Talk:Islamic State/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Minor typo

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In the Supporters section, one sentence begins "Many groups of these groups were previously affiliated with al-Qaeda..." The first instance of the word "groups" should be deleted. The reference given states "...many of these groups were affiliated with al-Qaeda." Would someone be kind enough to remove the extraneous word "groups" in the article? Thank you. 2601:7:B80:B1A:58F3:1418:75E4:BA96 (talk) 22:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed new Level 2 Section contributed

Justification based on religious texts (edit here)

The Islamic state group has for long claimed religious justification on the treatment of its captives based on the Hadith and Qur’an.They received widespread criticism from Muslim scholars and the rest of the Muslim world for explicitly citing verses from the Qur’an. They publicly express their right to enslave and rape captive women i.e. non-Muslims citing Qur’an verses. They express their motive as to ethnically cleanse their state and rid their self-proclaimed state of all non-believers .They consider Shiites as infidels and the enemies of Islam so they are more prone to violence compared to non-Muslims .Non-Muslim women have reportedly been married off to fighters against their will and sold off for $25, and ranging up to $150. Those who do not convert face daily rape and a slow death, new born babies are reportedly being ripped away from their mother’s arms to fates unknown. Pre-pubescent girls as young as 10 are being violated. The mantra is that the caliphate needs new converts and children to spread, women can provide both. Their narrative may well be wrapped up in the familiar language of jihad and "fighting for the cause of Allah". "Before Shaytan (Satan) reveals his doubts to the weak-minded and weak hearted, one should remember that enslaving the families of the kuffar and taking their women as concubines is a firmly established aspect of the Sharia’s that if one were to deny or mock, he would be denying or mocking the verses of the Qur'an and the narration of the Prophet … and thereby apostatizing from Islam," states the latest issues of the ISIS's glossy propaganda magazine Dabiq, named after a site in Muslim apocalypse mythology. The main focus of the IS fighters is towards yazidi women whom they consider satanic and ones who worship the devil, resulting them to be treated in an inhumane manner. "After capture, the Yazidi women and children are divided according to the Shariah amongst the fighters of the Islamic State who participated in the Sinjar operations, after one fifth of the slaves are transferred to the Islamic State's authority to be divided as khums, enslaving women and forcing them to become wives reduces sin by protecting men from being tempted into adultery," Dabiq quoted. Khums is a traditional tax on the spoils of war. "This large-scale enslavement of mushrik (idolater) families is probably the first since the abandonment of Shariah law, “the magazine added. They offer three choices to their non-Muslims captives, the first being the choice to convert to Islam, secondly to pay jizya (taxes) and maintain second class citizenship in the country and if they don’t choose either of the above choices the final choice is to be awarded capital punishment i.e. death penalty to non-Muslims .In spite of the above rules mentioned in the sharia law book, Islamic State fighters have reportedly force converted non-Muslims giving capital punishment as their only alternate option.

Discussion

I assume good faith with this new editor, but have some concerns about a large insertion, including the need to improve the English first and put the citations closer to the extraordinary claims made. I don't doubt the claims, read them myself elsewhere, but they are likely to be challenged if left like this in the article. Also how does this insertion fit with the sections Religious_and_minority_group_persecution and Sexual violence and slavery? Is this info not better inserted into those sections? Feel free to edit right here until these issues are resolved. Legacypac (talk) 08:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

:The reason for creation of a new section because of the repeated Justification citing verses from the koran by the Islamic State fighters, so it cannot be integrated to any other section because justification for their actions are widely reported by the media thus it needs a seperate section. Update stormtrooper (talk) 09:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC) (inf=def blocked SOCK related to Jason foren daniel Legacypac (talk) 20:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC))

Thank-you for coming here to discuss finally. Perhaps new material could be incorporated in as a subsection of the Sexual violence and slavery section it seems like it should be just under that sub-heading. It does not make sense as a level 2 header section in my view. Also, we use the : to indent discussions. Makes them easier to follow. Legacypac (talk) 10:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The main problem with this section is that only the three opening sentences actually refer to "Justification based on religious texts". The rest of it details crimes and abuses committed by ISIL which already has sections. The latter material needs to be incorporated into "Human rights abuse and war crime findings". Otherwise fails neutral POV. Please see Wikipedia:Core content policies. Also the inline citations need to be placed at the appropriate places. --Mrjulesd (talk) 11:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

DONE!!! ,I have copy edited the correct position of cite claims and rectified minor mistakes, the original editor of this section can thank me later Easy Peasy....Jason foren daniel (talk) 17:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC) (indef banned sockpuppet related to Stormtrooper update Legacypac (talk) 20:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC))

I'm sure there has been development. The section as currently appearing is here. For instance I don't think we can say in Wikipedia's voice that "they treat yazidi women in an inhumane way". We can only go by quotations and editors should not insert their own judgements. I think there is still more work to do, perhaps with section title, perhaps with positioning within the sections. GregKaye 19:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Propose move of content to section Group goals, structure and characteristics

Suggestion cut the content back to a point where everything is cited (or provided with citation) and move content into section 2 Group goals, structure and characteristics. That section is currently composed as follows:

• 2 Group goals, structure and characteristics
  • 2.1 Goals and territorial ambitions
  • 2.2 Leadership and governance
  • 2.3 Ideology and beliefs
  • 2.3.1 Theological objections

word usage

subtitle added. GregKaye 09:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I would prefer to see the words penetrated or raped in the place of the word violated, as I consider euphemisms to be POV. The best way to make it clear how heinous these crimes are is to limit our POV as much as possible. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 22:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I am in support of the term "raped." It is the least heinous word, yet the most accurate and the most direct way to described exactly what happened. We need people to know what happened, and we can't cover up the details or censor anything out, so we need to make it plain to the readers in the text. LightandDark2000 (talk) 04:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Is it time for an ISIL footer template?

Is it time for an ISIL footer template similar to Template:Taliban or Template:Al-Qaeda? There are now a number of related articles, including:

• Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
• Timeline of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant events
• List of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant members
• Military of ISIL
• ISIL territorial claims
• List of wars and battles involving the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
• 2014 ISIL beheading incidents
• Islamic State of Iraq
• Military intervention against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
• Turkish involvement in the 2014 military intervention against ISIL
• Persecution of Assyrians by ISIL
• Persecution of Yazidis by ISIL
• Killing of captives by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
• Human rights under the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
• Siege of Kobanî
• Sinjar massacre
• United Kingdom and ISIL

A nice, clean collapsible footer template might help readers navigate through these related articles. EastTN (talk) 02:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd say yes, though I'd personally want it to match the name of this article, which I think may soon be "Islamic State" rather than ISIL. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 20:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the names should match. EastTN (talk) 20:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I think not John Smith. Will you be doing Requested Moves on each article above? Legacypac (talk) 20:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Emphasis on may, sudden increase in opposition. Quite possibly for consistency, regardless I'd personally like the tag to match the article. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 20:49, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I support the sentiment for consistency. IMO "Islamic State is an intensely POV name though. GregKaye 21:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm on board with both the footer and the name change. GraniteSand (talk) 03:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

O.k., I went ahead and boldly created a template. If we rename this article, we can rename it as well. But at least this will give us something to start with. EastTN (talk) 21:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

unencyclopedic neologism in first sentence?

"Islamist" is a neologism, which has no equivalent word in the Arabic language. It would be less strange if this word appeared somewhere in the body, but I consider it to be unencyclopedic when such a word is not only used in the lede of the article, but in the very first sentence. Isis does not self-describe as such, nor do their destractors describe them as such. I consider it dangerous for us to use terminology about middle easterners that is alien to middle easterners themselves. Just saying. 92.25.95.249 (talk) 23:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I think this is probably factually incorrect, الإسلاموية appears to be commonly used in Arabic (according to a Google search), by sources we would normally call reliable, to mean "Islamism". There's also an ar.wp article on it. Formerip (talk) 00:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no such word in arabic. Fact. But this is the english Wikipedia. We use English sources which use this term that has long been passed down from the french philosopher Voltaire I believe. I think he called it islamisme. All he meant was this is the name for the religion. He said, Islamisme established itself over half the hemisphere, not through force but by persuassion. It was then inherited by the latin speaking nations who decided to use it after 1924 as a quasi-oxymoron. So you see the word is not a neologism. It was at one time but not anymore I'm afraid. Mbcap (talk) 00:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Mbcap. This also seems to be the description of the group that is most widely used:

• (isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND Islamist got "About 24,200 results" in news in the last month.
• (isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND Islamist "About 12,900 results" in books
• (isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND Islamist "About 19,300 results" in scholar

Islamist widely used in scholarly articles typically as a English language reference to political Islam. 'SIL is a geopolitical group and, in parallel to scholarship, the word is accurately and encyclopaedically used. GregKaye 11:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes I don't see any compelling arguments why its inappropriate here? Particularly in regards to it being a 'political Islam', it seems to be a useful vocabulary word. Can you provide any more clarification of why it doesn't work or the actual problem it would cause? Prasangika37 (talk) 20:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the link to the islamism article on arabic wikipedia. I could only understand the meaning of the title which read إسلام سياسي which translates to Political Islamic. Though they don't necessarily mean the same thing, they have considerable overlap. In regards to this group, we look at which term is used most in reliable sources to describe them. That enquiry has ascertained that the group is referred to as "Islamist" more than as proponents of "political islam". Therefore we use that description. I had a quick look at Islamism article on english Wikipedia and there they do reference the Arabic term in the first sentence, so the word is given credit there.

In regards to your question about the group not self-describing themselves as such, then I would like to point out that we do not use primary sources here (most of the time). If a cat says he is a cat but majority of reliable sources say he is a sasquatch, then we put here that he is a sasquatch, even if it is a lie. Mbcap (talk) 21:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I think this might shed more light on the issue of the neologism. This is google's Ngram viewer which shows the use of different terms in books over the last 40 years upto the year 2008[1]. As you can see Islamist is much more widely used in books than political islam. Mbcap (talk) 21:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The word Islamist shouldn't be used because it is redundant since Islam itself is a political religion. The Quran descibes Islam as a deen which means religion, but the Quran is also very comprehensive hence the political aspects. Therefore "islamist" is the equivalent of saying "liberalist" or "conservatist" instead of conservative and liberal. 92.25.95.249 (talk) 03:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

92.25.95.249 You make an extraordinary POV push IMO. Islamist gets 24,900,000 hits in google and is highly and relevantly used across the board. Arabic Wikipedia differentiates ar:إسلام سياسي (political Islam) and this parallels the English article on Islamism. GregKaye 05:14, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Where has Turkey designated ISIL "terrorist"

One of the footnoted articles makes such a claim for fall 2013, but that Same paper, Daily Sabah, notes on 22 Sept 2014 that Turkey is being urged to so designate ISIL, and just today 13 January 2015, Kemal Kilicdaroglu, head of the main opposition power, asked why Turkey has not so designated ISIL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.166.70.87 (talk) 02:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Cambodian PM makes one time (lip service?) reference to 'SIL as being a state

In reference here the Cambodian Prime Minister is reported as saying, “No one will communicate with this state, and we have to strengthen our commitment to combat terrorism as it is said that this group has been already present in Southeast Asia,” The government endorsed news agency also wrote that the PM had 'said even though this state (Islamic State) is established, it will not be recognized by other states.' Since this August release further Cambodian government based articles have been in Khmer and have made no further "state" related comment and within article that have consistently referred to the group with the name ISIS.

In light of the current move request it should also be noted that this is one of the rare examples of a world leader describing the group by the name contraction that it adopted in June. GregKaye 12:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Note Cambodia is far removed from the conflict, not targeted by ISIL, not a source of ISIL fighters etc and they don't speak English there. So a turn of phrase by their leader while clearly denouncing their claims is pretty weak support for accepting their claimed name. Legacypac (talk) 23:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I personally think that this usage might have been a mistake by the PM and/or by the apk news group. I think that, if the group retained the old "jihad" based POV in their name as "Mujahideen Shura Council" for example, it would be unlikely that anyone would erroneously refer to the group as a state. This is another reason why I think Wikipedia should stick to an ISIL type designation for the group. GregKaye 10:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Propose addition to Talk:ISIL banner content "Requested moves to date" of discussion "References in the text: ISIS or ISIL?"

I think that a reference to the discussion on "References in the text: ISIS or ISIL?" would provide a context regarding the current presentation of this and related articles. Obviously the outcome of the "References..." discussion may be dramatically reconsidered dependent on the result of the recent RM discussion but, none-the-less, I think that the discussion is historically instructive. After the eight currently listed discussions I propose adding:

• Related discussion: References in the text: ISIS or ISIL? 17 September 2014

Ping administrator PBS for possible comment. GregKaye 10:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

As regards the article title, the WP:AT policy includes "This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article." so that is a legitimate area of discussion in a requested move. The reasoning behind this is that it may be in a formal setting a person is known as "Sir Fredrick Smith" but in the reliable sources used to build an article he is referred to as Sir Freddy Smith, it is arguable that the article ought to be titled "Freddy Smith" as the sources used in the article are in themselves a survey (just as a Google book search is another"). See for example Freddie Laker -- PBS (talk) 10:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

That debate is interesting, and I listed another far more definitive one in the long move discussion thread. It was a clear decision for ISIL over ISIS or other options. Legacypac (talk) 01:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)