Talk:Islamic State/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Ideology and beliefs (3)

@Mhhossein and Jason from nyc: et al: Going by the comments on the Talk page recently, this section is becoming very controversial, as I suspected it would. The nature of the group’s ideology and belief system is being as hotly contested among editors as it is in the Muslim world! As there is so much controversy about it in the Muslim world, I think it needs to be covered quite as much as what is agreed upon, and should therefore be kept in the same section. It is probably best divided into subsections dealing with different aspects of the controversy, backed up with citations. The first subsection could state what is generally agreed about their ideology and beliefs and the last could have general statements from the Muslim world criticising their beliefs, such as the long letter with all the signatories recently published, now at the end of the section. The main thing is to keep to a structure, as the section is already becoming muddled without one, with some new edits being thrown in piecemeal throwing out what order there was. I haven’t kept up with this, but categories so far could be (a) are they really jihadists? (b) are they Wahhabists, and if so what kind of Wahhabists? (c) are they Kharijites? Are there others people can think of? --P123ct1 (talk) 14:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

So far editors' discussions on ideology and beliefs are in "Ideology and beliefs" and "Ideology and beliefs (2)" earlier in the Talk page, this one on Wahhabism here, this one on jihadism here, and this one here which also mentions jihadism. Can we try and keep all discussions on this subject in one place, please, and not have them scattered about, as that makes them difficult to follow properly. --P123ct1 (talk) 14:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The are two separate issues. The reaction of the Muslim world should obviously be in the article including the ideology section. Wiki allows and even demands attributed opinion. Disinterested commentary and study is preferred when reporting this opinion as it is a secondary source that has singled out this opinion as significant. We should be careful about stating assessments in Wikipedia’s voice and particularly careful about taking the side of one denomination, current, variant, or practice. I see a previous suggestion that criticisms of the ISIS ideology should be in a sub-section. I’m neutral on that. But the criticism is growing. The recent inclusion of the important open letter goes beyond name-calling and cites principles. It was signed by 126 Islamic scholars worldwide (with the conspicuous absence of Saudi Arabia.) This helps our criticism sub-section. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

@P123ct1: I'm in agreement on having subsections. But this issue is, as you said, very contested and we should not let every sentence be introduced here. Other parts of this article depend on the news mainly and some how we're going to have a different section here. I strongly recommend to include the main ideas and criticisms which are backed by several groups. Ideas by merely a single clerk usually does not qualify to be here (exceptions may exist regarding very famous political and religious characters). Ideas and criticisms would better have a rational reasoning if they are going to be stated as a fact, or they should be stated just as an expression by an individual. I'm willing to cooperate in enhancing this section, as I made this section before to enhance the quality of the article. Mhhossein (talk) 10:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

That is what I meant by "It is probably best divided into subsections dealing with different aspects of the controversy, backed up with citations". Meaning: Aspect X (jihadism, or Wahhabism, etc) described neutrally, backed up with "A said this (about it)", "B said this (about it)" (more if necessary), with citations to back up their statements. For example, "It is said they are not true jihadists. A and B say this about it (with citations)." Each subsection should not, must not, be long. We don't want an essay on the topic. This section would be dealing with opinions rather than facts, obviously. As there are so many opinions, I think they need to be covered - the controversy out there is notable, IMO. It could almost be seen as a "controversies" section:- "Ideology and beliefs": (1) outline of generally agreed characteristics, not disputed by Muslims and others (2) controversies among Muslims and others over what their beliefs really are (3) general Muslim criticism of their ideology/beliefs, for example the letter with all the signatories I mentioned earlier. The sentence in the ISIS article

Other critics of ISIS's brand of Sunni Islam include Salafists who previously publicly supported jihadist groups such as al-Qaeda, for example the Saudi government official Saleh Al-Fawzan, known for extremist views, who claims that ISIS is a creation of "Zionists, Crusaders and Safavids", and the Jordanian-Palestinian writer Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi who was released from prison in Jordan in June 2014.

would not add much to a section of the sort I have outlined, as it is really just a mention of two names that have criticized them. --P123ct1 (talk) 12:51, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

There do not necessarily have to be "subsections" dealing with each aspect, but I think it is important that the controversies should be dealt with separately, as far as possible, otherwise there would be a danger of the whole section getting into a muddle again, the way it is now. --P123ct1 (talk) 15:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

@P123ct1: according to Wikipedia:UNDUE such views should not be presented. this is in accordance to what I said before. For presenting different views we should not pay to minority views. To support my claim, I'd like to use these sentences from Wikipedia:Reliable sources and undue weight:

We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties.1

So, we'd better be careful about this issue. Mhhossein (talk) 11:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't know the extent to which differing views are minority views; it is up to more knowledgeable editors to decide that and keep description of controversies in proportion. It could mean the section is very short! My main concern was that whatever is said, it should be put down methodically in the way I outlined. --P123ct1 (talk) 12:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

If a minority of experts express detailed analysis that doesn't contradict the vast majority of reliable sources but further elaborates the topic, that shouldn't be considered "undue." Experts are a minority. Most writers on the subject (and most of our sources) are not experts. They are secondary sources as they should be and they often don't provide the depth that an encyclopedia requires. Undue has to do with a minority that goes against the majority of reliable sources. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

@Jason from nyc: Being secondary is not enough, the sources should also be reliable with it's specific definition. By the way, I believe that who made this group is not a matter to be discussed here. It is not related to the "Ideology and Beliefs". Mhhossein (talk) 07:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Their ideology and beliefs can't be discussed without saying "who made them". Influences are all when it comes to matters of belief. And if there are serious disputes among Muslims about what their beliefs really are, they cannot be ignored in a section called "Ideology and beliefs". --P123ct1 (talk) 13:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

@P123ct1: Don't mix them please! I think in this section we should discuss where their thoughts (ideology and beliefs) are originated from. This matter is brought in the first three paragraphs in a dispersed form. I don't find any motivations for the sentences of discussing who made them to stay here. OK : ISIS ideology is originated from group A and He acts like group B. It is OK because it is clearly stated the belief and ideology is a mixture of A and B probably. Not OK : ISIS is said to be made by C, others say it is made by D ! it's not OK because you can't make any relationships between the ideology and beliefs of ISIS and C. ISIS, of course, may have completely different beliefs and ideology from C or D. That's why we should move or remove some of the sentences. A new section might be required. By the way, what is that serious dispute? Mhhossein (talk) 18:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: I haven't touched the section except to copy-edit it! I am on shaky ground owing to my lack of knowledge and now think my subsectioning suggestion was a bit over the top. I thought the serious disputes were about whether they can be called Wahhabists and whether they are really Kharijites, but maybe that isn't a serious dispute. It still think those two things deserve a mention, however brief. They are both covered already and maybe that is enough - only I am surprised that the Wahhabist paras have been left so prominent, as I thought there was big controversy over this even among editors. You did say their ideology and beliefs are very contested, so perhaps those criticisms could be added at the end, in a separately headed subsection. Could you perhaps reshape this section, which is still a bit muddled in sequence, as you were the original author? I don't want to give you the task if you are not willing; I just thought you might be the best person to do it. If I reordered it I might give the wrong emphases. Then once on paper, as it were, you could sort out any potential disagreements with Jason from nyc, who like you obviously knows more about this subject than I do. This method, putting a draft into the article first and then adjusting it with the consensus of other editors, has worked well for other parts of the article. Do you agree with this approach, Jason from nyc? --P123ct1 (talk) 19:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

cn tag in Lead

An editor reasonably attached a "citation needed" tag to the last para of the Lead which has been removed here, with a cryptic edit summary: "remove cn tag - it is a negative statement, please provide evidence otherwise". What does this mean? It makes no difference whether it is a negative or a positive statement, it is quite a strong statement which needs backing up. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I removed it. There are 190+ countries in the world. None have recognized the "Islamic State" which is why we call it an unrecognized state. It's been recognized by a bunch of terrorists though. Since there seems to be some uncertianty I'll insert this ref

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs) 19:41, 7 October 2014‎

I've updated the last paragraph of the lead with a well cited one. There were so many cite and other tags in there you would think it what we wrote was all lies. I don't mind the alternate wording in use either, but worked off line with what was the wording when I grabbed the text for sandbox. Legacypac (talk) 20:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

"self-declared" caliphate, there is no caliphate ever that wasn't "self-declared" and without muslim opposition exept in muhammad life

every caliphate after muhammad has fighted against other caliphates all the centuries untile the last caliphate of the 20th century. so there is no real reason for that line of "self-declared" other than the will of the writer to make the islamic state look less legitimate than other caliphate while there is no any logic nor religious differences between them.

by the way i am far from being a supporter of them, i am atheist. --109.65.50.252 (talk) 21:38, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Bravo. That historical truth (if such it is) should put an end to this "self-declared" nonsense (apologies to editors).

--P123ct1 (talk) 23:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

(Bravo for being an atheist or... :)? Sorry for my late entry. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 14:54, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

An interesting article on an actual Islamic interpretation of khalifah is found at http://islamic-world.net/khalifah/definition.htm Various objections can be raised against the ISIL claims of Caliphate. The article has long had words such as claimed in connection to Caliphate and this concurs with questions related to ISILs representation of Islam as raised by Muslims worldwide. Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The first para of the Lead is becoming comical now, fairly bristling with its qualifications. Why can't Wikipedia just report on the facts in the Lead, and deal with the qualifications in the body of the article, showing there exactly why there are these objections to the facts? I opened the "Criticism" section with just that in mind. If I was reading this article for the first time, on reading the first para I would think either (a) "Why are they so hesitant?" or (b) "Come on, spit it out!" --P123ct1 (talk) 12:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ This is a digression - the main thread resumes below
Comment on digression: Well saved. My reply concerns more general issues which should have personally marked as a digression had I thought it through. Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 From my perspective the trouble is that, for various reasons, we are sticking with an outdated article title. I also appreciate that I've contributed a significant influence in maintaining it. In Arabic they may have a bit more use of the full title with a general preference for Da'esh but in English ISIS, Islamic State and ISIL are the prevalent terms. Given that our title goes against the grain I think that the qualifiers "self-declared" and "which previously called itself" at least help to explain the situation. In regard to the rest of the content I think that there are strengths in showing caution, fools rush in and all that.

It would certainly be more comfortable if there was a situation where we could dispense with the current plethora of qualifying statements but my view is that the responsibility lies with the group and for them to sort themselves out. I think that it is as much the situation as anything that is unsettling. Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

My problem with the qualifiers is that they seem to me to fly in the face of facts - he was appointed caliph, they did establish a caliphate, they were previously known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, whether we like or not! Qualifications and objections can be dealt with in the "Criticisms" section - which I fear may become ginormous at this rate" :) --P123ct1 (talk) 17:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ :the "terms" for the legitimacy of caliphate(along with "the Pledge of Allegece of 'the People'" which basicaly can be everybody, anybody or nobody according to the situation) as this article claim:

"

1. The defence and maintainance of religion

2. The decision of legal dispute

3. The protection of territory of Islam

4. The punishment of the wrong doers

5. The provision of troop for guarding the frontiers

6. The waging of Jihad againts the Kafir Harbi

7. The organization and collection pf zakat

8. The payment of salery and administration of public fund

9. The appointment of competent officials

10. Personal attention to the detail of the government

"

and the "terms" for being a caliph:

"

1. He must be a man.

2. He must be knowledgeable in Islaam, and be able to make independent decisions if necessary.

3. He must be just, have good morals, and be trustworthy.

4. He must be physically able (non-handicapped), spiritual, brave, and helpful to protect the Ummah against its enemies. His eyes, ears, tongue, and body in general should be in working condition.Today, for example, an artificial limb could be used to offset an otherwise crippling injury.

5. He must be politically, militarily, and administratively experienced.

6. He must be from The Tribe of Quraish because they used to be the leading tribe, the majority.

"

abu bakr al-baghdadi and his caliphate didn't fall from those terms which are mostly too subjective and general like "he must be just, have good morals, and be trustworthy"(like killing people in the name of imaginery being is justice and moral...) and are pretty pointless even without the fact that according to this article if the khalifa already seized power and "meet his responsibilities under Islam" he should be just accepted as khalifa and it is haram to fight against him.

so basicaly the difference between "real caliphate" and "self-declared caliphate" are 100% subjective.

the only reason for the resistance for a caliphate today in the arab world is because that caliphates today will damage the arab nationalism and imperialism by destroying "arab nationalities" and goverments which form what we call today the "arab world".

and the US and other western countries doesn't want that those goverments will fall so they need to delegitimize and demonize the islamic state before they launch an attack on them in order to defence the good old goverments which they know and prefer over the islamic state.

and of course both the arabs and western countries need to seperate the "extermist terrorists" in the islamic state from other "real caliphates" which the moderate muslims can't renounce. --109.65.50.252 (talk) 14:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

While in theory there should be only one caliph with the support of the Ummah, you are right that the reality has often been otherwise. The Umayyad caliphate continued for centuries in Cordoba as the Abbasid caliphate displaced it in the Middle East. Nevertheless, our sources overwhelmingly refer to al-Baghdadi as self-appointed. We can speculate why, but our POV shouldn't prevail. I happen to agree with you that much of the opposition in the Arab world is political but much is also theological and we have a reference to doctrinal criticism by over 120 Islamic theological leaders worldwide. It is premature to remove "self-declared" until al-Baghdadi commands greater recognition. History will tell. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not from NYC but I agree with the reasoning of Jason from nyc. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 14:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Jason from nyc: (a) The plain fact is that he was appointed caliph, on 29 June 2014, and WP can only report facts, per NPOV. (b) You say RS sources say he is self-appointed, which is true, they do, and you imply WP can follow those sources, adopt the same view and can directly call him self-appointed (as the Lead does). RS sources call ISIS terrorists. But WP cannot say that directly, it can only report that others call them that, (following WP:NPOV), hence the careful "terrorist" wording in the Lead that editors thrashed out some time back. Does not the same argument apply here? Can WP call him self-appointed in its own voice, just because RS sources do? That is my objection to WP saying directly in the Lead, or anywhere for that matter, that he "is self-appointed". Following the same argument as was had over "terrorist", WP can only report what RSs and others have said, not say it in its own voice. Following RSs to find WP:COMMONNAME is quite different; that is about name, not facts, and the one time it is justified to follow reliable sources. That is how I see it anyhow. Sorry to be so purist about it! :)--P123ct1 (talk) 16:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure I follow. We say "self-proclaimed" in the article as a fact. We're not saying the NYT (for example) reports IS is a "self-proclaimed" caliphate. We say IS is a "self-proclaimed" caliphate in our own voice. We're not saying it is a caliphate in our own voice nor are we saying the NYT acknowledges it is a caliphate. We and they report how IS sees itself. Now is it in fact a caliphate? First let me remind everyone that I argued above that IS is in fact a state. I wrote much of the "Governance" section showing it is a functioning state. I even argued that there should be a separate Wiki article on the state. I could argue that it is in fact a theocracy. But a caliphate? The facts don't support that. If al-Bahdadi declared himself emir and IS an emirate, that might be considered a fact. But a caliphate is like a super-state and many an emir hesitated to declare such a vaulted status until their power was sufficient. al-Baghdadi is arrogant but without sufficient power he is met with sizable contempt. We'd best try to agree on more humble claims as facts in WP voice before we use the description caliphate without limiting qualifications. Are we close to agreeing or far apart? Jason from nyc (talk) 22:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

"criticism by over 120 Islamic theological leaders worldwide" we are talking her about religion with pretty simple rules and story, it isn't a deep and accurate science which can have multiple opinions with only one correct opinion. islam like any other religion is a story which is subjected to POV and assumptions about fictional and inaccurate events. those islamic leaders are leaders not because of some knowledge and didn't got their opinion about the islamic state from some "research" of the quran or something like that, they are religios leaders but also a political one who gain there status and authority with not less politics as with knowledge about islam.

so if they had some "theological claim" against the islamic state legitimacy of being "real caliphate" we all could her about that, especialy the muslims scholars who wrote the article i quoted before.

the article i quoted before also have strict defenition of "caliphate" so there is no need to demand from the islamic state to fit into the unrealistic image of a caliphate of some people. there is simply no religious differences between the islamic state caliphate and other caliphates which had existed just some decades ago in the 20th century so there is no need for acting like there is. the "self-declared" is nothing more than a PR act of making the reader to believe in some non-existing theological differences between isis and other caliphates while islamic scholars just simply can't provide any of this. --109.65.50.252 (talk) 22:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

When you say there are no differences between IS and other caliphates, I'm not sure which ones you have in mind: Rashidun (632–661), Umayyads (661–750), Caliphate (929–1031) of Córdoba, Abbasids (750–1258), Fatimids (909–1171), Ottomans (1453–1924)? Jason from nyc (talk) 23:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The three possible reasons for a discrepancy in the use of references are: 1, there is a difference in topic between the articles; 2, this article has got its referencing wrong and 3, the other article topics may have got things wrong. Hat tip to editors above for investigation into issues. The question is whether we can speak in Wikipedia's voice in this article and declare them a caliphate. If other articles need adjusting then that would be a different problem. Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

To me "self-proclaimed" suggests a point of view, it implies dispute over legitimacy. The simple fact is that they proclaimed a caliphate and appointed al-Baghdadi as caliph, full stop. That fact should be reported accurately and neutrally by WP, as per NPOV. It really isn't complicated. --P123ct1 (talk) 09:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

We do say "they proclaimed" themselves a caliphate. The question is does proclaiming yourself one make you one. You seem to think so as you argue below in the "Mr. Smith" example. Caliphate isn't just a name. If I proclaim myself a genius and make it my middle name, I don't become one. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Jason from nyc: The Lead says "they proclaimed" a caliphate and in the same breath says "in its self-proclaimed status as caliphate", to be accurate. Former is neutral, latter is not. The point is that WP should make no judgments and just record facts: they "proclaimed a caliphate". Whether proclaiming one makes it one is an interesting question, but it is none of WP's business to dwell on sophistries like that. It's chop logic. --P123ct1 (talk) 15:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

You wouldn't say, "He calls himself Mr Smith", you would say "His name is Mr Smith". The former suggests there is some doubt about his name. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, there is a dispute over legitimacy; nobody accepts them as legitimate. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 10:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

That is no answer and misses the point. Everybody calls them terrorists, nobody denies it. But WP cannot say it directly, per NPOV. There were long discussions over this, which is why the Lead "terrorist" references are carefully worded as they are. It is rightly said indirectly, as in "X, Y and Z say it". It is the same with legitimacy. Of course everyone disputes it, but it can only be reported by WP, not said in its own words. I simply cannot believe this very basic NPOV principle isn't recognized. --P123ct1 (talk) 11:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree on "terrorist." But there are some things that can be said in WP voice. I'd argue that neither "terrorist" nor "caliphate" are. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Can see I'm getting nowhere. Time to move on, I think. The main thing is that any words in WP's voice should be value-free and strictly reports. --P123ct1 (talk) 12:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Your work is vital here but we'll have to "agree to disagree" on this issue even if I don't quite see how we disagree. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

(i am 109.65.50.252) jason, i think you should tell us more about your reasons and answer few question like

1.how you differ "self-declared" caliphate from "real" caliphate and what isis needs for being "real" caliphate?.

2.do you believe in islam and god mandate for any kind of "caliphate"?.

3.do you want to keep refering them as "self declared" caliphate cause that what you think they are or cause you fear that refering them as "real" caliphate will help their PR?. --Wheels of steel0 (talk) 16:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

(i am GREGKAYE, "caliph" of my own existence and supreme commander of my fridge.

I am also not a number and, like many of the editors here, I additionally have interests away from the ISIL article).

As I was the editor that noticed the removal of the previously used "claimed" references in the infoboxes and who replaced them with the self-declared type texts I feel at ease to attempt to answer those intrusive questions of yours.

1) I'm not to sure. I checked and discovered things like a caliph was meant to be a "successor" and that immediately set off my integrity alarm. Theologically speaking I am not sure if any of the later Caliphates are real, legitimate or even possible. These are questions that are up for debate.

2) f**k no, not that it matters. Belief is no issue in regard to the analysis of scriptural/theological mandates of anything. If anything disbelief may have significant advantages in regard to the development of rational interpretations of texts. As far as belief is concerned my personal conviction is that we would be better off with Isis, "... ideal mother and wife as well as the patroness of nature and magic. ... friend of slaves, sinners, artisans and the downtrodden," who "also listened to the prayers of the wealthy, maidens, aristocrats and rulers.."

3) I want to state the facts to every extent that I am able. Fear? I fear for people on both sides of this unnecessary, shitty conflict who will lose loved ones, liberty, life, health and hope. I fear for an attitude that may say we can lose a life because we can just breed more. I fear for morality. I fear for what it tells people when innocent aid workers get murdered. Gregkaye ✍♪ 18:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

"intrusive"? what is intrusive in asking somebody why he think in a certain way?.

anyway if you aren't sure about if the islamic state is different from former caliphates it obviously means that the editors should reffer to them as any other caliphate if they didn't notice any difference themselves.

i know that ISIS are "extremists" and fanatic "terrorists" and that it look like their declarations shouldn't be taken seriously, but at the end this is exactly what muhammad and the caliphates was: "extremists" who killed and conquered in the name of imaginary entity, this is the meaning of "caliphate". and the only "difference" that can be pointed is the mandate of god for those action to the former caliphates and the lack of it to the current caliphate of the 21th, this is why i asked jason if he believes in islam and in the right by god for the estublishment of the former caliphates. --109.65.50.252 (talk) 23:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Not that I really want to prolong this, but while we (Jason from nyc and self) both agree "caliphate" can't be used in WP's voice, we clearly have a different view on what calling it a caliphate outright (or al-Baghadi caliph) - as in "they proclaimed a caliphate" - actually means. It's the old POV/NPOV dilemma, of course: are those words NPOV (objective, as I think), or POV, because that looks like endorsement? I know I've been upbraided for bringing up PC-ness, but I do think a lot of the hedged-about wording in the Lead makes WP look as if it is trying to be PC and follow the world's opinion rather than be objective, though Gregkaye made a good point when he said we inherited a bad situation in this article (with names) and have to do our best. --P123ct1 (talk) 15:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• Beyond theological interpretations, legitimate and typically structurally related descriptions of governments include -

by Power structure: Confederation, Federation, Hegemony, Empire, Unitary state

by Power source: Autocracy, Authoritarianism, Despotism, Dictatorship, Totalitarianism, Democracy, Direct democracy, Representative democracy, others, Monarchy, Absolute monarchy, Constitutional monarchy, Oligarchy, Aristocracy, Military junta, Plutocracy, Stratocracy, Timocracy

Other: Anarchy, Anocracy, Kritarchy, Particracy, Republic, Theocracy

Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

AQI ("Al-Qaeda in Iraq") name changes

Quote:

"The Organization of Jihad's Base in the Country of the Two Rivers," more commonly known as "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" (AQI).

"Country of the Two Rivers" links to Mesopotamia. Media also translated that to "Al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia" which is not mentioned in this long section on names and name changes.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.221.67.50 (talk • contribs) 06:58, 24 August 2014

link to this article should be added

Definitions of terrorism - should be added as the article maintains that several different bodies have designated ISIL as terrorist and this clarifies that and why some do not call them terrorists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.190.195.225 (talk • contribs) 07:27, 28 September 2014

Apologies to editors

I have messed up a revert I tried to do. I tried to revert and in the process reverted to a much earlier version of the page! Don't know quite how it happened. I have made a list of editors' missing edits and am putting them back in. Sorry! --P123ct1 (talk) 20:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

You need to be dragged off to ANi, sanctioned, called nasty names everywhere for sweeping undiscussed edits and placed in stocks so we can throw rotten tomatoes at you. Good job on the major cleanup - obviously a lot of thought and effort went into it. Cheers Legacypac (talk) 21:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I haven't done many yet! There are 13 to do! Doesn't help that the UTC has "jumped" an hour since I started the clean-up. --P123ct1 (talk) 21:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Finished. I hope I haven't left anyone's edit out! --P123ct1 (talk) 22:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac: Was it you who industriously put all those citatations in the last para of the Lead? We are supposed to be reducing footnotes in the Lead as much as possible, so they would be better going into the same sentence in the "Criticism of the "Islamic State"" section. There was a discussion in the Talk page archives about this here. I hope the editor who drastically edited the Lead (which is the revert I was trying to make originally) has taken note of my edit summary, where I said edits to the Lead should be proposed on the Talk page first. I would imagine this editor is oblivious of all the careful discussion that has gone into the Lead wording. :{ --P123ct1 (talk) 22:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes because the lead was filled with cite needed and dubious tags. While I don't like all the refs there either, some editors can't be bothered to check the article for the refs. Legacypac (talk) 23:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I did not notice you had edited the lead while I was preparing the one with cites. However the problem is the same.Legacypac (talk) 23:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

It wouldn't have been an edit by me, but a restoration of another editor's. Hope I haven't messed up again! --P123ct1 (talk) 23:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Things are ok at the moment, but we should watch it. I deleted the what tags in the first paragraph. I did not dig deep enough to find who added the tags originally but you restored them before I deleted them. The article explains that the group is Sunni and Muslim, we don't need to prove that in the lead right? Legacypac (talk) 00:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I was not criticizing at all; those citations were badly needed, though best in the body of the article. But I don't think a citation is needed for Sunni Muslim, for as you say the article deals with this. I restored the edits without considering them, so some may have been unnecessary. --P123ct1 (talk) 07:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I added the exact same cites to the same sentence in the article too. Its not so much for the reader as for the editors benefit up in the lead. Oh and someone thought that BOTH Sunni and Muslim needed citations in the lead in the same sentence. Legacypac (talk) 08:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2014

This paragraph in the article is incorrect "The United Nations reported that in the 17 days from 5 to 22 June, ISIL killed more than 1,000 Iraqi civilians and injured more than 1,000.[276][277][285]" The UN report actually states that the 1000 Iraqi civillians were killed by the Iraqi government air strikes NOT by I.S. Please amend this as its grossly incorrect. 194.176.105.150 (talk) 09:56, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Not done: All 3 sources cited there refer to ISIL killings. not one of them mention Iraqi government air strikes. Are you reading a different source? Cannolis (talk) 12:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Suggest amalgamating second and last para of lead

The second para reads:
In its self-proclaimed status as a caliphate, it claims religious authority over all Muslims worldwide, and aims to bring most Muslim-inhabited regions of the world under its political control, beginning with the region of the Levant which approximately covers Syria, Jordan, Israel/Palestine, Lebanon, Cyprus, and part of southern Turkey.

AND the last (6th) para reads:
The group's original aim was to establish an Islamic state in the Sunni-majority regions of Iraq, and following its involvement in the Syrian Civil War this expanded to include controlling Sunni-majority areas of Syria. A caliphate was proclaimed on 29 June 2014, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi—now known as Amir al-Mu'minin Caliph Ibrahim—was named as its caliph, and the group was renamed the Islamic State.

Amalgamate to last?

Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Support. Jason from nyc (talk) 17:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

second para, first sentence. (notification of change)

had said

Over 120 scholars of Sunni Islam have declared the Islamic State to be Khawarij, stating that their actions are “not jihad at all, but rather, warmongering and criminality”.

and has been provisionally amended to,

Widespread Islamic criticism of ISIL[31][32] has included an open letter from 126 Sunni scholars to "... the self-declared Islamic State", stating that their sacrifice, without legitimate cause, goals and intention is “not jihad at all, but rather, warmongering and criminality”.

The open letter does not directly mention "Khawarij" and the groups actions were not specifically mentioned in the relevant quote. The refs: [31] is to http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/07/muslim-leaders-reject-baghdadi-caliphate-20147744058773906.html [32] is to http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/another-battle-with-islams-true-believers/article20802390/ but any of this can be amended.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:17, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Opponents list

I think the opponents' list is too restricted.

Shouldn't be considered "opponents" the states that have deployed forces in the ground to train the Iraqi Army and/or the Kurdish Peshmerga forces? And the states that have deployed Patriot missile batteries in Turkey to protect it from cross-border IS attacks?

I'm saying this because Spain has deployed 300 soldiers in Iraq to train the Iraqi Army on the ground, and will deploy 6 Patriot missile batteries and 130 supporting troops in Turkey to defend its NATO ally against cross-border attacks from IS.

States like Spain and others are clearly opponents of the IS, and I think their contribution should be noted on this Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felino123 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

No problem with Spain being upgraded on the list - add them. We have been grouping the opponents into:

1. Opponents with military forces in or over Iraq and Syria (this would exclude defensive measures in Turkey, unless war spreads there)

2. Opponents supplying military aid and humanitarian aid

3. Opponents supplying humanitarian aid

4. Talk only = not listed

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs) 07:17, 16 October 2014‎

Discrepancy

In the infobox, it says that the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant was established January 3, 2014. However, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant was announced April 8, 2013, when ISI declared that ISI was being renamed to ISIS: http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/7119.htm

What happened on January 3 is that ISIS officially declared that they have completed the "liberation" of Fallujah and that the Islamic State has arrived to the city. To say that IS was established or announced on January 3 is pretty silly. The rest of the article is quite clear that ISI was established/announced in 2006, renamed to ISIS in April 2013, and then renamed itself to IS and declared a Caliphate on July 29 2014.

The "establishment" date should be changed to either October 15 2006, which is when ISI was announced, or to April 8 2013, which is when Baghdadi announced that ISI is being renamed to ISIS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.112.16.100 (talk) 17:39, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, however whenever I have done this another editor has reverted me, and I haven't been interested in edit warring over it. Gazkthul (talk) 23:33, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2014

Change "Ministry of Defence, Israel" to "Ministry of Defense, Israel"

Abspeiser (talk) 19:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done --P123ct1 (talk) 19:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Anti-ISIL guerrilla groups

I'm not sure where the best place for this is, but someone might consider adding some brief information about ad hoc guerrilla groups that have risen up against them, like "White Shroud."[1] --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 23:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Syria army still free (resolved)

in: Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#As Islamic State (2014–present) we have written

By that time, many non-Islamist rebels had been assimilated into the group, according to ISIL. In August 2014, a high-level ISIL commander said, "In the East of Syria, there is no Free Syrian Army any longer. All Free Syrian Army people [there] have joined the Islamic State."

A recent change has been made to say "non-Islamist rebels had been assimilated" and perhaps its worth getting the claim into current context.

http://www.ibtimes.com/free-syrian-army-rebels-join-forces-kurds-fight-isis-kobane-1702500

Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:22, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the text which seems to have been a unsubstantiated claim by the ISIL commander. Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

placing Terrorism, orders of criticism

I think that ISIL should primarily be defined by what they do and I am now not sure in regard to our prominent presentation of terrorist labling. While I don't doubt that the label applies I personally see ISIL as being more analogous with the war promoting Nazi party or with the Hutu's in the 1990s in their genocide of the Tutsi in Rwanda.

I am questioning the balance between the priorities of the group to simply cleanse surrounding areas of enemies or to initiate terror/to enact reprisals for perceived previous wrongs.

Also, I believe that the section on: 'Criticism of the "Islamic State"' began as primarily as a compilation of criticisms of the groups use of the name "Islamic State" and that this has grown to incorporate other issues.

Suggest starting section "Criticisms" containing subsections: "Designation as a terrorist organization", "Criticism of the name choice, 'Islamic State'" and "other".

Also suggest in the paragraph in the lead concerning criticisms placing the Amnesty international sentence on ethnic cleansing ahead of sentence indicating designation as a terrorist organization by the United Nations and other nations. The United Nations has 193 member states and eight are noted for individually applying this designation. There is far more condemnation on the issues of slaughter, slavery etc.  Done Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I found that the entire EU (following the UN Security Council) designates them as terrorists too and the designation and requirement to sanction is binding on all UN and EU members. Legacypac (talk) 11:05, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm beginning to wonder about the extent to which various nations are bothered with the branding of the group as, quote, terrorists. All the references are valuable in that they clarify the picture of ISIL but, at risk of playing with words, I think the main issues are things like the slaughtering of people more than the potential terror that would clearly be involved. This is not to downplay the issue of terrorism as in any other context terrorism at this scale would be a central issue. I don't know what you think but I considered the views of Amnesty International (small organisation), concerning ethnic cleansing, to be more important than the views of the UN (big organisation), concerning terrorism. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

suggestion as above

Suggest starting section "Criticisms" containing subsections: "Designation as a terrorist organization", "Criticism of the name choice, 'Islamic State'" and "other". Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposed move from "ISIS" to "ISIL" in the article text

The previous consensus (reached earlier this year, I believe) was to use "ISIS" in the text, on the grounds that "ISIS" then was the group's common name. I have noticed more use of "ISIL" recently, but cannot quantify it. Who supports a change from "ISIS" to "ISIL"? It would be more consistent with the article's title, if nothing else. Earlier discussion of this is here and here. --P123ct1 (talk) 20:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Support - --P123ct1 (talk) 09:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Support - especially instead of "Islamic State" which is a very problematic name. Legacypac (talk) 20:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

@Legacypac Can you please explain why Islamic State is a "very problematic name"?~Technophant (talk) 14:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - I don't believe that this abbreviation is more common than ISIS, and there would be a disconnect with the use of ISIS on many other articles that would need to be changed also. Gazkthul (talk) 02:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Digging through UN Security Council documents like the al-Qaida Sanctions list, I found the UN is using "ISIL" consistently and long after the group shortened the ir name. A recent example: [2]Legacypac (talk) 03:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Support, the accurate translation of the 2013 name is the same as the article title Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. We should use ISIL with consistency to both accurate translation and article title used.

incidentally the parallel article ar:الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام gives a machine code translation that reads: "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant , known for short as Daash , which calls itself now an Islamic state only .." Gregkaye ✍♪ 06:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

An editor has changed some instances of "ISIS" to "ISIL" without the consensus from other editors needed for this change. I have reverted the changes until a decision is made on which acronym to use in the article. --P123ct1 (talk) 07:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I was the editor who you reverted manually. I'm not upset, just confused as your edit seems to go against what you were advocating, which is consistency. Watching CNN tonight they had ISIS in the graphics over commentators and generals saying ISIL consistently. Strange situation. Legacypac (talk) 09:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

You miss the point. The consensus view of editors as a whole is what counts, not the view of an individual editor. Consensus has not been reached yet. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the action to revert at this stage was optional but I certainly give it support. We have a discussion regarding best use of terminology between ISIS (with more usage in media) and ISIL (according to better English translation and consistency with article title). It is a topic that has been previously raised with this and the last instance being at P123ct1's initiation. It can also be helpful in a talk page discussion to give notification that an action has been { {done}}. Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Neutral Weak Oppose Either is respectable. As I understand it, "Syria" in ISIS is greater Syria and not the current nation-state that was created by Western division. Thus, Levant, the L in ISIL might be better to capture the wider aims of ISIL. However, they've only captured territory in Syria and Iraq, so ISIS is respectable as well. Both are used by sources. My "weakness" stems from a preference for waiting until one emerges as dominant in the sources. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Jason from nyc. I think that, if we could rewrite recent word usage, the 2013 name may have been better rendered as the Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria. This would have given the acronym ISIGS and which would arguably have been a more understandable terminology. The groups name went from reference to Iraq to reference to Iraq and greater Syria/the Levant and now, without giving any public declaration of actual territorial ambition, they have dropped geographical reference altogether. As reference to the 2013 name we are left with a choice between ISIS and ISIL. Arabic sources prefer Da'esh as a clear anagram of the 2013 name. ISIL is the most accurate parallel. Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Let me remove my opposition. It's a judgment call and those who support it here have done hard work kicking this article into shape. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support – Can we please have some sort of consistency here? We're using "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" as the title of this article, at present. Until that changes, we should use the accompanying abbreviation, which is "ISIL". Discussions about the article title can be had elsewhere. Right now, at the title that this is at, it makes sense to use ISIL. RGloucester — ☎ 16:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the views of any opposers should be underestimated. There may be an argument that ISIS still is the group's WP:COMMONNAME, or at least more common than ISIL, which under that guidance would mean that ISIS has to stay. --P123ct1 (talk) 18:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:UCRN is a section title within WP:AT and applies to article titles. For the time being we have one of those. Another part of WP:AT is WP:CRITERIA where the issue of consistency gets mentioned. Again this is an article title issue. Certainly when we look at other encyclopaedias like Britannica that make consistent use of single renderings but reference to WP:RELIABLE relates to the content of sources and not to their methodologies. I don't know of any guideline that directly applies to this situation and think that Jason from nyc got it right. It's a judgement call. Gregkaye ✍♪ 19:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It is a "judgemental call". However, this is an article title concern. There have numerous proposal about moving this article to numerous titles, including the full-length version of ISIS. All of these have failed so far, and given this, it makes sense to be consistent. If we're going to make a judgement call between ISIS and ISIL, which are both used fairly commonly, it only makes senses to use the one that matches the title of our article. RGloucester — ☎ 20:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Quite a few editors have weighed in on now in this thread. And all previous attempts to move the article name to ISIS have failed. I am not opposed to ISIS as an alternate name used in the article just think we need to get off protecting ISIS from being standardized to mostly ISIL. So do we have consensus yet? Legacypac (talk) 21:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

What we have is a proposal (dated: 20:13, 29 September 2014) with three supports and one oppose and this can be viewed in a context of a Wikipedia editing force that has seen the creation of 22,657,167 named accounts. In context ...few editors have weighed providing, at best, a limited view of "wikt:consensus". Its 5 editor contributions over 2 days and any S to L changes made at this stage would certainly be WP:BOLD. I'd suggest waiting a little longer and even then changes would be made at risk as WP:consensus can change. Also the view of P123ct1, as proposer of the issue, is important here. Gregkaye ✍♪ 06:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

If you look at the names, so far it is five for and one against the move from ISIS to ISIL. I sense lukewarm interest from other editors. But as Gregkaye says probably best to wait a little longer to guage consensus. Whatever consensus is reached it should be recorded here, so that if objections are raised by other editors if the vote goes to ISIL, they can be pointed to a clear decision by editors who participated in the "vote". --P123ct1 (talk) 09:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

5:1 sounds more like consensus. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye has already started changing "ISIS" to "ISIL". In the absence of further "votes" or comments since the last count of 5:1, I think it is it is safe to assume there is now CONSENSUS to move from "ISIS" to "ISIL" in the text of the article.

Please be careful about global changes. (a) Quotations must obviously not be altered. (b) If "ISIS" in footnote wikitext is accidentally changed to "ISIL", it could break the links and then readers won't be able to call up the citations. --P123ct1 (talk) 20:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Good point on quotes and links. We have consensus and we shall apply it to this and related articles on the basis of consistency. Further enforcing that there is true consensus, the article was just moved from 2014 military intervention against ISIS to 2014_military intervention against the Islamic_State of Iraq and the Levant based on an RfC that ran for a month and reached nearly 100% agreement. Legacypac (talk) 21:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support Initially US media was using the ISIS acronym exclusively so that was the more recognizable acronym. However, with the State Department (and the White House) using ISIL exclusively, as well as the this also being the predominate use among scholars and international authors I don't have a problem with this change. However ISIL is the acronym for Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. When referring the Islamic State then IS is more appropriate. See my proposal in #Use of "Islamic State" at least in the infobox below.~Technophant (talk) 14:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Self-declared references removed re caliphate

The references were removed in this edit[3] despite clear messages stating "!--don't remove qualifier, please see definitions of caliphate--"

It states:
A caliphate (in Arabic: خلافة‎ khilāfa, meaning "succession") is an Islamic state led by a supreme religious and political leader known as a caliph – i.e. "successor" – to Muhammad. The succession of Muslim empires that have existed in the Muslim world are usually described as "caliphates". Conceptually, a caliphate represents a sovereign state of the entire Muslim faithful, (the Ummah), ruled by a caliph under Islamic law (sharia).

Quite clearly Muhammed and any genuine caliphs that followed were accepted by those that accepted the Muhammadan creed. Baghdadi's claim of authority over Islam is widely rejected. The claimed caliphate, if there is one, is well described as self-declared.

See also: (ISIL OR ISIS OR Daesh OR "Islamic State") AND "not a caliphate" which gets "About 69,300 results". There are a lot of people going beyond basic reporting and adding a large content of commentary.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The actual lack of support for this self-declared caliphate may seem to be quite astounding when viewed in context.

See search: "longing for a caliphate" OR "need for a caliphate" OR "eagerness for a caliphate" OR "hope for a caliphate" or "aspiration for a caliphate". That search got "About 843,000 results".

Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I concur with Gregkaye. ISIL is an "unrecognized state". That means they are NOT a State - not a "state without recognition". ISIL fails the Montevideo Convention [Sovereign_state#Declarative_theory] because they 1 ) lack a defined territory (shifting daily); 2) a permanent population (there are no ISIL citizens, refugees all over the place) 3) a government (it operates a military occupation to be kind, a giant hostage camp to be blunt) 4) a capacity to enter into relations with other states (fail, no state will have relations) so long as it wasn't achieved by force whether this consists in the employment of arms, (fail again) ...

A caliph (head of state) is head of a caliphate (type of state). No state=no caliphate=no caliph. To use roughly equivalent English terms - No statehood=No kingdom/republic/country=no king/president/national leader. Hence self-declared is the appropriate and imperative qualifier for accuracy. This is also part of the fundamental problem with calling them the Islamic State, plus that name is like calling a rebel army "The Kingdom" or "The Republic", or "Ruler of all Christians" since the term assumes both political and religious authority over all Muslims worldwide - just too broad. Legacypac (talk) 09:59, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I put it back and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant&diff=prev&oldid=629705152 another user changes it citing talk page, with no discussion by them here. I fixed it again. Legacypac (talk) 18:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Please restore footnote "UN-executes"

There's a dangling reference to <ref name=UN-executes/> in the "As Islamic State" section. It's currently footnote 131, the third footnote at the end of "executions of clerics who refused to pledge allegiance to the Islamic State,^[127] mass executions of prisoners of war,^[128] and civilians,^{[129][130][131]}"

I grabbed the footnote from an old version, where it was defined in the "Treatment of civilians" section. It used to be

<ref name=UN-executes>{{cite news |url=http://www.todayszaman.com/news-350389-un-warns-of-war-crimes-as-isil-allegedly-executes-1700.html |title=UN warns of war crimes as ISIL allegedly executes 1,700 |date=15 June 2014 |website=Today's Zaman |accessdate=4 July 2014}}</ref>

The right thing to do is replace the reference to this footnote by this definition of the footnote. Thank you! 71.41.210.146 (talk) 23:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done, and thanks for taking the time to figure out what the citation had been before someone accidentally broke it. Cannolis (talk) 02:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

There's a (Refbot?) that will fix such things if the refname is in a previous version.~Technophant (talk) 18:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Spain should be added to the opponents list

I think Spain should be added to the opponets' list, as it officially joined the Coalition in the Paris summit. Spain has provided 300 instructors to train the Iraqi Army and has offered to assist coalition partners in transport and in air-to-air refueling operations, as well as to provide weapons to the Iraqi Army and the Kurdish Peshmerga forces.

Sources: http://politica.elpais.com/politica/2014/10/09/actualidad/1412867011_131222.html, http://www.abc.es/espana/20141010/abci-militares-irak-envio-201410101616.html

Is the list still restricted as it was before? For example, Germany has only provided instructors to train the Kurdish Peshmerga forces, but has not offered to assist coalition partners or provide weapons to allied forces on the ground, and it's on the list. But Spain is doing more, and it isn't. It makes no sense at all.

It's clear that Spain and Germany are opponents. But if Spain should not be on that list, then Germany shouldn't be, either. I think both should be, as their contribution should be noted and are clearly using their military to oppose IS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felino123 (talk • contribs) 04:06, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe Germany has troops on the ground and is shipping weapons and aid, but if Spain is sending in troops they can be moved from providing aid to belligerent status now. Legacypac (talk) 06:30, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Propose amalgamating content of the section on "goals" into the section on "history"

The 8th section of the article is Goals and I am wondering to what extent it is just a repetition of content of the 2nd section: History. I'm thinking that "Goals" should present an indication of what the group plans to do in the future and not what it has done in the past. Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

There is some repetition Gregkaye, but isn't it a good idea to highlight in one paragraph in "Goals", right at the beginning of this next "chapter" of the article, what the group's main goal is and always has been: the establishment of an Islamic state? This next chapter is about how they are setting about achieving that ambition, so it would be a good preamble to it, I think. The first para of the "History" subsection in "As Islamic State" could be shortened by transferring the spokesman's words here, where they seem to fit better. "Goals" here should really be "Goal", as they only have one, the extension of their "caliphate"/establishment of an Islamic state. --P123ct1 (talk) 13:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a draft reworking of the first part of the "Islamic State" subsection in "History" and the "Goals" section. I have cut the "History" part right down and transferred some of it to the "Goals" section. Would this be acceptable?

===Islamic State (2014–present)===

On 29 June 2014, ISIL removed "Iraq and the Levant" from its name and began to refer to itself as the "Islamic State". It declared the territory under its control a new caliphate and named Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi as its caliph. The declaration of a caliphate has been criticized and ridiculed by Muslim scholars and rival Islamists inside and outside the occupied territory.

==Goal==

Since 2004, the group's goal has been the foundation of an Islamic state in the Levant. Specifically, ISIL has sought the establishment of a caliphate, a type of Islamic state led by a group of religious authorities under a supreme leader—caliph—who is believed to be the successor to Muhammad.

In June 2014, ISIL published a document which claimed to trace the lineage of its leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi back to the prophet. That same month, ISIL removed "Iraq and the Levant" from its name and began to refer to itself as the Islamic State, declaring the territory that it occupied in Iraq and Syria a new caliphate and naming al-Baghdadi as its caliph. By declaring a caliphate, al-Baghdadi was demanding the allegiance of all devout Muslims according to Islamic jurisprudence—fiqh.

Shaykh Abu Muhammad al-Adnani al-Shami, spokesperson for ISIL, described the establishment of the caliphate as "a dream that lives in the depths of every Muslim believer" and "the abandoned obligation of the era", while ISIL stated: "The legality of all emirates, groups, states and organizations becomes null by the expansion of the khilafah's [caliphate's] authority and arrival of its troops to their areas." ISIL thus rejects the political divisions established by Western powers at the end of World War I in the Sykes–Picot Agreement as it absorbs territory in Syria and Iraq.

ISIL's current goal is to consolidate the territorial gains it has made, to establish an Islamic state, and to expand the caliphate it has declared throughout the Levant region.

Not too sure about the last sentence I added, but I think something is needed about its current aim. --P123ct1 (talk) 15:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 sorry about this edit which I mostly written a bit earlier today and is being posted before taking the content of your last edit into account. (got to run). I may edit this if I get back here before someone responds.: ad: That looks great. The only change I would make would be to present Muhammed as "Muhammed". Whether or not it is true, its also POV to call him a prophet. Anyway, the rest here is as I wrote earlier. comments welcome. Gregkaye ✍♪ 20:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that there are any bad options so I'll just mention the things that are on my mind to see want you think. If a main issue for the group was "Establishing an Islamic state" maybe something like that could be a heading title. "Governance" might also work as a relevant title and perhaps "goals" could be merged with the first part of that section. Perhaps this could then be followed by "Territorial claims" (possibly named "Territorial aspirations"? Claiming authority over all of Islam may indicate more extensive claim than formally described).

Am also thinking that the content of "Ideologies.." (the title "Doctrine" might also work?!). This section might go well with the section of "Governance" that I gave the potentially changeable title of "Diktats, influences and pressures". A kind of cause and effect flow might work there.

(Another option could be to use the name "objectives" for "goals" but I'm just mentioning possibilities here). Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:55, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and adjusted the text using the draft above. Title heading and positioning in the article, or anything else, can be altered as editors see fit. --P123ct1 (talk) 05:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Mention of major battles in cities, i.e., Kobani

30k strong terror army, almost half of which is invested in house to house fighting in one city; perhaps mentioning it in the timeline would be prudent, even as events unfold. Defenders in Kobani perhaps the only indigenous military force that has faced ISIL with significant resistance Jigsaw6741 (talk) 14:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Jigsaw6741 Go ahead an put it in the timeline. Excess material can always be cleaned up later. This battle is unique because 1. It's right on the border and there's media + spectators, and 2. There's precision airstrikes which are likely knocking out their strongholds and resupply. ~Technophant (talk) 18:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• Update, this conversation has been moved to Talk:Timeline of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant events#Kobane.~Technophant (talk) 08:21, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2014

from the discussion i made about the "self-declared" when talking about the islamic state as a caliphate(and about abu bakr al-baghdadi as a caliph) i made claer that the islamic state is a caliphate in the same way that former caliphate was a caliphates, there is no theological nor logical differences and the ones who supported in not calling them a caliphate("self declared" instead) were unsure about if there is an actual differences between the islamic state caliphate and former caliphates which existed just few decades ago(the last caliphate before the islamic state fell in the 20s of the 20th century).

the media used "caliphate" and "self-declared caliphate" or even just "isis" interchangeably and anyone can find news network that use one name over another more often. so there is no meaning for using some particular media as a "source" for the way they should be treated.

so my request is to simply remove the "self-declared" and treating them as what they are: another caliphate. Wheels of steel0 (talk) 22:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Not done: There has been extensive discussion on this point. Article is fairly stable on using qualifiers as the only people who accept the declarations are other terrorists. So no thanks. Legacypac (talk) 05:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

as you can see the editor who made that "self-declared" edit isn't sure about if there is differences between the islamic state caliphate and former caliphates, i suggest you read that discussion, i already showed the islamic terms for being a "caliphate" and "caliph" which has nothing to do with the recognition of some countries and the term of "terrorists". according to islam the terrorists you talking about are the muslims who give them the right to be called a caliphate. so your claim that "their declaration is accepted only by other terrorists" is meaningless and has nothing to do with what made some politic entity a "caliphate".

the islamic state is already called her an "unrecognized state" and basicaly did accepted their declaration of a state, so why not accepting their declaration of caliphate?.

wikipedia should talk about facts and accept things as they are and not be depend on the personal feelings and POV of the editor. --Wheels of steel0 (talk) 12:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Wheels of steel0 Maybe you misunderstand what an unrecognized state is. It is not a state that is just not recognized, it is not a state period- just like I am not Santa Claus even if I dress in a red suit and say ho ho ho. Since the group is not a state, they can't be a caliphate and can't have a caliph. This is not my opinion, it is how Wikipedia deals with rebel groups involved in armed conflict and how international law deals with the group. Shortening your name over and over to the point they refer to themselves simply as "the State" does not make them a state. My comments about no state, only other terrorists, recognizing them drive right to the point they are not a state and therefore not a caliphate (type of state). Historical caliphates were in fact actual states. Legacypac (talk) 09:22, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

(I'm putting this in brackets because its basically a copy of text entered later. I broadly agree with Legacypac but more for reasons of the high level of opposition that it has generated particularly in the Islamic world:

: (ISIL OR ISIS OR Daesh OR "Islamic State") AND "not a caliphate" which gets "About 69,300 results". There are a lot of people going beyond basic reporting and adding a large content of commentary.

The actual lack of support for this self-declared caliphate may seem to be quite astounding when viewed in context.

See search: "longing for a caliphate" OR "need for a caliphate" OR "eagerness for a caliphate" OR "hope for a caliphate" or "aspiration for a caliphate". That search got "About 843,000 results".

Then consider what a caliphate is meant to be: A caliphate (in Arabic: خلافة‎ khilāfa, meaning "succession") is an Islamic state led by a supreme religious and political leader known as a caliph – i.e. "successor" – to Muhammad. The succession of Muslim empires that have existed in the Muslim world are usually described as "caliphates". Conceptually, a caliphate represents a sovereign state of the entire Muslim faithful, (the Ummah), ruled by a caliph under Islamic law (sharia).

Except for people who may well consider the entire Muslim faithful as supporters or ISIL within ISIL controlled areas and other sympathetic people, ISIL epically fails to represent Islam. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

And fails to meet any test of statehood. Caliphate is a type of state (like republic or monarchy). Legacypac (talk) 12:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac as you could read in this site about "unrecognized state": "A state currently not recognized by one given state", could they be "unrecognized state" without being a state? i don't think so... you won't make such funny mistakes if you start to think about what you are saying instead of just looking for something that will look like an argument while you don't realy have one.

anyway i am recognizing her a blind stubbornness of people who can't admit that they are wrong or just believe in something just cause they want it to be that way, just like arguing with religious people about god. i don't have the time to be her so many time as you do and have some futile argument with someone like the religious people i just mentioned so if you want to call them "self declared caliphate" so be it, but anyone who will read the article about "caliphate" or this talk page will know that the "self declared" is nothing than the editor attempt to make them look like what he want them to be. --Wheels of steel0 (talk) 12:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Wheels of steel0: I wholeheartedly agree with everything you say, here and elsewhere. Editors are trying to write history and present their own version of events in this article, when WP is supposed to report on facts and not interpret or judge. They are flying in the face of the WP:NPOV principle in the WP:FIVEPILLARS and indulging in WP:OR and a partisan approach to the facts, instead of reflecting the outside criticisms in the Muslim world and elsewhere neutrally, in appropriate places in the article. I opened the "Criticisms" section for precisely this purpose, for example. I have often said this, and I think it bears repeating again, for anyone outside who reads this Talk page. --P123ct1 (talk) 17:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Please carefully read the info presented above. Statehood is not created by declaring it - there is a test. Legacypac (talk) 19:51, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I am bemused. They call themselves a caliphate, and as their claim to be one is disputed they are an unrecognized state, aren't they? What is wrong with saying "they declared a caliphate", "they proclaimed an Islamic state", call it an unrecognised state (since because the caliphate's legitimacy is dispute they cannot be a recognized state) and leave it at that? WP has to report on facts. Perhaps I am missing the point and you agree with this? I suspect the problem here may just boil down to semantics. --P123ct1 (talk) 18:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Reported SAA-ISIS collusion

There is a section in the article that indicates that the SAA and ISIS are likely colluding. However, the fact that hundreds of Syrian soldiers were likely killed by ISIS in the taking of Shaar oil field (in July of 2014) is not mentioned at all. [4]. I'm fairly sure that the SAA has increased its airstrikes on ISIS positions recently as well. David O. Johnson (talk) 20:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Al-Qaeda's break with ISIL

I have restored "reportedly" in the Lead sentence, "It had close links to al-Qaeda until February 2014 when, after an eight-month power struggle, al-Qaeda cut all ties with the group, [reportedly] for its brutality and "notorious intractability". I think Epeefleche who removed it is probably unaware of the discussion over the wording of this sentence some time ago here. There was a good reason why editors decided that word should be there. Basically, there have been no reports that al-Qaeda cut ties with ISIL on the grounds that it was "too extreme", and it was agreed by editors that this reason was journalistic interpretation. --P123ct1 (talk) 07:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that discussion. But I don't get it. Every single statement in every wp article is "reportedly." The word adds nothing. It falls within the Strunk and White rubric that we should omit needless words. If there is cause to say that it is "journalistic interprentation," and not "reported", then we should say that. If it is reported, then we should omit the word ... because everything here is reported. IMHO. Best. --Epeefleche (talk) 17:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

You are quite right, it is all reported, but "reportedly" is used (like "allegedly") when there is some doubt about the report. --P123ct1 (talk) 20:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I refined the time period of infobox "part of" (here) of non-specific "2013-2014" to "(October 2004–February 2014)" with refs. This covers Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's initial vow to Bin Laden as TQJBRT to the split in Feb. ~Technophant (talk) 06:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Relations with Turkey

Why is there a section about the alleged relations with the Syrian regime, but none about ISIL's ties with Turkey? As far as I can remember, both made oil deals with them. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 23:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

This could answer your question: Why Turkey Doesn't Want To Fight ISIS on YouTube. The channel is affiliated with DNews (Discovery channel) so it should be reliable. ~Technophant (talk) 03:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but Turkey was also accused of making oil deals with ISIL. If we have a section about Assad's "alleged relations" with ISIL citing "Western intelligence sources", then we must have one about Turkey as well, otherwise the article would be unbalanced. Even some EU members were accused of buying ISIL-controlled oil. Syrian rebels previously accused Al-Nusra front of being a product of the Assad regime, but it all turned out to be hogwash eventually. Earlier this year, the Syrian government was accused of deliberately exempting ISIL from airstrikes, but considering the increasing death toll from the SAA's fighting with ISIL (e.g. Battle for Tabqa Air base), these claims are becoming outdated as well. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

a specific/non-specific, definable/indefinable establishment (infobox content)

The first infobox contains a section on "establishment" with presented details of:

	Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant declared	3 January 2014[8][9]

- 	Caliphate declared	29 June 2014 

The section on names begins: "The group has had a number of different names since it was formed, including some names that other groups use for it"

I personally find it contradictory to talk of "establishment" and to talk of names of the group prior to the establishment date.

What establishment are we/should we be talking about? The establishment of the group? The establishment of a government (which may have occurred at any time and not necessarily at name change transition)? The establishment of a capital city? The establishment of a title containing the word "State" (which occurred with the rebranding as "Islamic State of Iraq")? A rebranding of the description of the type of government to Caliphate? Something else?

Thoughts? Suggestions?

I think that the one valuable piece of information here is the date that "Caliphate" was declared and this could be entered in the section of Government. The current text reads: "Self-declared caliphate". I suggest: "Unitary, Single-party state declared as Islamic state (2006) and as caliphate (29 June 2014).

The Mujahideen Shura Council was a single-party and it retains absolute control of the group.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:16, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree, you make a good point here. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 23:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

TY Supersaiyen312. Perhaps now this can be a change waiting to happen. The suggestion was mainly made due to the Lead and TOC being shorter than the infoboxes but this is no longer an issue. I still think that the second map (as at Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#Map:_current_military_situation) might find a place between the infoboxes. At the moment space is being filled in the info boxes with a repetition of the flag at the very bottom position. Gregkaye ✍♪ 04:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

No problem. With the second map in its current position, it might be useful to merge that section into one of the existing ones. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 04:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The establishment section has since been developed with what seems to me to be a more informative content. Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Also propose moving information on leaders and on the capital city into just one info box I suggest that this all goes under Government and capital in the first box. Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

•  Done Gregkaye ✍♪ 04:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Type of government?: Unitary, single-party, Islamic state and self-declared caliphate?

Despite being an unrecognised state the article on ISIL uses: "Infobox country" (first infobox) which has a section on government.

I propose the use of:

Government     Unitary, single-party, Islamic state and self-declared caliphate

• Unitary state, they are not a Federation
• Single-party state, they have had the organisation of a single party since at least the time of the Mujahideen Shura Council and, in operation as a single party that occupies territory, they have similarities to China.
• Islamic state, a more honest title might be "Islamic extremist group" but what can you do!
• self-declared caliphate

I also wondered whether a description Semi-presidential system may become relevant. I won't hold my breath.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Also suggest as subsequent text: Emir and self-declared caliph

Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

More like a military occupation. Reminds me of the Nazi occupations, on religious steroids and ignoring the rules of war. Unlike normal national armies ISIL lacks a home base with a supportive population. Even in the cities they hold the locals often support out of justified fear. We don't have to fill in all the slots. They are there to use if applicable, and they are not applicable here. Legacypac (talk) 15:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac, I think that ISIL should be fully described so that people can see what it is.

It should not be the case but the world has no shortage of unpopular governments. The significant difference here is your arguably apt POV regarding religious steroids. History also tells that religion is not the only cause of despotism and callous slaughter. Other systems have also had a go. Beyond accusations related to religious doctrines and despotism and beyond issues relating to popular support, the legal situation of ISIL is much the same as the legal situation regarding many rebellions. The ISIL page uses the rarely used term Unrecognised state which, when not used in a piped arrangement]], redirects to Wikipedia's List of states with limited recognition. Other unrecognised states and states recognised only by non-UN members are: Somaliland, Nagorno-Karabakh Republic and Transnistria. "States" without full recognition include : China, Israel and the State of Palestine and yet, perhaps remarkably, Zimbabwe isn't listed. However, in all these cases, descriptive pigeon-holing of governmental structure is provided. The (misguided, said with tongue in cheek) independence of the United States wasn't recognised by the (then) British (now UK) government for a couple of decades despite having the Federal presidential constitutional systems (within a democratic framework) that ISIL lacks.

I don't see a problem in describing governmental style.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Official website external link and accurate flag

This is apparently their official website. Should this go in the External Links section?

http://khilafah.is/

This is the image in the top right corner of their flag, which is a notably better version than what is being used here on wikipedia.

http://i.imgur.com/BvVrQfX.jpg

Wstn (talk) 04:07, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Wstnthe website isn't working, it has worked for you in the past? --Wheels of steel0 (talk) 10:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Probably they have mirror site(s).

It's http://khilafah.net/ --P123ct1 (talk) 09:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Whatever khilafah.is was it seems to have been removed from the internet. khilafah.net is an unrelated Hizb ut-Tahrir website. Gazkthul (talk) 22:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes it appears it have been taken offline at least temporarily. It might be worth checking the link in the future. Wstn (talk) 02:47, 19 October 2014 (UTC)