan was never recognized by the U.N or the United States (I know they were recognized by 3 states, 2 of which withdrew recognition in the late 90's), yet their leader uses the office-holder info-box despite being listed for a $10 million dollar bounty by the U.S State Department. Now I'm sure you would say the afghan Taliban are a terrorist organisation, despite the fact that the U.S have not recognized them as one, yet their leader is a wanted man. Again, I'm more than willing to abide by the current info-box, provided that there is consensus and my opinion is at least considered. StanMan87 (talk) 11:30, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Like I said, I personally feel that having only a royalty infobox with a great amount of detail about every single change of title from Position X to Y to Amir to Caliph is trivial information. But I have no problem with such info as long as it includes the info about his terrorist status and other relevant info. -Myopia123 (talk) 12:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Religion

This heading may be trivial for some, but it's very important to get this accurate. What is he? A Wahhabi? A Salafi? A Sunni? I don't have a great understanding of the various Islamic movements, sects and offshoots. The current usage of Salafi links to the Salafi Movement, but not all Salafi's are jihadis or condone the Islamic State exploits in Iraq and Syria. Salafi jihadism perhaps? This is more of an ideology though , and not a religion. What is a succinct and concise term that can be used for religion? Only facts should be used when deciphering this. No personal opinions however popular or mainstream they may be, should dictate what is used in this article e.g He is not a Muslim becuase he is killing people or He is a Muslim as he has been sent forth by God to slay infidels. StanMan87 (talk) 10:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I generally don't give my personal opinions in Wikipedia, but this guy's religion is terrorism; that's it.

That being said, Wikipedia do not judge any person or thing and from NPOV, ones' religion is what he claims to adhere. – nafSadh did say 09:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Possible former affiliation

Hi. This blog post by a commentator on the Iraqi and Syrian conflicts indicates he may have been a former member of the Mujahideen Army. Should we mention this? 130.64.98.109 (talk) 22:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Woops, silly me, forgot the link. [15] 130.64.98.109 (talk) 22:11, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Citizenship and Nationality

Is Al Baghadadi a citizen of ISIS, or Iraq? I bring this up because for all intents and purposes he would not do things like vote in Iraqi Elections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gingeroscar (talk • contribs) 12:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

there is no ISIL citizenship. Rejecting your citizenship (assuming he did) does not invalidate it - that takes govt action. Legacypac (talk) 01:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Dead

ISIS confirms death of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi http://www.iraqinews.com/features/urgent-isil-confirms-baghdadi-s-death --74.58.223.174 (talk) 00:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

"Correction: A Twitter account affiliated with Al-I’tisaam Media wrote that it would publish details regarding the killing of ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and his succession. IraqiNews.com reported that fact after it was republished by the Iranian government owned Al Alam news network. The information and photographs which later appeared on the Al-I’tisaam Media Twitter account contained images connected to the death of another ISIS militant, not Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi. IraqiNews.com regrets that it did not wait for the Al-I’tisaam Media affiliated Twitter account to publish follow-up information in order to fully evaluate its veracity. We apologize to our readers for this error." Gazkthul (talk) 00:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

http://www.iraqinews.com/iraq-war/urgent-isis-leader-abu-bakr-al-baghdadi-remains-alive/ Link to that article!Breckham101 (talk) 19:40, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Reason for revert?

Legacypac could I ask why you made this revert[[16]]. As far as I can see, that was a sensible edit by the IP to link this page with the ISIL portal. Mbcap (talk) 01:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I have tried to ascertain if there was something wrong with the IP's edit. The IP's edit was a good edit so I will revert it Legacypac. If you still would like it deleted, please explain your reasoning and I will undu it if appropriate. Mbcap (talk) 03:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The IP added a link to a junk portal on the edge of deletion that adds no useful information not in this article already. Legacypac (talk) 04:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

That portal is being maintained by the editor Feon as agreed on the deletion discussion page. The portal pretains to ISIL so it is very useful and linking this article with that, is a good edit. The portal is not junk and please do not disparage the work of another user. Please refrain from doing this in the future. Mbcap (talk) 04:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Feon did some minimal fixes to the portal, it still imparts little useful info. Your idea of quality and mine are obviously different. Someone who inserts off topic copyvio and barn door pushing POV full of obvious errors in a high traffic article has no credibility commenting on my edits. Legacypac (talk) 04:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorist section

I'm kind of doubting why there is even a section for conspiracy theories on this article. Almost any political or religious figure is surrounded by tons of conspiracy theories, and almost none of them have enough weight to warrant an entire section on a Wikipedia article. If we're going to use the best possible sources to try and document conspiracy theories, it'll just end up in a overwhelming amount of sections listing crazy conspiracy theories and then ending in all the ways they've been debunked by other people.

I don't think that this article needs a conspiracy theory section. What do you guys have to say on the matter? Karzelek (talk) 04:35, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Just thinking that there's a bit of a reach here to push Al-Baghdadi as the Madhi, trying to set up for the Eschaton. With the Jews playing both sides, they can keep to the Revelation script and have the christians and muslims do their work for them in uniting the world under one side or the other for their final battle. After that Judea comes in to pick up the pieces and establish their one world government. Only there is no Jesus to come back after the end of it to save everyone. Only the 144,000 jews and their 2,800 slaves apiece. Coincidentally, this adds up to just under 500,000,000; keeping with their plans as laid out on the Georgia Guide Stones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.84.168.100 (talk) 09:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

the whole article is a conspiracy theory. 81.155.208.167 (talk) 02:14, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the section should be removed Brianbleakley (talk) 01:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

Hi everyone, I understand that we don't want to give al-Baghdadi or the IS any undue legitimacy, but the first paragraph is sort of a mess. I already made a change but here are some more proposals:

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, ...alternate names, is the leader of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. He has been proclaimed by his followers to be the Caliph of the Islamic State.

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, ...alternate names, has been proclaimed by his followers to be the Caliph of the Islamic State, though the legitimacy of the Caliphate is widely rejected.(with a reference) Brianbleakley (talk) 00:49, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I doubt the interest of this paragraph among the introductice session: "As a caliph, he is required to hold firmly to each dictate of the sunnah whose precedence has been set in the recorded in sahih hadiths and has an established chain of narration. If Baghdadi fails to meet any of these obligations at any period, he is legally required to abdicate his position and Muslims would appoint the most religiously and spiritually pious individual among them." 09 march 2015 - 16:37 GTM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.54.246.66 (talk) 15:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

New Infobox

Whilst I was a proponent of either the Royalty or Officeholder info-box and opposed to the criminal infobox, I am now more inclined towards Infobox person. I'd like to justify this with the following points:

1.) Consistency - This article is the only article I have seen out of all the most well known jihadist and wanted individuals of the U.S State Department which uses the criminal info-box. The following indidiuals who are either wanted or formerly wanted by the U.S government possess the person infobox: Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Abu Ayyub al-Masri, Abu Abdullah al-Rashid al-Baghdadi, Maulana Fazlullah, Ibrahim al-Asiri, Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, Ezedin Abdel Aziz Khalil. The list goes on. However, this article using the criminal info-box is inconsistent with the other following articles.

2.) Commonality - The other issue is that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi isn't known as a common criminal, and isn't presented as such by most media institutions around the world, as were most if not all of those individuals I cited above. He's more well known as being a jihadist warlord, a self-proclaimed 'Caliph', or leader of a militant organisation, but hardly referred to as a 'criminal' [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]. He isn't notable solely for being wanted by the U.S or being a criminal in there eyes.

3.) WP:NPOV - The criminal info-box is just as POV as the royalty info-box. One relegates him to common crook status, and the other alleviates him to royalty. A neutral point of view must be struck mid-way. This is why it is of my opinion that the infobox depicting a person is the most NPOV alternative. StanMan87 (talk) 10:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

StanMan87 what is the difference between the two infoboxes. Mbcap (talk) 01:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

It is the criminal infobox, not the "common criminal" infobox. In fact the subject is most known for the crimes against humanity he directs. The box includes useful fields for dealing with the crimes he is committing, especially if he is ever caught. Not all these fields are currently visible in edit because whitewashers/fangirls/followers keep changing the infobox, but could be added back. Legacypac (talk) 04:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Not only is Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi surprisingly under represented in the media (my opinion), but when he is represented, he is hardly ever referred to as a criminal or war-criminal. It's always 'self-styled caliph' or 'caliph of the so-called Islamic state' or 'jihadist warlord' etc. StanMan87 (talk) 07:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

StanMan87 you say he is hardly ever referred to as a criminal or war-criminal but Legacypac says that he is most known for crimes against humanity which he directs. Which one is the correct case as represented by reliable sources? Mbcap (talk) 07:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The criminal infobox is a political stance, it's very POW and it's far away from the goal of WP (ie. neutrality). This is the english wiki, not the USA wiki. --Der Blutsauger (talk) 22:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I was unaware of this discussion when I edited this page today and I have (among many other changes) altered the infobox to 'infobox_person', simply for the reason that the native_name field would not appear if 'infobox_criminal' was used. (not as a "whitewashers/fangirls/followers" as mentioned earlier) It appears that it should work but doesn't! I also noticed that the 'Years active' field was also now displayed. What difference does it make in practical tersm? Does criminal infobx add hidden categories or something like that? 220 of ^Borg 06:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I have seen infoboxes being combined in the past. If this can be done in this case, then all useful information can be represented.Myopia123 (talk) 19:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Leadership title

What word should we use for leader of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant? We have seen emir and ringleader. Emir implies that the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant is a real country and that the leadership has some legitimacy within. Ringleader suggests that ISIL is just a band of outlaws, which may be true but is not a completely neutral point of view. It is also not a proper title word like sultan. I suggest that the most neutral term is leader where a formal title is not required, and use emir or another proper title word based on reliable source references where a formal title is required. —Anomalocaris (talk) 20:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd just call him the "Self-proclaimed Caliph" of the Islamic State. That's the title he uses, and as long as you add in the qualifier that he declared himself as Caliph and that the overwhelming majority of Muslims don't recognize his authority as such, then he's no different than any other usurper in history who claimed a title and held at least some territory where his claim was recognized. Jsc1973 (talk) 03:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Infobox

Guys on March 24 i saw some spam photos on this article StanTheMan87 (talk) 09:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

March 24 spamming incident

Hey guys. I'm here to tell you that on March 24, 2015, there was some spam photos on this article, like StantheMan87 stated.

The pictures said: "He is a killer. We hate him".

I know that Abu Du'a is not a respected person to the world, but this does NOT mean that we can vandalize the pages.

Thank you. -Ryguyrocky-

Ryguyrocky (talk) 13:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi

Cyberbot II has detected links on Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://justpaste.it/g23g

  Triggered by \bjustpaste\.it\b on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Death

Should Radio Iran be considered a reliable source? [24] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

It would be prudent to wait for sources other than Radio Iran to confirm the reports, so that we are not relying on just one source. --Joshua Issac (talk) 12:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

No offence to "Radio Iran" but if and when Baghdadi dies it will be reported on every single news site and breaking news on every news network. Gazkthul (talk) 13:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Besides, earlier reports by Iranian and Iraqi media about death of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, Albawaba News (with its headquarters in Amman, Jordan) on 28 April reported that Daesh leader deemed ‘clinically dead’ by Israeli physicians in Golan, see here [25]. Similar news has also been telecast by Waqt News(an Urdu tv channel) disclosing source from Iraqi Intelligence. Nannadeem (talk) 19:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

As per WP:BLP we need reliable sources stating he is dead before we can do the same. Given his prominence, when he dies it will be listed on thousands of websites, breaking news on tv, Government officials will be commentating on it, and IS will no doubt release martyrdom statements. Random sites making ludicrous claims (Israeli doctors treating him in Syria) do not constitute reliable sources. Gazkthul (talk) 01:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)