Jump to content

Talk:Islamic State/Archive 19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21→Archive 25

Standard for Naming ISIL in Sinai, Libya etc

One way to keep the size of the main article down while covering ISIL activity in areas outside Iraq and Syria is to proactively create articles for other areas. Even more then the differing opponents in Iraq , Syria and Lebanon, the situation in other countries is quite different.

Libya: There is enough researched news stories reporting on ISIL's setup in Libya to put a good article together [1][2][3][4] but I'm not aware of one. ISIL claims Barqa province (refering to eastern Libya "Last week a new pan-Libyan group calling itself "Mujahideen of Libya" declared allegiance to Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, claiming it was sub-divided into three provinces: Barqa, Tripoli, and Fezzan (southwest Libya). The ISIS leader responded by calling all supporters in Libya to join what he called the newest administrative region of the Islamic caliphate." Also "ISIL Tripoli" claimed responsibility for a car bombing in the capital.

Egypt: Ansar_Bait_al-Maqdis already exists and is begging for a new name.

Algeria: Jund_al-Khilafah also begging for a new name.

I was going to suggest "Wilayah+Geographic Name" but this has serious problems. It is too generic to be used alone because Algebra is already divided into 48 Wilayah, Iraq uses the term somewhat, and Wihayah is used in other areas ISIL may set up shop like Tunisia, Oman, Sudan, Afghanistan, and Morocco. Second these "provinces" are not real provinces like ISIL is not a real state. Calling versions of ISIL by legitimate sounding governing entities - "Walaya Algeria" = "Province of Algeria" - makes no sense since they don't control the country, even if that is what ISIL calls their regional organization. Finally Walayah is not an English word, has variate spellings, and is not really what readers will search for.Finally that naming convention does not link the articles clearly to the mother group which sees these groups as part of themselves and no longer existing under the old names.

So instead I suggest a very simple naming convention that is very user friendly. I suggest the ISIL acronym as it stands without naming Iraq and the Levant, which these areas are outside of.

Proposal Requested Move - Ansar Bait al-Maqdis => ISIL in Sinai (they seem to be not dealing with the rest of Egypt for now) Requested Move - Jund_al-Khilafah => ISIL in Algeria Create - ISIL in Libya and if warranted, ISIL in Saudi Arabia, ISIL in Yemen

In each page we write "The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant in COUNTRY is a... organized as "Wilayah ISIL ASSIGNED NAME" or the "Province of ASSIGNED NAME." The group does/does not control territory blah blah blah.

Thoughts? Support? Other ideas? Legacypac (talk) 11:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I think we should wait to see what these groups name themselves. I do a lot of work with requested moves and it seems that even if a group "self-describes" itself (to use a phrase we are familiar with) by a new name, this is still not necessarily readily accepted until the name comes into public recognition. At the moment Ansar_Bait_al-Maqdis and Jund_al-Khilafah are known by those names.
At present we have a category: Category:Organizations affiliated with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. In line with what you are saying I'd suggest we change this to Category:Organizations with declared allegiance to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and possibly create a new category Category:Organizations associated with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant as a mop up category.
The word "allegiance", I think, can be put to good use in many of these situations. I don't know how much further we can go than that. We can't state for certain that these groups are actually assimilated into ISIL. All we can definitely do is report on evidence that they have pledged allegiance.
As a parallel, when genuine nations have what get called dependent territories, those territories are still not automatically assumed to be a part of the particular sovereign state to which they are attached and in some cases the sovereign state has no direct control over the dependency. The ISIL hierarchy certainly do not have direct control over their affiliates other than by instruction. The group concerned can then, at any point, choose to follow the instruction or not.
Perhaps we can adapt a section of "Allies" to groups declaring allegiance to ISIL. Any article naming suggestion needs to follow WP:AT Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2014/11/islamic_state_leader_1.php discribes very well the actual situation. Note the nullification wording that the loyal groups are following. Legacypac (talk) 17:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Can't figure out where you are referring to P123ct1. Ansar Bait al-Maqdis is the group now calling themselves ISIL's Sinai Province.
In the ISIL world view, as laid out in territorial claims section, is they declared Priovinces in Iraq, then Syria, now 5 other places. Outside of that there are group that support like Boka Haram and in southeast asia. ISIL considers the whole Middle East and North Africa to be it's natural territory, so they do not see eastern Libya as a dependant territory. This is less a colonization process to create dependant territories but much like the United States America or Canada setting up new States or Provinces) as they grew. Legacypac (talk) 21:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, Legacypac, secton 6.5. So I wasn't misreading it, the group really do call themselves "Sinai Province"? It seemed strange that a group should call itself a province, though no different from ISIL calling itself a state, I suppose. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 22:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
It's a similar story with the Caucasus Emirate in Russia, which divides it's wings with names like Vilayat Nokhchicho, meaning "Chechnya Province". Gazkthul (talk) 23:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
This announced expansion was only made a few days ago, we should wait for a WP:COMMONNAME to emerge before renaming groups. Gazkthul (talk) 21:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes "Sinai Province" in English "Wilayah Sinai" in Arabic. [[5]] however Egypt, not surprisingly, already has North_Sinai_Governorate and South Sinai Governorate (Wilayah or Muhafazah) so it is problematic to follow the declared name, we have to attach ISIL to qualify it. Legacypac (talk) 22:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Beheading incident article name

The article currently named 2014 ISIL beheading incidents is currently in the RM process. Optional names include:

2014 ISIL beheadings,
2014 Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant beheadings,
2014 Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant beheading incidents
or the original.
link
Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Lead addition

an out of context religious view might say: "Everything is permissible--but not everything is beneficial". Beheading incidents are indisputably something that the group are widely known for and this reference is not otherwise in the lead. Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Is Islamic extremist are Khawarij?

Should we use the word Khawarij to define Islamic extremist as it is used by Islamic scholars to describe them? Swaywoof (talk) 15:48, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

  • No, as Islam is not a monolithic bloc and not all scholars think like that. We should be neutral. Also, we discussed about adding this word and the consensus said no. However, this is clearly pointed out on both the ideology and criticism sections. Felino123 (talk) 16:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Swaywoof I notice that you have newly started editing today. Welcome to Wikipedia. As any experienced editor will be able to tell you we do not use Wikipedia's voice when making claims but add all notable content in the context of quotation. Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Khawarij is a word mentioned in Hadith to define Islamic Extremist in the 7th century.

Narrated Yusair bin 'Amr: I asked Sahl bin Hunaif, "Did you hear the Prophet saying anything about Al-Khawarij?" He said, "I heard him saying while pointing his hand towards Iraq. "There will appear in it (i.e, Iraq) some people who will recite the Quran but it will not go beyond their throats, and they will go out from (leave) Islam as an arrow darts through the game's body.' "

This is clear example that Khawarij are Islamic extremists. Swaywoof (talk) 18:02, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Lead: "most traditionally ..."

The Lead says, "As caliphate it claims religious authority over all Muslims worldwide, and aims to bring most traditionally Muslim-inhabited regions of the world under its legislative control ...". Unless there is a footnote in the article to back up "most traditionally Muslim-inhabited regions of the world under its legislative control ...", I think one will be needed here. It is a bold statement, and the citations appended to this sentence don't back it up. I cannot find a citation in this article that would back it up. Have I missed anything?

Wikipedia readers who know the difference between Shia and Sunni Muslims will question "all", in "all Muslims worldwide" if they don't know that ISIL regards Shias as heretics and not Muslims. I think this latter point needs to be explained in the article somewhere and a link provided to it from this Lead statement. One of the citations has "all", but the point I am making isn't elucidated in any of the citations for that sentence..

~ P123ct1 (talk) 16:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I've seen many references that say exactly what the lead says in various words. It is ISIL's stated reason for being. Taking Rom and Madrid even. Legacypac (talk) 10:33, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Legacypac: Could you find a citation for "most traditionally Muslim-inhabited regions of the world under its legislative control ..."? It needs backing up, as unlike most of the Lead this isn't referred to again in the article. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 11:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

By definition a caliph governs Muslims worldwide. Basically like saying I'm the Pope and all Catholics worldwide need to follow me and if you disagree you are a heretic we will kill. And the stupidness of ISIL claiming they have established a caliphate when the evidence against that is overwhelming is why these articles should not say caliphate without qualification every time. Legacypac (talk) 11:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Citation now added for "most traditionally Muslim-inhabited regions of the world under its legislative control ...". ~ P123ct1 (talk) 13:05, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Had to remove two words, "most" and "legislative" from the text, as they are not in any of these citations. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 22:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
My understanding is that they seek to eventually bring the whole world under their control #as ridiculous as that may seem#, although I'd need to find sources before we update that. Gazkthul (talk) 21:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
That is mostly true - a true caliph commands political authority #but it will likely never control all the land it claims# but its religious authority is defined as covering all the faithful worldwide from the getgo. This is why all the other Islamic states #Iran, Morocco, Pakistan etc# claim to be Islamic states but not caliphs - it would annoy other Islamic states too much if the leader of Pakistan or wherever claimed religious and political authority over other nations. A core part of ISIL belief is that there are no other countries or citizenships anymore #or as soon as they get to the area# and that they are erasing borders. This is the point of the passport burning videos, the reason they highlighted militants of a dozen nationalities with uncovered faces in the recent beheading video and why they took bulldozers to physically remove the Syria-Iraq border.Legacypac (talk) 20:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

ISIL propaganda

Rather than revert, I will put my question here. In "Propaganda and social media", the text had "ISIL is known for its effective use of propaganda", which seems to me very well supported by the two citations. (I added one from lower down the section.) It has been changed to "ISIL is known for its use of propaganda", an edit I don't understand. Can you explain, Gregkaye? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 22:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 Sure, here is the diff. I gave the commentary "effective not referenced". The citation used uses the word propaganda once and gives an account that a message was got a lot of hits. That certainly demonstrates a large reach but the article itself says nothing about the resultant effect. There are a wide variety of adjectives or adjectival phrases that can be applied to ISIL's propaganda. "Effective" is one option. ISIL is known for a large propaganda output with a variety of contents which have variously involved terror type threats and accounts of beheadings and this output has had a variety of effects. Much of it I think has been misjudged and, for ISIL, has had a very negative effect. Gregkaye ✍♪ 23:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I'd argue that the effectiveness of the propaganda is unprecedented and that the sources back that up. They have three targets - radicalized male and female muslims who are flocking to them to fight or support the fighters in unprecedented numbers, second groups in Iraq, Syria and other countries swearing allegiance, and third, civilized nations who are terrorised and going to war (exactly what they want). They are very very effective at communicating their intended message and getting the actions they want. Legacypac (talk) 10:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Of course they are and of course the sources back it up. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 11:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
They have extensive used propaganda techniques and have invested heavily in this output. They have gained positive results for themselves in some ways and negative results in others. Here is an interesting reference to great propagandists in history and I think many of them would be appalled at ISIL's blunders. They wouldn't have advertised their slaughters and, for instance, they would not have killed people who had clearly come with intent to help people. I think it may be sufficient to quantify their propaganda.
An editor's/editors' opinions on this, or anything, should not direct what goes into this article or how it is worded. WP has to follow and reflect sources, not use them to back up editors' opinions and judgments on this or that. All relevant sources in this section say they are good propagandists. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 16:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Good article mentioning Mao, Stalin and Lenin - three of the few guys in history to outkill Bagdadi, but then they are all dead and Bagdadi is not just yet so he might catch them yet. These 3 also used killings as tool to gain control, they just lacked social media. We can't just sit in the west and say the propaganda is not working on us. Seeing 18 solders get their heads chopped off is highly effective propaganda that tells the Syrian to not resist ISIL. cruelly effective propaganda machine, said retired Marine Gen. John Allen "In this sense it is undeniable that ISIL propaganda has been extremely effective – mainly in drawing attention to its existence and causes" [6] and we could go on. Legacypac (talk) 02:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
True but sources also show that they are good at getting banned. They are also doing things that are clearly not working for them. All the same I concede to the argument on the quoted sources.
As a text how about, "ISIL is known for its extensive and effective use of propaganda which has resulted in both an increase in support and opposition". Reading, hearing or watching ISIL outputs has turned some people towards them and others away. Its not a one way issue. Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
If you can find reliable sources which support "an increase in ... opposition". ~ P123ct1 (talk) 19:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
32 countries going to war or supporting going to war against ISIL enough of an increase in opposition for you? Legacypac (talk) 05:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Propoganda which has caused an increase in opposition. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 12:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Reports ISIL controls small amount of Libyan territory

Libya is anarchic at this point, so I'm not sure how notable it is -- but ISIL apparently has taken control of the Libyan town of Derna and installed an "emir" to rule the city. [7] -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

It's the other way around really, a group of Libyan Jihadists in the town of Derna recently pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and his 'caliphate', I am not aware of any meaningful organisational links between them though. Gazkthul (talk) 21:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
OTOH, if it does expand to Libya and other countries, it will make it even more anachronistic to refer to it as ISIL, maybe ISILL instead? Gazkthul (talk) 04:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Neither am I.90.244.85.64 (talk) 23:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed what Gazkthul said. Any expansion to countries as far as Libya would make calling the group as ISIL or ISIS problematic, complicating the issue of what to call them even more. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 04:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Why? this move gets everything on the same page: "Un-Islamic non-State not only in Iraq and only part of the Levant" Legacypac (talk) 21:41, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
The infobox says:
"See also: Derna, Libya ISIL sympathiser controlled in the Libyan Civil War[12]"
What does "ISIL sympathiser controlled" mean? That will baffle the uniformed Wikipedia reader. Clearer wording needed here. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 21:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Audio tape from ISIL (Bagdadi?) says "expanding into Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Egypt, Libya and Algeria." however, their new buddies hardly control much territory in these countries. Legacypac (talk) 10:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that this topic warrants a mention in the main text as an ISIL related development but I don't think it warrant's inclusion in the infobox. Anyone can swear allegiance to anyone and yet, unless they are tested by actually having to follow orders in a chain of command, there is no telling how genuine the allegiance really is. Gregkaye ✍♪ 18:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I have added the recent expansion to other countries to the Territorial Claims section. Gazkthul (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest reconsidering the inclusion of the Derna area in the main infobox map. This is based on some more specific information now being published about the Dema takeover being orchestrated directly from Baghdadi and his inner circle. This isn't a terribly strong opinion, but I think it's worth another look.

Gregkaye makes two good points about why this is currently excluded from the main map of control. (1): outsiders pledging allegiance from afar does not make them real, integral members of the group. And (2): the practical people in charge need to be effectively in the ISIL chain of command.

Re (1): upwards of 300 of the core ISIL militants now controlling Derna are bona fide Islamic State fighters who have been serving with the group this year during its rapid expansion and debut as a "real state".

The sources say the Derna branch of ISIS counts 800 fighters and operates half a dozen camps on the outskirts of the town, as well as larger facilities in the nearby Green Mountains, where fighters from across North Africa are being trained.

It has been bolstered by the return to Libya from Syria and Iraq of up to 300 Libyan jihadists who were part of ISIS' al Battar Brigade -- deployed at first in Deir Ezzor in Syria and then Mosul in Iraq.

CNN

Re (2): it now appears that the two main figures orchestrating the takeover were not Libyan militants who decided to get leverage or attention by pledging allegiance to ISIL. They are actually an Iraqi and a Saudi who are integral ISIL officials.

Two months ago ISIS leader Baghdadi helped orchestrate the take-over of Derna by dispatching one of his senior aides, Abu Nabil al Anbari, an Iraqi ISIS veteran who had spent time with Baghdadi, in a U.S. detention facility in Iraq, according to Benotman.

Helped by Abu al-Baraa el-Azdi, a Saudi preacher who has become Derna's top religious judge, al Anbari's efforts have borne fruit. Last week a new pan-Libyan group calling itself "Mujahideen of Libya" declared allegiance to Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, claiming it was sub-divided into three provinces: Barqa, Tripoli, and Fezzan (southwest Libya). The ISIS leader responded by calling all supporters in Libya to join what he called the newest administrative region of the Islamic caliphate.

CNN

AdamColligan (talk) 01:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

That CNN account does seem to imply a high level of involvement of Baghdadi and his lieutenants, much more than I would have assumed. I still think it will be tricky to show on the map, especially if the Libyan branch starts gaining more territory beyond Derna. Gazkthul (talk) 02:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

[8] calls them The Islamic State in Libya (ISIL). Perfect for our chosen name! Not so perfect for the people there. This article has detailed background worth reading [9] " A new Islamic State commander now leads the city, identified as Mohammed Abdullah, a little-known Yemeni militant sent from Syria and known as Abu al-Baraa al-Azdi, according to several local activists and a former militant from Derna. A number of leading Islamic State militants came to the city from Iraq and Syria this year and over a few months united most of Derna's multiple but long-divided extremist factions behind them. They paved the way by killing any rivals, including militants, according to local activists, former city council members and a former militant interviewed by The Associated Press." Legacypac (talk) 03:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

ISIL's own Proposed currency - Consensus not to add to Infobox

I have read reports that ISIL is creating its own currency (a gold dinar). The news agencies quote an ISIL's official statement.

Some sources:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2829097/Now-ISIS-wants-introduce-currency-Plans-bring-solid-gold-silver-dinar-coins-announced-Iraqi-mosques.html http://www.vocativ.com/world/isis-2/isis-currency/ http://www.elmundo.es/internacional/2014/11/12/5463b7c322601d85108b4574.html

Should we add this to the article? Felino123 (talk) 14:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Here is another source [10], seems more of an aspiration at this point, but could be mentioned somewhere. Gazkthul (talk) 22:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Any information added in relation to currency should, by definition, represent situations that are current. Currencies mentioned should, by definition, be those actually "in flow". This has not been an area that I've previously been involved but I've noted changes over time. On occasion currency information has appeared in and disappeared from the country infobox and inclusions have previously referred to US, Iraqi and Syrian currencies. I do not know if others have also been mentioned.
Recently P123ct1 removed reference to currency while raising the question, "(→‎top: rmv currency - Is this article a travel brochure for ISIS (or worse)?)"
Legacypac also notified with notification, "(re-add note not to add currency, not capital is de facto per sources)"
I am also dubious about inclusion of a specific currency in a situation where actual progress is limited to the production of prototypes or coins in limted or specialised use. Any information presented should represent actual situations.
Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
A while back a spoof currency was added and deleted. Recently I deleted the Iraqi and Syrian currencies yet again. The circulation of Iraqi, Syrian Euros, US$ etc in a controlled area or through a group does not make these official currencies and they definitely are not the issuers. Now CNN reporting ISIL announcing a pending Gold/Silver/Copper coin based currency. I love hard money but me thinks they will have a hard time launching an ISIL currency that anyone will accept - or that we should list in the infobox - this is an attempt at nation building though. Legacypac (talk) 10:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I noticed articles but I agree it just isn't a reality. Gold coins can become currency even if IS isn't respected. It has intrinsic value and in times of extreme uncertainty (an understatement for IS) it functions well. This would be a notable contribution to governance if it becomes real. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
This isn't notable as currency. I am an electrician and know something on the general concept. I agree with Legacypac that Gold coins can become currency but also noticed that the groups main symbols are not placed on the coins for the suspected reason that they know that they will be melted down. In comparison, the US, Iraqi and Syrian currencies have established use as well as international pedigree.
Despite this discussion Auric possibly mistakenly added the currency information into the infobox here which was modified by TRAJAN 117 here.
At some point content had also been placed in the article but was developed into I think into a more representative form by Bogdangiusca here. I am also curious that one side of coins consists of a world map and wonder if this raises issues related to territorial claim/suggested influence. Gregkaye ✍♪ 06:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
The NY Times has an article today, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/15/world/middleeast/islamic-state-says-it-plans-to-issue-its-own-currency-.html , it's a plan and it is unlikely to succeed. It has no chance of being used in international trade say the authors. Yet ISIL has surprised us again and again by creating a functioning economy and government. We'll see. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I had no idea this was being discussed here. However after reading the Huffington Post's article [11] on the subject, I see that ISIL plans to start minting it's own currency, making this tentative at best.--Auric talk 14:09, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll consider adding this proposed currency if it gets an ISO 4217 code. Legacypac (talk) 05:05, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

__________________

Notification of related editing at Dinar
This edit change was recently made to the Wikipedia article Dinar. The editor used an IP address login with the IP login being otherwise unused except for this edit but by an editor who had sufficient Wikipedia know how to faultlessly insert a table. The editor concerned choose to use an against consensus designation in the context of an against consensus edit. Whoever you are, seriously, shame on you.

This was an edit that I found while researching the similarly dubious use of Template:Country data Islamic State which I just happened to be doing at this particular time. At the time of this edit it's used as a redirect from over 60 Wikipedia pages.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 18:30, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I see Fastfingers666 has added significant info about a currency that may or may not come into existence. While I personally find this interesting news I don't think we can justify inserting two paragraphs about a hypothetical currency when we have so many real facts and events. I applaud Fastfingers666's enthusiasm but could we hold off until there's something to bank on? Jason from nyc (talk) 20:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm very sorry about that. Based it on info on press release and info released by ISIL. If you do not feel this should be in, feel free to delete. Perhaps add "allegedly", e.g. the alleged new currency. Fastfingers666 (talk) 20:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Fastfingers666 edits to the article's finance section are very good. We just need to keep this proposed currency out of the infobox where it looks all official without proper verbage. Legacypac (talk) 21:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac thank you! I completely agree. Perhaps, when Isil announces minting through twitter and is confirmed be an external source (e.g. how President Obama confirmed the death of Peter Kassig. Fastfingers666 (talk) 21:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I've added some more info to the section on the groups attempts to stockpile gold, silver and copper. I also reduced the size of the info keeping in mind the length of this article. Gazkthul (talk) 04:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

|}

Map and article treatment of new territorial claims and control and Opponents

Should the map in the infobox be updated to reflect Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi new claims of provinces in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Egypt, Libya and Algeria?

Source: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/politics/2014/11/baghdadi-speech-islamic-state-pledges-of-allegiance.html --WikiU2013 (talk) 00:43, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree, but since this is a fairly recent announcement, I'm not sure how we are going to incorporate this into a new map. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 04:20, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Very informative [12]. Based on this and other sources I think we should expand the opponents list to include the Egyptian Government and territory of operation to include Egypt along with Syria/Iraq/Lebanon. Based on other sources, Libya should be added too. Will make the the changes so people can see what I mean - but open to discussion Legacypac (talk) 07:55, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Personally I wouldn't rush things, no harm waiting for some more sources and see how things play out.
Not to harp on things, bit it does make the consensus name look ridiculous. "Why is there a group in Libya called the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant?" "Well, they actually changed their name months ago to symbolise their intention to extend beyond those 2 countries, but we'll keep using the old name anyway" Gazkthul (talk) 08:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Short version - "Islamic State" is a male bovine waste name. No need to change it. The article deals with their names and ambition quite well. Legacypac (talk) 16:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't really understand, the current article is named Islamic State too, it simply adds a geographical criteria that is now outdated. Gazkthul (talk) 19:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
No-HUGE difference. Go get educated then on what Islamic State means in this context. We are not going to debate this any more. See Moretorium on requested moves at the top. Legacypac (talk) 02:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

(transferred here from a later section)

Based on the Bagdadi Speech, declarations by the groups, the change of names of the groups, and raising the flag in Libya, the RS confirm that the groups in Syria and Sinai both merged into ISIL and control territory. Some of this has been reflected in the article and infobox, but reverted without discussion. Can the editors who do not agree that these groups have not been absorbed and that ISIL does not control territory in Egypt and Libya please provide recent RS here for their edits? Legacypac (talk) 01:33, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't disagree they have been absorbed, I do think that if further groups pledge allegiance and more provinces are announced, it's going to become quite a mess to incorporate. Gazkthul (talk) 04:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Have you read [13] and the CNN piece quoted Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#Reports_ISIL_controls_small_amount_of_Libyan_territory
Yes of course, that's why I agree they have been adsorbed... Gazkthul (talk)
sorry I misread your point. Legacypac (talk) 06:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

All updated and a new article created to cover this section. ISIL territorial claims Legacypac (talk) 19:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Article Maps

Two maps were removed with this edit claiming they are original research and pointing to this discussion which was not linked to from this talk page. I consider the removal of long standing very useful maps to be a problem. They should be restored immediately by Onefireuser and left until a broader consensus is reached with editors who are working on the article. Legacypac (talk) 21:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Maps been restored. Please unsure proper sourcing. --Onefireuser (talk) 22:23, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

To b or not to be - adding qualification to Wikipedia's endorsement of ISIL as jihadist

See previous discussions: their actions are "not jihad at all, but rather, warmongering and criminality", Logical Order in Lead and The word "jihad", criticism and disruption

like many words the word jihad has developed with a range of meanings. This is all part of the common process of the development of language. What is not so common is when a significant portion of a significant section of society (in this case relating to a large section of the second largest religion in the World) have dispute regarding its meaning.

Supporting evidence:

I also mentioned, in my opening post at their actions are “not jihad at all, but rather, warmongering and criminality”, that Jack Pepa had found the following relevant content: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-is-an-offence-to-islam-says-international-coalition-of-major-islamic-scholars-9756255.html

"More than 120 Sunni imams and academics, including some of the Muslim world’s most respected scholars, signed the 18-page document which outlines 24 separate grounds on which the terror group violates the tenets of Islam...
It also takes Isis to task over its countless acts of brutality and massacres under the guise of jihad, or a holy struggle. While acknowledging to Al-Baghdadi that “you and your fighters are fearless” and ready to die for their cause, the scholars state their actions are “not jihad at all, but rather, warmongering and criminality”."

There are a great many instances in which words enter the English language from other language sources and the length of the word list being counted really depends on how far back you want to look. For instance we can take a look at Wikipedia's List of English words of Arabic origin (G-J) and find a large number of non-controversial words such as jar, jasmine or julep. Clearly any of these words can be be used in a wide range of sensible contexts without qualification. There is no one to argue, for instance, that the word jar does not cover such and such a meaning. There is no controversy.

ISIL are engaged in a number of activities that, according to many perspectives, are not jihad: Murder (not jihad, killing Shiite Muslims (never described as jihad), killing Muslims (not jihad) and working to a territorially expansionist agenda (not jihad). From many perspectives the killing of journalists and aide workers is also not jihad.

Many Muslims go as far as to denounce ISIL as un-Islamic.

I don't think that, in the context of this particular term and in light of wide spread assertions of what jihad is not, we cannot speak in Wikipedia's voice to give unqualified endorsement of ISIL as being jihadist.

So far I have thought of four possible ways to cover the need for qualification, two of which were apparent before the recent AN/I and two which were developed during that process.

  1. Instead of making direct use of the term jihadist, the description Islamic extremist can alternatively be used. A link to the related article contains a variety of information including information on jihad and this would allow readers to come to their own conclusions.
  2. Following a statement in Wikipedia's voice describing the group to be jihadist a quotation from a group with a different view, such as the "not jihad at all" claim, could be used to indicate that the group's claim to jihad is not uncontested.
  3. An unobtrusive footnote [b] could be added after Wikipedia's jihadist wording. A footnote of this kind that has been repeatedly added contains the content: efn|Islamic criticism of ISIL has included comment by Sunni scholars that sacrifices of ISIL are "not Jihad at all."< ref name=OpenLetToAlBagh / >. Alternate contents may also result in appropriate qualification. With current wording this would present: "...is a Sunni, extremist, jihadist[b], self-proclaimed caliphate and unrecognized state in Iraq and Syria in the Middle East.
  4. A sequence of wording could be used such as:
...is a Sunni, extremist, unrecognized state and self-proclaimed jihadist caliphate, in Iraq and Syria in the Middle East. or
...is a Sunni, extremist, unrecognized state, self-declared as jihadist and caliphate, in Iraq and Syria in the Middle East."

The "self-declared" and "self-proclaimed" qualifiers are widely and perhaps solely used by Al-Jazeera when describing ISIL as jihadist as is demonstrated through results of the following search: site:http://www.aljazeera.com/ (ISIL OR ISIS OR Daesh OR "Islamic State") AND "jihadist". I think that this would be an appropriate route for Wikipedia to take.

I am open to the use of any of the above and, if another editor can think of an alternative means of providing suitable qualification, all ideas are welcome.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:39, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Wiki goes by what the Reliable Sources state. The vast majority describe (rightfully) ISIS as a terrorist jihadist movement.HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
HammerFilmFan I sympathise with the use of terrorist as a descriptor. However there are more objections to the use of jihad/jihadist terminologies in relation to ISIL than there are objections to their description as terrorists. Also it is accepted that the word jihadist should be used. 14:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC) edited Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
[Above comments inserted out of time sequence]]
  • Gregkaye has worked hard and constructively on this, and I think we should pay attention to his suggestions for alternative wording. Just looking at the titles of the links you provide in "Supporting evidence" makes it clear that the objection among some Muslims to using "jihadist" to describe ISIL is an important one, and I think it has to be dealt with in this article more fully than it has been. The "Criticism" section is the best place to do that. On your proposals, this is what I think:
  1. "Islamic extremist" is not a good alternative. WP has to follow RS and there has already been long discussion about this. The commonly used term for groups like this is "jihadist" and WP cannot criticize common usage but must reflect it.
  2. A quotation in the Lead is not appropriate, especially in the first sentence.
  3. The small efn footnote/"footlet" is a good solution. The word "jihadist" remains, to comply with RS, with an unobtrustive link to where the subject is dealt with in the article. It not a footnote, but a link, and I cannot see the objection to it which other editors have. (It has been repeatedly reverted by them.) The wording suggested here is the best: "...is a Sunni, extremist, jihadist[b], self-proclaimed caliphate and unrecognized state in Iraq and Syria in the Middle East."
  4. "Self-declared as jihadist" or "self-proclaimed jihadist caliphate" is too clumsy and I am sure the nuances would be completely lost on readers, especially those who are not familiar with ISIL's recent history. Again, best to deal with the objections to the word in "Criticism".
New suggestion:
An alternative to the efn [b] would be the linking method used by Gregkaye to link "Khawarij" in "Criticism" to ""Khawarij" in "Ideology and beliefs", and to link the phrase "criticism from other Muslims" in the first para of "Criticism" to the criticism in "Ideology and beliefs". This way "jihadist" could be linked to the first wiki-linked "jihadist" in the article where the reader could read about "jihadist" in WP. Using this method, the word "jihadist" would appear in the Lead without any noticeable qualifier.This seems to be a good option, but it may have flaws.
Comment:
Elaborate use of "self-declared" and "self-proclaimed" in the Lead (as in Gregkaye's alternative sentences, for example), whichever word those terms are attached to, will just confuse readers, IMO.
I hope other editors will not dismiss Gregkaye's proposals out of hand. Particularly compelling is the strength of feeling some in the Muslim community have about ISIL's claim to be jihadists, which seems more powerful than I first thought. It must be dealt with properly in this article, but not in the Lead, which per WP:LEAD has to summarise the main controversies, not detail them. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 12:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't think with all the discussion we have had that anyone dismisses Gregkaye's concerns out of hand. The link he just provided, Jihad: A Misunderstood Concept from Islam - What Jihad is, and is not, sums up the objections to Western usage of the term jihad and jihadist. Adherents disagree with each other and with non-members of the religion. That summary is standard and correct if you ask me my POV on the religion. However, we use the term in the sense of the article on jihadism and we Wikilink to that article. But that Western usage is clarified as is the objections of many adherents. I think we make it clear how we use the term from both context and explicit discussion of objections within the article. We have to expect the reader to understand the context. When LBJ launched the War on Poverty I don't remember anyone thinking that that was a call to kill poor people. We have to expect people to understand context. The fact that reliable sources us "jihadist" in the sense of our article on jihadism despite the fact that they fully know how devout mainstream Muslims use the word, make it clear to us that people do understand context. Wikipedia's voice is the voice of reliable sources. Where does it stop? "Sunni" means those that follow the ways (the Sunnah) of Mohammad. Do we add a footnote there that ISIL isn't doing that? Add a footnote on the first usage of Islam? The article is long and we can't reproduce the article in the lead or in footnotes to every word. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Jason from nyc I am hoping that you can reconsider your comparisons. When LBJ worked with his legislation it was given the name "War on Poverty". Other parallel examples are: War on Cancer, War on Drugs, War on Gangs, War on Terror and War on Want. Each case relates to a war "on" a topic. At no time are foreign language loan words used. Sometimes the topic subject is very specific. In the case you mention, LBJ's State of the Union address set out some presumably clear parameters. If this address had been entitled war on poverty and then if people then began to claim that they were working to the text while, consciously or not, working to a different agenda, then people would rightly say this is not "War on Poverty", this is something different. They would be helped in doing this in that commonly understood English wording was used. In the case of jihad an Arabic loan word is used in application to an organisation and the response of a great proportion of people within Arabic conversant communities is that they don't consider it to apply.
Certainly the teachings related to jihad can apply to war related concepts but the clear contents relate solely to a war as an exercise in defence. The teachings do not lend themselves to activities like ethnic cleansing.
We can certainly acknowledge reliable sources by including use of the word jihadist. We can also acknowledge other reliable sources by adding an unobtrusive footnote [b] so as to cover other legitimate concerns. Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
The problem with “just for defense” is that it isn’t clear what defense requires nor is there agreement among adherents. You bring in other loaded 20th century words like “ethnic cleansing” but this falls on deaf ears within the jihadism movement. Al-Baghdadi is clearly knowledgeable of the “ethnic cleansing” of the Jews of Medina when the men of the last Jewish tribe, Banu Qurayza, were beheaded. This was considered defense I'm told. Now, there’s context and there’s context. Nothing today satisfies all the conditions for the kind of war that is outlined in “Jihad: A misunderstood concept.” Nevertheless different branches of Islam disagree where to draw the line, with renegade groups like ISIL going beyond all reasonable bounds according to our sensibilities. What can we say when the All Pakistan Ulema Council condemns ISIL for “the killing of innocent people” then a few days later says suicide bombing is fine in the case of Afghanistan? It’s not up to us to sort this out but it’s fair to point out that the “jihadist” label is meant in the sense of jihadism, a radical 20th century variant based on extreme interpretations of the tradition and not jihad the more honorable lawful regulated practice. What’s included in each concept is not for us to decide and reliable sources disagree. However, sources overwhelming agree that ISIL is in the jihadism category and not part of the honorable tradition of jihad as it claims. Jason from nyc (talk)
We at no point repeat ISIL’s claim that it is merely waging “jihad.” We use the “-ism” form and its adjetive “-ist”. Of the 75 usages of “jihad” and its variants I see only two usages of “jihad” that indicates that it is ISIL’s view and one that’s part of a quote. Of the 41 variants of “jihadism” and “jihadist,” I see 13 usages in Wikipedia’s voice that applies the term to ISIL. Editors reflect the sources and the “-ist/-ism” usage denotes an extreme 20th century movement. It is clearly the single word that gets to the essence of what ISIL is about in the minds of reliable sources. And these sources would be the 1st to say this isn’t the honorable tradition of jihad. I’ve seen the Times argue this over the last decade. Our sources do not claim that jihadism is mainstream Islam or even genuine Islam. Odd that they say ISIL is Wahhabist but fail to say that Wahhamism is not Islam. But that contradiction does not entitle us to make an inference. We never say ISIL is practicing Islam and that their jihadism is part of Islam’s tradition of jihad. Instead we point to criticism that say ISIL is beyond all bounds. I believe we are respectful and accurate of both reliable sources and critics. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:54, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Jason from nyc You rightly say to say that, 'different branches of Islam disagree where to draw the line' but the fact is that most Muslims will have drawn that line long before they have got to the point of considering the practices of renegade groups like ISIL. This is exactly my reasoning for saying that the term needs qualification.
On the other hand I definitely argue that it is 'up to us' to take responsibility for Wikipedia content and to consider various sides of an issue without retreating to the use of single simplistic points of view. I totally agree with your statement that, 'What’s included in each concept is not for us to decide' and for this reason we cannot judge on the applicability of the term and we need to provide some form of qualification. When a group like, Al-Jazeera with its finger, presumably, closest to the Islamic pulse consistently describes ISIL as a self-declared or a self-proclaimed jihadist group then questions of usage have to be asked. A use of a footnote even if it linked to a quotation of an Al-Jazeera type word usage, would at least provide some form of balance.
I also appreciate that we are in use of the -ist/-ism adjectival form of the word which is something that any reader can clearly see. The problem is that the natural tendency is to associate the -ist/-ism form of word with root understandings. We think of activists as active, agriculturalists as being involved with agriculture, alarmists as raising alarm, anarchists according to a dictionary defined chaos causing definition of anarchy, the list is goes on. In all this we have a duty to consider the average reader. The average reader will have no background knowledge of any the difference in meaning between the adjectival rendering of the root and its rendering as a noun. Surely we owe it to our readers to let them know that, even though the group is disputably jihadist, this does not mean that they are following jihad. I am open to ideas on potential footnote content but perhaps it could read as something like: "N.B. the terms jihadism and jihad, to some extent, have distinct meanings." Is there any way we can make this work?
Of course a definitively honourable tradition would involve the defence of all people regardless of religion. Jihadism, and especially within its questionable application to ISIL, can be merely interpreted as an extreme extension of existing prejudice.
Gregkaye ✍♪ 18:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Surely this issue has been discussed sufficiently over the last month or two? In truth a much more accurate term to use is Salafi Jihadism, but in any event, other Jihadist groups like Boko Haram and al-Shabaab do the same things that IS does (Slavery, crucifixions, beheadings, massacres), there is nothing unique about what IS is doing, whatever the hysterical media coverage suggests. Gazkthul (talk) 00:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Gazkthul: Thanks for putting some proper perspective on this, much needed. I agree about discussing "jihadist". Unless something new can be said, I think it ought to stop now. This thread was supposed to be about what alternative wording could be used in the first sentence, but it has reverted to more endless theoretical discussion. This simply can't go on. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 08:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • A discussion about this word, again? The consensus agreed to use this word, as most reliable sources describe ISIL as jihadist. No particular religious sources should veto the usage of any word. Of course, the opinion of those clerics should be noted on the criticism section. And it's already noted in a very clear way. Felino123 (talk) 11:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I live in a muslim majority country(Turkey), even here, scholars are aruing about that 'what is jihad' issue. But let me sey it. ISIL states that they are on a 'jihad'. So what we think about or argue about jihad is useless at this point, the thing that matters now is what they do and say what they do. Just like that US and 'democracy' thing. kazekagetr 15:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
@User:KazekageTR & Technophant I quite agree that the US is a republic and that it is set to run according to democratic principles. For sure there have been contested or questioned election results along the way but surely most people would concede that these are the exception rather than the rule. However, the vast majority of the supporters of democratic ideals worldwide, as far as I can tell, consider the US to be democratic in principle. I do not see any democracy supporting news agency of the size of Al-Jazeera criticising the US with consistent use of a description such as so-called democracy.
In the case of ISIL there is very clearly a huge amount of criticism within a wide section of the Islamic community with regard to the faithfulness of this group to Islam. The critics base their claims on clearly presented scriptural interpretations that they have made available for scrutiny and they have related them to very specific and uncontested actions of the group.
With regard to democracy World history is littered with instances democratically dubious circumstances such as: where there has been only one candidate; where ballots have not been conducted with coercive pressures involved or where "results" have been very clearly against the assessed will of the people. Systems that habitually allow these things to happen are not democracies. Again there is additional confusion with relation to jihadism as it is a foreign loan word with an highly charged and greatly misunderstood religious meaning and heritage. I see little comparison between the two situations. Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Take a look at this article from democratic Iranian FARS News. It says that while one pundit claims that the US is a "liberal democracy" is starts by saying "if one assumes that liberal democracy truly exists". While FARS News has been declared to be unreliable and biased concerning Western affairs, Al-Jazeera can not be considered to be unbiased concerning Muslim affairs, just like Fox News is considered to be a biased news source concerning US politics. You can't just pick and choose your sources and ignore others.11:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Whoever you are, please be fair in your representation of content. There is no picking and choosing of sources. For the nth time, various sources use the word jihadist in relation to ISIL. The majority of Muslims condemn ISIL not to being representative of Islam, not representative or Islamic, not representative of jihad. This is a simple opportunity to add an unobtrusive footnote in to represent the view of a substantial group of people. I understand your point on Al-Jazeera but it represents a sector of opinion in the Islamic world and it expresses it powerfully. Again, a minority support ISIL, the majority condemn. Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
_______________________________________
  • I hope others agree that it is time to determine consensus on this. Do editors wish to retain "jihadist" in the Lead as it stands now, or qualify it in one of the ways suggested by Gregkaye at the start of this discussion or another way? There has been more than enough discussion on the retention of "jihadist", but perhaps not enough about ways of qualifying it. Gazkthul and Felino clearly want to retain it with no qualification. I am not sure about Jason from nyc. I would be prepared to accept a link to where the criticism of "jihadist" is covered in "Criticism", and Gregkaye would like the word qualified in one of the ways he suggests. Please would other editors clearly state here their view on ways they would be prepared to see the word qualified, or if not, state that they want it unqualified, so that consensus can be determined? Legacypac?Technophant? Any others? Please keep to ways of qualifying the word, rather than more arguments for not qualifying it. If anyone objects to my somewhat overbearing attempt to drive things forward, please say so, as I may be going too far. P123ct1 (talk) 14:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Proposal to make use of an unobtrusive footnote as presented by: ... jihadist[b] and for this footnote to link to a text such as:
"N.B. the terms jihadism and jihad have developed in the English language with distinct meanings."
or, in a longer version,
"N.B. the terms jihadism and jihad have developed in the English language with distinct meanings. Many sources make direct use of "jihadist" in their descriptions of ISIL. Al-Jazeera use self-declared or self-proclaimed jihadist"
At present I the lead is unbalanced. There is no early reference to the massacres for which ISIL are arguabley most well known and yet there is a reference with use of jihadic terminology that has, according to reliable sources, disputable use.
Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Proposal I would like to take a straw poll as to who here would be willing to take this issue to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. I've seen this issue drone on and on and I don't see that there's going to be a compromise solution that is going to be satisfactory to all parties. I've looked through some of the archives of issues that were successfully resolved through Mediation and I do see that highly loaded, often politically related issues are the most frequently used. To be successful all parties need to agree to mediation and thereby agree to comply with the resulting decision. Another alternative is RFC, however this issue has too many specialized components that requires in-depth knowledge of the Arab world, language, culture, and history. ~Technophant (talk) 18:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I can't figure out what is or is not jihadist - it is a religious claim. I am happy with stating they claim to be waging jihad., they claim to be muslim, claim to have established a caliph. They claim all kinds of crazy stuff that everyone else disputes and we need to reflect that. About the only thing that is not disputed is that they are brutal killers. Legacypac (talk) 21:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Technophant: I think the reason why the discussion is dragging on now has less to do with disagreement, though it is there, than lack of will to come to a consensus decision. Everyone knows what the pro and con arguments are now (I would have thought); the issue now is how, or if, the word "jihadist" should be qualified, not whether it should stay or go from the Lead. If editors could concentrate on this, keeping clearly in mind that consensus must be determined now, we might get somewhere. I would not be happy with outside Wikipedians acting as mediators, as (a) how can editors be sure to put across the pros and cons of the dispute clearly enough (not from a wish to deceive, but summarising them could be tricky), (b) mediators won't read the reams of discussion on this topic in the Talk page and (c) even if they did, could they be trusted to grasp all the arguments properly? I was quite shocked at some of the outside comments in the AN/I, which clearly showed that the arguments had not been properly understood (though I suppose they weren't looking at that so much as at disruption). I may be too optimistic about editors coming to an agreement, or even a majority agreement, but I think it should be tried before asking outside mediators to intervene. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 22:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
I'll admit that I'm at a loss in understanding what core of the disagreement is about. At first it seemed like a minor issue and I didn't pay much attention, however it's impossible not to notice how much this issue has been discussed. To just read this whole thread and all of it's supporting documentation could take me over an hour. To read all the past threads, that's a weekend project. I haven't had any strong feelings either way and haven't weighed in on this issue except in a peripheral way so I'll just give some general advice. Good reasons not to use a term: unclear, vague, confusing, misleading, inaccurate, unencyclopedic. Bad reasons not to use a term: the term offends certain groups of people, organizations (see WP:NOTCENSORED, or feel like it gives ISIL validation or status some don't feel it deserves. I've read Jihad: A Misunderstood Concept from Islam - What Jihad is, and is not in the past and while it was interesting and informative it seemed like an opinion piece, not solid reference material. Using that meaning of the word I'm on a jihad to help maintain the neutrality and civility in this article. I will venture to say that the phrase "jihadist caliphate" is a poor choice of words, quite unclear. ISIL is a jihadist movement among many other jihadist movements and the rest of articles about them don't seem to have a problem using this term.~Technophant (talk) 00:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
As a reply to P123ct1's concerns about the Mediation process, there's only one well qualified and vetted mediator. All sides need to agree to the process and put forth a concise argument, then the Mediator puts forth a suggestion using their knowledge of WP:PAG that best suits WP's encyclopedic purpose. It's not like a RFC where just anybody comes and puts forth an opinion, or like the previous AN/I where unsolicited opinions where injected into the process. It's worth a try if this discussion doesn't come to a decision. ~Technophant (talk) 04:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Technophant after your repeated additions, I think you may have just stumbled on a great truth regarding theology. To a very great extent, its opinion. However this is not a reason do disregard the opinions and views of the great majority of Muslims in favour of the comparatively small section, both within and outside Iraq and Syria, who lend endorsement to ISIL.
Interpretation is, to a great extent, about opinions of meanings and, believe me, various groups can have very wide ranging views on the same religious texts. However, as you will have had a chance to see, the most literal interpretations of jihad are in direct contradiction to the actions and intent of ISIL. The POV of the majority of Muslims is that these actions and intent are un-Islamic.
You make reasonable comment that this discussion has been around for some time which must really call into question why, in a relatively very short time after P123ct1 made moves to work towards a conclusion and after I placed a proposal related to potential wording used, you disruptively launched a counter proposal. Normal methods of response to proposal are handicapped by your inappropriate response to something that was never your issue.
Wikipedia is here to represent real situations. No valid reason has been presented for not using the footnote. The majority of Muslim's do not view ISIL as being faithful to Islam and this should be fairly presented. The footnote as proposed is encyclopaedic. It is supported by the conclusions of a great portion of Islamic scholarship and is in line with the presentation of the group by reliable sources like Al-Jazeera. We can't ignore the views of the majority of the adherents of the second largest religion in the world. Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with Gregkaye's last paragraph, but instead of a footnote would prefer the word "jihadist" in the Lead to be linked straight to the "Criticism" section, where the dispute over whether ISIL are truly "jihadist" is touched on. I also think that brief mention there in connection with the scholars' letter should be expanded on, because as Gregkaye says this is a very big criticism of the group voiced by many Muslims. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 10:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Most reliable sources and all the media describe ISIL as jihadist. Also, the word "jihadist" has its own meaning in English. ISIL and its supporters claim they are carrying out jihad. Other imams say that ISIL is carrying out jihad but that jihad should not be carried out against other Muslims. And others say that what ISIL is doing is not jihad. There is no consensus on Islam about this concept, and it has its own meaning in English as I said before. In fact, I have consulted three or four dictionaries and the definition I got is "(among Muslims) a war or struggle against unbelievers" and very similar definitions. No particular POV or religious source should ban or limit the usage of any word. Gregkaye, the views of anti-ISIL Muslims are not ignored at all; in fact, they are clearly noted on both ideology and criticism sections. Adding footnotes makes no sense, and linking the word jihadist on the lead to the criticism section doesn't make sense, either. Felino123 (talk) 12:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I think it is justifiable to add a "silent" link to the "Criticism" section. To see "jihadist" used prominently in the very first sentence of the Lead to describe ISIL will offend many Muslim readers and make them question the neutrality of this article. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia for readers of all faiths and nationalities, after all. I do not see how a "silent" link to the relevant section goes against WP:RS policy. An efn footnote added to "jihadist" with wording that clearly disputes RS usage of the word is a different matter. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 14:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • What do you mean by "silent" link? Felino123 (talk) 17:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Felino123: If you search for the phrase "criticism from other Muslims" in "Criticism" and click on the blue link, it takes you to the passage on criticism from other Muslims in "Ideology and beliefs". Similarly, if you click on "Khawarij" in the "Criticism" section, it takes you to "Khawarij" in "Ideology and beliefs". I call it a "silent" link but I think technically it is called an "anchor" link. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 17:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Felino123: WP:TALK#USE plainly states "Explaining why you have a certain opinion helps to demonstrate its validity.." You have been repeatedly asked to account for the reasons behind your actions and arguments on a number of occasions on this page. You have reverted successive additions of criticisms of ISIL from the lead; you have argued for an inclusion of Israel to the article's opponents list and then made this addition by adding a level of citation that far exceeded the average even of nations that were involved in actual physical confrontation and when it was shown that inclusions were unjustified you resisted reduction and removed content on request and when it was then found that "An editor has made an important edit and disguised it in the edit summaries" in that "some of the words in the quotation from the Islamic scholars' letter of criticism – namely "not jihad at all" – were cut out", when that editor, amongst removal of other criticisms, was found to be you you excused it as a slip. Now, however, you are asking, even though the word jihadist is included in the text in a way that satisfies some reliable sources, you resist recognition of other reliable sources who dispute ISIL's faithfulness to Islam. You have previously been asked for your motive for pushing content. I summarised earlier situations: "You want to remove Islamic and, at preference, other criticism of ISIL from the lead and also attempt to unnecessarily highlight the involvement of Israel in relation to a conflict in which it is not engaged" and my question, "Why?" has not been answered. Please explain your motive for the above. Certainly ISIL's makes a claim of jihadism and, in response, the word is included in the text. Please also explain your motive for pushing for the exclusion of a note that would be representative of a significant section of Islamic opinion. P123ct1 has acknowledged, "Gazkthul and Felino clearly want to retain it with no qualification." You have previously made your comments and are repeating. You are, however, not answering. If there is a Conflict of interest, you should say. 14:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC) and edited Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Why are you attacking me, Gregkaye? I just stated my opinion respectfully. Of course, I committed mistakes as I was new here and didn't know how Wikipedia worked. I said sorry for my mistakes, and I answered all the questions. I also reverted my mistakes. So you're clearly lying. Those mistakes from the past have nothing to do with this, nor invalidate my current opinion or contributions. What's your point? Conflict of interest? Not from me, that's for sure. I just want the best for Wikipedia and I'm willing to make concessions in order to reach consensus. I have already proven that. You say I resist recognition of other sources who dispute ISIL's faithfulness to Islam. Well, I don't, but you can't deny ISIL is an Islamist group, just like the KKK was Christian and Kach Jewish, although they don't represent most Muslims/Christians/Jews. Of course, this criticism should be noted, and it's already clearly noted on ideology and criticism sections. You pushed your POV aggressively and removed the words "jihad" and "jihadist" in a disruptive way. You violated the rules and were reported for that. Does that mean that you can't give your opinion or contribute now? Of course not. I think you should look at your own first. I have not attacked you nor used your mistakes to shut you up. Felino123 (talk) 17:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Felino123 I don't know how you can say that anything above is an attack or that anything is untrue. I have asked an open question and one that you could answer in any way you liked. I have not viewed it to be balanced to argue and work towards the removal/relegation of criticism and it was a question that needed to be asked. There is no lie and everything I have said is true. I did not come here to compare disruptions and yes I have looked at my own. Seriously I want to get on with editors here but I cannot let that "I have not attacked you" comment pass by. Please take the time to have another look at your content especially with regard to your first posts and even with your last. Gregkaye ✍♪ 18:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Gregkaye, if you look illustration at WP:TALKNO I would like to point out that you are "Responding to Tone" and going toward "Ad Hominem" in your disagreement with Felino123. Nobody is should be required to explain their opinion, esp. when it is plainly stated. This isn't a court of law, and there is no Legal burden of proof. If there's a burden of proof on anyone it would be yourself as the original poster and main objector. ~Technophant (talk) 10:50, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Technophant, My post makes it clear what I was responding to. It also indicates is that I have not been alone in asking the question. As you know I checked with admin regarding the acceptability of the question which, unlike a variety of things on this talk page, is fine. Proof? The views of the majority of the adherents of the second largest religion in the world. It is a consideration of all reliable sources. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye HAHAHA no mate i was talking about US' mission to 'bring democracy' thing. You know they promised to bring democracy to Mid-East, instead they bring de-stabilization and shitty gov'ts. kazekagetr 14:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Leave as is. We already wikilink jihadist to jihadism where the English-language usage and Muslim objections are explained. Why do we need to link to our own duplicate discussion within this article? You may want to link widely criticized in the last sentence to our criticism section although being a summary one can assume the reader will look for the criticism in the main article. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Jason from nyc because of clear representation being made that ISIL are not representative of jihad. People who come to read an article on ISIL will come to read about the groups activities. How many people will look and see the blue link on jihadist and think I wonder if I should check exactly what that means and whether it is relevantly applied? Not many. By placing a note there is a better chance that people will refer to the many strongly voiced objections. The link has a negligible data cost and adds value. Many Wikipedias state "terrorist" in their leads for instance es:Estado Islámico (organización terrorista) in Spanish. Maybe we could do something like that. However I think most Muslims would prefer the distancing of this organisation from Islam. Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Jason from nyc, the discussion in the article is not a duplicate of the Wiki article. The Wiki article has just one general sentence on the two different sense of "jihadist". The "Criticism" specifies the current Muslim objection to the term, which is more relevant. So I think "jihadist" in the Lead should not be wikilinked, but linked to "Criticism", and that the best place for a blue link to the Wiki article is in "Criticism". ~ P123ct1 (talk) 16:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment with only a minority of a minority actually having alternate views on the meaning of "jihadist", the focus of the article should be on the mainstream view. There's a guideline called WP:FRINGE that gives the advice "A Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is. Claims must be based upon independent reliable sources. If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight, and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner."~Technophant (talk) 09:42, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
This is quite off topic. The majority of Islam view the so-called Islamic state as radically departing from Islam. These views are widely reported by independent reliable sources. This is fact. No fringe theory is involved. Definitions of jihadism most often relate to the concept of "holy war". Most Muslims regard ISIL as being deviant. There is nothing wrong with presenting any of the footnote or references options mentioned, presenting related facts and letting the reader decide. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:43, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Fringe doesn't mean minority. Wahhabi is a bona fide branch of Islam practiced by a minority of Muslims. We have well-documented that ISIL is Wahhabi and if I remember correctly you added it to the info box for ideology. The overwhelming number of sources considered Wahhabi as a bona fide branch of Islam. The overwhelming number of sources call ISIL jihadist so it is not a fringe theory to do so. They use the word as described in our article on jihadism (not jihad) so our link there is important for the reader's further understanding. The nature of Muslim critique of 20th century movement called jihadism is still developing and we are not the authorities to choose which branches are bona fide. The recent statements by some scholarly authorities is a step in the right direction. Let's hope it continues. But we must reflect verbal usage by the overwhelming number of reliable sources. The battle for rhetoric is out there, not in here. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Jason from nyc I agree that "we are not the authorities to choose which branches are bona fide". We should, however, be representative of information provided in all reliable sources, present representative information and let the reader decide. ISIL have practices that align with Wahhabi practice but this does not change the fact that the majority of Muslims regard them as un-Islamic. The arguments presented can also be applied to the designation "terrorist". This is a term whose use is comparatively uncontested. However, I think that we have stated our positions on these issues often enough. Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm glad that there's some consensus that Fringe applies here. I've taken the matter to the Fringe theories/Noticeboard and evaluated there by editors with more experience applying the guideline. See WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant as jihadist.~Technophant (talk) 18:51, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Update: the preliminary result from WP:FTN is that WP:Fringe does not apply to this topic.~Technophant (talk) 03:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Technophant can you please clarify what you mean by: "the preliminary result from WP:FTN is that WP:Fringe does not apply to this topic." Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:00, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
As per usual no answer was given. However I stumbled on this thread. The entire derailing fringe content above was negated and yet, true to form, it was not struck. Gregkaye ✍♪ 20:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

People, is this a (relevant) discussion (for this page)? Gregkaye started this section on 1 November, with a very long epistle (776 words), apparently contemplating the different (possible) meanings of the word ‘jihad’. If there is discussion about that/those meaning(s)—what I surely can imagine—it should take place on Talk:Jihad. What is the direct relevance of such (supposed) discussion for the editing of page ‘Islamic State’? This probably too vague discussion here tends to grow longer and longer (it is now already 9 full screens), probably because everyone has his own idea of what this ‘discussion’ is about… this can’t fruitfully lead anywhere. Please stop this (non)discussion, and then restart it, if you desire, in a new section, with a precisely formulated dilemma concerning THIS page, Islamic State. (I urge this, partly because this Talk page tends to get frightfully long by such too vague ‘discussions’…) --Corriebertus (talk) 12:04, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Corriebertus, please refer to the earlier discussions on this (see head of this thread). The discussion concerning the word "jihadist" in the Lead has been the major discussion point on this Talk page since 8 October (beginning with "their actions are "not jihad at all, but rather, warmongering and criminality"). This particular thread is directly related to it. The dispute here led to an AN/I (no conclusion reached) and it is still going on. The topic is hardly a side-issue for this article, and you will find that the "dilemma" is very precisely formulated higher up in this thread. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 14:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The discussion on whether to qualify the word "jihadist" in the Lead has been going on for a week, since 3 November. In that time no editors except myself and Gregkaye have expressed any wish to qualify it with a link or footnote. Does this mean that editors wish to retain the word unqualified? Are there any more views on this? The discussion is not closed.
Yes, I wish it to be retained unqualified, and from reading this thread it seems the consensus is for the same. Gazkthul (talk) 21:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Despite the question's presentation: Are there any more views on this? this is basically a repetitions of previously raised objection. Despite the statement The discussion is not closed. this seems to be an attempt to close discussion. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

  • The word should unqualified, likned to the page Jihadism and without "self-identified" as it's clear the terminology is accurate and it's usef by all reliable sources. The opinion of people who think this is not jihad is on both criticism and ideology sections. There's no reason to repeat it on the lead for the third time or to add "self-identified". Felino123 (talk) 22:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

[text moved to new section, "First sentence of Lead"]

Thanks to P123 for explaining (9 Nov,14:14) to me some ins and outs of this ‘topic/discussion/dispute’. My answer to the original question of 1 Nov(Greg): no, another qualification is not needed, because the word jihadist is already wikilinked to article Jihadism. (A problem with that article ‘Jihadism’ is however that it is full of unfounded (onlogical) (inconsistent) (uncomprehensible) tittle-tattle.) (And a problem with calling ISIS Jihadist is, that it is unsourced.) And to P123: If you want to discuss also (two) “other questions”, please do that in a new section! Otherwise this page turns into a total chaotic muddle! --Corriebertus (talk) 16:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I took out the "cite needed" and changed it to "self-identified jihadist group" in the lead. Maybe we can all agree on that? It is 100% factual and indisputable. Legacypac (talk) 11:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Legacypac That would also work. I have restored your edit which was reverted without discussion. The basic suggestion is very unobtrusive and adds clarity. Gregkaye ✍♪ 01:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • There's no consensus to add "self-identified" before "jihadist". It doesn't fit and gives a very bad impression to the reader, not to mention it doesn't make sense. "Jihadist" is an English word of Arabic origin with its own meaning. It's 100% accurate to describe ISIL as "jihadist". Just consult English dictionaries. ALL reliable sources, including all the media, describe ISIL as "jihadist", including Arab news agencies such as Al Arabiya, which describes ISIL as jihadist on all its articles about it. "Self-identified" should not be there. What's next? "Self-identified Sunni" or "Self-identified Islamic"? Please let's be serious. Felino123 (talk) 05:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Felino123, there is no consensus to add self-identified and it is in fact incorrect to do so, as IS does not in fact identify itself with this word. The word is used to describe them by media outlets, politicians, academics etc. Gazkthul (talk) 11:04, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you also for your valuable information on parallel words as demonstrated in the thread below. Please do not be so eager to close the discussion. Freedom of expression exists in the majority of the world and people can contribute at any time they chose. The basic proposal here is that an unobtrusive footnote[b] be added to the text. This could either link to a text to say something like, "N.B. the terms jihadism and jihad have developed in the English language with distinct meanings" or, as P123ct1 has pointed out, the link could simply connect to the point in the text where "jihad" related content is discussed. The are very simple proposals that both add content and that heed the significant response a large section of the Muslim community that this group does not represent Islam or jihad. They are still open for simple support which I think can be very reasonably given. Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not trying to prevent anyone from contributing. In the interests of compromise I would not object to a footnote with something along the lines of Jihadism has become an ideological descriptor in the English speaking world and no religious sanction is implied in it's use throughout this article. Gazkthul (talk) 21:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank-you for that. I'd consider that to be an excellent NPOV form of words. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Pinging @HammerFilmFan: @Jason from nyc: @KazekageTR: @Legacypac: as editors that have not contributed for a while regarding a compromise suggestion of footnote text which was proposed a couple of days ago without objection by Gazkthul.

The suggested footnote text which I think is encyclopedic reads:

  • "Jihadism has become an ideological descriptor in the English speaking world and no religious sanction is implied in it's use throughout this article."

That's basically all and I'd appreciate any further comment regarding support for this or not. All the same, here's some responses to above content.

HammerFilmFan has previously fairly stated, "Wiki goes by what the Reliable Sources state. The vast majority describe (rightfully) ISIS as a terrorist jihadist movement".

An issue is raised here about value laden labels. Wikipedia doesn't use its own voice to describe groups as "terrorist" and, explanation given from about half way through the thread now titled Jihadism as a value laden label, the word jihadist is quite value laden as well.

Jason from nyc informatively says, "We never say ISIL is practicing Islam and that their jihadism is part of Islam’s tradition of jihad." The trouble as I see it is that, from the beginning of the article we have a group that calls itself "Islamic ..." and we then call them "jihadist". ISIL's claim as "Islamic" is to some extent countered by the criticism content in the article. Without even quoting a name we use Wikipedia's voice to call them "jihadist" and I think that the suggested wording can give excellent qualification to this.

Legacypac has gone to the extent of recently editing the text to decribe a "self-identified jihadist group". The unobtrusive footnote would also meet similar needs.

kazekagetr helpfully informs that in Turkey, scholars are aruing about on the 'what is jihad' issue. But let me sey it. ISIL states that they are on a 'jihad'. So what we think about or argue about jihad is useless at this point, the thing that matters now is what they do and say what they do. Just like that US and 'democracy' thing.

I think that it is right to recognise that there is debate going on. I also think that the use of the footnote would be one way to mirror this. The democracy point is also important. If in a country the word democracy adopted very different meanings, I think that a comment on that difference would be in order.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 21:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islamic_State/Archive_19&oldid=1136827300"