Jump to content

Talk:Islamic State/Archive 23

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25→Archive 30

"Declaration of an Islamic State and reactions" and criticism

I think the content of the subsection Criticism of name "Islamic State" and term "caliphate should be moved to the Islamic criticism section. I think all criticism should be pointed out altogether on one place. If I want to find criticism I want to find it altogether, not spread over the whole aricle so I have to look for it.

So I think we should move this and, if necessary, add more info about this declaration on its section. Felino123 (talk) 08:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

We tried that and editors kept pushing the whole criticism section lower and lower until it hit the very bottom even after conspiracy theories - yet there were strong arguments made that the info in criticisms was central to the story and much more important than some of the (poorly understood) group structure etc. We have not and should not present the declaration without the widespread denunciations right after. Legacypac (talk) 10:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Legacypac, I think criticism secion should be lower, but not after conspiracy theories! This is not the issue of this topic, so I will probably make a topic about that later. I don't agree with you, as the denunciations are just pure criticism. We may put a link on the declaration section to these kind of criticism in the criticism section, but criticism should be altogether. Now it's unarranged and gives a bad impression. Felino123 (talk) 10:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Felino123 please read: WP:YESPOV: Avoid stating opinions as facts... which seems like a good principle in talk pages. As far as I have seen it is rare for any outlet to totally split content and commentary. It is a norm to talk about a subject and then discus it. The article seems to me to be quite logically arranged. I cannot see a valid reason for placing the central contents as mentioned within the criticisms section beneath admin issues such as finance. Felino123, why do you want to relegate this content in the article? Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Gregkaye: An encyclopaedia is not an "outlet". Do you want this article to be read like a news or media "outlet"? It really seems as if you do. First you denied that this article should reflect Reliable Sources in the "jihadist" debate (two months old and still not over) and now you seem to deny that this article should be encyclopaedic. Encyclopaedias and newspapers are as different as chalk and cheese. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 16:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • P123ct1 Taking a look at Category:Media technology and Category:New media we find the Internet. As far as I have always considered it, Wikipedia is an outlet of information within the context of that media. The database concerned is very large. I have always considered the related information to be let out. I have not argued the point that "jihadist" can be presented in the in the article as per RS and I thank you for the support you have given in the proposal for adding an encyclopaedic qualifying note raising awareness of the difference in the meanings of words. The terms "jihadist" and "jihad" have very different base meanings. I didn't not mention newspapers. High quality documentaries were more the thing that I had in mind. I am happy to speak more about the chalk and would be interested to see if there is a president in Wikipedia's guidelines to back the proposals. Proposal have been raised to effectively split content and commentary and to drop the criticism section down the article. I don't see a valid justification for the first proposal and asked about motive regarding the second. Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The thread seems to be changing into criticisms in general now, not just criticisms about the declaration of the Islamic State. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 20:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Gregkaye: I should not have used the word "newspaper" or criticised your "outlet"; it was an ill-thought through comment. I think you should pursue your idea of a link from "jihadist" showing how the word has two entirely different meanings now, and a simple link to the wiki article is not enough as that has just one vague sentence describing (if that is what it can be called) the difference. To talk about the "chalk", an encyclopaedia article gives the facts about a subject first and foremost, commentary is secondary. That is what I meant by an encyclopaedia not being like a "newspaper", which is full of commentary and opinion. In my opinion, as an encyclopaedia article, facts should be kept separate from commentary and precede it. Criticism, which is commentary, should come after facts. "Goals, territorial claims and resources" are facts about the group, and I do not think the section on criticisms - commentary - should come before it. To have "Criticisms" between facts above it in the TOC and facts below it is messy. "Criticisms" and "Analysis" are both commentary, so those sections should be grouped together. (Although I can see why the "Military of ISIL" is classed as a resource, I think it might be better to keep all military aspects together, in perhaps three sections. I find those sections quite confusing - and that may be my fault - mainly because of the headings. Why not keep it simple and have three sections, "Military resources", "Support" and "Opposition"?) The designations as a terrorist organization are not criticisms but official facts (with criticism implied obviously) and are a part of the group's history, so should either be incorporated in "History" or follow it as the next block of facts. On criticisms, I now agree with Felino123, after being half-persuaded otherwise, that criticisms (except those in the Lead, because the Lead is a summary of the article) should be kept in one place. I do not think criticism of the name and of "caliphate" interpolated in "History" is appropriate, as that mingles commentary with fact. To spread criticisms here and there - and particularly to have "Criticisms" before "Goals", when one of the main criticisms is about group's caliphate ambition! - is messy, IMO. I can see that where to put "Finances" and "Propaganda and social media" is a problem, as although they are facts, there is nothing about them in the criticisms (commentary) section, and the same with the military sections. Perhaps those ?five sections exceptionally could follow "Criticisms" and "Analysis", as it would be illogical to separate criticisms and analysis (commentary) so far away from the things criticised and commented upon. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 20:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • P123ct1 In that case I would suggest reformatting section 2 as "Group goals, structure and characteristics" with the first subsection of that section being "Goals and territorial claims ambitions". Section 3 can perhaps remain as "Criticism" or "Criticism and judgement" / "Judgement and criticism" or something like that so as to incorporate the Designation content. Either that or the designations section can split off but I don't see an advantage or warrant for this. Section 4 perhaps can perhaps labelled "Resources" to keep things simple. My two main issues here are that appropriate definitions of terrorist can be encyclopaedically presented and that the criticisms sections should fairly come before admin contents like resources. The criticisms of "Islamic State" and "caliphate" can perhaps go in after "theological objections" which makes some sense to me. I know that Legacypac has put a lot of work into this and should comment. Gregkaye ✍♪ 21:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Gregkaye: I think naming section 2 "Group goals, structure and characteristics" with section 2.1 being "Goals and territorial claims" is a good idea, but having criticisms of "Islamic State" and "caliphate" as a part of that section 1 would be more logical than putting it after "theological objections", since the criticisms are more about the fact of the Islamic State and caliphate than the idea of those things, which is how they appear in the "Ideology and beliefs" part. I still think those criticisms/commentaries should go in "Criticisms" where they were originally, though. The "Criticisms" are now quite high up in the TOC at section 3, and I agree they should come before a section on "Resources", because the none of the criticisms are about the resources. If the "Resources" section has in it "Propaganda", "Finances" and "Military of ISIL", I think "Military of ISIL" should come last, as that would lead naturally into the two sections on "Opposition" and "Support", keeping all the military stuff together. As I said, I think "Criticisms" and "Analysis" should be grouped together (but as separate sections) as they are in essence both commentary sections. So that would be: "History", ["Designation as a terrorist organization" I think should come next,] "Group goals, structure and characteristics" (your new section 2), "Criticisms", "Analysis", "Resources", "Support", "Opposition". That would seem to make sense, would incorporate your improvements, and follow what I basically recommended in my comment just before yours. Comments, Legacypac? Revision as of 22:30, 2 December 2014 P123ct1
Good plan Gregkaye. Legacypac (talk) 23:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't have strong views on the positioning of criticisms of "Islamic State" and "caliphate" and think that each option has its strengths. I still think that the declaration of "Islamic State" and "caliphate" are theologically loaded issues but other arguments have relevance as well. In which section is propaganda best placed? With a moving up of the territorial claims section there is still the issue of the repetition of the territorial claims map in the infobox. It has improved usage now that the maps are closer together but it's still a repetition. If the Analysis section is to be moved should it remain containing the conspiracies theories section. I would leave that as an wikt:and finally news (outlet ) styled item. It effectively adds a potential Plot twist but not with the certain notability of content of the criticisms section. In this case I would lay out the article:
  • Lead; History; Group goals, structure and characteristics; Criticism; Analysis and designation as a terrorist organisation; Resources; Support; Opposition; Conspiracy theories in the Arab world.
I think that the Analysis and designation as a terrorist organisation contents can naturally go together and I think that this gives good context for the group's description as terrorist. Again, please read ISIL#Analysis. A wikt:terrorist content is not centrally relevant to a war criminal group. Sections could also be bunched together as either, " Criticism, analysis and designation as a terrorist organisation" or "Analysis, designation as a terrorist organisation, criticism". Fiercely worded and critical papers from the UN speak of the "armed group" not the "terrorist group". Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Gregkaye: Why do you think "Analysis" and "Designation as a terrorist organization" naturally go together? Is it because you analyse that "terrorist" is not a descriptor that fits the group any longer? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 11:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • P123ct1 They are clearly a horrendous terrorist organisation but with facets more monstrous still. If I were to judge what the group were guilty of I would place human rights abuse and war crimes at the top of the list terrorism somewhere after that. The analysis text acknowledges the terrorism and also highlights bigger issues. It keeps things in context with related content. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Gregkaye: I have reorganised some sections along the lines of what we discussed above, endorsed by Legacypac, giving the new headings you suggested for section 2. I have also moved "Military of ISIL" in "Resources" to the bottom as the next section is military. Some adjustments may be needed, but I think the arrangement of sections is as we agreed. I have already moved "Analysis" up to below "Criticism" as these are both commentary sections. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 23:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I would suggest turning "Human rights/war crimes" into a section of its own now, as section 2 is very large. What do you think? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 23:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • P123ct1 yes, my guess is that, now that the main heading starts with "Group goals.." instead of "Group characteristics.." or whatever it was, the "Human rights/war crimes" content may not seem to fit so well. Gregkaye ✍♪ 23:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced opinion in lead section

"aims to bring Muslim-inhabited regions of the world under its control": still no sources for this "heavily sourced" statement, after I attempted to discuss the problem, so it will have to go. This article is not supposed to be a platform for one editor's personal opinion. I suggest someone else removes the statement, today, since I have just been reverted by the apparent WP:OWNer of this article (who claims that the removal of his opinion constitutes a "non-good faith edit"). zzz (talk) 19:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Was just drafting this when Gregkaye beat me to posting. Various editor have spent a lot of time discussing this exact issue with zzz in multiple long threads. No one else agrees with zzz and he has never brought a source to counter all the sources that say what the article says http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/08/economist-explains-19. When zzz edit warred over it he escaped a block by promising not to edit this article anymore - a promise again broken. After the last round of debate zzz started the other editors determined that zzz had probably not read the article since the article contains several sections supporting the words yet again deleted from the lead. Also since zzz just deleted 3 references while claiming the information is unsourced, it is hard to take him seriously.
See discussion Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant/Archive_18#Disruptive_Edits_-_result_User_blocked_for_48_hours_under_Community_Sanctions here which resulted in a 48 hour block as well as the thread Greg pointed to and the long collapsed discussion Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant/Archive_20#Removing_material_from_lead:_detailed_rationale here.
Your choice Signedzzz - you want to continue to delete the same content over and over or you going to stop?

Legacypac (talk) 19:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Just read your source, the Economist. Unfortunately, it says nothing like "aims to bring Muslim-inhabited regions of the world under its control". The closest I can find is

    "And the problem is not just for Syria, Iraq and its neighbours. With thousands of foreign fighters from across the world who may return home as radicalised rebels, many countries are at risk."

Which is not even close (is this some kind of joke??? Whatever.) The best way I can see to improve the encyclopedia, right now, is to continue to remove this unsourced opinion - since there is a point-blank refusal to justify it. As for the personal abuse and the other lies and bullshit, I'm not interested, thanks. zzz (talk) 22:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Apparently the second sentence of the Economist article "... it declared a caliphate, claiming to speak for the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims." means nothing. By your own admission you plan to edit war. Not helpful. Legacypac (talk) 22:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Can you substantiate that, zzz? I don't remember seeing your name in the "View history" pages until recently. Are you referring to deletions you made recently? I hope you realize your attitude to editors here doesn't exactly help your case. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 22:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • You succeeded in making a small handful of simple copy-eds (shortening a few phrases and sentences), and most of your excisions were restored. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 23:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Back at edit warring board for round three Legacypac (talk) 23:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@P123ct1 Would you like to point out where my "attitude to editors" has been unhelpful? Or is it simply a case of my failing to agree with every phrase in "your" article (unsupported by references)? And why is it so important to you to state that I have made only "a small handful of simple copy-eds" to "your" article? zzz (talk) 03:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
zzz, I've made my own comments on this unhelpfulness on the report. Your timely edit relating to the #"Pair of armed anti-American insurgents from northern Iraq" picture is, in my view, helpful. Please recognise any relevant edit warring and any other relevant issues. We have lost able editors in the past. Reassurances count for a lot more when it comes to proceedings here than defences. Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
You and everyone else is of course welcome to edit here, but you are not welcome to edit war here. If you can't recognize where your discussion is combative or how repeatedly refusing to read sources properly is problematic, there are few alternatives. In many threads you have just insulted all the other editors while presenting no RS evidence that supports your point. Legacypac (talk) 06:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
zzz: WP:CIVIL, WP:PA. Never helps. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 07:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
zzz My concern is that, IMO, in your apparent hack into the article attitude there may be instances in which you Throw out the baby with the bath water or some such. It is fair that material gets questioned but, when most editors are disagreeing with you and you still want to push for an edit, I would say that it is you that has the WP:OWN attitude. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Small change: I have changed C to "aims to bring Muslim-inhabited regions across the world under its control". I think that the first may be suggestive of all areas visited by any Muslim tourist or similar but who is to say for certain that even those areas are safe. 'SIL attacked Sinjar and that was a predominantly Yazidi town. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
I cannot see where the new citation just added, an article from The Week, support this phrase "aims to bring Muslim-inhabited regions across the world under its control". ~ P123ct1 (talk) 15:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
zzz: You asked, "And why is it so important to you to state that I have made only "a small handful of simple copy-eds" to "your" article?" You had said, "My experience of deleting nonsense in this article is that eventually, it stays out", which was a half-truth. I corrected it. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 16:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The newest source http://theweek.com/article/index/267920/abu-bakr-al-baghdadi-the-man-who-would-be-caliph says: "Al-Baghdadi has the megalomaniacal aim of restoring the long-expired caliphate, the original Muslim kingdom that existed under the successors of the Prophet Mohammed and at one point extended from modern-day Spain to Central Asia. "Caliph," or khalifa, means "successor" in Arabic, and by taking the title, al-Baghdadi has declared himself the chief imam and political and military leader of all Muslims. The last caliphate ended with the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in World War I, and establishing a state to be the home of the faithful has been the dream of Islamic fundamentalists for more than half a century. Al-Baghdadi claims to trace his lineage to the Prophet Mohammed's Quraysh tribe, and his nom de guerre recalls the first caliph: Abu Bakr, father-in-law and close adviser of Mohammed. In July, he addressed the world's Muslims in a sermon. "I am the wali [leader] who presides over you," al-Baghdadi said at the Grand Mosque in Mosul, Iraq. "Obey me as long as I obey God in you." The article says chief imam (religious), political (government) and military (functional control). He also does not seek to rule over non-muslims, he tells his followers to kill them. Legacypac (talk) 17:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The Lead wording is specifically about territory. There is nothing about territorial control in that source. The most that that can be said is that territorial control is implied in that source. That is the only reason why I hesitated over that citation and tagged it. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 21:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
The section you tagged is what they only claim authority over. Actual territorial control is in a different sentence. The claim is so outlandish it is hard to wrap words around or compare it to anything else. Legacypac (talk) 22:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
The passage which that citation is attached to is: "... aims to bring Muslim-inhabited regions across the world under its control". That refers to territory. The citation does not refer to territory. That is why I tagged the citation (now removed). ~ P123ct1 (talk) 22:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Meaning I don't think it is close enough. Is there any other citation that would back it up as closely as the worldwide caliphate link? If editors cannot see that this citation does not back up the statement, there is no hope for this article. This blindness is making editors look incompetent and that is putting it politely. I do not necessarily agree with everything Signedzzz says, but on this citation, discussed by him in his ban appeal yesterday (see end of thread), showing why it does not back up the statement, he is absolutely correct. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 11:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I have edited this much disputed passage in the Lead in this way, so that it reflects all the RS citations given for it (including The Week), as I don't think the original wording, "... aims to bring Muslim-inhabited regions across the world under its control", is supported by The Week citation:
"As caliphate it claims religious, political and military authority over all Muslims worldwide.[33][34][35] The group's immediate goal is to establish a Sunni Islamic state in Iraq and the Levant region, which approximately covers Syria, Jordan, Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Cyprus, and part of southern Turkey.[36]"
This can be reverted when a good source can be found to back up the original wording, so in a way this is a holding operation. ~ P-123 (talk) 19:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2014

Simply change 158's citation note url to point to the correct source: Incorrect: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/02/us-mideast-crisis-lebanon-baghdadi-dUSKCN0JG0HW20141202 Correct: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/02/us-mideast-crisis-lebanon-baghdadi-idUSKCN0JG0HW20141202 Incerebro (talk) 12:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done ~ P-123 (talk) 18:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Iraqi culture

Does anyone know what has happened with these issues?

Music of Iraq, Category:Iraqi artists, Category:Iraqi literature, Category:Iraqi culture I guess there will be similar refs for Syria.

gregkaye ✍♪ 21:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Claim, contrary to the article's claim, that 'SIL's territorial claim may never have been exclaimed

In the article and section: ISIL territorial claims#Specific territorial claims the references given are as follows.

Regarding that map the longwarjournal reference merely states "A map of the ISIS' administrative areas, including the 16 wilayats, was published earlier this year. The ISIS map was obtained by The Long War Journal." There is nothing that I have seen as yet either stating or limiting "territorial claim". I am wondering how best to present this. What wording should be used? Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

When political entities publish maps showing admin divisions that is often part of how they claim the area. There has been a progression of territorial claims. Legacypac (talk) 17:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
I checked various pages that show that map and they credit it to the Long War Journal, as does this page http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2014/04/isis-southern-division.php but can't find the first place it was published. We don't use that map though, so what is the concern? Legacypac (talk) 19:52, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Legacypac The main Daesh page in the infobox states "Territories claimed (2014)". I can't remember, I may have added or consolidated the 2014 reference from some other article content. My search shows the map was in non-RS use from early in 2013. I think that the whole thing may be a fabrication perhaps with an original source, perhaps not but with nothing we can check. I don't see any quotation of a propaganda source. I don't hear of people within the group area quoting the related list of provinces. What real substantiation is there for this account of claims. When the group have operated in Lebanon etc without restraint I also see no meaning in the map. Gregkaye ✍♪ 20:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
LWJ is a RS, and the earlier dates I found for 2013 appear to be blogs with incorrect dates picked up in Google. Not sure how to explain it, but you can fudge or screw up the date on your posts in a blog, or add new material to an old page without changing the page date. None of the pages I checked actually indicate a 2013 publish date for the map when examined in detail. What exactly are you thinking of changing? The list of claimed areas? The map? the infobox? Remember that ISIL does rejects all borders creating a weird situation. Legacypac (talk) 20:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
And how reliable is it on this? LWJ i think added that page this year. Where did they get their information? Why doesn't any other RS quote it? Does it have any relevance? What is the content doing on our pages? Gregkaye ✍♪ 22:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Here is the BBC with their own version of the LWJ map http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27838034 scroll to Establishing a caliphate and here is a similar map - scroll to What the Militants Want: A Caliphate Across Syria and Iraq http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/06/12/world/middleeast/the-iraq-isis-conflict-in-maps-photos-and-video.html?_r=0 and the text cites Institute for the Study of War. I think if the NYT and BBC and LWJ and ISW all publish similar maps why should we not reflect that on WP maps? Legacypac (talk) 22:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Legacypac Thank you The BBC text reads, "Based on a details posted on Twitter earlier this year, the map below shows 16 "wilayats", or provinces, that IS claims to control, or where it claims to have a presence." On this basis our text should read, "Territories in which ISIL claimed to have had a presence in early 2014." It currently reads, "Territorial claims (2014)" which is misrepresentative of the cited content. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Timeline of recent events

See also: Propose scrapping timeline from main article and Timeline keeping

Is this section in a suitable place? I think we'd better move it some where after the Criticism section. By the way, 1.8 November 2014 and 1.9 December 2014 would better be a sub section of Timeline of recent events. Mhhossein (talk) 16:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Mhhossein Issues have been fairly well discussed but without clear decisions being reached. The timeline information is automatically generated in the ISIL document through a process called tranclusion through the use of tags like these: <includeonly></includeonly> being added around relevant bits of text in the timeline article. In the past about 30 days of text were agreed with the result that 30-60 days of text were added to the document but a later view was that 4-7 days worth of text would be aimed for. The month titles are tricky to deal with. They are generated in the timeline document and are transferred and transcluded in. I have previously argued for their removal for the sake of a clean TOC. Another editor kept readding the <includeonly></includeonly> tags around the months which was done for the reason that the transcluded headings bring with them [edit] links that permit the editing of the timeline document from the ISIL document. Options now are:
  1. To keep things as they are.
  2. To remove month references completely.
  3. To change take the two previous headings "===Post-June 2014 events===" and "===Timeline of recent events===" and merge them so as to give something like: "===Post-June 2014 events and recent timeline===". This might then be followed by one or two transcluded "===monthly===" titles as at present. (I only thought of this last option thanks to you raising the issue again so thank you for that.)
  4. To completely delete timeline info from the ISIL article and just use links to the the Timeline document as has been previously discussed.
  5. To move the timeline information back to a later part of the document, perhaps after criticism as you mentioned. It now occurs to me that the section could be moved right down the page to precede the "See also" section. Any such move would allow "==Timeline of recent events==" to be turned into a main (lev 2) heading. This would then mean that the transcluded "===monthly===" headings would be able to follow a normal step across within the context of the TOC.
A decision needs to be made. I don't really care what option is chosen but have long been frustrated that the current situation is a bit of a mess. gregkaye ✍♪ 18:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Gregkaye: Cleanest solution is no. 5, i.e. just before "See also" – but making sure there is a clear note at the end of the "History" section showing readers where to go for latest events in this article. The amount of days covered seems reasonable. ~ P-123 (talk) 18:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Clean but with a potential price of dividing history content to separate locations. 4 is also clean but loses direct ref to the content. gregkaye ✍♪ 22:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I am sure readers will cope. There is going to be a big will be time gaps between the last entry in "History" and the first entry in the Timeline section however it is done. Anything is better than the current messy headings.~ P-123 (talk) 22:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

@P-123 and Gregkaye: You're welcome, the current state of the section is not nice. I reckon the fifth option is a good choice, too. Mhhossein (talk) 00:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

gregkaye: The font sizes for November and December in the timeline section are different. Can they be made the same? Also, there is no note at the end of the "History" section showing there is a Timeline section at the end of the article. ~ P-123 (talk) 14:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Polite Notice.

After months of trying, please note that I will no longer be correcting these name spellings, as whenever these misspellings are corrected they are very often altered back, but only here and there, which means there is no consistency, so you may see different spellings of the same name throughout the article at any one time:-

  • al-Qaeda ("Al-Qaeda", "al-Qaeda", "Al-Qaida", etc and often "al-Qaeda" at the beginning of a sentence)
  • al-Nusra Front ("the al-Nusra Front", "al-Nusra Front", "Al-Nusra Front")
  • Al-Qaeda in Iraq ("al-Qaeda in Iraq", "Al-Qaeda in Iraq")

~ P-123 (talk) 13:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Religious Ideology (The Black Flags Prophecy - Sequence of Events in Chronological order)

Ideology of formation of caliphate and their support among Muslims and recent Islamic converts (reverts in Islamic sense) are based from Judaism and Christianity in addition to Islamic prophecies.
The Black Flags Prophecy - Sequence of Events:
Ahmad narrated from Abu Hurayrah that he said: "The Messenger of Allah [sallallahu 'alayhi wa-sallam] said: "Black banners will come out of Khurasan, and nothing will stop them, until they are raised in Ayliya."
Ayliya' [Aelia] is the ancient Roman name for Bayt al-Maqdis (Jerusalem).
Khurasan refers to the area of present- day Afghanistan and eastern Persia.

Jewish Scripture describing the war and men of war against Zion:

God planning against the corrupt Jerusalem:
This is what the LORD of Heaven's Armies says: "Cut down the trees for battering rams. Build siege ramps against the walls of Jerusalem.
This is the city to be punished, for she is wicked through and through. (Jeremiah 6:6)
Why Allah punishes the Zionists:
Then said the LORD unto me, The end has come upon my people of Israel; I will not again pass by them anymore. (because they had broken God’s covenant and caused corruption in the Earth) "In that day," declares the Sovereign LORD, "the songs in the temple will turn to wailing. Many, many bodies--flung everywhere! Silence!" (Amos 8: 2,3)

This army is described in the Old Testament of the Jewish scripture:
"Behold, a people comes from the north country, (note: North of Israel are Muslim lands [inc. Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt & others] which have faced bitter oppression because of Israel)
And a great nation will be raised from the farthest parts of the earth.
They will lay hold of bow and spear,
They are cruel and have no mercy;
Their voice roars like the sea; (when Muslims shout ‘Allahu akbar’ (God is greater) in unison)
And they ride horses
As men of war set in array against you, O daughter of Zion." (Jeremiah 6:22,23.)
"One thousand (zionists) shall flee from the threat of one,
At the threat of five you shall flee,
Till you are left as a pole on top of a mountain
As as a banner on a hill." (Isaiah 5: 26-30)

Blow a trumpet in Zion, And sound an alarm on My holy mountain! Let all the inhabitants of the land tremble, For the day of the LORD is coming; Surely it is near, a day of darkness and gloom, a day of clouds and blackness. Like dawn spreading across the mountains - a large and mighty army comes, such as never was of old nor ever will be in ages to come. (Joel 2: 1-9)

The Army of Black Flags mention in Islamic Prophecy:
"The Messenger of Allah [sallallahu 'alayhi wa-sallam] said: "Matters will run their course until you become three armies: an army in Sham (Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Palestine), an army in 'Iraq, and an army in the Yemen." I said: "O Messenger of Allah, choose which one I should join." He said: "You should go to Sham [syria, palestine, lebanon, jordan], for it is the best of Allah's lands, and the best of His slaves will be drawn there. And if you refuse, then you should go to the Yemen and drink from its wells. For Allah has guaranteed me that He will look after Sham and its people."

Whose interpretation is this?

The above statement was added to the article by Syed Aamer Shah (Scientist) (talk · contribs). If this is an official ISIL interpretation of the prophecies, they can easily be summarized. If this is Mr. Shah's private interpretation of these prophecies (as are indicated by the parentheses), then it is considered original research and it should be removed. I have done the latter for the time being. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 01:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Religious Interpretation

This interpretation is based on Jewish, Christian and Islamic beliefs (according to their religious books). The names of the books / Chapters and verses is mentioned after the lines (quotations) which are in bold font. This is work done by some researcher in the book, "Black Flags From The East". The author has preferred to remain anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syed Aamer Shah (Scientist) (talk • contribs) 04:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

A book by an anonymous author cannot be used by Wikipedia as a source of reliable information. ~ P-123 (talk) 07:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Annonymous Author Issue

The author will surely risk life if he discloses his name and moreever, the book is published and none of its content can be questioned — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syed Aamer Shah (Scientist) (talk • contribs) 11:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

See WP:RS for Wikipedia's policy on citing sources. ~ P-123 (talk) 14:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Notable and quotable

Wikiquote has quotations related to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

I've just taken a visit to the Wikiquote article connected with the 'SIL page. I didn't recognise the names of the people quoted and when converting the names to links they came up red. Any thoughts on this. I also think that it would be great if editors could keep the Wikiquote page in mind for times when we find genuinely notable and quoted quotes. Does anyone know anything related to Wikiquote guidelines on this? I didn't think that the existing quotes represented a balanced content and thought that existing or other editors could look at this.

Pinging editors involved in the page: @Allixpeeke: @Mariomassone: @UDScott: @BD2412: as listed at https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant&action=history

GregKaye ✍♪ 04:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Lead

See also Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/Archive_22#Bold change of para order in Lead

I first moved the designations as terrorist organisation part of the Lead to the top and the consensus was to keep it there. I think I made a mistake in moving the criticisms part of the Lead from the bottom to the top to join it, because the first thing that hits when reading the Lead now is that second para of heavy criticism. How does this square with WP:NPOV? It gives the impression that this article is anti-ISIL from the word go. I think the terrorist designations should stay at the top, but UN and Amnesty criticisms should follow the history section [added: of the Lead], along with Muslim criticism. ~ P-123 (talk) 23:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

You may move the criticism section, but I suggest you to have an "Ideology and belief" para there. Mhhossein (talk) 00:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Mhhossein: Do you mean a summary para on ideology and beliefs? Where? Isn't this covered in the infobox, under "Ideology"? ~ P-123 (talk) 01:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, a brief explanation as the second or third para. I saw that infobox. I'm suggesting an explanatory text. However it is only a suggestion. Mhhossein (talk) 01:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I have left the terrorist designation sentence at the top as per consensus and moved the UN/Amnesty/Muslim criticism to the bottom, for the above reasons. If this goes against whatever the consensus was please object here. (I think the consensus discussion was about the ordering of the criticisms in that para, not their positioning.) ~ P-123 (talk) 14:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
How does this square with the building of encyclopaedic content. Terrorist is not a primary description of a militia bent on an ethnic cleansing based agenda. Its wrong to mention the terrorist activities and leave ethnic cleansing as a distant after thought. Related criticisms to a departure from the Islamic faith the group claims to profess also has central relevance. gregkaye ✍♪ 15:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I consider the effect of the second para before I changed it to show profound anti-ISIL POV, in that barrage of criticism. That is all I will say on the matter and leave it in the hands of other editors who have been involved in this to sort it out: @Felino123, Legacypac, Azx2, Mhhossein, and Gregkaye:. This was the second para - [as I said, I moved up the terrorist designation and criticisms from the bottom to make the second para, which we altered slightly after discussion, but now the positioning of this para strikes me as very POV] - before I changed it:
"The United Nations and Amnesty International have accused it of grave human rights abuses, and Amnesty International has found it guilty of ethnic cleansing on a "historic scale". The group's actions have been widely criticized around the world, with many Islamic communities describing judging the group as not representing Islam. The group has been designated as a terrorist organization by the United Nations, the European Union, the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, Canada, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, and the UAE."
gregkaye: Please remember that the consensus was to have the terrorist designation part at the beginning of the Lead and that you have to comply per WP:CONSENSUS [i.e.please do not dispute what has already been agreed.] Please do not distract by repeating all the arguments here that you have put before on this. ~ P-123 (talk) 15:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
P-123 Please remember that there was also consensus regarding the inclusion of the three contents of criticism within the second paragraph of the lead. Please also note that the consensus for the inclusion of the "terrorist organization" reference was finalised within the context of other criticisms contents also being moved into the second paragraph. The issues were presented together with you taking a pivotal in the promoting of consensus on both issues. Please note that there is no censorship in Wikipedia. Arguments, presented fairly and in relation to their topic, are not distractions. This is new thread covering the same ground as a previously discussed topic. Please do not expect editors to refer to previous contents to reference views presented. GregKaye ✍♪ 17:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
GregKaye: What are the blue links at the top of the discussion for? That means I have gone against consensus. I was not sure. Do you want to take me to AN/I? ~ P-123 (talk) 17:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
P-123 The link, which I had added here, was added with the intention to allow editors to do some background reading if they wanted to. You have bloomed into a phenomenally competent editor. I don't think that bud-nipping would serve a purpose. GregKaye ✍♪ 18:04, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
GregKaye: Sorry, didn't realise you had added that link. Thanks for doing that. ~ P-123 (talk) 19:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
P-123 NP! GregKaye ✍♪ 20:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
If a content is to remain in the early part of the lead it should be that, "The United Nations and Amnesty International have accused the group of grave human rights abuses, and Amnesty International has found it guilty of ethnic cleansing on a "historic scale". Something similar on these lines would also do or both contents could remain. They are not primarily a terrorist group. They are a group that has named itself in terms of Islam and which many in Islam regard as unfaithful. The presentation of clear facts should not be considered a distraction. gregkaye ✍♪ 16:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

In the article I have arranged content in the sequence:

  • History
  • Group goals, structure and characteristics
  • Designation as a terrorist organization
  • Human rights abuse and war crime findings
  • Criticism

Consensus was reached to raise designations above content on criticisms. I do not see the point of splitting it from parallel contents on war crimes etc. gregkaye ✍♪ 16:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@Gregkaye: what do you mean by a 'primarily terrorist'? It is only mentioned that ISIL is designated as terrorist by some organizations nothing more, nothing less. However, I don't think moving the first sentence of this para to the end of lead can help with solving the POV problem (if there exist any). The only way here is to balance the paragraph with the viewpoints of other groups who support it. Mhhossein (talk) 19:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Mhhossein Fair enough, the group has previously been associated with al-Qaeda by the UN and this is now accurately presented in the relevant text. A common conception of terrorist is of a car or suicide bomber or a person who flies planes into buildings. I do not see that this relates to the central allegations concerned and think that there is more relevant content to use. gregkaye ✍♪ 19:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
gregkaye According to the definition presented here, common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts that are intended to create fear (terror); are perpetrated for a religious, political, or ideological goal. As I said, they are designated as terrorist. what's wrong here? Mhhossein (talk) 19:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Mhhossein Its funny, that was the exact qualifying text that I placed above the table in the "designation" section and editors wanted it removed. Looking at that quote we see that for a terrorist, terror is the defining means to their end. For a militia the main issue is the application of force to achieve goals. The aim is to wipe out enemies, take territories and, in this case, also to wipe out any people within which a potential for rebellion is suspected. 'SIL is a religiously motivated group that, as far as I have heard, are pursuing a clear agenda of purification. The main outcry against this relates to the fact the they kill swathes of population. The main issues in this case are war crimes, ethnic cleansing and extortion. In cases in which an individual is not regarded as a military threat but does not possess an accepted form or level of belief, then that individual will be required to pay in various ways. This is not lottery terrorism as might be related to "attacks". This is systematic persecution. It's not terrorism in any conventional sense. It goes beyond that. I don't see that a reference to terrorism in early isolation as being encyclopaedic. gregkaye ✍♪ 20:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
The group clearly uses terrorism, but they also commit war crimes, human rights abuses etc and there is overlap in these crimes. Legacypac (talk) 08:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Legacypac I quite agree and this is where I think a balance of information should properly be presented with united content within the lead.
We should retain perspective that this criticism content constituted, on my browser and screen, five lines within thirty-four lines of text in the lead. Its not much. I certainly don't think that this constitutes a barrage of criticism but, even if it did, I do not think that this would be disproportionate to real world realities. I would not even say that it would be unfair for the "Criticism" section to be renamed "Barrage of criticism". Such a description would accurately present the reality of what the group have received both within the Arab world and internationally.
I agree with the comment connected with the original move of content, "best to keep terrorist designation and criticisms together, not split between top and bottom". At minimum the human rights abuse/ethnic cleansing content should also be presented with justified prominence. Designation as terrorist, while being a serious issue, is still basically name calling and I think that it should be accompanied by a substance based content. There is obviously relevance in Islamic criticism. There is a minimal content on criticism in the lead. In context I don't think that an early outline of criticism that gives way to other content isn't warranted. gregkaye ✍♪ 15:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

gregkaye I agree with you when you say:"Designation as terrorist, while being a serious issue, is still basically name calling and I think that it should be accompanied by a substance based content." Mhhossein (talk) 18:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

GregKaye As I said before, I don't think moving the first sentence of this para to the end of lead can help with solving the POV problem (if there exist any). Mhhossein (talk) 03:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Mhhossein agreed, There are different contents of criticism that can join content on designation in the second paragraph. I think the current state of the lead works though. thoughts? I have always pushed regarding my perceived relevance of Islamic criticism in relation to "Islamic State...". Other content includes The UN and amnesty statements on rights and cleansing which I have moved currently. GregKaye ✍♪ 03:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
GregKaye Oh, we should not forget to mention the reaction of Islamic world toward ISIS. did you call it "Islamic criticism"? How can it be done? Mhhossein (talk) 03:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Mhhossein There are contents in the lead currently. My POV is that the Islamic criticism content is of great relevance to the subject but, having looked at the new edit, think that it might either be given mention either at the beginning or end of the lead. The current edit places two topics of criticism in the second paragraph. A fair argument has been presented that the beginning of the lead could be criticism heavy but the Islamic criticism is important. I don't know if there is a right answer on this. GregKaye ✍♪ 04:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

@Gregkaye and P-123: I reckon the reaction of Islamic communities toward this group is more important than other designations and criticisms and I don't know why the only sentence which deals with this matter (how Muslims think about them) is at the end of the lead and apart from the second Paragraph. Why should it not be at the beginning of the second Paragraph? Mhhossein (talk) 05:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Mhhossein: There has been a lot of discussion about the second para and its sentences, not only in the two linked threads here, but earlier. But if you read the thread linked to this one in blue at the top first and then this one, you will see how this happened. ~ P-123 (talk) 16:41, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Mhhossein The situation a short time ago had been that the human rights/ethnic cleansing contents came first, the Islamic criticism came second (in this context) and the international designations came third.
I misread your comments and started by writing about the extent of critical content in the lead. I will post on your talk page. GregKaye ✍♪ 16:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Mhhossein : I found this when looking for something else, and it is more about the criticism in the Lead. ~ P-123 (talk) 17:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theories in the Arab world"

If Wikipedia follows events, then it might consider updating this section to read:

"Given past US attempts to destabilize the Middle East - and bring down the Syrian government - theorists have claimed the US is behind the existence and emboldening of ISIL." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.219.74 (talk) 21:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Don't forget us Brits or the rest of the world. The French, I seem to remember, made first international intervention in Libya. I would support the creation of an article to accurately report on any corroborated US or other abuses so as to deal with relevant issues head on. Relevant blame for situations should be fairly apportioned but "given" in this context is a WP:weasel word. Recently the analysis section began with a content based on a citation that listed a range of causes behind the escalated Sunni-Shia conflict. The single issue presented from this in article text related to US involvements. I edited so as to present a more NPOV representation of content following which the content was swiftly removed. Like any form of prejudice, anti-Americanism should not be tolerated in Wikipedia. 89.240.219.74 with your limited edits on Wikipedia, please consider using a login for the making of edits and talk page suggestions. Gregkaye ✍♪ 02:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

But the US government - aided by UK - started a pointless, costly and bloody war in Iraq. And this war led to Iraq becoming a breeding-ground for the likes of FSA and IS. Clearly, it would be most useful to deal with relevant issues head on. Or is it 'Anti-American' to question the the negative impact United States Government policy?

For it almost as if - by wrapping themselves in the Flag - some folks wish to avoid open debate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.154.190 (talk) 18:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

"Although most Americans may be largely ignorant of what was, and still is, being done in their names, all are likely to pay a steep price—individually and collectively—for their nation’s continued efforts to dominate the global scene". Chalmers Johnson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.154.190 (talk) 18:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Military and arms

Main article: Military of ISIL
In June 2014, ISIL had at least 4,000 fighters in Iraq, http://online.wsj.com/articles/jessica-lewis-the-terrorist-army-marching-on-baghdad-1402614950 and the CIA estimated in September 2014 that it had 20,000–31,500 fighters in Iraq and Syria.

This time the number is accurate, 4,000 in the Jessica Lewis WSJ citation.


(3) The 17 September version of the page has:

"In June 2014, it had at least 4,000 fighters in its ranks in Iraq."

Same citation from Jessica Lewis, but this time this sentence is in the Lead.


It is very clear what has happened. The text has been moved/changed three times, during the reorganisation of the page (note the different section headings), each time moving over the footnote wholesale without checking that it accurately backs up the statement. When the third time the WSJ is quoted, for the 200,000 ISIL figure, to repeat, not only is it wrong because this is the figure for the Iraqi Army, but the article citation, supposedly put in to support the latest estimates in November, is dated June, six months earlier.

What kind of editing is this? There is no excuse for getting citations wrong/misplaced when an edit adds/reduces/changes text to a different version. This is comparable to editors adding a new edit to a text at random, making nonsense of the line of argument in the text, and this happens a lot. I am beginning to think Signedzzz is right in his assessment of the editing in this article. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 14:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

  • I have replaced the WSJ citation with The Independent citation. The article is by Patrick Cockburn of The Independent. These are both Reliable Sources, especially Cockburn, and that they have been given this high 200,000 number by a Kurdish source can be relied on, even if the figure itself cannot. ~ P-123 (talk) 18:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. There has been substantial erroneous and skewed content injected at times. It can be important to track down the editors who bring in the errors concerned. It is then advised that editors here should then responsibly follow Wikipedia procedure to proportionately and accurately deal with case issues. Gregkaye ✍♪ 19:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
It is almost impossible to find who has made what edits unless it is in the edit summaries. The Wikiblame search tool does not work properly and Hedonil's new tool, which can find who has made a particular edit, is always under maintenance and hasn't worked properly for a long time. But the last thing needed is a witchhunt mentality over this. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 21:27, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
What I do is to copy (Ctrl C) the text concerned, open view history, scroll down to a suitable point and right click on a "prev" link and open in other tab, Crtl F for find, Ctrl V to paste text into the find box and click one of the arrows. Then, depending on the result, I'd scan either up or down the view history list doing the same, going up or down the list, until I find the edit that made the particular change. If the change is large then I will also know that it may be less necessary to check low byte change edits although this is not a reliable gauge. An addition may occur in the same edit as a subtraction.
I also agree with the point about witchhunt. To the extent that I think that there is a possibility of reasoning with an offending editor, I think can be good practice to try to explain things through and try to appeal to an editor's better nature through User talk page discussion. Other editors think it best to file reports at early opportunity to nip offending behaviours in the bud but, either way, a fair and representative case should be presented. Gregkaye ✍♪ 23:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
That sounds complicated. I have sometimes gone to editors' Talk pages about problematic edits and we always manage to sort things out amicably. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 23:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Suspected sock-puppeting always needs nipping in the bud. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 00:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Military and resources

I have changed section "Resources" to "Military and resources" also changing subsection "Military of ISIL" to "Military" and moving this to first item in section before "Propaganda" and "Finances". My thinking is that they are defined as a militia not as a PR or finance group. Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

  • I'd also suggest that sections "Countries and groups at war with ISIL" and "Supporters" could go before "Military and resources". I think this presents a "what is happening" to "how it's happening" logical organisational flow. Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Where are we on the status of IS as a state? It would seems that "military" implies that their paramilitary formations are a constituent component of a state, something I'm not sure carries much weight, yet. Hamas' armed component is, for example, referred to as a "military wing". GraniteSand (talk) 08:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. "Military wing of"... terminologies are applied to a variety of political organisations. I used to have a clearer view of the group as primarily having a military focus. However their attentions may get drawn into other involvements especially in cases in which local support is lacking. Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:40, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
They are NOT a State. Plenty of non-state actors (including every serious armed rebel group) have some sort of a military. I like Gregkeye's suggested ordering. Legacypac (talk) 02:50, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

What happened with isis control in Al-Anbar

Why did ISIS lose control of land in the province, who pushed them back or did they give it up then does iraq still control it? Weegeeislyfe (talk) 06:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Beside/below the map are links the a page where edits update cities and pther points like border crossings. that is the place to ask. Legacypac (talk) 02:52, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

RFC: Lists of countries and territories, List of sovereign states, List of active rebel groups and ISIL

See box. Formerip (talk) 21:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

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.

Result: ISIL should not be treated as a sovereign state for the purposes of list articles on Wikipedia.

Four editors supported the proposition and two were opposed. The main reason given for opposing the proposal was that ISIL is a state on the basis that is quacks like one, or more technically, that it appears to satisfy the criteria for a state laid out in the Montevideo Convention. Against this, it was argued that, even if it is the case, it is not permissible for Wikipedia editors to create article content based on their own interpretation of international law. Suitable sources explicitly stating that ISIL is a state or is widely considered to be a state would be needed. This counter-argument is sound, and so the oppose votes should be given reduced weight. Accordingly, the RfC is closed in favour of the proposition.

I have also taken into account the fact that there has previously been a failed proposal to include ISL in List of sovereign states.

Because this RfC had a relatively low level of participation and seeks to impose a rule on the whole of Wikipedia (as opposed to determining specific content in a specific article), particular note should be taken that consensus can change and the result of this RfC is not set in stone.

Wikipedia has Lists of countries and territories and a List of sovereign states with many subsidiary lists including List of sovereign states in the 2010s. Someone inserted "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" right between Ireland and Israel on that one list, and no other I could find so far. Since ISIL is accurately listed at List of active rebel groups can we have consensus that the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant is not a sovereign state, country, or sub-national entity and should not be listed as such. This means we will not list ISIL on any of the referenced lists of States and Countries and that we will not refer to ISIL as having characteristics exclusive to real states or subnational entities (a capital, a government, currency, defined borders etc) I believe this is the current state of consensus across Wikipedia but outside this ISIL article can not find any discussion on this matter. If you agree write Support. If you disagree, write Oppose and provide RS evidence against the above statement. I believe if we start recognizing ISIL as a state we have to alter the recognition and borders of Iraq and Syria Thank-you for participating. Legacypac (talk) 21:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Not sure this requires an RFC, just a heavier presence of editors on articles like List of sovereign states in the 2010s. The point has been discussed over and over and over in the archives of Talk:List of states with limited recognition and Talk:List of sovereign states, including most notably this long discussion. Consensus that ISIS does not meet the standard is well-established, and there is no reason to change it. Kahastok talk 21:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank-you very much, I just found and read that talk page. We do have a few issues on this page about calling them a State or using State like terminology. Legacypac (talk) 21:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
On lists, inclusion or exclusion is pretty binary and so we have to have clear rules that tell us what belongs and what does not. In this case, (just to make life easier for those not wishing to read our discussion), the rule is that we either need recognition (by a UN member state) or evidence that outside experts believe that it meets the standard of declarative theory of statehood (i.e. our own analyses do not count). Nobody has ever been able to provide evidence of either. On articles, we can be a bit more nuanced - but it would be inaccurate and certainly non-neutral to present ISIS as though it were a state. There is no evidence that it is a state under international law, or that any independent government, lawyer or academic believes it to be such.
My experience is that there are a few people on Wikipedia who push for the absolute widest possible definition of "state". Often, they don't discriminate - pushing both the extremely controversial cases and the cases where there is no serious international dispute (the Cook Islands and Niue, which are deliberately ambiguous as to whether their status amounts to sovereignty or not) in equal measure. Some people are so desperate to push these entities that they take speeches by Western politicians and ask if they constitute recognition of ISIS. We need to work against this POV pushing just as we reject all other POV pushing. Kahastok talk 22:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Support as per nom. Gregkaye ✍♪ 18:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Oppose Any group that has taken over land and rules that land is a state. Markewilliams (talk) 19:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Markewilliams what definition of state are you using? Please see Sovereign state. Also List of active rebel groups#Groups which control territory. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Gregkaye In the Sovereign state article you referred me to, there are several definitions for what constitutes a state, including this definition: "A similar opinion about 'the conditions on which an entity constitutes a state' is expressed by the European Economic Community Opinions of the Badinter Arbitration Committee, which found that a state was defined by having a territory, a population, and a political authority.". I choose the definition with the most NPOV and the least political agenda.Markewilliams (talk) 14:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Markewilliams The text from which that reference is taken, here. This document, according to the title "The Opinions of the Badinter Arbitration Committee", expressed the full view that: "1) The Committee considers: ... b) that the state is commonly defined as a community which consists of a territory and a population subject to an organized political authority; that such a state is characterized by sovereignty;
The article on Sovereignty presents that: The current notion of state sovereignty contains four aspects consisting of territory, population, authority and recognition. This group has no international recognition. It is not a state. You have not chosen a definition at all.
WP:NPOV states that: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". This must be followed.
Please also see: List of sovereign states by date of formation for chronologically presented examples of legitimate additions to this list. There are ways in which things are done. Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Support as per nominator. - SantiLak (talk) 23:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Antidiskriminator can you quote the definition of state you are working from? GregKaye ✍♪ 01:42, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
There is an ocean of sources that emphasize these three elements of state. Here is one of them:
Popov, Čedomir. Istorija srpske državnosti: Srbija i Crna Gora : novovekovne srpske države. Srpska akademija nauka i umetnosti. p. 12. ... заједница је државна ако лица која тој заједници припадају живе на извесној територији под независном и ефективном владом". Ова класична дефиниција државе подразумева три елемента — земљу, становништво и власт.[A community is state if people who belong to that community live on certain territory under independent and effective government. This classical definition of state defines three elements: territory, population and government]
Taking in consideration level of independence of the government of ISIL, I would say that it has more elements of statehood than most of other states that are recognized as "independent" today.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Antidiskriminator In 2014 we need content relevant to modern times. A classical definition of state is not good enough. In other instances please provided sources in English that can be checked for context. If there is an ocean of sources then this should be possible.
A reference that I think is useful is List of sovereign states by date of formation. The use of this list shows examples of the geopolitical entities that have been recognised as states. Ban Ki-Moon stated that the group in question "should more fittingly be called the "Un-Islamic Non-State"" as per article content. I have also seen nothing to dispute the UN's wider views on ISIL as being best defined with such terms as "armed group". GregKaye ✍♪ 11:02, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
The argument made here is WP:OR. It seems to be an OR argument that comes up quite frequently, but that does not make it not OR.
The definition in question is the declarative theory of statehood, and the best known expression of that theory is the Montevideo Convention. The Convention holds that if a putative state has government, population, territory and "capacity to enter into relations with the other states", then it exists independently of whether it is internationally recognised. Several Wikipedia editors have argued that ISIS meets this standard.
It is not up to Wikipedia editors to judge whether a given entity meets the standard, except insofar as reliable sources already do it. This is classic OR territory: reaching novel conclusions not reached by any source based on our own original interpretation of the sources. Numerous editors on the list articles have repeatedly requested sources that actually interpret the evidence in this way, i.e. that say explicitly that ISIS meets the standard of the declarative theory or Montevideo Convention. Not a single suitable source has ever been forthcoming. If, as it seems, there is not a single academic or lawyer or other publisher of reliable sources anywhere in the world that believes that the standard of the declarative theory is met, then our own policies prevent us from reaching that conclusion on our own. Kahastok talk 11:24, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Just google "war with ISIL" and see for yourself that ISIL has entered into relations with other states.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Then you will doubtless be able to provide me with a reliable source that explicitly concludes that ISIS satisfies the declarative theory of statehood or the Montevideo convention? I look forward to it. If you cannot provide one, of course, then we must conclude that your argument is original research and thus dismiss it out of hand. Kahastok talk 15:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Antidiskriminator, first you present an isolated quote on a "classical definition of state" from a Russian publication and now you just say Google it. Please make any direct presentation of any content that you think is relevant. GregKaye ✍♪ 16:57, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Classical definition of state is not isolated. Are Russian publications non-reliable?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:13, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Doesn't matter. If it makes no explicit mention of ISIS then we have no business in applying it to ISIS. If it does, you'll need to quote it. The fact remains that nobody has cited a source for the interpretation that ISIS is a state under any recognised definition of the term. Kahastok talk 18:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
The initiator of this RfC believes that "ISIL is not state" and that "we will not refer to ISIL as having characteristics exclusive to real states or subnational entities". They think that their opinion is based on consensus. I don't think there is such consensus in sources nor at wikipedia. ISIL obviously does have "characteristics exclusive to real states or subnational entities". Nobody denies that ISIL does have territory, population and government. As you Kahastok explained, Montevideo convention does not insist on recognition. With this you refuted the notion: "ISIL has no international recognition. It is not a state." ISIL government claims it is a state. Some, like Obama and USA-controlled sources, deny ISIL is state. Conclusion: there is no consensus about statehood of ISIL. Wikipedia should not be a judge.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
If there is no consensus on the matter internationally, why is it that you are unable to find a single lawyer, academic, or other reliable source, who takes the view that ISIS is legally a state? This isn't a particularly high bar - in fact, if the position was really a matter of no consensus as you suggest it should be utterly trivial to overcome it. And yet it has not been reached, by you or anybody else. Without any such source, all your arguments rely on original research, and thus must be discarded.
As to consensus on Wikipedia, I cited it above. It's pretty clear-cut, closed by an outside editor. We cannot say that ISIS is legally a state if no reliable source does. We cannot say that there is no consensus as to whether ISIS is legally a state if no reliable source takes the view that it is. And so far as we can tell, no reliable source does take that view. It's not for Wikipedia to manufacture a lack of consensus, nor to suggest that a state might exist without any evidence that anyone other than Wikipedia editors think that. Kahastok talk 16:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
The consensus exists unless proven otherwise? On wikipedia things go the other way around. If you believe there is a consensus that Islamic State is not state why don't you present some RS which explicitly say there is such consensus? Millions of poeple live on the territory of Islamic State which obliged its population to follow its laws. The population of Islamic State suffer the conseqences of war between Islamic State and US. It's not for Wikipedia to manufacture a consensus that Islamic State does not exist nor to ignore evidence of its existence.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Please see WP:BURDEN. The burden of evidence is on those wanting this or any other article to claim that ISIS is - or might be - a state to demonstrate that point. In this case, that's you. We cannot suggest that ISIS is a state, or that there is any possibility that ISIS is a state, if there is not a single reliable source on the planet that makes that claim. It is clear from your failure to cite such a source that you don't have any.
You say we cannot ignore the evidence of the existence of ISIS statehood. At this point there is no such evidence to ignore. Only original research and speculation. Kahastok talk 18:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
No. On the contrary. The burden of evidence is on those who believe there is a consensus that "ISIL is not state" and that "we will not refer to ISIL as having characteristics exclusive to real states or subnational entities". It is clear from failure to cite reliable sources which support existence of such consensus that there is not any. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
I am not proposing to add or restore material to the article saying anything like "ISIS is not a state". I am objecting to people adding or restoring material describing ISIS as a state. The standard rule remains, if you want to describe ISIS as a state, or in terms reserved for states, you're going to need to provide evidence for such statehood. Your attempt to reverse the WP:BURDEN of evidence is a nonsense argument. If you want ISIS described as a state, or potentially a state, or possibly a state, or a state under any other qualification, anywhere on Wikipedia, you need some evidence to back that up and so far you have entirely failed to provide any.Kahastok talk 21:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Actually, it is you who try to reverse the WP:BURDEN of evidence. Editors who believe that there is a consensus that "ISIL is not state" and that "we will not refer to ISIL as having characteristics exclusive to real states or subnational entities" should present RS which support existence of such consensus. Until then, there is no such consensus. I think I gave clear explanation and I don't have anything to add it now. You are of course free to disagree, but you should not expect me to be somehow obliged to keep discussing with you for as long as you are dissatisfied with it. All the best. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:46, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
You are the one wanting to put things into this and other articles without any evidence to support it. I have no idea how you could possibly read WP:BURDEN to suggest that I'm the one who needs to find sources to prevent you from saying it. Such an interpretation seems extraordinary as it directly contradicts what is written there.
The fact remains. There is not a shred of evidence from any lawyer, academic or other publisher of reliable sources that anybody independent outside Wikipedia believes ISIS to be a state. That is what remains to be demonstrated if we are to say, suggest or imply that ISIS is a state of any form. And in their absence we cannot say, suggest or imply that ISIS is a state of any form. Kahastok talk 22:46, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
I am not sure if I will properly explain this, but I will try and it will be my last comment in this discussion. Your position is based on some kind of syllogism (of course unintentional) fallacy. The question here is: Can we have consensus that Islamic State is not state and that "we will not refer to ISIL as having characteristics exclusive to real states or subnational entities" There are two possible answers here:
  1. Yes, we can have such consensus
  2. No, we can not have such consensus
You concluded that 1) is correct because nobody presented RS that prove 2). You have every right to insist on RS criteria, but it has to be used to evaluate both possible answers. Otherwise one could say that 2) is correct because nobody presented RS that prove 1).
Has any RS denied Islamic State has its territory, population and government? No. Has any RS denied that no country in the world is willing to recognize that Islamic State is state. No. Based on your rationale it is safe to conclude that, for now, there is consensus that Islamic State is not recognized as state. Does it mean that it is not state? No. Does it mean it has no characteristics of the state? No. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
On Wikipedia we already have a repeatedly-expressed consensus that ISIS should not be treated as a state for purposes e.g. of list-building. I have already cited an example of the discussions that led to that consensus.
But I repeat, the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. I am not proposing - and I don't see anyone else in this RFC proposing - to put anything into this article that says, ISIS is not a state, or anything like it. Your characterisation of my point misses the point entirely and has no basis in policy. Why should I look for sources to demonstrate that what you propose to put in the article is inaccurate, when you cannot provide sources to demonstrate that it is accurate?
Given that the point has been challenged, policy requires that if you want the article to say, imply or suggest that ISIS is a state - including by giving ISIS attributes reserved for states - you must provide a reliable source to back that interpretation up. There is no such source. Kahastok talk 21:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Comment – ISIL has control of territory, it governs captured territory and its population, and it has an administrative centre. The Islamic State at the moment is both a rebel group and a new state, and "unrecognised state" seems a good description. Cannot justify this view, just seems common sense to me. It is also a caliphate with a caliph, whether or not this accepted by anyone else. ISIL are also terrorists by any common sense view. These are all hard facts, and they have to be dealt with as such in this article. [Redacted] ~ P-123 (talk) 11:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
In the last however-many month nobody has actually managed to provide a source that demonstrates that any independent authority - be it academic, legal or governmental - accepts your analysis that ISIS is a state by any legal standard (as you claim). Without such a source your argument is WP:OR. Do you have one? Kahastok talk 14:14, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Kahastok: Who are you addressing? I have no source, said I could not justify the view. It is based on common sense observation of the known facts. [Redacted]. ~ P-123 (talk) 16:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I think that WP:NOR is an absolutely fundamental principle of Wikipedia and that our adherence to that principle is the only way we can avoid promoting a POV.
Being a state is a Big Deal. It brings with it prestiege and a degree of legal legitimacy, even if statehood is not recognised or not generally recognised. A pretty basic and obvious consequence of WP:NOR is that Wikipedia should never ever be the first independent source on the planet to conclude that a state exists. Yet that is what you are arguing. You claim that it is nothing more than common sense to say that ISIS is legally a state - but if it were, then you would be easily able to find lawyers or academics arguing the point. It is not as though ISIS has a very low profile, and it's not as though they are uncontroversial. The fact that you're insisting upon "common sense" overriding the lack of sources to support the point demonstrates amply the problem with making such a claim. Kahastok talk 16:47, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Kahastok: I didn't insist common sense has to override lack of sources or that the IS should be regarded as legally a state, but it doesn't matter! I agree that WP:NOR is fundamental to protecting against POV and that WP must never be the first to make a statement about what IS is or is not.. Even my comment was OR, agreed. I was confusing facts, such as that they are a caliphate with a caliph and terrorists who call themselves an Islamic state, with their nebulous status as a state, which of course is not fact. My sloppy thinking. But rather than battling it out endlessly on the Talk page as to whether or not the IS can be regarded as a state/unrecognized state, I think it would be better to concentrate on finding Reliable Sources to see what they say on the matter, and reflect those views accurately in the article, but without putting them in WP's voice. ~ P-123 (talk) 19:17, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support We should follow the UN, international bodies etc, which don't recognise ISIS as a state. Governments often lose effective control of parts of their territory to rebel groups. For now, this is just a larger example involving several states. No-one ever suggested we recognize the other rebel-held areas of Syria as a state. Johnbod (talk) 15:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
In that case please change your !vote to oppose because Montevideo Convention clearly says: "The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states." --Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:40, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Which is irrelevant, in the absence of any source that suggests that ISIS might be a state. Kahastok talk 18:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
It is relevant because this Support !vote (and not only this) is based on refuted notion that recognition is necessary for statehood. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Recognition is necessary according to the constitutive theory of statehood. But the word of Montevideo is irrelevant in the absence of sources that make the case that ISIS meets the standard of Montevideo. Kahastok talk 21:35, 14 December 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islamic_State/Archive_23&oldid=1045764751"