Talk:Islamic State/Archive 32

Use of label --> "Extremist"
A recent removal of the label Extremist was reverted by the editor Khestwol. The reasoning behind the removal was that according to WP:LABEL, contentious labels should be used with in-text attribution. Since this was not the case, it was removed. I will remove the label again and ask that, should it go back into the article; it should be attributed appropriately. Mbcap (talk) 19:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Done. Source: the BBC: "Islamic State (IS) is a radical Islamist group that has seized large swathes of territory" XavierItzm (talk) 21:20, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Islam as such is already extremist. So every strict group of followers is by definition extremist. &#9798; CUSH &#9798; 22:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The difference is that every Islamic group does not barbarically slaughter innocent men, women and children because they disagree with their personal outlook on life and the world. You know who does do that though? ISIL. The Muslim conquests of the Middle East are long over. ISIL is massacring areas and committing global terrorist acts. Not only is that "extremist", it's also sick and inhumane.
 * As such, the label "extremist" makes perfect sense. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 23:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The revert was per the research found at, which lead to a consensus for that version of the lede I reverted to. Far more reliable sources describe ISIL as "extremist" than as other labels such as "Islamist" (which is relatively rare) or even "rebel". Which was the reason for the consensus that at least the label "extremist" and "rebel" must be a description in the lede. Khestwol (talk) 01:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And I would still prefer the same wording in the lede again ("Islamic extremist rebel group") which is supported more by reliable sources. Khestwol (talk) 01:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Mbcap Yes or no? Were you aware of the two recent discussions on the use of descriptions for the group as that showed a great comparative prevalence for the use of the description "extremist"?

Here are most relevant results again:

Results in news were that:
 * (isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND ("extremist" OR "extremism") gets "About 6,790,000 results" results in News
 * (isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND ("extremist" OR "extremism") gets "About 8,780 results" results in Books
 * (isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND ("extremist" OR "extremism") gets "About 15,600 results" results in Scholar


 * (isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND rebel gets "About 3,880,000 results" in News
 * (isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND rebel gets "About 11,800 results" results in Books
 * (isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND rebel gets "About 14,900 results" results in Scholar


 * (isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND ("Islamist" OR "Islamism") gets "About 611,000 results" results in News
 * (isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND ("Islamist" OR "Islamism") gets "About 17,500 results" results in Books
 * (isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND ("Islamist" OR "Islamism") gets "About 17,900 results" results in Scholar

This seems to me to present an accurate reflection on the group. How is it not extremist? Admittedly Islam is often regarded as being a potentially violent religion but Muslims that I have known have oft given me the greeting As-salamu alaykum. This is a group that cuts the heads off aid workers. The description as extremist is well sourced and accurate. No one describes it as "mainstream". What is there that is "contentious" in describing the group in this way?

As far as I see it calling them "Islamic extremist" or "Islamic anything" is a concession. There is a view that rejects all these references as demonstrated in searches such as (isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND refusal AND ("radical Islam" OR "Islamic extremist"). However it seems to me that "radical Islam" and certainly "radical Islamism" are the less supported and more controversial terminologies. GregKaye 11:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello, you have just deleted an in-line textual reference from a WK:RS and you have replaced it with an unsourced link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_extremism. Is this WP:OR?  Is the BBC not considered a RS anymore?  Here is the BBC reference you eliminated: Islamic State (IS) is a radical Islamist group that has seized large swathes of territory.  Please advise the reasons for deleting a RS and replacing it with an unattributed link. XavierItzm (talk) 16:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The BBC is not a reliable source nowadays. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 16:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I am also in agreement with GregKaye, "radical Islam" and "radical Islamism" are more controversial and seem by far less supported in reliable sources, which is why we cannot use them right in the lede. The current labeling of the group in the lede is fine. Khestwol (talk) 16:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * XavierItzm If you want a reference, take your pick:
 * As mentioned (isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND ("extremist" OR "extremism") gets "About 6,790,000 results" results in News
 * GregKaye 18:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Here's what got deleted: Islamic State (IS) is a radical Islamist group that has seized large swathes of territory. XavierItzm (talk) 14:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Greg I think there may have been a misunderstanding. There is no issue with using the words of "extremist" or "radical" as long as they are widely used by reliable sources. My point was that we cannot use those words without providing in-text attribution per WP:LABEL as these are contentious labels. Therefore we should either; leave the labels as they stand in the article but with in-text attribution or alternatively these labels should be removed. To answer your question about why the labels are contentious; the word is given as an example in the aforementioned guideline. I completely understand what you are saying about the acts of this group but I would say that we are here simply to document what is said in reliable sources. Our remit does not extend to issues of morality. Would you not agree that if we were to document all the information on this group, it would paint an accurate picture of the group regardless. However if we were part of the UN or a human rights organisation or a governmental body then it would make sense for us to take a stance on the group. You are also correct about Muslims, I too have had Muslims greet me in the way you have described. When people make reference to Islam as being a violent religion, they forget that no entity is monolithic. Mbcap (talk) 22:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Mbcap I honestly think that extremist is quite simply the most appropriate defining point in regard to the group. Report after report on the group demonstrates it to be extreme and I think that this is the most appropriate primary description that can be applied to the group.  We have an lead to present that starts ~IS.. is a ...  What do we say and how?  What do you want us to say?
 * In the article's current state the text basically says "ISIL is an Islamic extremist group" and then the text goes on to describe a group that cuts people's heads off and bulldozes the most ancient of world cities. Find it difficult to imagine a more conclusive in text attribution than this.  A key strategy for writing is to start with a summary and then to flesh this out in content.  This is exactly what the article does.  Who is it that thinks that it is controversial to describe ISIL as being an extreme group?  I am at a loss to see the controversy here.  GregKaye 01:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Guys, this is not a forum for your feelings. I had a RS with inline attribution, to wit, and it got deleted with an unattributed link to a Wikipedia page.  How is this acceptable?

XavierItzm there is a difference between in-text attribution and providing citation. Greg It may well be appropriate to define the group as an extremist. We usually avoid such words but if it is widely used by reliable sources, such as in this case, then we can use it. The caveat is that we provide in-text attribution. This is the guidance within WP:LABEL. The actions of this group do consist of cutting off people's heads and demolishing archaeological specimens but those events do not constitute as in-text attribution to the qualifier "extremist". Something along the lines of, "most people think" or "most sources say" or whatever else is appropriate. Regarding the word "extremist" it is WP:LABEL which calls it a contentious label. Mbcap (talk) 17:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Mbcap I really don't think that describing the group as extreme in the current situation is the same as calling a group something like a cult, racist or terrorist. I suspect that if a survey was conducted on the question "If someone described the group ISIL as extreme, would you regard this to be controversial?" that it may be unlikely that there would be many positive replies.  We can read a presented definition at controversy to show a meaning: "A debate, discussion of opposing opinions; strife".  Who is debating whether ISIL is extremist?  I don't know of a group presented as more extreme.  GregKaye 20:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * GregKaye On a personal basis it would be no problem to describe the group in such a manner and we are all certain here, I am sure, that they would be described as such by the vast majority of people. However, when it comes to using the label on this article, our guidance states that we should provide in-text attribution if the label "extremist" is used widely by reliable sources. Moreover, the reasoning given above does constitute an Argumentum ad populum. Mbcap (talk) 21:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright, "Islamic State has been characterised by the BBC as radical Islamist". Really guys, I find it striking that for 48 hours there has been a preference for having an unattributed, unsourced, WP:OR link to "extremist" over an actual WP:RS from the BBC.  XavierItzm (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That'd be unacceptable, as it would not be giving WP:DUE weight to the characterisation as "extremist". It is not the "BBC" who characterises the group that way, it is pretty much every RS across the world. Read WP:LABEL: "use these in articles only when they are in wide use externally (e.g. Watergate), with in-text attribution if in doubt". There is no doubt, here. No in-text attribution is required, and doing what Xavier suggested would be giving much less weight to the characterisation as "extremist" than is warranted per RS. RGloucester  — ☎ 22:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In that case you would have us change/ignore WP:Terrorist? I mean if there's an article to change it over, this is it. Banak (talk) 23:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't want us to "ignore" WP:TERRORIST, which is the same thing as WP:LABEL. I just cited it to support my position. It says "Use these in articles only when they are in wide use externally (e.g. Watergate), with in-text attribution if in doubt". There is no doubt. The preponderance of RS refer to the group as "extremist", and using in-text attribution would be a form of weasel wording that would result in an incorrect dose of WP:WEIGHT. "Terrorist" is a different case, as the word has no meaning other than through emotion. "Extremist", however, is an accurate description of the ideology of this group. RGloucester  — ☎ 23:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the above quote is in relation to the use of the prefix "pseudo" and the suffix "gate". What WP:LABEL actually says about value laden terms is;

"Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution."

There is no mention of "if in doubt". Mbcap (talk) 00:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Mbcap I really think that WP:WIKILAWYERING, item 2 comes into play here.
 * Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles
 * The underlying principles of policy are found in its WP:PILLARS the first of which reminds us that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. The most common form of reference that is made to this group is to say that they are extreme and no argument that I have seen either here or anywhere else says that they are not.  We are not advocating any kind of WP:FRINGE viewpoint here.  We are presenting a major defining characteristic of the group.  GregKaye 18:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Greg I understand your point regarding wikilawyering but I would disagree. I would not call to such strict adherence to policy and guideline if we were covering the flora of British Columbia. But I do believe, on a controversial topic such as this we should keep strict adherence. The word extremist is emotionally loaded and does not relay any real meaning. There is no precise definition of the word and within political sciences, there is lack of consensus regarding its true meaning. The use of the word also impedes from developing a deeply dispassionate account of this groups actions on this article. But these are my opinions and I understand if editors think I am wikilawyers. Moreover, it seems that consensus is much against my take on the use of the word so I shall no longer be calling for its removal for the time being. Mbcap (talk) 20:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Mbcap I think that we are faced with difficult and conflicting situations when we deal with intense topics such as ISIL. They are an emotive subject and they are well described, as has been done consistently elsewhere, with emotive words.  I really do not want us to potentially fall down a hole of political correctness (my interpretation) in this situation.  There are other situations in which genuinely emotive words are used such as in the many Wikipedia categories on rapists, paedophiles etc.  The, I think, fair description "extremist" is comparatively mild and also based clear comparisons to the wider group.
 * The word extremist has meaning:
 * Merriam-Webster define extremism as: 1 the quality or state of being extreme; 2  advocacy of extreme measures or views :  radicalism.
 * In both cases comparisons are inferred to a wider group. ISIL are extreme in comparisons with other people of Mohammedan based religious views and they advocate forms of practice that are regarded to be extreme.
 * That being said the second dictionary, Oxford, I looked into referenced extremist as being "chiefly derogatory". To me I think that this may be derogatory to someone or something that was not extreme but, none-the-less, this may potentially back a WP:LABEL contention.  The definition provided is: "A person who holds extreme political or religious views, especially one who advocates illegal, violent, or other extreme action:"  Included here there is the inference "especially one who advocates illegal, .. action" and, obviously illegality is a matter of perspective.  ISIL are accused of war crimes and killings of the likes of David Cawthorne Haines.  While the Oxford definition does not necessitate illegality it seems to be a common component.
 * I personally do not think that the commonly used extremist definition of ISIL is unjustified but further editor thought and insight would be welcome. GregKaye 22:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The entry currently states that the Islamic State is an "Extremist Salafist group" and has two sources for his statement which are a horrible case of WP:SYNTH. The Guardian source clearly defines the Islamic State as Salafist, and the adjective extremist or similar does not even show on the source.  The Wall St Journal source, on the other hand, makes casual references to "extremists" without ever bringing up "Salafists."  It seems quite remiss to allow this blatant WP:SYNTH while at the same time rejecting the BBC's quite deliberate citation: Islamic State (IS) is a radical Islamist group that has seized large swathes of territory.  XavierItzm (talk) 06:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * XavierItzm, I will appreciate if you also keep an eye on the RS which explicitly oppose the labeling "Islamist radicals" that you are advocating by singling out a single ref. This opposition to the labeling in RS have made the labelling by itself controversial to use. Then compare these RS to other RS which oppose the label "extremist" for ISIL. (I am yet to see a single example of the latter which is why it seems more neutral.) Khestwol (talk) 08:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Boko Haram
Hey guys,

It appears that Boko Haram may have pledged its allegiance to ISIS this morning. If the reports are true, could someone make the necessary modifications to the page to add what needs to be added?

-TheBoulderite — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.134.128.84 (talk) 13:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC) BBC: "Nigerian militant group Boko Haram has pledged allegiance to Islamic State (IS)" The Independent: "Boko Haram, the militant Nigerian group, has announced it is allying with the Islamic State (Isis)" Al Ajazeera: "Nigeria's armed group Boko Haram has pledged allegiance to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)" Looks as if the sole common denominator in all three sources is the words "Islamic State". XavierItzm (talk) 15:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * , here seems to be some seemingly reliable material in the Independent. GregKaye 14:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, the BBC headline is "Nigeria's Boko Haram pledges allegiance to Islamic State". XavierItzm (talk) 14:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * XavierItzm thank-you for sharing the POV. For the sake of balance the Independent headline was "Boko Haram pledges allegiance to Isis in video message".  GregKaye 12:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * For the sake of balance, the Al Jazeera headline was "Boko Haram pledges allegiance to ISIL, reports say". RGloucester  — ☎ 13:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * For sake of balance, I quote all three cited articles at the first in-text reference:
 * XavierItzm which is also true of the article title. Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. What point are you trying to push?  In a great many instances qualification is given to references to the "so called" Islamic State.  We do the same.  This thread is about Boko Haram.  GregKaye 16:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi there! It seems ISIS have accepted Boko Haram into the Caliphate... so... VelvetCommuter (talk) 21:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Add Boko Harem to supporters
The alliance between two of the most radical groups is a very key element of the situation that needs to have its own section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:B162:46D9:7422:C9F0:49AC:BE47 (talk) 07:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Done, but I don't think it needs its own section. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 07:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Is the infobox as acurate as it could be? Re; Primary participant and target
Is Islamic State a primary participant in any of the following conflicts (in reliable sources);
 * Second Libyan Civil War (2014–present)
 * Sinai insurgency
 * War in Afghanistan (2015–present)
 * War in North-West Pakistan
 * Moro insurgency in the Philippines
 * Insurgency in the Maghreb (2002–present)
 * al-Qaeda insurgency in Yemen

Is Islamic State the primary target of (in reliable sources);
 * Global War on Terrorism
 * Patrick Maxwell — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertPaulsen0311 (talk • contribs) 03:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Mbcap (talk) 01:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Re:Global War on Terrorism is concerned, UK commentators speak of two major wars that relalate to national security, the war in the Ukraine and the war with ISIL. Russia and the separatists in Ukraine are not designated as terrorists.  'SIL are certainly a major target in the Global War on Terrorism with more global involvement against it than I think is even ranged against a group like al-Qaeda.I certainly don't think that 'SIL come a clear second place as far as targets are concerned/  GregKaye 23:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Mbcap and others. Following on I don't see how there is any justification/clarity that Khalifa Islamiyah Mindanao are primary in the Moro insurgency in the Philippines, how Jundallah (Pakistan) are primary in the War in North-West Pakistan and certainly not how there is anything close primacy in al-Qaeda insurgency in Yemen.  In the cases of these articles it seems to me that the contribution of ISIL may sometimes be exaggerated and their recent placement as a third column in the list of participants and the placement of their name in bold when others are not may be/is uncalled for.  I have concerns here about WP:TENDENTIOUS editing.  GregKaye 12:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Greg Thanks you for the response. Yes I would agree with your assessment. As far as reliable sources are concerned, the Ukraine conflict is probably seen as a matter of Realpolitik whereas the war against this group is seen as the War on terror. Your second assessment is particularly interesting and I would echo the sentiments you have aired in terms of giving Islamic State more prominence that what they are actually given in sources. For example how are they primary participants in the Moro insurgency? How do you suggest we modify the Infobox? Mbcap (talk) 22:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Mbcap I think a simple removal of the less appropriate material is called for. Even in the case of Boko Haram, they have been presented as a group that pledged allegiance to ISIL and not as ISIL themselves.  I don't see this is an issue for this page.  GregKaye 02:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Mbcap I'm not sure all the groups that have sworn allegiance to the Islamic State belong in this infobox. If we do include them, we might want to change the wording as only the franchises in Sinai, Nigeria and to a lesser extent Libya are primary participants in those conflicts. Gazkthul (talk) 02:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Greg and GazkthulI agree that the less appropriate material warrants removal. This was the reason behind raising the issue in the first place. For example the Moro conflict, the Afghan war and the Pakistani conflict I feel do not belong in the infobox. As to the groups which have pledged allegiance, I am not yet sure how we should handle it. Mbcap (talk) 16:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Editrequest: hatnote
Please add

-- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

65.94.43.89 I have added the content within the existing hatnote as:

I don't personally think that it is appropriate for the top of the page to get overly crowded. GregKaye 09:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done 's edit should be sufficient. Nici  Vampire  Heart  11:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

11:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Request
GregKaye, could you please explain the edit you made here? Why did you remove Iraq and Israel from the list of countries that consider the Islamic State a terrorist group? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * FreeKnowledgeCreator for taking responsibility for checking up on content. Reason, we are an encyclopaedia.  We don't exaggerate and we don't present unsubstantiated content.  For Israel please see my content here: titled Talk:List of designated terrorist organizations/Archive 5#Israeli, Declaration, as [an] organization, [of] terror, "from mouth", [of the] Ordinance, [of] prevention of, Terror".  (That's my personal translation for genuine Israeli designations which has not been applied to Daesh as Israelis call it).  For Iraq, if you can find an authoritative and citable reference this will be appreciated.  GregKaye 22:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

English if at all inclusion of reference to Israel

 * can you please explain your edit here which you rightly summarised "Removed Israeli classification of Islamic State as "Terrorist"; the source and two separate Talk discussions are clear that IS is classed as "prohibited" organisation. Also removed Iraq flag as it had no ref" as per my private request here? The section is entitled: The section is entitled: "Designation as a terrorist organisation" The section is entitled: "Designation as a terrorist organisation".  Can you explain the addition of the text: "On 3 September 2014, Israel declared that "the 'Islamic State' is an unlawful association (יעלון הכריז על ארגון "המדינה האיסלאמית" כעל התאחדות בלתי מותרת)" which was not otherwise mentioned your edit summary?


 * As history it is fair to comment that other editors have previously wanted to fallaciously add Israel to both the list of nations at war with Isil and the list of nations designating the group as terrorist, both with the addition of three irrelevant citations each which, when most inclusions were given no citations, seemed excessive.
 * Now the one piece of foreign language non Arabic text on the page is this bit of Hebrew.
 * Firstly I think that the section on The section is entitled: "Designation as a terrorist organisation" should present only that information and secondly, unless an English reliable source can is provided there is even less validity to this inclusion. I don't see that this is is in anyway relevant to the article.
 * As far as I can see, a string of editors have been involved in a POV push to imply an involvement of Israel that just is not there. Even from the group's point of view, it has stated that its first target in the wider Palestine area is Hamas.  It would target Israel later.  How specifically "Islamist" is that?
 * GregKaye 09:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I made an edit and both the reference and the supporting WP:RS ref and in-line textual citation for designation as a forbidden group and not as a terrorist group are what seemed appropriate for full avoidance of doubt. If any other Wikipedia editor feels differently, it would be great if they would further edit.  XavierItzm (talk) 15:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect closure of previous discussion concerning map
I was just made aware that a previous discussion concerning the map was closed by a heavily involved editor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant/Archive_26#RfC:_File:Syria_and_Iraq_2014-onward_War_map.png_not_used_to_highlight_Israel

The discussion was closed by heavily involved user:Legacypac. He closed it as "Consensus is that map legend should exclude reference to Israel, Disputed or Occupied and the Golan Heights should be light gray like all surrounding areas are." Anyone who reads the discussion can clearly see that his claims are inaccurate. There is no such consensus. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * There are at least 2 more major issues with this RFC, I'm going to need a minute to write them up, but this is actually seriously concerning. I believe I majorly screwed up here, in addition to any mistake that user made. You may wish to ping them. Banak (talk) 23:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I believe we have both screwed up to say the least, though I have not heard your side of the story.
 * Here are my concerns:
 * My Behaviour:
 * I commented under two different names on the same account without making it clear I had changed names.
 * I was counted as "Banak" and "John smith the gamer" (the username I had changed to), so appear to have been counted twice. Whilst my comments under the name "John smith the gamer" were intended to only clarify and not offer any opinions at all, it was counted as support. In effect, I have may have accidentally sock/meatpuppeted therefore (Though not technically falling under either definition, I'm not trying to wikilawyer myself out of my own screw up). This was not an intentional abuse of the name change feature.
 * I updated later versions of the map in accordance with this "consensus" after Spesh531 removed the stripes without checking the consensus actually existed, for 19 versions of the ISIL map, the most recent of which was a couple hours ago.


 * Behaviour of Legacypac:
 * As an involved user they closed the discussion
 * They treated a RFC as a vote
 * They decided 7 to 5 was consensus
 * They included my "John smith the Gamer" comments as a vote for the proposal, which I believe to be neutral clarifications.
 * This user was not new at the time this happened, so this conduct seems very odd, and I cannot think of an explanation for. That said, I am not assuming bad faith, particularly as I have not seen this user act in bad faith before.
 * Banak (talk) 23:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: has anyone seen the topic here? The article concerns the armed group, Isil, Daesh, Islamic State, whatever we want to call it.  What is the relevance of including the golan heights on the map?  The golan heights are not mentioned in the article; Israel is not amongst nations that have designated Isil as terrorist and it is not amongst nations listed anongst the "Countries and groups at war with ISIL".
 * 'PLEASE, PLEASE, if editors do want to take up issue on Israel related issue then join me in discussion at Talk:Israel,discussions at and related to: Template talk:Largest cities of Israel and any other Israel related topic. On a side issue I don't typically agree with discussion closures and collapses on the personal view that these often fringe or may violate WP:CENSOR.  However I really question the relevance of this particular question in this particular location.  GregKaye 10:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

My closure was very clear, starting with the statement I was involved in the discussion. Supreme Deliciousness has been using forum shopping to push highlighting the golan heights on Syrian Civil War maps all over Wikipedia for months. Every time his changes get reversed or outvoted he tries another spot, often on maps related to the Kurds or ISIL that have nothing to do with Golan. Raising this issue for the umtinth time is not very helpful. Legacypac (talk) 01:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I am completely guilty of commenting on the contributor instead of the content on article talk pages. I don't think yours was too out of line but who knows. To be open and because the topic area could use some direction, this conversation was brought up here due to a recent request for administrator input at AE. Any discussion regarding poor behavior should be there instead of here.Cptnono (talk) 04:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

It is fully legitimate to discuss whether the map should mark the Golan in striped color or not. It should, because the areas that the Islamic State has conquered include a good chunk of Syria, and Syria owns the Golan, according to the United Nations, even though Israel possesses it, by right of military conquest. Now, since a map of Syria is necessary on account of Syria having lost territory to the Islamic State, it is improper to show as non-Syrian that territory which either properly belongs to Syria, or that is internationally disputed. Therefore, per map-making tradition, the Golan disputed territory should be shown in striped colors. One would be remiss not to note that it is rich of the UN Security Council, created by FDR and his friend Stalin, to deny the right of military conquest from the point of time immediately after the Russians took, apparently forever, giant portions of Japan, Finland, Poland and other countries, while denying Israel that which it obtained by similar means just a couple of decades later. XavierItzm (talk) 22:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * XavierItzm what point in relevance to the situation with ISIL do you want to make via a highlighting of Israel on the war map? GregKaye 20:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Golan is Syria's (according to UN) and is in any event a disputed territory. Therefore, per map-making tradition, a map of the Islamic State's territory taken from Syria should show the Golan as disputed Syrian territory and should be shown in striped colors.  XavierItzm (talk) 21:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * From my point of view, the map is of the Syrian Civil war, not of de jure Syria. Therefore, for me, it makes sense to only show de facto Syria, as this is where the Syrian Civil war takes place. The dotted line, to me, is sufficient to show it is not an international border.
 * I think a new RFC should take place if you wish to change the stripes. There probably should be a note to the closing admin about the previous "consensus", so if there is no consensus they say what the status quo we stick with is. Banak (talk) 04:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * XavierItzm So you do not have any point of relevance related to the situation with ISIL that would be achieved via a highlighting of Israel on the war map? What WP:POINT are you trying to make exactly?  PLEASE, remember that Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX for the pushing of unrelated and agenda laden issues.  We present relevant information in relevant places.  That's what an encyclopaedia does.
 * I strongly agree that there are major issues related to the presentation of the Golan Heights and the yet to be defined and as yet not specifically limited Palestinian territories. I hope that editors, from any persuasion, can join in debate on this issue in the content and talk pages of relevant articles.  This is not one of them.  This is an article about ISIL.  GregKaye 08:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not clear why Israel keeps getting dragged into the conversation. The issue is that the United Nations considers the Golan part of Syria, and since Syria's map is necessarily part of the Islamic State's operational theater, Syria's map must perforce be included.  Now, Syria's map should show its territories, and if any are in dispute, map-making traditions indicate any such territories should be shown in striped colours.  XavierItzm (talk) 15:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Greg, they only wish to include de jeru Syria not Israel as such in the shading.
 * Xavier, see my previous comment on why the Syrian civil war (IMO) is not taking place in de jeru Syria, rather only in de facto Syria, and therefore I believe that doesn't apply. Banak (talk) 16:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Including an additional category and colour to the map shown to the right would have absolutely zero relevance to the topic of the article. It is a small, unnecessary and irrelevant detail. The Golan Heights constitutes 0.97% of the area of Syria. It constitutes less than 0.29% of the combined area of Iraq and Syria. In any case, the area of the Golan Heights is already indicated by the use of a dotted line. There is no point in cluttering the legend with content that is of zero relevance to the article subject or is there. I have asked, "what point in relevance to the situation with ISIL do you want to make via a highlighting of Israel on the war map? There has been no answer.
 * There was recently a discussion at Talk:Israel/Archive 47 where views and inputs would have been relevantly welcome and there are many other discussions where contributions would be greatly appreciated. Other discussions continue with regard to the presentation of locations within various territories in Israel/Palestine where comments might, I think, result in a genuine improvement in the NPOV presentation of the encyclopaedic content in Wikipedia.  GregKaye 19:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Last sentence of lead
The last sentence in the lead section reads, "This territorial loss implied a failure of US foreign policy, and almost caused a collapse of the Iraqi government that required renewal of US military action in Iraq." One of the reviewers in the peer review mentioned that the "required renewal" part of the sentence wasn't a factual statement since a renewal of the military action would never be "required" in a literal sense. I agreed with the nominator that it should be rewritten, but wasn't sure exactly how. If anyone has suggestions on how to reword this sentence, feel free to reply below. Tonystewart14 (talk) 04:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Personally I don't think that sentence belongs in the lead, particularly the implied a failure of US foreign policy line, which would be better placed in an article involving the actual military conflict. The preceding sentence ...members of the US House Committee on Foreign Affairs saw as a re-emergence of Sunni insurgents and al-Qaeda militants sticks out even more, since IS feuds with both mainstream Iraqi Sunni insurgents and al-Qaeda. Gazkthul (talk) 07:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input. I removed this sentence and a reference to CATO. That reference contained analysis and opinion that wasn't encyclopedic. Tonystewart14 (talk) 03:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the sentence needs to be restored after reworded for accuracy but I don't know how. Perhaps some other user could do it. The lede needs to talk a bit about the US foreign policy because it is one of the main factors contributing to the present-day political situation of that region. Khestwol (talk) 05:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with Khestwol.   XavierItzm (talk) 18:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Historians write history (i.e. interpretation), not encyclopaedias. ~ 82.20.70.218 (talk) 15:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * One of the edit warring issues that I have noticed in Middle-East related articles is a tendency of presenting disproportionate U.S. related references. As a British citizen I demand our share of the blame lol.
 * At present we are presenting the opinions of others in Wikipedia's voice as, ""This territorial loss implied a failure of US foreign policy". Who says? Us?  Is that how we work now?  And how did we choose this as the one issue to focus on?  The fact is that there were successes and failures and from my POV one of the most striking failures was the lack of coalition protection of Iraqi museums and historic sites that permitted an initial horrific looting of heritage. Successes included the removal of a Kurd persecuting dictator.  Failures included the institutionalisation or personality politics in Iraq with a resulting increase in the Shia-Sunni schism.  Arguably successes include the establishment of democracy in Iraq, the fact that Coalition troops were able to leave the region and that an Iraqi regime was able to stand on its own feet.  I don't think that quoting an American think tank and the NY times so as to develop content for Wikipedia is necessarily the best or most even handed way to go.  There is a ref to Britannica but it needs a quote from someone with subscription.  I also think that a finger of blame for many issues may, with validity, be placed on characters such as Blair and Bush who, to my knowledge, have not been held fully accountable for apparent misrepresentations regarding WMDs and the like.  At one stage I think that it is fair for blame to be cast a broad sense and in other ways it is of relevance to be specific.  Since the Coalition withdrawl a whole host of Arab nations have taken up arms against ISIL.  The "territorial loss" could equally be ascribed to the failure of any of these groups to be more involved at an earlier stage.  Perhaps a success of the US is its partial withdrawl from a role as "global policeman".  However this is all interpretation and I totally agree with contributor 82.20.70.218 .  GregKaye 13:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The focus in the previous sentence on a US point of view
US is mentioned four times in the two sentences. The first of the two sentences reads: "It gained those territories after an offensive, initiated in early 2014, which senior US military commanders and members of the US House Committee on Foreign Affairs saw as a re-emergence of Sunni insurgents and al-Qaeda militants." While US involvement is significant it was the UK that were, for instance, the first to proscribe the group as terrorist and there are many other nations that have done similarly and/or that are directly involved in the war against the group. I see this as part and parcel of a POV push from various editors to go overkill on US and Israeli related references to the article regardless of relevance. GregKaye 06:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

official website
I suspect, IS has something like official website , probably operated as TOR hidden service to prevent censorship. Knows anyone the address ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.87.99.186 (talk) 13:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * They have no official website. They have official Twitter accounts and online services like YouTube, Archive.org and justpaste.it, all of which are constantly being removed and reuploaded. Gazkthul (talk) 21:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Probably they will create a TOR hidden server soon for publishing because it cannot be removed by CIA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.160.215.12 (talk) 12:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I looked on TORsearch for ISIS/ISIL topic with no success. Probably TOR hidden server is not created (yet). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.41.20.112 (talk) 12:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * https://isdarat.org/ StanTheMan87 (talk) 10:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)