Talk:Islamic State/Archive 16

their actions are "not jihad at all, but rather, warmongering and criminality"

 * ''See later discussion: Logical Order in Lead
 * See archived discussion: Archive 15: The word "jihad", criticism and disruption

(Pinging: Gazkthul, Jack Pepa, Jason from nyc, Legacypac, P123ct1, Rothorpe, Wheels of steel0, re: current time responses - late additions. Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  10:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

TY Jack Pepa for finding the texts. Also at: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-is-an-offence-to-islam-says-international-coalition-of-major-islamic-scholars-9756255.html

"More than 120 Sunni imams and academics, including some of the Muslim world’s most respected scholars, signed the 18-page document which outlines 24 separate grounds on which the terror group violates the tenets of Islam...

It also takes Isis to task over its countless acts of brutality and massacres under the guise of jihad, or a holy struggle. While acknowledging to Al-Baghdadi that “you and your fighters are fearless” and ready to die for their cause, the scholars state their actions are “not jihad at all, but rather, warmongering and criminality”."

Conclusion, which was always clear: We cannot speak in Wikipedia's voice and describe ISIL as Jihadist. The media honestly don't know what they are talking about IMHO and will use which ever buzzwords that they think will sell most papers. Gregkaye ✍ ♪  19:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Gregkaye, I think you are missing the point, Wikipedia doesn't have a voice on this or any other issue, it simply uses what WP:RS use. If or when that usage changes, we will also change. Until that time, we will continue to use Jihadist. BTW, this term is hardly confined to Islamic State, there are literally hundreds of armed groups that are referred to with this term, so I am not sure why you are singling this out. Gazkthul (talk) 22:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

[above comment inserted out of sequence]
 * Gazkthul, I personally think that various terms used in various "WP:RS" with little or no justification. Please note that they also use other subjectively applied terms including: murderous, criminal, illegal etc. which are far less contested.  Do we apply these too?  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  13:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

[as was this]


 * This is blatant POV-pushing. Not only that, the removal of "jihadist" from the opening has been made without the consensus of editors.  I would imagine most of those scholars would deny that al-Qaeda and all its offshoots were jihadists as well, yet that is the WP:COMMONNAME for groups of this kind.  Objections of this sort belong in the "Criticism of the "Islamic State"" section, not in the Lead. The whole reason for having a criticisms section, which I opened, was to deal with this sort of thing and the criticism of ISIL from all quarters that are coming onstream fast now.  What do other editors think?  The last para in the Lead on the name was also removed, in the middle of Talk page discussion about what to do with this para.  Editors should not unilaterally make major edits to the Lead without first putting it to other editors first.  --P123ct1 (talk) 20:00, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Its the POV of the Islamic world. The Islamic imans are the most relevant reliable sources regarding issues to do with Islam.  The text that I removed from the end of the lead had been duplicated in the criticisms section.  I had also placed its contents in chronological order but don't have much of an opinion as to the location of the text.  It should go one place or the other.  There had been talk on removal of text from the lead but I have no objection to it being moved back.  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  20:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is, but WP has to abide by WP:NPOV. How many times does this simple principle have to be repeated to editors before the message gets through?  Calling it the "POV of the Islamic world" and thinking that justifies the edit shows how far you are from understanding WP:NPOV, in my opinion. You also don't seem to realise what a Lead is.  It is a summary of the article, and as such is bound to repeat the main article to some extent.  A short form of words for the last Lead para was being devised when you made your edit, as I don't doubt you were aware. --P123ct1 (talk) 20:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It is totally fine to accurately reflect any statement that ISIL may make regarding their claims to any thing of relevance. We cannot say they are "jihadist".  That is POV.  We can only report on the facts.  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  20:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * you could talk about "facts" if the term "jihad" wasn't just some vague notion from a religious book. the article about "jihad" also state that "Muslims and scholars do not all agree on its definition". so enough with those atempts to seperate them from other jihadists and other islamic caliphates who killed and conquered in the name of islam. do you justify other organisations like al-qaeda and taliban? or caliphates who killed and colonized so many people?. --Wheels of steel0 (talk) 23:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

[above comment inserted out of sequence]


 * Those "facts" you refer to are opinions. Can you really not see that?  And who is to judge what is "of relevance" in that sentence?  Not Wikipedia.  NPOV again. I have had my final say. --P123ct1 (talk) 21:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

you talk like the islamic state and the org's that swore allegiance to them(like the taliban) doesn't have imams and other muslims scholars in their ranks which well exceeds the number of 120 which itself cannot be called "the POV of the islamic world". al baghdadi is a muslim scholar himself with a PhD in islamic studies. --Wheels of steel0 (talk) 23:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The current version, that says they are just Sunni albeit militant, it is the worse of all possibilities. Jihadist is widely used. Whether they are correctly jihadist or bogus is not something we should address. We're not determining the real Islam let alone if they have authority to wage jihad in the sense of a "lessor jihad." This is how the vast majority of sources categorize them. Legitimacy is another issue. We'll have the same issue with Sunni. Are they accepted as valid practitioners of Sunni Islam? Should we delete Sunni? Criminals? They make the laws in their state. We're left with nothing but "bad guys" and that doesn't make for encyclopedia copy. Jihadist is the most descriptive term but one might want a qualifier like extremist. This puts them on the spectrum of jihadist types that leaves open whether they are off the charts and not genuine jihadists at all. Jason from nyc (talk) 00:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Our article on Jihadism says "Generally the term jihadism denotes Sunni Islamist armed struggle." We can drop Sunni and just used jihadist as it can be taken for granted that it is Sunni. As it is Islamist it isn't Islam per se so no qualification is needed. I now suggest it "is a jihadist organization and unrecognized state ..." should be sufficient. Comments? Jason from nyc (talk) 00:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Jason from nyc Again this denotes the misuse / misunderstanding of the term. Other Muslims are not restricted from adopting jihadist actions both according to relevant content as denoted in Islamic texts or according to the murdering, Muslim slaughtering, and territory grabbing (non-jihadist) groups to which the terminology is applied today.  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  10:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

As a well educated Canadian with a deep interest in history and politics I did not know that all jihadism is Sunni. ISIL constantly says they are waging jihad - I can pick that word out when they use arabic too. The West calls their activities jihad too. Legacypac (talk) 03:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, but the context is 20th-21st century political/military struggles in the Middle East where we are referring to the Salafist revival supplanting Arab nationalist regimes with government implementing Sharia law. The word jihadist in this contexts refers to a specific current that uses force to bring this change about. It's sufficient for the lead as the reader knows this specific usage of the word jihadist for this context. Criticism and contrasts belong in the body of the article. Jason from nyc (talk) 03:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Wheels of steel0, ISIL have been known to kill imans that don't agree with them. In addition to quantity we also need to consider quality and veracity of sources.
 * The first link I came to at www.buzzfeed.com states that "ISIS Now Has Up To 31,000 Fighters — More Than Many Nations’ Armies". So first, with this number of fighters, how many imams does it have?  Second, what are their credentials?  Third, what are their freedoms of expression?
 * The news article quoted refers to "120 Sunni imams and academics, including some of the Muslim world’s most respected scholars" who have stated that ISIL's actions are “not jihad at all.”  Various condemnations have gone before and I don't doubt that more will follow.
 * In regard to impartiality we can note that one of the signatories is an imam from Iceland for goodness sake. There is no reason here for bias.  ISIL's claims of jihad and can be reported as can the views of the prominent Islamic scholars mentioned.  Note, no-one rejects the idea that ISIL are extreme and this is a different issue.
 * The "Islamic State" have described themselves to be jihadist. I don't see that this view has been supported either by other Islamic sources or by any actual state.  The press, for whom I have lost further respect during this conflict, continue to use a variety of buzzwords in various situations.  The institution of the press is staffed by people who will hack people's phones for stories and who will chase people to their deaths in hope of pictures.  We have long been able to rely on them for their fairly consistent approach.  We can't choose a use of words simply because unqualified people choose to use them.
 * In comparison to the Nazis, Isil's policy of capture and execution may have been conducted at a smaller scale but at a higher rate of murder than the Nazis had ever achieved. They kill or, as far as I have seen, they capture and kill and I don't fancy the chances of any male non Sunni muslim in this situation.  ISIL also face female fighters and, although not shown in the slaughter videos, I suspect that many of them will have gone a similar way.
 * If a similar group to the Nazis had, for instance, claimed that they were "Crusaders", the most that we could say was that they "claimed to be Crusaders". That's all we could do in Wikipedia's voice.  In no circumstances would we state that they "were Crusaders".  This would be POV.  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  09:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The Nazis never went as far as to make statements like: "If you can kill a disbelieving American or European – especially the spiteful and filthy French – or an Australian, or a Canadian, or any other disbeliever from the disbelievers waging war, including the citizens of the countries that entered into a coalition against the Islamic State, then rely upon Allah, and kill him in any manner or way however it may be. Smash his head with a rock, or slaughter him with a knife, or run him over with your car, or throw him down from a high place, or choke him, or poison him." Abu Mohammad al-Adnani. What kind of f****d up religious view is this?  Does any religion accept this?  I have not heard anyone object to accusations of extremism.  As far as extremes go my comparison to Nazism are more than justified.  I'm still interested to know a comparison to the term "genocide" but applied to religion.  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  09:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The only ISIL member with a Wikipedia article who is indicated to have a religious background is Bilal Bosnić. He seems to be more involved into recruitment activities rather than theological studies.  See: Category:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant members.  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  10:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The fact of the matter is that we're not charged with deciding which variant of Islam is the true Islam. Catholics have considered Lutherans heretics for centuries. (Anecdotally, my wife said that when she was a little girl the nuns taught that to her.) No encyclopedia would write Lutherans out of Christianity. We report what the sources report. The most common descriptor is jihadist (we studied this above). The word jihadist is now an English word:   . Like many words it can have many meanings but the use of the word for religious warrior makes it suitable to almost all of our sources without further explanation. It's the only word we need in the lead with further explanation given in the body of the article. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Gregkaye, you don't realize that the islamic state is more than just fighters or those 31,000 fighters(the numbers are much higher now) and are made up from various peoples who serve in various duties from islamic judges(qadi) to teachers of islam and imams, the same goes for the taliban which swore allegiance to them. so even if we ignore the imams who preach for joining the islamic state we can get more than 120 imams who support the islamic state. and if you read the artivle about Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi you will see that he has a PhD in islamic studies, and he isn't the only one with academic islamic knowledge.


 * you also need to realize that their islamic opposers has no theological islamic claims against them, its not like somebody like your imam from iceland can come and say "the islamic state aren't doing jihad, jihad is:(some kind of defenition) while the islamic state is doing:(something that doesn't fit to that defenition)", the imam from iceland is opposing the islamic state probably from the same reason you and me are opposing them: they are fanatics who kill and ruins the life of many people. but the imam from iceland is facing a conflict between the horrors that happened in the times of the former caliphates which he can ignore and the same thing(and even less horrific) that the current caliphate is doing which he can ignore and look at it is if he read the history with islamic POV about how the caliphates kill and conquer in the name of god. the islamic state could do the same things in the past and if that imam from iceland was reading about them he obviously wouldn't oppose them and their dids cause it is much easier to support this kind of stuff when you read about it from a religious book rather than see it happen in the TV and look at the victims of the caliphate in the eyes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wheels of steel0 (talk • contribs) 12:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Wheels of steel0, Islam's imam from Iceland has joined ~119 others to say that ISIL's actions are not Jihad and these imams are the authorities of these things. Jason from nyc the definitions you supply say things like: JIHADIST:  a Muslim who advocates or participates in a jihad; and JIHAD:  a holy war waged on behalf of Islam as a religious duty.  Islamic scholars, Sunni and otherwise, call into question a representation of both Jihad and Islam.  The dictionaries also give definitions or words like "warmongering" and "criminality" as well as other terms like "murdering" etc.  These are things that are pretty much confirmed.  Jihad is disputed.  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  12:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * On the topic of definitions: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/source
 * source: A place, person, or thing from which something originates or can be obtained:
 * Gregkaye ✍ ♪  13:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Gregkaye, what makes this 120 imams better than the 120(and probably even more) imams who support and even work for the islamic state?, you are acting like you are the real authoritie in these things and not the imams you are talking about.
 * and as you already said, jihad is a disputed and unclear term, so why you keep talking like the islamic state can't be called like that unlike other organizations and former caliphates who can be called like that?. if you have problem with the use of this term in general you need to talk about changes in many other wiki article instead of acting like there is a clear and accurate defenition for "jihad". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wheels of steel0 (talk • contribs) 13:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Wheels of steel0, AS YOU HAVE READ: the 120 Sunni imams and academics include some of the Muslim world’s most respected scholars. 120 does not limit the number but they are a group that spoke out at one time in one voice.  If you can cite other imams then go ahead.  Yes I try to research what I write but I don't claim to be an authority.  All I have tried to do is to point to those that are.  Please, don't say that I have said things that I have not said.  This is disingenuous.  Please don't appeal to some 'clear and accurate defenition for "jihad"'.  The simple fact is that the application of the word Jihad in this case is disputed by a number of authorities on Islam.  It is questionably used.  It should not be used without qualification.  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  15:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Gregkaye, "the 120 Sunni imams and academics include some of the Muslim world’s most respected scholars", as i already said this is just one group of imams and nothing more than that, the islamic state have their imams in their controled territory and also imams who recruiting members in many countries. coming together and giving some statment to the media as a group has no impact about their authority or capabilities to conclude such statment about some vague term from a religious book, its not like they can say something like "jihad is: (something) while what the islamic state doing is different", and yes you need a better accurate defenition in order to do somekind of a difference between the islamic state and other jihadists.


 * you need to realize that muslims can seperate the islamic state from themselves but not from the religion itself and other caliphates and people they don't know, nobody can have that authority especialy not some small group of imams, and don't forget that the number of islamic scholars and people with religious role in the islamic state is probably much more than 120 and this is the same case with organizations who support them like the taliban. you are too focused on comparing them to nazis and with blind hate against them(don't get me wrong i hate them to but its not blind hate) that you fail to see what they realy are: another islamic caliphate with the same goals and motives as former caliphates. --Wheels of steel0 (talk) 16:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you really saying that all caliphates operated by senseless murder? I did not intend to be at all focussed in comparing them to the nazis.  As far as I can tell, in many respects they are worse than the nazis.  No limitation was intended.  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  16:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * they killed many innocent people in the name of god and for the sake of their empire, the arabo-islamic colonization of huge parts of asia and africa was all full of murder and oppression, and all that in the name of imaginary entity. that was all senseless murders unless there is some divine mandate for those killing which also make the killing of the captives of the islamic state a justified actions...--Wheels of steel0 (talk) 17:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Gregkaye, Islam is not monolithic. It is not our job to decide which Muslims speak for Islam as a whole. There are various strains of Islam and that has been true from shortly after Muhammad's death when the Sunni and Shiite split on succession. Like the word algebra, jihad is now an English word and the English language is determined by common usage not scholarly institutes (as the French have). The reason our search show that jihad is the most common descriptor for ISIS is that it is the closest word in the English language that categorizes ISIS. Let's stick with sources and not try to become experts in Islam theology. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As there is no consensus for militant I have reverted the edit to the previous consensus per WP:BRD. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Jason from nyc, Islam is based on the same core texts that it has had for one and a half millennia. It is our job to decide on encyclopaedic content.  The present content relates to a disagreements between factions within Sunni Islam.  We have an obligation to present rational content and, while we don't need to become experts on Islam, perhaps we can have some trust in those who are.  The reversal of edit supports a further radicalisation of language.  Jihad means struggle and this is related to a struggle towards Islamic values.  You allow it to be associated with a group that supports the murder of a taxi driver turned aid worker.  We are supporting a redefinition of Jihad and I do not think that this is Wikipedia's role.  I doubt that organisations like Britannica would only have taken newspapers as source materials if they could not track down primary source.  The whole point of the Islamic campaign "notinmyname" is to say that the name of Islam is inappropriately applied to "ISIL".  In Wikipedia the suggestion of renaming the article as ISIS is rapidly shut down and editors argue that we apply the validating term "jihadist" to an organisation that amongst other things executes innocents.  In effect unwarranted and unqualified support is given to a murderous organisation.  This is not neutrality.  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  15:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Gregkaye, you can't say that you rely on experts while you choose which one to rely and which one to ignore in order to claim the statement you want as "backed by experts" as if its undisputed. as i said in another comment of me to you, you are too focused with the hate to them and loosing neutrality, you are talking about "letting" the term of jihad to be associated with "murderous organization" as if the former caliphates didn't kill anyone innocent and as if it was less worse cause of some divine mandate for those murders.
 * wikipedia should point out FACTS and not POV like the opinion of some group of imams as if they are authority, like what next? mybe wikipedia should decide who is right between the shia and sunna? in the article about shia there will be said that the shia are infidels according to some sunni imams and that they are self proclaimed to be muslims or even delete "islam" from their article.


 * i know what you feel about the islamic state, and that the muslims shouldn't be generalized as supporters of what the islamic state is doing. but nobody can seperate the islamic state from islam and other terms like jihad and caliphate or claim that the "moderate" muslims are more "muslim" than the "extremist" once, this is just imposible to do just from the religious text which is everything in islam. --Wheels of steel0 (talk) 17:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Wheels of steel0. Your argument stateing: "in the article about shia there will be said that the shia are infidels", is baseless.  In the States there is the example of the Klu Klux Klan which basically involved the persecution of black Christians by white Christians.  There are a great many cults that have a basis of Christianity that are regularly criticised as non-Christian.  If Wikipedia were to state these organisations to be or have been struggling towards Christian values then such claim would be rightly disputed.  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  10:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The word “jihad” has many meanings like most words in the English language. Given the nature of the article it clearly does not mean “struggle” but something more specific that clarifies the nature of ISIS. We are not writing an article about Islam and Islam is not monolithic. Nor are we saying that everything or anything ISIS does is consistent with Islam or acceptable to this group or that group of Muslims. That there are Muslims that say “notinmyname” only points to the diversity within Islam. That there are 120 scholars who can sign a detailed repudiation of ISIS again shows diversity especially since there are no Saudi scholars signing that document. (Is Wahhabi not a bona fide strain of Islam? I know Muslims who would say it is not. But we can’t answer that question.)
 * The word “jihadist” when used in the contexts of fundamentalist militant Muslims has a narrower meaning to the English readers that makes the lead intelligible. Militant, radical, Sunni, fundamentalist, etc. just doesn’t do it. I agreed to the addition of “extremist” to “jihadist extremist” but we did not get consensus on that. One might consider Salafist jihadist also but that seems less common in the literature (I could be wrong here.) Plain and simple, the overwhelming descriptor in the English literature is “jihadist.” We report the sources, not our analysis of what should be said. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Jason from nyc, My comments are made from a background of involvement in Jewish Yeshiva by which the most profound experience I had of racial disregard for other life came within just a few hundred metres of the Western wall. Honestly we are not simply dealing with a modern word here.  Information sources like the western press and Wikipedia really need to take some responsibility.  We are cowtowing to extremism.  Its a dangerous game that we play and its not our lives that are most at risk.  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  19:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Our job is to report, not to transform or recommend. Words have many meanings and that always involves the danger of equivocation and other logical fallacies. I believe the context here is clear and the reader will understand the use of the word in the sense that it applies to this group. Jason from nyc (talk) 19:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Let me also say that the 120+ signatures are not representative of all Muslims. The only Saudi signer, Al-Sayyid Abdallah Fadaaq, is the leading Sufi cleric of the Hijaz. No Wahabbi? The Pakistani signer is Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri, a Sufi scholar as I suspect Muhammad Suheyl Umar is as well . No Deobandi? To be fair we do have a Deobandi in India, Mahmood As’ad Madani, of the Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind. Of the 126,  38 are Egyptians. Egypt’s government has recently taken over religious studies to the point that Friday sermons must be approved by the government and the same sermon is read simultaneously at every mosque. Are these scholars hand picked by the government? This document should be in our article but it should not be in the lead nor given as proof of universal agreed upon theology. Jason from nyc (talk) 19:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Or "should not be in the lead"? Rothorpe (talk) 20:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I meant. I knew I left out a not somewhere and I'll put it in now. Thanks. Jason from nyc (talk) 20:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for second paragraph which currently begins:


 * "In its self-proclaimed status as a caliphate, it claims religious authority over all Muslims worldwide,.."

and which I suggest changing to:


 * "ISIL is often described as being jihadist and, in its self-proclaimed status as a caliphate, it claims religious authority over all Muslims worldwide,.."

or simply:


 * "ISIL is often described as being jihadist. In its self-proclaimed status as a caliphate, it claims religious authority over all Muslims worldwide,.."

This gets by the problem of the unwarranted use of Wikipedia's voice.

ISIL is a new issue. See search: more extreme than al qaeda.

Gregkaye ✍ ♪  16:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Gregkaye, I don't understand how the term Jihadist is contested, who is contesting it? I'll also note that Arabic Wiki (which presumably has a high number of Muslim editors), also refers to the group as Jihadist or Salafist Jihadist, as do a large number of media sources in the Arab world, Pakistan etc. Gazkthul (talk) 21:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * See, amongst others: http://lettertobaghdadi.com/

The parameters of lesser jihad (the relevant form of jihad) involves any Muslim who has people fight against them and who fights back. It does not involve involve invading kurdish villages and driving inhabitants into the hills, it is an Islamic term that cannot be applied to armed conflict against any other Muslim; it does not involve the decapitation of journalists, it does not involve five year expansion plans. There are many words that may relevantly be used to describe ISIL. Jihadist is far from being the most relevant descriptor. Its use is grossly misleading.

"The Reason behind Jihad: The reason behind jihad for Muslims is to fight those who fight them, not to fight anyone who does not fight them, nor to transgress against anyone who has not transgressed against them. God’s words in permitting jihad are: ‘Permission is granted to those who fight because they have been wronged. And God is truly able to help them; those who were expelled from their homes without right, only because they said: “Our Lord is God”. Were it not for God's causing some people to drive back others, destruction would have befallen the monasteries, and churches, and synagogues, and mosques in which God's Name is mentioned greatly. Assuredly God will help those who help Him. God is truly Strong, Mighty.’ (Al-Hajj, 22: 39-40)."

Islam believes in an unproven invisible God but, none-the-less, this is what it believes. We are dealing here with a warring group of religious extremists that are not even considered by many Muslims to be representative of their religion.

In the use "jihadist" without the use of descriptors that better describe the actions of ISIL we are effectively saying "this is jihad". This is irresponsible and we need to take more care. It is an utter misrepresentation of both the term and, for what its worth, its theological base.

Gregkaye ✍ ♪  04:14, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Reading back through this thread, there does not seem to be a WP:CONSENSUS amongst other editors for the changes you have proposed. Gazkthul (talk) 05:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Which means continuing to apply Wikipedia's voice in our further radicalisation of the concept "jihad" despite the use of the terminology being in dispute. I think that if we are to play with people's lives we should pay more attention.  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  09:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't follow that describing them as jihadists implies that they are good jihadists or everything they do is consistent with jihad. Your change, that they are "Sunni militants," has the same problem. After 9/11 there were many complaints that the West was defining "good Muslim" and "bad Muslim." There was even a book with that title objecting to that trend. The notion of "moderate Islam" and "radical Islam" was criticized by many Muslims including the Turkish PM, Erdogan. We are not defining or apply standards of jihad or Islam--that's original research. We reflect sources and sources use jihad but note criticism. So do we. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Jason from nyc, sure but at present we merely state "jihadist" and we do so in regard to a group that from a wide variety of perspectives murders (not jihad), kills Muslims (not jihad), that advocates attack on the "people of the book" (not jihad) and that fights for territorial expansion (not jihad). We fail to give indication related to any kind of additional concept including that of good or bad.  We just endorse them as jihadist.  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  10:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC) edited
 * Gregkaye your quote barely has anything to do with the islamic state or about proposed difference between them and another jihadist groups along the history. you saying that if they fight muslims it isn't "jihad"? i didn't found it in the hadith. at the end the islamic state fights for the enforcment of the islamic law(against secular regimes) in the same way the former caliphate did it: they conquer and kills any resistant and than enforce the islamic rule by force.


 * you need to understand that muslim people can seperate the islamic state(and other jihadist militants like them today) from themselves but can't act as if they have the authoritie to say that they are not muslims and not doing jihad, cause they don't just have nothing to back up their claims they also hypocrites for supporting the same thing that they read in the islamic literature(looks much more ideal and romantic due the obvious islamic POV) but stop to supporting it when they look the victims in the eyes and most of the world are angry and develope bad stereotypes of muslims. --Wheels of steel0 (talk) 13:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Question: How unholy would a war or a warring group need to become before losing a primary description of "Jihad"? Seriously!  I'd like to know, or do you endorse the radicalisation of the term with no limit.  Definitions like good and bad are irrelevant.  Jihad has a definition and, according to various facettes or behaviour, limits will be crossed.  Are we to apply a definition without limits?  Is that the plan?  Are we just to pander to whatever various journalists choose to churn out as they aim to increase publication circulation?  Wikipedia is not acting as an encyclopaedia but as a lapdog for the press.
 * Comparison can be made with the likes of Saadam Hussain, a character who incidentally I would by no means describe as "good" but following the Kuwait war he did little but resist. Yes he kept human shield prisoners but they were kept in good health.  He also spoke of Jihad but is not spoken of as a jihadist.  ISIL blatantly abuse the a great swathe of Islamic teaching and yet jihadist terminologies are liberally applied.  We are feeding radicalism and, when presented with opportunities for moderation, we fail.  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  13:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Every criticism you make of ISIS can be made of Wahhabism more generally. From our article: “al-Wahhab declared jihad against neighboring tribes, whose practices of praying to saints, making pilgrimages to tombs and special mosques, he believed to be the work of idolaters/unbelievers.” “Wahhabis embraced the ideas of Ibn Taymiyya—which allow self-professed Muslim who do not follow Islamic law to be declared non-Muslims—to justify their warring and conquering the Muslim Sharifs of Hijaz.” “Wahhabis also massacred the male population and enslaved the women and children of the city of Ta'if in Hejaz in 1803.” Our article states that IS is an offshoot of the Wahhabi movement and relies of Wahhabi literature. Saudi Arabia has funded Wahhabi Madrasas around the world. While I applaud the “open letter” condemning IS, we can not be an advocacy venue.Jason from nyc (talk) 14:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You are not answering my question which is one that can equally be raised at Wahhabism. Here is another situation of a warring group claiming jihad despite the fact that other groups have very different understandings of the term.  They may claim to act by jihad but we fail to give fair representation and, as I say, by failing in this way we are radicalising "jihad".  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  14:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC

"Assem Barqawi, also known as Abu Mohamed al-Maqdesi, who was released from a Jordanian prison in June after serving a sentence for recruiting volunteers to fight in Afghanistan, called fighters loyal to the Islamic State group's leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, "deviant"."

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/07/muslim-leaders-reject-baghdadi-caliphate-20147744058773906.html

We still use Wikipedia's voice to call them "jihadist". Its messed up.

Gregkaye ✍ ♪  09:09, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Gregkaye like seriously? what is that question? how the fuck do you describe "unholy"? do you define other jihadists and caliphate "holy" and calls them and their cause an "holy" and justified one? and all that without being a muslim?...


 * as i said several times before, not you or the the specific imams you choose(or anybody else where he is imam or not) can be an real authority, the best they can do is to speak for themselves but not for the imams and scholars who support the islamic state and obviously not in the name of islam itself cause the text it self just can't seperate the islamic state from former caliphate. i know you want to seperate those terrorists from other muslims but you just can't speak in the name of islam and every muslim in the world.


 * you keep with the same mistakes of treating islam as an organization or science with leaders or expert which can have such authority to differentiate between the islamic state and former caliphates. and anyway some of the "leaders" in that article are noted to be supporters of al-qaeda and jabaht a nusra which began to fight with the islamic state in the recent weeks. --Wheels of steel0 (talk) 18:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Gregkaye and anyway if you believe in the authority of some islamic "leaders", mybe wikipedia should note that shia are "heretics" (http://www.nairaland.com/740058/sheikh-qaradawi-shia-heretics) and that alawits(another off shot of islam) are "more infidel than Christians and Jews"(http://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/07/opinion/abdo-shia-sunni-tension/index.html)?, you used al qaradawi for claiming that the islamic state aren't a "caliphate" and not doing "jihad"(and its not like he provided some serious proves for that) so why his suposed "authority" is only limited for what you want? you act as if you are the real authority for islam.--Wheels of steel0 (talk) 18:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As a more accurate parallel I would like Wikipedia to question any endorsement that might be made of various controversial groups which may well have a basis of Christianity, such as the Klu Klux Klan or various organisations widely described as cults, that these groups were struggling for Christian values. Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  10:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

My valid question is: How unholy would a war or a warring group need to become before losing a primary description of "Jihad"? Sure its not down to me or and individual muslim or an individual imam. Jihad is an Islamic word describing, warts and all, a struggle for Islamic ideals.

''' When even the more extreme people in Islam reject ISIL, don't you think that maybe, just maybe that says something? '''

The most that we can do in the situation is perhaps say that they are "reportedly jihadist" and the only reason we may be forced to go this far is because of an idiot press that spouts wording that it either doesn't understand or doesn't think through.

There is no dispute to them being terrorists. There's dispute in their following of jihad. There is dispute of them following Islam. Its not that complicated.

Gregkaye ✍ ♪  00:53, 12 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Gregkaye what is valid in that question of "how much unholy they need to be" like what the fuck is "unholy" and how exactly other caliphates/groups who has done jihad(confirmed as one by you of course) was "holy" unlike the "unholy" islamic state?, this is the only valid questions her.


 * again you miss the point (or simply just ignore what i am saying). who said that fighting for a caliphate and for the enforcment of the islamic rule isn't "a struggle for islamic ideals"? this is not just jihad this is also the same thing which the former caliphates and organizations which you call "holy" and justify them has done in the past.
 * and as i said before, it doesn't matter who are the people who oppose the islamic state and if they are "extremists" or not, they just can't talk in the name of islam and do what the islamic text can't do: to seperate the islamic state from other caliphates in the past.


 * you failed to provide any theological argument which seperate the islamic state from other caliphates and the only argument you have is that SOME muslims say that they didn't support the islamic state while you choose which muslim scholars and imams to delegitimize(the supporters of the islamic state) and even choose what statment to support and what statement to delegitimize with the imams you see as "authority". you don't realy rely on anything or anybody, only on your own opinion and POV which is quite mysterious i must say, you say that you don't believe in islam but act as if the former caliphates(the "real" ones according to you) and their religious struggle was justified, moral and even "holy". you can only speak like that if you believe in islam. --Wheels of steel0 (talk) 02:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Wheels of steel0, do you have any kind of theological background?
 * I will walk you through. Holiness, by definition, is being "dedicated or consecrated to God".  In application to Islam the definition of holiness becomes that of being dedicated or consecrated to the God of Islam.  The supposed teachings of the God of Islam are found in the Quran and related literature.  Holiness in Islam necessitates attempt at adherence to such teaching. Holiness on an individual's terms and not on a god's terms is not holiness at all.  Its not dedication to a god but dedication to different agendas.
 * In the current situation, in the Iraqi region, ISIL are in flagrant breach of the teachings of Islam and this is to the extent that people normally regarded as Islamic extremists condemn them.
 * The relevant theological point relates to the actual differences between the behaviour of ISIL and the requirements of righteous practice within the conceptions of Islam. Differences to other so called Caliphates are irrelevant and yet you continue to attempt to push that irrelevant point.  If the same criticisms that can be applied to ISIL can also be applied to other groups then these become issues for those articles.  The current discussion relates to the discrepancy between the behaviours of ISIL and the requirements of Islamic teaching.  There are long pages of content written on this topic that you are welcome to read.  All of the departures have relevance to theological conceptions of holiness and, to cap it all, there is even the specific criticism that the group's "sacrifice in intent for jihad ...is not jihad at all".  My valid question on this topic remains.
 * Gregkaye ✍ ♪  14:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Gregkaye before you wrote that pointless mumblings about the defenition of "holliness" you could reread what i said about your question and understand that there is nothing real behind that term and that anybody can claim himself to be "dedicated or consecrated to the God of Islam", and you didn't show any proof for why the islamic state is "flagrant breach of the teachings of Islam" or why the islamic state couldn't be called "caliphate" unlike former "real" caliphates which is basicaly the whole point of this argument, cause if you can't differ between the islamic state and former caliphates what is your point exactly? if you claim that nobody were "jihadist", "caliphate" and "khalif" you are simply in the wrong talk page.


 * you have no real argument to back up your POV which is all about seperating the islamic state from former caliphates, jihadist groups and even islam itself. so if you don't have anything more to say other than "even the 'extremists' don't support them" you need to realize that you were wrong and also had wrong preception about islam(and religions in general) instead of repeating on the same pointless argument as if i didn't showed to you how much it has nothing to do with the islamic legitimacy of the islamic state. --Wheels of steel0 (talk) 16:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Wheels of steel0, please don't resort to rhetoric. Seriously?  You don't see the point in discussing understandings of Islamic terminologies in association to a group that claims authority over Islam?  Really?  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  22:29, 12 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Gregkaye i am the only one in this argument who talk about islamic terminologies her. you on the other hand talk only about the opinion of SOME muslims as if they have the authority to contradict and add to the islamic text, and even other users has told you that you act as if islam has monolithic leadership while it obviously far from being that way.


 * i know you hate the islamic state and know that they are bad people with no moral and nothing they do is justified, but it doesn't mean that you or some muslims can seperate the islamic state(or any islamic faction) from islam and claim that they "aren't doing jihad" or "aren't a caliphate" without any quote from the quran or other similar islamic text, cause those people are nothing more than another followers of islam and not more muslim than the supporters of the islamic state.--Wheels of steel0 (talk) 12:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The first thing that I really came to hate in relation to the recent history of Iraq is the loss of much of the countries ancient historical heritage - specifically that U.S. and UK forces drove up to protect the ministry of oil etc. and not the museums. This is the thing that I find hardest to comprehend because the decisions were solely based on about money rather than humanity.  I have a better understanding of inter group hatred and the anti-Shiaism involved but this is still not forgiveable.  I have equal "hatred" of any anti-Sunni sentiment that may have grown up in surrounding populations.  We all bleed the same colour blood.  I also hate misrepresentation.  This hatred is shown in comments regarding the unhealthy misuse of Semitic references in anti-Semitism and this will be clearly apparent should you choose to take a look at Talk:Antisemitism.  I currently hate the present misrepresentation of jihad.  I also hate the continuing and senseless loss of life but this does not mean that I hate the murderers.  Please don't attempt to derail arguments by trying to make things personal.  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  14:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That's all fine and well but besides the point. The word jihad is now also an English word. The Wikipedia Manual of Style recognizes it as such. Even this past weekend, three time Pulitzer Prize winner, Thomas Friedman used the word in relation to ISIL. He says it is in part "Sunni Muslim jihadist fighters from all over the world ..." but which is changing the culture of Iraq and Syria "into bleak, dark, jihadist, Sunni fundamentalist monocultures." This is not an article on Islamic theology nor the Islamic doctrine of jihad. The difference is worth pointing out but the English usage of the word, even in the Old Grey Lady, is common in the English language. And we use the English language. This is how reliable sources in the English language use the word. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Jason from nyc it is true that "jihad" is also an english word now but there is a need to point out that the islamic doctrine of "jihad" is found only in the islamic text(like the quran) and it fits to the islamic state in the same way it fitted to former caliphates in the past. --Wheels of steel0 (talk) 17:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You're asking me for the truth. I'm arguing that the word is now in current English usage and for the purpose of describing groups like ISIS. I'm not arguing for the usage of the term based on historical or theological concerns. You and Greg are addressing that matter as does the article on Jihadism. With all due respect, I'll bow out on that question as interesting as it is. Jason from nyc (talk) 18:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The only trouble is that we are working with an extremely loaded Arabic term that is transliterated into English. I'm going to take a detour to try to present an allegory.  Let's say, for a moment, that we weren't talking about Islamic Jihadism but rather the French, Légion d'honneur.  Let's say that the "honour" of this group had a religious agenda but that various groups had increasingly taken to unjustified violence.  Finally a group emerges that is so extremist in nature that they embark on the mass slaughter of parallel groups with similar beliefs and slaughters innocent aid workers.   At some point, if there was any rationality, someone would say this is not right.  You are not what you claim to be.  I really think that the jihadist claims of ISIL similarly have an Emperor's New Clothes quality about them.  Sure they are actively "struggling" but when they are slaughtering fellow believers and murdering those providing humane support then their struggle in actuality has a very different associations than they may imagine.  These struggles are like a Legion without honour and scholars have characterised them well.  They are not jihad.  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  13:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That is your own personal view and WP:OR. WP has to be neutral and reflect RS usage.  Can you really not see that?  Or do you see it and think WP is wrong and you are right on this?  Because that is what it looks like.  You are not a theologian or moral arbiter in WP, you are just an editor like the rest of us.  --P123ct1 (talk) 18:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That last talk page explanation is theological POV but I think it holds. However the current issue relates to the theology ISIL that and that alone.  Reliable sources have called this theology into question. Even when we turn to other facets of what Wikipedia call RS, we find that the term extremist is at least as well supported as the term jihadist - and this by journalists who may have little or no theological training or background.  Within this situation I think it is fair to give consideration to the views of various Islamic experts in the field.  If its a question of morals, if it were to come to a choice between of those of the press or my own, I trust mine.  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  12:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

All that apart, the simple fact remains: you do not have consensus for removing "jihadist". At least four editors on this thread alone disagree with you. Sooner or later the word will be reintroduced, possibly by an editor who is oblivious of this Talk page discussion. If when it is you remove it again, it will be seen as edit-warring and going against consensus. which is a serious matter. --P123ct1 (talk) 07:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand potential consequences but to be fair the thread started without the context of the addition of "extremist" a term that receives equal support and which is not disputed. Gregkaye ✍ ♪  09:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You are right Gregkaye. Point taken.  --P123ct1 (talk) 16:12, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Other editors comments are also found at Category talk:Jihadist organizations Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  17:01, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Jason from nyc has inserted the questionable "jihadist" terminology in addition to the Islamic extremist link present. Given the context that Jihad is a topic with a wide range of meaning and that notable scholars state that Isil's actions go beyond the remit of jihad, I removed the reference but was reverted by Jason.  It is intolerable that the article should speak in Wikipedia's voice to describe this murderous group as "jihadist".  At the very least this unjustified claim needs reply.  I have moved the paragraph containing the text "not jihad at" back to its second paragraph position so as to permit this reply. Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  16:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The insertion is jihadist not jihad. Jihadist is used by a consensus of sources specifically to refer to armed struggle. Jihadist is different from Jihad just like Islamist is different from Islam. Don't confuse the two. Usage of jihadist in the sense of Jihadism is standard and widely accepted. Jason from nyc (talk) 04:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Jason from nyc, I definitely agree that there is confusion. Wikipedia plays a dangerous game in adding to it.
 * PLEASE see, read and absorb, for instance, Islamic Supreme Council of America, legal ruling regarding:


 * Jihad: A Misunderstood Concept from Islam - What Jihad is, and is not. Read as much or the ruling as you like.
 * Despite this context you made two reversions to the replacement of the "jihadist" terminology into the article within a one hour period without making reference to the talk page all for the sake of adding a questionable terminology the use of which will contribute to an irrational radicalisation of Islam and the unjustified provision of a religious justification for the heinous acts of this group.
 * The term Islamic extremism is accurate in every sense and the article regarding that topic presents information on jihadism that readers can evaluate for themselves. The article on jihadism even has a lead that states: "Muslims have argued that press use of the term Jihadism to denote terrorist activities has helped the recruiting of terrorists, but the term Jihadism is viewed positively by Muslims, and is understood to mean the fundamental struggle for good against evil."  We are taking a word regarding a "the fundamental struggle for good against evil" and misapplying it to an organisation engaged in ethnic cleansing and the beheading of people engaged in helping the needy.   Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  11:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * First of all not all Islamic experts agree and you can not cherry pick the ones that support your POV to override common usage of reliable sources. More importantly, we are talking about jihadism not jihad. An -ism creates a derivative concept that differs from the parent concept. Jihadism differs from jihad just as Islamism differs from Islam. This is just how the English language works. We are talking about Jihadism not jihad. We make this clear my wikilinking to jihadism. Finally "Islamic extremism" is ambiguous. Extreme in what sense? Our wikilink brings us to what is essentially a disambiguation page where jihadism is one of the 3 choices. Thus even when sources use this they mean jihadism. So lets spell it out for the reader. (PS let's continue below in #14) Jason from nyc (talk) 11:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Talk of a subject like jihadism without reference to jihad is just about as nonsensical as talking about a subject like purpleness without reference to purple. Of course this is no problem in regard to a familiar and well recognised topic like colour.  There.  Please do not misrepresent what I have said.  "There is no dispute to them being terrorists.  There's dispute in their following of jihad.  There is dispute of them following Islam.  Its not that complicated."  edited, Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  10:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

NB There is parallel discussion going on about this in #14 "Logical Order in Lead". --P123ct1 (talk)


 * N.B.: In Logical Order in Lead Gregkaye suggested "NB can editors interested in the "Logical Order in Lead" please continue to use this discussion and can editors wanting to comment on the use of specific terminologies please use the discussion their actions are “not jihad at all, but rather, warmongering and criminality” (See related discussion at #Logical Order in Lead)" Also, I've taken User:Gregkaye to AN/I for possible 1RR violation and disruptive editing. See Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.~Technophant (talk) 19:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * NOTE: the above link text contains rhetorical repetition of reference to AN/I, "disruptive editing" and "Gregkaye" and that this all comes before the reader even gets to the content of the thread concerned.
 * (See Pages that link to "Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents". for a range of comparative links).
 * I consider this among a range of questionable behaviours of an editor who made no contribution to this discussion. Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  11:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've struck the improper description.~Technophant (talk) 00:00, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I honestly don't see why the word "jihadist" is being debated here. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 04:06, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Supersaiyen312, it hasn't been debated here for a very long time. Please consider the page implications of bumping threads.  The reason, as stated is that jihad is interpreted in a range of ways including holy war and yet large sections of Islam reject ISIL as not being representative of the religion.  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  06:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Logical Order in Lead

 * ''See previous discussion: their actions are “not jihad at all, but rather, warmongering and criminality"
 * See archived discussion: Archive 15: The word "jihad", criticism and disruption

(Pinging: Gazkthul, Jack Pepa, Jason from nyc, Legacypac, P123ct1, Rothorpe, Wheels of steel0, re: current time responses - late additions. Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  11:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC) The lead "serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects." It should have a logical order. "It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies."

Thus, I made a change to start with the descriptions and moved "prominent controversies" to the end of the lead section. This way we have " unrecognized Sunni jihadist state" ... history of its growth ... "aim was to establish an Islamic state" ... "caliphate was proclaimed" ... "claims religious authority over all Muslims worldwide." I moved the criticism paragraph that starts with "Widespread Islamic criticism of ISIL ..." to end the lead. The criticism is total. Everything about ISIL is being criticized and condemned.

Why, Gregkaye, do you object to that? Jason from nyc (talk) 15:22, 12 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Jason from nyc, I am still awaiting your reply to my "You are not answering my question" statement above.
 * Editors can't have it both ways. You can't place an unqualified endorsement of ISIL as being "jihadist" (struggling in holy war) and also remove content presenting the contrary view.
 * Either we qualify the statement or we move both the statement and its opposing text together.
 * If the opening paragraph used a description similar to: "a Sunni reportedly jihadist unrecognized state in Iraq and Syria in the Middle East" then any move of subsequent text would be fine.
 * Another option would be to move both the "jihadist" claim and the "not jihad at all" comment to another part of the text but, without qualification being given to the "jihadist" claim, it becomes necessary for these two contents to appear together.
 * I would be equally happy with either solution.
 * Gregkaye ✍ ♪  16:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I removed nothing. You seem stuck on jihadist. It is not just jihadist that is being criticized by other Muslims (and non-Muslims). The claim to an "Islamic state" and "caliphate" and "religious authority" are all being criticized. Do you want a parenthetical remark after each phrase? Our article would read ... "jihadist (rejected by 126 prominent Muslims) ... Islamic state (not Islamic according to 126 prominent Muslims) ... religious authority (rejected by 126 prominent Muslims) ..."??? Not only are Muslims (and non-Muslims) critical of such claims, they also list a host of atrocities and appropriate condemnations. Do we insert those after every sentence? The "open letter" that we refer to has explicit rejection of ISIL doctrine on a point-by-point basis. It is much more than the word jihadist and there belongs as a response to the whole description, after the whole description. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:15, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure I am stuck on "jihadist". "Islamic extremist" would be a marginally better description despite the group being widely rejected by Islam. Why do you mention parenthesis?  Please don't misrepresent the content of other editors.  My clearly stated suggestion was to either keep the two Jihad related references together or to use something like "reportedly jihadist".  Many sources have described then as being jihadist.  We can reflect that.  I am resolutely stuck on the view that a group that kills aide workers should not be given an unqualified endorsement as struggling for Islam or that they are engaging in "holy war" at least not without fair and immediate reply.  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  21:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll repeat myself. Since Islamic critics reject IS on many grounds and not just it's claim to be waging jihad, it should come at the end of the lead so that it expresses the full critique of all that comes above. Jason from nyc (talk) 22:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank-you for limiting yourself to your point. My point is that we cannot speak in Wikipedia's voice in crediting them as "jihadist" and separate this statement from opposing claims.  Many reports on ISIL begin with reference to criticisms and then continue to present additional context.  There is no imperative to present content in a particular order.  It is important to either give qualification to the first "jihadist" statement or otherwise keep the two references to jihad together.  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  07:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe we still achieve your objectives as long as this paragraph is in the lead. It isn't just "jihad" but "Islamic" and "caliphate" that are being rejected by Islamic critics. Putting this paragraph last still achieves the objective of telling the reader that there is Islamic opposition to ISIL and to all of ISIL's claims and activities. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Jason from nyc, Since the time of your above edit the content you mentioned, which used to be contained first thing in the article' second paragraph, has (as is clearly demonstrated in the recent AN/I has been repeatedly removed from the lead. If I am to be described as being involved in edit warring then, clearly, I am not the only one.  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  11:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * My objective is that we don't give ISIL an unbalanced endorsement of them being "jihadist" or that immediate reply is enabled.
 * Options of working text include: "... is an Sunni extremist unrecognized state", "... is an Islamic extremist, Sunni  unrecognized state"  or "... is an Sunni reportedly jihadist unrecognized state".
 * In the first option the use of "Sunni extremist" eludes to Islam without direct reference to the term while the extremist link is piped to Islamic extremism. This page contains the text: "for achieving perceived Islamic goals;  see Jihadism."  All bases are covered and there is no force feeding of the reader with conclusions but space is given to the reader to make up their own minds.
 * No-one argues that ISIL are extreme whereas the applicability of Jihad is disputed.
 * (ISIL OR ISIS OR Daesh OR "Islamic State") OR "extremist" gets "About 24,000,000 results" in news
 * (ISIL OR ISIS OR Daesh OR "Islamic State") OR "jihadist" gets "About 23,800,000 results" in news (almost exactly the same).
 * Gregkaye ✍ ♪  13:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I had argued for "jihadist extremists" and got some agreement but not consensus. In the meantime our pipe of jihadist to Jihadism allows the reader to understand the debate about the usage of this word. We, however, can not correct the sources. That's not our job. They use jihadist and it is up to the reader to understand in which sense and with what legitimacy this word is used. We have objections cited in the lead section but these objections are wider. They are objections to ISIS' usage of jihad, caliphate, and Islamic. This is why the paragraph should be at the end of the lead. It says in essence "all the above is condemned by Islamic authorities. We can trust the user to read to the end of the lead. They came to wikipedia to get more than sound bites. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * In this case, with regard to a group of murderers who slaughter innocent people, I will continue to correct for the simple reason that it is wrong. I know the potential consequences.  What can I do?  It's immoral B******t.  You know the most used descriptions.  I have presented the information.  If you want to push this and see me lose my editing rights that's up to you.  I cannot with good conscience let this go.  Radicalisation creates a clear route to the lose of life.  It can result in the loss of loved ones.  I have no choice.  On this specific issue, and in the actual true sense of the word, this is my "jihad".  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  18:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You object based on conscience and that should be respected. Every human being has to use their moral judgment when to part with the majority. Wikipedia has to go with the description in reliable sources and the lead must summarized the article. As consensus doesn't mean unanimity and your personal ethics prohibits your assent, we should ask other editors if they can weigh in and resolve this impasse. Jason from nyc (talk) 19:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree with Jason from nyc. We have to follow the way the word is used in reliable sources and the common usage of the term, which according to Google is: "Jihadism (also jihadist extremism, jihadist movement, jihadi movement or militant jihadism) is used to refer to armed jihad in Islamic fundamentalism. This has been a major meaning of the term since the later 20th century, but with a continuous history reaching back to the early 19th century". (My italics.) ISIL are Islamic fundamentalists. The objection to using the word "jihadist" to describe them is best covered in a para at the end of the Lead along with other criticism of the group, as proposed by Jason from nyc. I understand exactly Gregkaye's moral objection, but I really don't think this one word should be singled out in the Lead for special treatment. The "Criticisms" section is the appropriate place to register objection to it, IMO. That is my vote. --P123ct1 (talk) 20:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with Jason from nyc and P123ct1. There are plenty of other "groups of murderers" - al Qaeda and Boko Haram amongst them - that are referred to by RS as Jihadists, so it is used on a much broader level that simply in reference to IS. Gazkthul (talk) 23:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye, instead of edit-warring we've given this considerable attention and stayed engaged. This is the best we can do. I believe we have a duty to reflect the sources and organize the lead per WP:LEAD. I also believe this is the consensus on an issue that will never be unanimous. Nothing will be removed and we still maintain fidelity to our obligation to report "prominent controversies." I appreciate everyone's review of this long discussion. I will move the 2nd paragraph to the end of the lead. Jason from nyc (talk) 01:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * This is a case of passing by "extremist" (more widely used) in favour or "jihadist" (less widely and questionably used). Reference to Jihad on this page is not the same as reference to jihad in articles.  People commit atrocities in the names of various gods and they even use justifications, as in this case, that make no coherent sense.  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  04:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Quote from: |islamicrenaissance.co.uk: "If Jihad cannot be justified, it isn’t Jihad, because Jihad by its nature cannot be unjust. I know for many non-Muslims this is the most absurd statement they have heard in a very long time, and the words ‘ISLAMIST, EXTREMIST, TERRORIST’ is probably crossing their mind faster than they can read this, as they think I’m about to justify terrorism...

Jihad is thus the act to eradicate oppression and uphold justice. Jihad may be a physical struggle or a verbal struggle; “The greatest Jihad is to speak the truth in front of a tyrant ruler” [Bukhari] – but it must be a just struggle, for a just cause."

Gregkaye ✍ ♪  05:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Did I misunderstand something? I thought the agreement was to keep in the word "jihadist", as the term used by reliable sources and generally to describe this group and groups like it.  If it was, Gregkaye by removing it is going against the consensus of other editors. Please will someone elucidate?  Did you not understand that this word was to be kept, Jason from nyc?  I do not agree with its removal. --P123ct1 (talk) 06:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There was some mention to include "extremist" along with "jihadist" in this section but more extensively in another past section without reaching a consensus. I don't see any consensus forming on removing "jihadist", however. I'll be away for a few days and hopefully have no access to the internet. Regards. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The user that removed it was Gregkaye;. I reverted that particular edit. David O. Johnson (talk) 07:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes P123ct1 I think that you have misunderstood something. The word extremist got more hits (marginally) in a last search on the two terms and the descriptions are on parr. The relevance of the word extreme is not disputed while the relevance of "jihad" is contested by some of the most reliable sources in Sunni Islam.

As mentioned it is perfectly possible to use: "... is a Sunni extremist unrecognized state". The "extremist" link is piped to Islamic extremism, to a page that contains the text: "for achieving perceived Islamic goals; see Jihadism." All bases are covered and there is no force feeding of the reader with conclusions. Instead space is given to the reader to make up their own minds.

Gregkaye ✍ ♪  07:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * On a personal basis I think that any religious teaching that advocates war for the sake of, for instance, the expansion of belief is corrupt. Different scholars seem to have differing views regarding the validity of offensive jihad.  Did the god of Islam endorse slaughter by way of evangelism?  I can't imagine any  benevolent, all powerful god that would endorse such tactics.
 * Beyond these concerns there the specific practices of ISIL. There are certainly no is certainly no justifications for many of them.  The hanging question regards where the line should be drawn.  We can't rely on sources that lack the religious knowledge necessary to comment on these things.  The reliable sources should be the scholars.  I think it is likely that this is the group of people that Britannica would refer to.


 * The final verdict is not one that I am sure of. After the open-letter I imagined that there might have been more opposition to jihadist terminologies than there has actually been.  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  08:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Gregkaye has made this edit, moving to a very prominent position in the Lead an edit that editors have hotly debated, on the grounds that the reintroduction of "jihadist" to the Lead needs rebuttal. The Lead is not the place for such rebuttal.  That is a very strong, emotionally-charged POV para, loaded with judgment, and even worse, it is in WP's own voice.  WP is not a debating chamber or a legal prosecution forum, it is an encyclopaedia. (I exaggerate to make my point.)  For these reasons, I think this para should be edited out.  --P123ct1 (talk) 17:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've stated my reasoning on all these matters and anyone looking at the content can make up their own minds regarding issues of POV. A revert to an addition of "jihadist" was made.  I reverted.  "Jihadist" was added again and all this happened in something far less than a 24 hour period of time.  Following the passing of 24 hours from my last edit I will attempt to revert all.  At this stage I'm quite willing to follow the rules.  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  21:28, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I can see why you did it Gregkaye and why you would want to revert all, but I fear "jihadist" will creep back in again if you do.  --P123ct1 (talk) 22:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Jihadist is a widely used descriptor as we've all seen from google searches. Your POV that the usage is a miss-usage isn't sufficient to override the vast number of reliable sources. We still have your superlative "extremist." You don't like the way sources use the word "jihadist" and we get that. But your POV can't veto reliable sources. Jason from nyc (talk) 03:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If a full-blown edit-war breaks out and Gregkaye cannot accept that he is editing against consensus in removing "jihadist", this will have to go to WP:Dispute resolution. One thing editors cannot do is edit against consensus, whatever their convictions are. In WP editing the collective view must always overrule the individual view.  That is just how it is. --P123ct1 (talk) 07:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * @Gregkaye I must ask that you stop making reverts/changes or you WILL be taken to the noticeboard. If you disagree with the majority consensus then start the WP:Dispute Resolution process. Furthering this discussion could be viewed as disruptive.~Technophant (talk) 08:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * A "new" editor has now removed the 126 Muslim scholars para from the Lead here. The editor is clearly oblivious of the long discussions on this (see edit summary). --P123ct1 (talk) 09:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought we had a consensus that that paragraph should be at the end of the lead. I see Gregkaye reverted that move and now someone completely removed the paragraph. WP:LEAD asks us to include any controversies and we agreed that it was best to put that at the end of the lead. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The removal constitutes edit warring. Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  11:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Jason from nyc I have no objection to the use of something such as: "widely described as jihadist". However I have to ask, which reliable sources should we refer to, political analysts with vested interests in selling their books or promoting their newspapers or the Islamic authorities who actually understand the ramifications of the admitedly dubious original statements?  A further radicalisation of Islam that results from the false endorsement of murderers as being "jihadists" will result in a perpetuation of needless death.  Its unqualified and needless use of this westernised wording is not something that I can support.  I will not have blood on my hands. Please reply to the parallel and on topic discussion #their actions are “not jihad at all, but rather, warmongering and criminality” (See related discussion at #Logical Order in Lead)|on the use of the word jihadist.  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  11:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Jihadists do not follow Wikipedia. They learn their brand of Islam from Wahhabi sources that the Saudi government has spent billions to spread around the world. This is a bona fide interpretation of Islam but not the only bona fide branch of the religion. Muslims will have to sort this out among themselves, hopefully peacefully but sadly they choose otherwise in some cases. I responded to terminology in the other section. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia article traffic statistics - Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Regardless of whether or not they are on the fringes of radical Islam, a wide range of people continue to have internet access both in and out of such locations as Iraq and Syria. Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  11:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting stats. When I choose "Arabic" language I see only 5 hits. According to the New York Times, the greatest number of ISIL foreign fighters come from Tunisia . It says every young person knows someone that has gone to fight for ISIL. But it also says they don't believe the news reports about beheadings. They think it is propaganda. I don't think they'll think Wikpedia, which reflects sources, is any better. Our article has to reflect sources, not our theories about how people deviously twist the words we write. I merely mention the above because I respect your worry and hope it will ally some fears. We don't drive this battle. We merely report as reliable sources report. We can't correct them in here. But do what you can "out there." Jason from nyc (talk) 12:45, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Once again we pipe “jihadist” to jihadism not jihad. As we explain in our article on ism (i.e. -ism) the suffix creates a derivative word, generally a political ideology. Jihadism is not the general struggle of jihad just like socialism isn’t just being social. There is no need to explain a word in common usage for a narrow specific purpose. No footnote is needed. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

'''NB can editors interested in the "Logical Order in Lead" please continue to use this discussion and can editors wanting to comment on the use of specific terminologies please use the discussion - see top of this section for link to it. Gregkaye ✍ ♪  12:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * NOTE: the above link text contains rhetorical repetition of reference to AN/I, "disruptive editing" and "Gregkaye" and that this all comes before the reader even gets to the content of the thread concerned.
 * (See Pages that link to "Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents" for a range of comparative links).
 * I consider this among a range of questionable behaviours of an editor who made no actual contribution to this discussion. Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  11:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've struck the improper description.~Technophant (talk) 00:00, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

IS Anasheed
An anasheed used by the Islamic State as a form of patriotic/national anthem. Is there any truth to this?

As I've have heard this song in several IS documentaries before. For exarmple TRAJAN 117 (talk) 13:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

A quick response. It is not "an anasheed". Anasheed is plural for nasheed meaning chant. Those hypnotic and irritating Muslim chants are well harmonized with beautiful voices a capella, and used by radical Islamists mixing praise to Allah with cryptic messages that relay their evil agenda of terror. They consider them part of their psychological warfare and their management of savagery. Hope this helps. Worldedixor (talk) 00:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I was actually looking for a more neutral answer, but whatever. TRAJAN 117 (talk) 06:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Worldedixor, What is your irritation regarding these "well harmonized with beautiful" vocal chants? You would do well for yourself (add: in a context where its easy to focus on specific words) if you gave clear qualification.  You speak Arabic but I'm not sure of your background with Islam.  You say that ISIL Nasheeds (anasheed) are "used by radical Islamists mixing praise to Allah with cryptic messages that relay their evil agenda of terror".  Can we confirm this? What proportion of ISIL nasheeds and the contents of ISIL nasheeds contain balanced content of Mohammedan etc. teaching and what proportion is driven by other agendas?  Thoughts from anyone?
 * For me I have long had issues with many manifestations of nationalism (and, if there are editors that hold similar sentiments, comment would be appreciated at Template talk:Infobox person). If the ISIL songs are purely patriotic then good for them.  If not then relevant issues should be given fair coverage.  There can be friendly and well meaning forms of tribalism (bring on the fifth!) but I'm not sure if this applies.  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  08:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Loosely related Unless there are comments to the contrary I will take the article to WP:RM Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  07:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Anasheed gets "About 633,000 results" in Google video.
 * Nasheed gets "About 5,270,000 results" in Google video.
 * See: Talk:Anasheed Gregkaye ✍ ♪  09:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Coordinating the width of Infobox country
Code within infobox country reads:

and something has made the width of the box increase.

it now contains the text:

Capital	Ar-Raqqah, Syria [3][4] 35°57′N 39°1′E

Going back in page history it appears that the infobox has long looked like this but this is not so.

Any ideas?

Gregkaye ✍ ♪  15:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There is currently a site-wide problem with geographical coordinates; see this discussion. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 15:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * TY, Gregkaye ✍ ♪  15:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I think we should add the Islamic State's anthem name to to the box, but it should be added with a citation with a source that proves this is their main anthem and not just one of their many jihadist nasheeds. EDIT: What about this source? I think it is ok. Felino123 (talk) 14:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think their anthem should go into the infobox. It calls into question WP's attitude to the group.  It doesn't look serious. It is almost like saying which side of the road vehicles drive on in Iraq, which believe it or not was once in this infobox.  --P123ct1 (talk) 17:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The link is suspect. It links to two youtube videos whose user accounts have been terminated.  Also the article needs to have a balance of materials reflective of all realities.  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  15:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

What a Lead should be per WP:LEAD
As the Lead is still under discussion, here is what WP:LEAD says about this:
 * "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. ...


 * The lead is the first part of the article most people read, and many only read the lead. ... [It] should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view; it should ideally contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate."

~ P123ct1 (talk) 20:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Romania is a member of NATO
So I think it shouldn't be on the "Other state opponents" list. Shouldn't Romania be added to the NATO list? Felino123 (talk) 11:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Obama didint enlisted Romania for anti IS task force i believe. kazekagetr 14:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Found this excellent clickable graphic of the different countries contributions - note the graphic combines military action with arms supply (unlike our article) but gives details. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/interactive/2014/10/isil-us-syria-airstrike-coalition-uae-saudi-2014101142731382476.html I don't see Romania involved according to that source. Legacypac (talk) 02:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)