Talk:Islamic State/Archive 35

Inconsistency regarding Islamic State leaders
I have noticed recently that there has been contradictory sources defining the positions and roles of IS leaders. I'll list these inconsistencies.


 * 1) Head of the IS Military Council. Some sources say that Abu Ayman al-Iraqi is/was the leader of the IS Military Council  whilst others say that Abu Ahmad al-Alwani is the IS military leader  who has since been reported killed as of late 2014 . On top of this, Abu Omar al-Shishani is also referenced as being the top IS Military leader  . It does not stop here. Now this man, Abu Suleiman al-Naser, a person who was believed to have been killed in 2011 and was the War Minister for IS predecessor ISI (Islamic State of Iraq) is now stated as being the top IS Military Commander, taking over from Abu Ayman al-Iraqi who was apparently killed in November 2014 and according to this source, late 2013.


 * 1) Deputy Caliph of IS. Sources say that since Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was injured in a recent airstrike, one of his aides, Abu Alaa Afri (Abdul Rahman al-Afari) aka Abu Suja had alledegely taken over of IS as something akin to the acting Caliph. . However, these articles released last November list Abu Suja as having been killed . The first source states he is a former Iraqi physics teacher . This source on the other hand states that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi's Deputy of Syria Abu Ali al-Anbari is a/the physics teacher from the Mosul area, and would be more likely to be the successor of IS given his already Deputy of Syria status , . This source repeatedly has Abu Alaa Afri referred to as  al-Baghdadi's Deputy . I think there is a mistake of identity here.

What is going on?... StanTheMan87 (talk) 12:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * StanTheMan87 It would be nice if it were safe a genuinely neutral journalist to go and ask. Do you have an interpretation of what is going on?  GregKaye 14:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Someone cunning in IS disseminating false/contradictory information on their leaders to sources in Iraq and Syria, inevitably reaching media outlets. StanTheMan87 (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * StanTheMan87 you have raised an important question. The problem is this is not a purely military conflict but also something akin to information war. The group was able to capture Mosul through a 'cunning' tactic of false information dissemination. The US and its allies are struggling to identify and neutralise their leaders, whilst the group maintains secrecy and attempts to cause confusion in the coalition which is fighting them. Others have written about IS's Salafi ideology and these reflect on the fact that they have taken to heart the theological principle of, "war is deception". The media is simply caught in the middle of all this fiasco, hence the misinformation. I think we should make sure that each of their leaders on the article is well sourced from multiple reliable publications. As to the inconsistencies, how do you suggest we address them? Mbcap (talk) 21:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Part of the problem is the sources being used. The Sun isn't exactly known for it's quality journalism, while Press TV is an Iranian state run TV channel with a lot of controversy and criticism. The "ISIS Study Group" appears to be some sort of blog. If we stuck to more reliable sources above, like the New York Times, Washington Post, CBS News and NBC News, it might cut down on the confusion. Also there are too many definitive statements based on a single source. Rather than "X is now the leader" we should be saying "The ibtimes has reported..." Gazkthul (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * StanTheMan87 The hypothesis that you present seems very plausible and would certainly fit techniques in conflict used by less sophisticated organisations. Given this I was surprised not to find related content in news via the search (isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND ("misinformation" OR "contradictory information" OR "disinformation" OR "false information" OR "misleading information" OR "deception" OR "false rumour" OR "red herring" OR "false trail" OR "bum steer").  I am not sure what to make of this.  GregKaye 17:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Mbcap, I don't know how best to address them, because I have no idea what the IS hierarchy looks like. Any one of those men could be the real Military Commander for IS. All I know is that the last head of the IS Military either in Iraq or overall was Abu Abdulrahman al-Bilawi. Once he died in June 2014, this is where the line of succession gets incredibly hazy. Maybe it could be a misinterpretation. Abu Abdulrahman al-Bilawi is referred to as being both the Head of the IS Military Council by some sources indicating he was the overall Military leader, and by others as the chief IS commander for Iraq . Perhaps he wasn't the highest Military figure in Syria, so both the Syrian and Iraqi chief IS commanders are referenced in similar language? Or maybe there is a distinction between the Head of the Military Council within the Shura Council of the IS hierarchy and the Chief IS commander for Iraq and Syria. Perhaps one is more of a "desk job" while the other is more fieldwork? Maybe there the same thing? I really have no idea. StanTheMan87 (talk) 13:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Groups driving the migration problem
Again this is another topic that I have not seen significantly covered in the article. The problem of population growth generally has long been a personal concern to me that has been continually on my mind in connection to groups like ISIL, Boko Haram and a variety of groups in Libya. Things were then really brought into focus when now banned editor 87.244.94.46 commented that Isil "let all the Christians leave Mosul safely". The cost of supporting refugee camps has great cost particularly in relation to requirements in food, energy and the setting up of infrastructures. In the long term things will be severe for the simple reason that, when the world runs out of its non renewable resources, we may need to utilise areas of land, currently used for growing food, so they can be used in the production of energy. The fact that Isil are drivers of migration I think deserves coverage as would any calls or plans to return displaced peoples to their homes. Highly populated places like GB and Japan are already responsible for great inefficiency due to high net imports of food and energy and the forced migration of peoples will only increase the international inefficiencies. The UK even relied on food imports during WWII even though the people were generally motivated to dig for victory and the needs of the population, as with others, has only increased.

Again I am wondering whether editors have seen content addressing issues on this or related topics. GregKaye 18:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Migration resulting from conflicts, particularly from Libya has hit news across Europe. It's also been raised as an issue by the UK opposition leader Ed Milliband during his election campaign, who argued that if we'd had a decent plan for Libya we'd not be seeing so many immigrants killing themselves to get to the EU.
 * As for the UK and Japan being "inefficient" because of net imports of food an energy, food production is not a financially rewarding industry, without the CAP which uses 46.7% of the EU budget and trade barriers Europe would struggle to compete. Banak (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * There's a lot of literature on the refugee crisis in Iraq and Syria (and neighboring countries). With Syria it's sometimes more difficult to attribute solely to ISIL, though there are exceptions. I think this is a good idea, and would be happy to try to contribute if you want to try to get something started. But keep it simple: this is not the place for launching into broader discussions on land use and resource scarcity. The Blue Canoe  04:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Context and motivating factors to the conflict
The article says, I think, surprisingly little about the context of Sunni-Shia relations, for instance, in the history section and I'm wondering how any relevant content might be woven into the article. Not to excuse the Shia's but I think that it is right to say that various aspects of the Sunni based leadership structure under Saddam had a negative impact on the Shias. Not to excuse the Sunnis but the Sunnis I think that it is right to say that various aspects of the Shia interactions with Sunnis following their takeover of government were bang out of order. The recent BBC documentary about the world's richest terror group covered topics such as suppression of protests and the like. How should this be tackled? GregKaye 18:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Greg having watched the documentary you speak of, I see what you mean. I think we should have a section in the article explaining the various factors and co-factors that have led to the state of affairs in the Iraq and Syria region. I am not sure what you think but this sectarianism has been brewing for a long time and has provided a fertile condition for this group to come forth. We should cover what you have proposed, highlighting the actions of both sides before before and after Saddam if possible. This will enable the reader to better understand the circumstances that have led to the conditions now present. It is a shame that a transcript for the show cannot be found so that a thorough study of the source can be undertaken. Also I would be interested in what you think of the following proposal. There is another BBC documentary called This World; Kill the Christians (I think this is the name), where it talks about how the Christians have supposedly endured less than ideal conditions under the post Saddam government and now this group. The exodus of the Christians from the Ninevah plain is a notable event and may warrant inclusion as it is well covered in sources. There is more material in the documentary which may also warrant inclusion, especially in regards to the Christian's in Syria. Mbcap (talk) 18:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * We have to remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a history book. The topics mentioned are really the stuff of history-writing, where interpretation is all.  It is not Wikipedia's job to interpret facts, just to recount them.  BBC documentaries are usually in history-writing territory.  If facts are included relating to the very interesting link between ISIS and the general Sunni-Shia conflict, I think they should be stated baldly, taking care not to interpret those facts - which is a tall order, I think.  ~ P-123 (talk) 13:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Its a good point but, all the same, Wikipedia has a lot of history related content. Some type of content on Sunni-Shia tensions in the Middle East or any similar topic could either go within the article or as a stand alone content elsewhere.  Currently there is a category on Shia–Sunni sectarian violence which is within the more subtly titled Category:Shia–Sunni relations.  I think that one of the problems we have in relation to coverage is that Western media focussed on Western interests while an encyclopedia may need to present information on all the relevant issues proportionately.  I referenced one ISIL document some time ago and most of it was a denigration/commentary (choose your word of choice) of the Shia.  GregKaye 17:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2015
Please include the next information after "The announcement included designs of the proposed coins, which displayed imagery including a map of the world, a sword and shield, the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, and a crescent moon.", because probably these coins are being already minted and there're a few details in the article: Total of 7 different coins: 2 - copper, 3 - silver and 2 gold. The most "expensive" - 5 dinars from 21 carat gold (875/1000) weighing 21.25 grams. (Source - http://isis-coins.com)

Kaputin (talk) 03:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Can you provide a reliable source discussing the denominations? I'm not sure this is notable enough to include, quite honestly, but if an independent third party covers it I would reconsider.  The Blue Canoe  04:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  Edgars2007  (talk/contribs) 05:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Its an odd site. The web address presents "isis" which I had thought the group did not like and the main page presents "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant". GregKaye 17:45, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Categories
This article has a couple of category tags I don't think it should have. The ones I think that should go are: (ISIL is not a territory, it is a rebel group. A disputed territory is an area claimed by different groups)

ISIL is not in Nigeria, Boko Harem which has sworn allegiance to it is.

(Not a territory or country)

(not a territory or a country)

Other ones I think are probably wrong: and (is it really in both?)

and (is it really in both?)

(does it qualify?)

Finally the rest I have no idea really what they are actually meant to mean

Banak (talk) 20:18, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The countries and (dependent) territories content keeps coming back despite having no place in this article. Categories could easily be created with titles in a format such as: Rebel groups controlling territory in foo-location. GregKaye 17:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, got added, which I think is clearly wrong. Checking when I last reverted, will remove the tags I'm fairly sure are wrong while the rest are discussed. Banak (talk) 21:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Is ISIL rightly called "rebel"?
Would not the correct word be "revolutionary"? It seems to me that the "Islamic State" has come to power originally in areas which were unstable -- no stable government against which to rebel, or where a civil are was already in progress. Then it invaded Iraq. But it was not like a group of discontent Iraqis arising vs their government? Do your sources call it "rebel"? (EnochBethany (talk) 01:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC))
 * EnochBethany I think that there were a lot of strong and ideologically driven forces in the area. To an extent, I don't know how much, the Shia government suppressed Sunni protest and political representation and various Sunni contingents, who had had a history of being on Saddam's dominant and arguably ruthless side of things, rebelled.
 * (isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND ("rebel") gets "About 1,730,000 results" and these are mainly split between descriptions of the group itself and descriptions of other groups like the al nustra front. GregKaye 16:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Much of the ISIL power also seems to be based in Syria. Syria is another example where ISIL is serving as a rebel group against Assad's government, and is in alliance with other fellow rebels to help bring down the Syrian Arab Republic. Khestwol (talk) 17:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * IS is not in alliance with other Syrian rebels, in fact there have literally been thousands of casualties in the conflict between the two groups, with IS being completely expelled from Idlib and Latakia provinces, and the Syrian rebels being killed/expelled from Raqqa and Deir ez Zour. Syrian opposition–Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant conflict. Gazkthul (talk) 00:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. That article is now located at Inter-rebel conflict during the Syrian Civil War. Much of the conflict seems to be also within the rebel faction that identify themselves as being part of ISIL, in deciding which forces to side with. Inter-rebel conflicts can be expected during such politically unstable situations. Khestwol (talk) 05:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Content using "semi-offical Iranian New source"
An Iranian news source that previously claimed "Tall White Aliens" came from Nazi Germany to the US and copied an Onion article word for word is being used as a source for claims that the UK had planes shot down by Iraq delivering weapons to ISIL. I've used my revert for the day. Someone fix please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banak (talk • contribs) 08:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Banak Done. They also claimed that an Iranian had built a time machine. Just to let you know, it was compact enough to be portable. It most definitely is not a reliable source. Mbcap (talk) 14:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Allegations of Support - Qatar
Very surprised that Qatar hasn't been mentioned despite the allegations leveled against it. StanTheMan87 (talk) 03:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That should be added to article. Khestwol (talk) 07:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

ISIL does not control territory in Nigeria.
Someone keeps putting this back in the lead. It is an unsupported claim, so I am removing it. Please don't restore it without some solid reliable sources that would directly substantiate it (and no, it's not good enough to point out that Boko Haram has pledged allegiance to ISIL; that is not the same as controlling territory, and insisting otherwise amounts to original synthesis). The Blue Canoe  04:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Boko Haram has renamed itself officially as the Islamic States's West Africa Provice. It has changed its flag to the ISIL flag. It has described Baghdadi's status as a caliph. It has altered its media style to that of Isil. Hence, Boko Haram has done more than pledge allegiance to it. World bymyself (talk) 18:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Still, as TheBlueCanoe wrote, Nigeria (or Libya) is not in the same category as Iraq and Syria. At best, we may write: "...controlling territory in Syria and Iraq, and, according to some sources, Libya and Nigeria. The group also has operations or affiliates in Lebanon, Egypt, and other areas of the Middle East, North and West Africa, and South and Southeast Asia." Khestwol (talk) 20:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Aren't ISIL and Boko Haram the same thing now?--87.16.235.148 (talk) 14:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * American (US) children (mostly) pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america. Yet, none of them are the flag of the united states of America. Boko Haram pledges allegiance to ISIL, but Boko Haram isn't ISIL. Banak (talk) 20:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The organisations didn't pledge allegiance, Abubakr Shekau pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. What that actually means in organisational terms is difficult to know at this stage. Gazkthul (talk) 23:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Confusion between Wahhabism and Salafism
The two movements are similar but distinct. Wahhabism has recently merged with Salafism. For historical purposes Wahhabism is still used by academics and various other news agencies. This analysis might make it clear for editors. Blizzio (talk) 00:32, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Even after reading the article, I still don't understand the ideological differences between the two.--87.16.235.148 (talk) 14:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Blizzio For me I think that this may be best understood in the context of Set theory and I have added a diagram in line with personal a personal view of considerable overlap between the two and, similar to 87.16.235.148, I still don't understand the ideological differences between the two.

However, the analysis from Washington based NGO, The Jamestown Foundation, begins:
 * "The phenomenon of Islamic terrorism cannot be adequately explained as the export of Saudi Wahhabism, as many commentators claim." and continues "The official ‘Wahhabi’ religion of Saudi Arabia has essentially merged with certain segments of Salafism."

Perhaps it would be helpful if issues regarding the similarities and distinctions between the two could be clarified but I do not know how possible this might be. GregKaye 06:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Salafism's roots date back to Ibn Taymiyyah. Sunni scholars such as Ibn Abidin and those before him rejected Ibn Taymiyyahs's teachings until Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Wahhab revived them.  Around the same time as the Saudi Wahhabi movement, began Islamic Modernism in Egypt led by Rida, Abduh and Jamal. The modernists developed the Salafi methodology as a rejection of the Traditional Sunni School establishments such as Hanbali Hanafi etc. Wahhabis originally referred to themselves as unitarians but Saudi has most recently adopted the term Salafi. The adoption of the Salafi term by the Saudi's was beneficial because Salafi's already reject traditional Sunni schools although Wahhabis reject Sunni schools only partially. Both the Salafi and Wahhabi view Ibn taymiyyah as one of the best scholars of Islam. Unlike Salafis, Wahhabis use Hanbali jurisprudence to some extent. Salafi scholars such as Muhammad Nasiruddin al-Albani (noted for being the first scholar to label himself salafi) criticizes Wahhabis for this as mentioned in this article . Albani's criticism of Abdulwahhab as not being "pure salafi" are just some of the quarrels within the movement. Other Salafists declare the Saud family as illegitimate rulers of Arabia, however since Wahhabis were able to militarily oppose ottomans with the help of Saud, and Saud was able to ideologically oppose Ottoman rule using Wahhabism. Both Wahhabis and Saudis have mutual interests to back one another.  Blizzio (talk) 07:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Sentence in the lead --> "Many Islamic and non-Islamic communities judge the group unrepresentative of Islam."
This sentence is in the first paragraph of the lead;

"Many Islamic and non-Islamic communities judge the group unrepresentative of Islam."

We have now had the Graeme Wood article which says the opposite. He is an expert in Political sciences who also manages to quote Bernard Haykel. My question is, do we need to take expert opinions into account or does expert opinion carry more weight than the laymans opinion? Should we put this in the lead as well? The Graeme Wood piece in the Atlantic clearly disagrees that they are unrepresentative of Islam. Thoughts? Mbcap (talk) 20:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I've read the Wood piece, the statement you are referring to is our corollary to "Muslims can reject the Islamic State; nearly all do." in the Wood piece. The statement you talk about describes an opinion some people hold. It would probably work better to interpolate Wood's quote: "pretending that it isn’t actually a religious, millenarian group, with theology that must be understood to be combatted, has already led the United States to underestimate it and back foolish schemes to counter it". Maybe you can say "Graeme Wood argues 'the religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam'". Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 22:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That sentence in the lead (at the end of first paragraph) appeared to be not sourced: it was NOT being said in the given newspaper article... So I've removed that sentence. --Corriebertus (talk) 16:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Discuss-Dubious. I have added the last suggestion you made. Do you think we should add the first one as well? Corriebertus you are right, the citation does not support the statement so I have removed the reference. Mbcap (talk) 20:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * A Lead is supposed to summarise the article. "Many Islamic and non-Islamic communities judge the group unrepresentative of Islam" summarises the Criticism section. If editors want to refine this statement, it should be done in the Criticism section, not the Lead. Recent edits to the Lead show that editors are ignorant of what the purpose of a Lead is. 11:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.70.218 (talk)

Mbcap can you please present why you think that there is a contradiction between the content of the Wikipedia quote that you mention and Graeme Wood's article The content of this thread IMO literally beggars belief.

Mbcap you start by asserting:

"... in the first paragraph of the lead;

"Many Islamic and non-Islamic communities judge the group unrepresentative of Islam."

We have now had the Graeme Wood article which says the opposite. ...

There is nothing opposite. You present no quotes and there is nothing to say for instance: "Many Islamic and non-Islamic communities judge the group to be representative of Islam." This would be ludicrous. There is nothing presented to undermine the presented and much discussed content.

Corriebertus you say: "That sentence in the lead (at the end of first paragraph) appeared to be not sourced".

That sentence, as anyone checking the content would see, is written: "Many Islamic and non-Islamic communities judge the group unrepresentative of Islam." Reference is made to an extremely large content all of which is sourced.

82.20.70.218 rightly points out that "A Lead is supposed to summarise the article."

Discuss-Dubious, I appreciate your distillation of Graham Wood's arguments but I do not think that the comments of a lone political scientist from The Atlantic (who is not individually of sufficient note to have his own Wikipedia article) and has no credentials in Islamic studies should be given such high profile in comments on faithfulness to religion in this widely read Wikipedia article. The content on judging is taken from comments of High level Muslim clerics and has been commented on by high level political and other figures. There is no comparison here. Please see the POV push. People here seem determined to add reference to Israel when there is no involvement, to make rhetorical reference to the US when there is a coalition involved and the British were the first to designate the group as terrorist and now there is a drive to wipe the high level criticism of this group from the text or to present members of the group as the "most ardent followers" of Islam. This is unacceptable. On the basis of NPOV, in the same way as we do not WP:LABEL people murderers, we do not present one subset of a religion as its "most ardent followers". Religious devotion may clearly be manifest or not in a wide range of ways. When a group within a religion is waging war against other people in the same religion, who are the ardent followers? We cannot describe someone like Mohammed Emwazi as an ardent follower of Islam in a way that would insult, for instance, the supporters and founders of groups like Muslim Aid. GregKaye 14:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * To the question of "When a group within a religion is waging war against other people in the same religion, who are the ardent followers?" raised above, the answer is provided by the British Broadcasting Corporation BBC, which states categorically on its "What is Islamic State" page: "IS members are jihadists who adhere to an extreme interpretation of Sunni Islam and consider themselves the only true believers. They hold that the rest of the world is made up of unbelievers who seek to destroy Islam, justifying attacks against other Muslims and non-Muslims alike." I hope this WP:RS is useful to any wikipaedia editors making efforts to discern whether the Islamic State is composed of ardent followers of Sunni Islam. XavierItzm (talk) 19:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * XavierItzm Please do not misrepresent sources: You quote that they: "adhere to an extreme interpretation of Sunni Islam". You present, "... discern whether the Islamic State is composed of ardent followers of Sunni Islam."  Even following your use of selective reference why then drop reference to extremism?  GregKaye 08:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You have just misrepresented a full quote I made from a very solid WP:RS, namely the BBC on the page the BBC uses to define "What is Islamic State". I will repeat here the full text I quoted just so anyone can see that the quote stands on its own and that you are making unfounded aspersions with regard to my citation of it: "IS members are jihadists who adhere to an extreme interpretation of Sunni Islam and consider themselves the only true believers. They hold that the rest of the world is made up of unbelievers who seek to destroy Islam, justifying attacks against other Muslims and non-Muslims alike.".  There you have it.  Islamic State is a type of Sunni Islam.  Jihadi Muslims, extreme Muslims, Sunni Muslims, whatever adjectives you want to use to qualify them, they are Muslims. XavierItzm (talk) 12:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The sentence in the lead about the group being unrepresentative of Islam suggests that the group is not Islamic. The expert views on the subject differ from this. Graeme Wood and Tom Holland disagree that Islamic State is not Islamic. Graeme Wood does have his own article and he is a notable figure, having written a well researched 10,000 word article. He has been interviewed by Vice News and invited to a panel by Center for Strategic and International Studies to talk about the Islamic State. You can view it here. People who study this subject at an academic level and write about it, expressing their analysis therein, have to be credited as such. Wood says that the Islamic State is very Islamic. Bernard Haykel offers a similar view in the Atlantic Piece. Tom Holland a British Historian offers a similar analysis. Please do let me know if there are other sources written by people who study this at an academic level. There is no WP:LABEL or NPOV issue here as we are reporting what reliable sources are saying. Lastly as to me not providing quotes, I did not have the time and assumed editors had read it. Discuss-Dubious certainly had read it and was able to provide assistance in the matter raised. Mbcap (talk) 19:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * XavierItzm-The assumption was that I was saying that ISIL are the "most ardent followers" of Islam. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 03:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * GregKaye,Thank you for your comments. You make a good point about not needing to label them, the article can label the group itself. I never intended to suggest keeping that thought that ISIL's claims are widely disputed of the article. I could honestly live with balancing it with an article about the more modern aspects about it, like this :, but the article by Graeme C. A. Wood with quotes from Bernard Haykel is really generating a lot of discussion, so I think the statement "Graeme Wood argues that ISIL believes it is a millenarian, religious group in a 2015 Atlantic article" would work, right?

re: "ardent followers"-Wood means the ardent followers of ISIL. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 02:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Mbcap-Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant, Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant both substantiate that people feel this way about the group. They statement that this is how they "judge" ISIL is correct, but even Bernard Haykel can say that the "QSIS" thing is reasonable as a critique. [ http://thinkprogress.org/world/2015/02/20/3625446/atlantic-left-isis-conversation-bernard-haykel/] Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 02:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Discuss-Dubious I agree. That is why I only removed the citation and not the sentence itself because other parts of the article support the statement. But we still need to write the opposing view as there are sources now which contain an opposing view therein. Mbcap (talk) 05:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Discuss-Dubious, thanks for your explanation and clarification above: I have changed the text to say: There does not seem to be a contradiction between the contents of the two sentences so I have withdrawn the "However". This still seems to give a relatively small content on a large voice of criticism and a lot of text to a much discussed, recently raised contention. GregKaye 10:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "Many Islamic and non-Islamic communities judge the group unrepresentative of Islam. Political scientist Graeme Wood comments on IS that "the religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam".

Lead (reader opinion)
Moved from standalone section Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 22:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Lead says, "Political scientist Graeme Wood comments on IS that "the religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam"." Err - wot? Don't make Wikipedia a figure of fun. 82.20.70.218 (talk) 21:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Discussion re: Graeme Wood quote in lead section
Invited to participate: & 82.20.70.218.

Other relevant parties:

This is about the sentence that starts with "Political scientist Graeme Wood..." Political scientist Graeme Wood comments on IS that "the religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam"

It's clearly controversial, and there have been a few reverts recently. The article it originated from has gotten a lot of discussion and criticism.       

Most are critical of the piece. Should we mention and acknowledge these other pieces? Can we fix the sentence at all? Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 03:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Some considerations with regard to the Graeme Wood article, in no particular order: 1. If it were not important, partisans (thinkprogress? really?) wouldn't rush to try and feebly try to criticise it. 2. Wood's article actually interviews jihadists, IS-advocates, and their fellow travellers. Serious journalism. 3. If The Atlantic is not a WP:RS, one wouldn't quite know what is. 4. Wood's article is buttressed by Princeton scholar Bernard Haykel. Cred. 5. “Uncircumcised geezer” is an actual quote from the article. 6. Clarifies that people who say Islamic State is not Islamic are actually engaging in takfirism. Let that sink in. 7. The article is welcome balance to the preceding sentence in the lead. XavierItzm (talk) 04:29, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I would be wary of leaning entirely on Wood and Haykel. We have Alistair Crooke talking about how Abd al-Wahhab's ideas largely contributed to the ideas of ISIL we have today. I remember an article about how the group is similar to a revolution That would be good with the Slate article as a counterpoint. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 22:32, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The best template I have seen for where a subject like this has been treated well in Wikipedia is the handling of the Protestant Reich Church in the Nazi Germany article. The Nazi Germany article strikes the right balance of recognizing both the Reich Church's faithful following of Christian tradition from the medieval times and its oppression of the modern churches. This article needs the same kind of balance. As Andrew Anderson wrote "In our current political climate, where people claim Islam is innately violent, a failure to differentiate early Islamic and medieval practices fuels the fire. Wood’s article has provided the fodder for people to say, “see, IS looks at the texts and IS is violent. Ergo, Islam is violent.” That conflation does not help anyone". This article currently lacks balance and suffers from POV-pushing by those who desire to make that conflation. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 13:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Re: the conflation. That is a good point, but ISIL still considers itself as an apocalyptic entity, and fits into a sort of Wahhabism, cf. two-part series by Alistair Crooke. Of course, not all Salafists or all Wahhabis are violent. It would be great to mention what is modern about the group and fit it in as well. The first article I linked from Salon mentions how ISIL recruitment operates on multiple levels-Sunni Arab nationalism and an Islamism-based level. We could include it in consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Discuss-Dubious (talk • contribs) 14:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

This is a difficult one. On the one hand you have this expert written article by Wood who's assessment has been somewhat echoed by Tom Holland and the article about Wahhabism. These suggest that Islamic State is Islamic. On the other hand you have governments and world bodies that have dismissed the group as being un-Islamic. I think Gregkaye may have alluded to previously that there is inappropriate weight given to the Graeme Wood statement in the lead and I may be inclined to agree to a certain extent. However, saying that they are deemed un-representative of Islam in the lead would suggest that they are unequivocally un-Islamic. This does give a false impression of the group. This group really does not see Islam as that which is practised today. They want to practise Islam as it was practised in the first century AH. This I think may be the reason behind the entire confusion regarding their Islamic basis. The Wood's edit in the lead, I see as a counterbalance and also as a representation of other article's which analyse the group as being Islamic. I would be interested in how other editors think we can address this issue. On a side note, maybe we should consider creating an article on the Graeme Wood piece, seen as it has got so much analysis in the media. There is the Salon article, the Mehdi Hassan article from the New Statesman, etc, etc. Mbcap (talk) 02:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Precisely. Evidently the Islamic State members, including their imams, their theologians, their caliph and other religious authorities think they are pure as the driven snow Muslims; what Holland, Haykel, Graeme and the other experts provide, in English, is the explanation of why this is so.  It seems just so churlish, so censorious to let the Wikipedia say that some (i.e., a number of Muslim propagandists, entities, and associations) think the Islamic State is not composed of Muslims, without clarifying that in fact, "some others" think that the Islamic State is composed of quite the most adept of Muslims out there.  The statements of the Western governments to which you allude, of course, are meritless, for how can non-Muslim government employees pretend to tell the world who is a Muslim and who is not?   XavierItzm (talk) 23:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree that we need to indicade that there is an opposing view on the group being Islamic. The sentence in the lead has made even Nat Hentoff upset. The Graeme Wood sentence has been removed once again from the lead. This is turning into a sub-acute edit war. Mbcap (talk) 19:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

All right, so before this gets archived, everyone write how they feel the lead section should be. The area it was has been copied for you to work with. Everyone work in their own section and not other people's, please. Refer to diffs if you want to comment on a section. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 17:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I've highlighted the edits I & Banak suggest and that the IP wants in bold. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 22:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding this edit, what does BH actually do in Nigeria? State-wise, I mean. Are punishments and fighting in the bush all they do, or do they actually operate services? It would help to give a source. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 02:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Can we archive this? I think we're done. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 18:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think we'd reached 19 days before you commented and auto-archive would have been 21 days... so I think it's probably fair game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banak (talk • contribs) 19:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Appropriate addition of Wahhabism to the ideology content
I am grateful to for making recent mention of this ongoing saga on my talk page.

As had been noted in the now archived thread |#RfC: What content should be used in the "Ideologies" section of the ISIL infobox? there are a large number of references that discuss "Wahhabism" in association with ISIL. The stats as I presented them within that thread included:

Amongst many references making connections between the group and "Wahhabism" is a Huffington Post article with the arguably pertinent title For some reason, and amongst other potential issues with reporting I honestly don't know the rhyme or reason for this, the group have not regularly been directly presented as being Wahhabist but, instead, the typical presentation is of their ideology being intrinsically rooted in Wahhabism.
 * (isil or isis or daesh or "islamic state") AND "Wahhabism" got "About 153,000 results"
 * (isil or isis or daesh or "islamic state") AND "Sunni Islam" got "About 27,200 results"
 * (isil or isis or daesh or "islamic state") AND "Salafism" got "About 13,900 results"
 * (isil or isis or daesh or "islamic state") AND "Takfirism" got "About 11,500 results"
 * (isil or isis or daesh or "islamic state") AND "Salafist jihadism" got "About 1,430 results"
 * "You Can't Understand ISIS If You Don't Know the History of Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia".

I think that a content in Ideology could encyclopaedically present:
 * Based on Salafist jihadism and Salafism
 * in the context of Wahhabism

or simply:
 * Based on Salafist jihadism
 * in the context of Wahhabism

From all I have so seen, the reference to "Salafism" would seem to be superfluous in the context of "Salafi Jihadism". Scholarly references that I have seen indicate the group to have a form of "Salafist jihadism" and I think that the based on wording provides a relevant encyclopedic clarification. How does this sound?

At present the page is in a state of "Wahhabi Wars", my interpretation, and it might be nice for them to be resolved. GregKaye 06:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Google searches can be difficult to interpret as they will not discount unreliable sources. We also have to consider weighting expert vs non expert analysis. In light of this, We should have Salafism and Jihadi Salafism first, followed by Wahhabism. I disagree with having Wahhabism for reasons elucidated on past occasions but the main reason would be is that the ideology of all three are of the same aqa'id, that being the Athari creed. Regardless if there is consensus then inclusion is appropriate. I would also prefer if we just write the ideologies as opposed to saying, "based on". This is just unnecessary. By saying their ideology is X, you would be saying implicitly that their ideology is "based on" X.


 * Greg In regards to the slow simmering edit war on Wahhabi ascription in the ideology infobox, maybe we should ping the editors involved so we can achieve a stable infobox. Mbcap (talk) 11:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I was hoping that, as possible, neutral editors (if there are such things) who just stumbled on this thread might comment. Anyway, here goes: , , , , , , , , , .  There has not been much simmering about this. GregKaye 12:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * thank you for opening this discussion again. Mentioning both "Salafi jihadism" and "Wahhabism" shows a more neutral viewpoint. But adding "Salafism" to the aforementioned 2 makes it superfluous. I think I agree more with your second suggestion, i.e. Based on Salafist jihadism; in the context of Wahhabism. Khestwol (talk) 17:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not the approprate forum for sectarian and archaic political labels (I.e. WP:LABEL). If a source where ISIS refer to themselves as Wahhabi there might be a basis for this, yet none have been provided. On the contrary editors pushing for this have used Shiite extremist sources such as quotes from the leader of hezbollah to attempt to justify the inclusion of this term. From Human Right Watch: "In Central Asia, government leaders and government-aligned clergy use the term “Wahhabism” to denote “Islamic fundamentalism” and “extremism.” It is often used as a slur, with strong political implications. [...] The “Wahhabi” label has also been used in other parts of the former Soviet Union as short-hand for militant" — Notes on Wahhabism, “Wahhabis,” and Hizb ut-Tahrir. (See also: The Vocabulary of Sectarianism) Nulla Taciti (talk) 18:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Nulla Taciti Can you substantiate your view that Wahhabism is a Label in this context. It is a well established term that is used substantially within scholarship.  An respected news RS has even clearly stated the view that "You Can't Understand ISIS If You Don't Know the History of Wahhabism..."  The proposal is to say "in the context of Wahhabism" which, from all that I have seen, has been very well established.  The Huffington Post is not a Shiite extremist source.  GregKaye 18:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * GregKaye the Huffington Post article you are referring to specifically states that the ideology of ISIS is not Wahhabi — "There is nothing here that separates Wahhabism from ISIS. The rift would emerge only later". You have established that Wahhabism has a niche academic use, but not vis-à-vis ISIS. Also I can assure you that the results on the Google searches you provided are mostly from sectarian sources such as Iranian state run Press TV, for example strange anti-semetic articles like this one titled "Wahhabi-Zionist onslaught on humanity". Nulla Taciti (talk) 18:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I do not think that we are in disagreement. The content is intended to note the very relevant context of Wahhabism. See also: There are also a large number of scholarly articles to be considered and who knows how many news articles mentioning the association between Isil and Wahhabism within the text. GregKaye 19:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Boston Globe Islamic State descends from Wahhabism
 * New Statesman Wahhabism to ISIS: how Saudi Arabia exported the main source of global terrorism
 * Huffington Post How Saudi Wahhabism Is the Fountainhead of Islamist Terrorism saying: "... "Saudi Arabia has not stopped its interest in spreading extreme Wahhabism. ISIS...is a product of Saudi ideals, ... One could reasonably argue that the House of Saud is simply a more established and diplomatic version of ISIS. It shares the extremist Wahhabi theo-fascism, the lack of human rights, intolerance, violent beheadings etc. -- but with nicer buildings and roads..."
 * The Weekly Standard Saudi Wahhabism and ISIS Wahhabism: The Difference
 * This is all incredibly tenuous ("Descended from" etc.). Even one of the articles you provided, Saudi Wahhabism and ISIS Wahhabism: The Differnce, states — "Yet in analyzing radical Islam, we should make distinctions, not confuse them". You would do well to consider this. This is reaching and it is compounded by the notable sectarian usage this term has acquired. Nulla Taciti (talk) 19:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The Saudis have practices such as cutting peoples heads off. So does Isil.  I doubt that any surviving members of victims families would necessarily consider it tenuous.  The news, echoing scholarship see the Isil as developing in the influence of Saudi Wahhabism.  We are providing clarification via context.  To put it simply, we are labelling a group that cuts peoples heads off with an association to an ideology that finds it acceptable to cut people's heads off.  If they want to avoid the label, they can stop.  GregKaye 23:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Greg. "Some of the features of Isis ideology, such as its hatred of Shia Muslims and application of strict punishments such as limb amputations, are shared with the purist Salafi thought that defines Saudi Wahhabism. Isis has explicitly referenced early Wahhabi teachers, such as Mohammed ibn Abdulwahhab, to justify its destruction of Shia shrines and Christian churches as it cuts a swath through Iraq and Syria. Thousands of Saudi nationals have been recruited to its ranks". Guardian  Blizzio (talk) 04:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

While I also agree with you (lol) I would also counsel against letting the article turn the article into a polemic. Some editors may have possibly noticed that I like google searches which, admittedly can sometimes have limited application especially in the context of media whims which I personally consider to often provide a much less than reliable foundation for addressing some issues. None-the-less I think that the following suggests that there are two sides to the story.
 * ("Shia hatred" OR "Sufi hatred") AND (Sunni OR Sunnis) gets "About 29 results"
 * ("Shia rage" OR "Sufi rage") AND (Sunni OR Sunnis) gets "About 357 results"
 * ("Shia anger" OR "Sufi anger") AND (Sunni OR Sunnis) gets "About 84 results"
 * ("Shia hostility" OR "Sufi hostility") AND (Sunni OR Sunnis) gets "About 22 results"


 * "Sunni hatred" AND (Shia OR Shias OR Sufi OR Sufis) gets "About 34 results"
 * "Sunni hostility" AND (Shia OR Shias OR Sufi OR Sufis) gets "About 26 results"
 * "Sunni anger" AND (Shia OR Shias OR Sufi OR Sufis) gets "About 97 results"
 * please note that the above is EXTREMELY RAW data giving no indication, for instance, the nature of a particular hatred

I agree that a contextualising of ISIL ideology as in the context of Wahhabist influences is encyclopedic but, IMO, there are many more issues going on with regard to the localised condition of Shia–Sunni relations than just issues like this.

Not to excuse anything but if there are or have been flaming issues in relation to surrounding groups then these will also have relevance in content. GregKaye 06:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Your right there's two sides to the coin but currently ISIS is opposing Shia, Christians etc and as such is being defined in the media. The opposition could be politically against Iran and also religiously. Both Sunnis and Shia have passed harsh edicts against one another in history. Blizzio (talk) 09:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

My thoughts on this issue have already been discussed on the Al-Nusra Front talkpage -. To put it simply, I'll support the inclusion of the term Wahhabi into this article once every single reference to the term Alawi/Alawite has been changed to Nusayri to denote followers of the Alawite faith. Both Wahhabi and Nusayri are used in derogatory ways. Wahhabi is almost always used by non-Muslims to reference Muslims that emerged 300 years ago in Arabia who wished to return to following Muhammad's teachings, as laid down in the Sunnah, the Qu'ran and the Sahabah. The followers of this Salafist revivalist-movement were led by Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab. His opponents used the term Wahhabi, so as to de-legitimize his followers, that instead of following the Sahabah and God, they were following Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab. Likewise when radical jihadists use the term Nusayri when referring to Alawites, it's to highlight the fact that instead of following God, they are following a mere mortal, Ibn Nusayr and his teachings. If Wahhabi is included into this article, than I must insist that the term Khawarij also be used when denoting the groups ideology, simply becuase the group dislikes both terms and by including one, you should include the other. Also becuase IS has been referred to as being Khawarij by various other groups, including al-Qaeda.
 * 1) IS spokesmen Abu Mohammad al-Adnani mentions al-Qaeda denouncing Islamic State as 'Khawarij' -
 * 2) Islamic State magazine Dabiq retorts accusations of being labeled as 'Khawarij' -
 * 3) Member of al-Qaeda affiliated Al-Nusra Front asks the leader of the group, Abu Mohammad al-Julani to defeat the "Khawarij and ghulaat (extremists).” - StanTheMan87 (talk) 10:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * All sects view themselves as the “TRUTH” and if you try label them they find it abit offensive, however labeling them by whom they follow should not be derogatory. The Sunni’s were labeled by which Imam they followed but nobody found it as derogatory until Wahhabis came along. Heck even the Ahmadiyya don’t mind. To refuse a label and present yourself as following the true path is not accurate representation. Your incorrect about "Wahhabi is almost always used by non muslims", the muslims use it today in all parts of the world. Some known Anti Wahhabi groups such as The Indonesian Nahdlatul Ulama, South Asia's Barelvi & militant African group Ahlu Sunna Waljama'a. Your analogy of comparing Nusayris to Wahhabism is not correct either. Nusayris or Alawis did not call themselves something else and then recently change their title. Wahhabis refered to themselves as Unitarians and was scholarly refered as followers of Abdulwahab for hundreds of years. Recently in the 70's the Saudis switched to promoting Salafism as their title. Now you can see how confusion comes to play when a movement called Salafi became active in Egypt prior to the Wahhabi or Unitarian name change. I disagree with including Kwarij because Al qaeda said so. Are we now going to take Al qaeda at their word? Blizzio (talk) 11:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * For some Muslims (Muslims who actually know about their faith and aren't hypocrites), it is derogatory. You are using one of the names of Allah to refer to a mortal person. Al-Wahhāb (The Bestower) is one of the 99 names used for God. If you say Wahhabi to denote someone, you are either saying it as an insult or out of ignorance. You are twisting a name for God in order to label someone. Find me some Sunni scholars from the Islamic Ulama who mention the term Wahhabi when referring to those who take inspiration from Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab. Shia sources are plentiful and probably Sufi as well but show me Sunni ones please. Salafi would be even better. Any Islamic scholar who uses the term Wahhabi when referring to a group of people is pretty much using the 'Lord's name in vain'. So what, the point is those who took inspiration from Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab did not label themselves as Wahhabis, this term came from those hostile to these people for their beliefs. Please show me a source indicating when the Saudis changed to using the term Salafi. I hope it's not the same conspiracy source that stated Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab was a British spy. There are many Islamic sources from scholars which have labeled IS as being 'Khawarij':,,,,. If you have an hour and a half to kill, this guy explains the IS-Khawarij relation pretty well . StanTheMan87 (talk) 13:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Re: Muslims, the view is presented that Most Muslims will accept anyone who has publicly pronounced the declaration of faith as a Muslim.
 * Re: God's self view - I find it difficult to conceive that a god who was powerful enough to create the Earth and the heavens formed into one, with forms of life being generated on the earth prior to a separation of the heavens and who then made the sun, moon, stars and presumably nebulae, quazars, black holes, dark matter, and whatever else there may be up there, I find it difficult to conceive that this god would then be concerned about someone on earth saying a seven letter word. GregKaye 18:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The Ottoman Sunni scholars first labeled them “Wahhabi” see the Ottoman-Saudi War and analysis . Mainstream jurists at the time I already gave you a source on Saudi Wahhabi-Salafi Transition on Al-Nusra Page. Repost  p.4. Also Explanation of complete change 1970  p.152 Accusations of being Khawarij can be inserted with quotations . I don’t think it has any place in the infobox. Blizzio (talk) 14:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * But your justification for labeling them as Wahhabi is essentially the same as calling them Khawarij. The fact that they follow certain practices attributed to the followers of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab make them Wahhabi in your eyes. Granted, people label them as such. However, the exact same can be said for labeling them 'Khawarij', in that they share similar beliefs e.g declaring Takfir on fellow Muslims when they commit only minor sins and making it obligated to kill these people, even though it isn't accepted by many Muslims that minor sins be rewarded with execution. And the sources I have shown above show that they have been likened to as being almost the 'Khawarij of the 21st century'. The source you cited, is also incredibly opinionative. It's almost as if the author, Khaled Abou El Fadl, is seeking to whitewash Islam and Salafism by disassociating these Muslims who he labels as Wahhabis from being Islamic at all. StanTheMan87 (talk) 16:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * My "justification" is based on reliable sources. Your Islamic fatwa sources are unreliable. We cant WP:SYNTH, and conclude ISIS are khawarij because of links to Wahhabism. Al-Azhar University scholar on the subject  Blizzio (talk) 22:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Renaming categories to use "ISIL"
FYI, there's a proposal to rename the categories for ISIL to use "ISIL"; for the discussion see WP:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_11 -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 02:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Definition of extremism
According to wikipedia it means "far outside the (acceptable) mainstream attitudes of society". However, IS holds territory of roughly 100,000 square miles, and has managed one of the largest recruitment campaigns in modern history. Doesn't that make the "extremist" label that is currently in the lede disputable? Instead I propose takfiri. Justttt (talk) 00:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "Takfiri" implies they have the authority to excommunicate. "Fajarah" would be closer, but we would need an independent source for either. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The earliest takfiris were the kharijites. They had no authority to excommunicate either, but it didn't stop them from doing so. The question is, does IS engage in takfirism? The answer is yes. Either way, takfiri/takfirist is imo more accurate than extremist. Depressed my entire life (talk) 00:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ian, labelling them as "sinners" would not pass NPOV by any means. They do believe they have the right to excommunicate. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 15:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This is the English-language Wikipedia, which should not define topics with wholly foreign terminology. Terrorism is far, far outside the accepted norms of civilized culture, i.e. the entire world, East and West.  "Extremist" is by far the most fitting description. Tarc (talk) 12:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Takfiri and its derivatives have thousands of returns on google books. Islamic terms are not necessarily "foreign". Justttt (talk) 16:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Takfiri is not used by western media outlets. Blizzio (talk) 13:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Media outlets are not required to be western. They are required to be in English on en.wikipedia Justttt (talk) 17:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * We are not resorting to foreign terminology when an English word on the English Wikipedia is a 100% apt, accurate, and appropriate description of the subject. Tarc (talk) 17:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Tarc makes a good point. In searches in news:
 * (isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") and (extremist OR extremism) gets to "Page 68 of 679 results" while
 * (isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") and (takfiri OR takfirism) just gets to "Page 35 of 344 results"
 * From what I have seen the references typically apply to the group itself.
 * GregKaye 11:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Typo in 2nd Paragraph
Hi all, I don't have an account to edit this protected page with, but there's a typo in the second paragraph which begins:

The group is known in Arabic as ad-Dawlah al-Islāmiyah fīl-ʿIrāq wash-Shām, leading to the acronym Da'ish, Da'eesh, or DAESH (داعش, Arabic pronunciation: [ˈdaːʕiʃ]), the Arabic equivalent of "ISIL"[33]) On 29 June 2014, the group proclaimed itself to be a worldwide caliphate, with Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi being named its caliph,[37] and renamed itself "Islamic State" (الدولة الإسلامية, ad-Dawlah al-Islāmiyah).

Right after the [33] citation is an unmatched right parenthesis which should not be there.

Would be great if someone who can edit this page would remove it

74.67.209.64 (talk) 23:42, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Thank you for pointing it out. Mbcap (talk) 00:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

How should we address those territories outside Iraq and Syria?
The lead says;

"Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant is an Islamic extremist rebel group controlling territory in Iraq and Syria, and, according to some sources, Libya and Nigeria."

Could we discuss how best to word this sentence. It is not according to some sources, as the sentence currently says. All sources agree about the groups who control territory in Libya and Nigeria pledging allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. I think the dispute is whether they directly control the territory or hold influence over day to day running of these places/groups. Maybe we can say through their affiliates or through their franchises, they control such territory. Or we could say that other groups allied with them control territory. Other suggestions would be welcome. Mbcap (talk) 07:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a note might be better to clarify, one that says something along the lines of:
 * "it is debated whether groups controlling territory in Libya and Nigeria are subordinates of ISIL or part of ISIL, the leader's of both groups have pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of ISIL" Banak (talk) 09:18, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Mbcap, the problem is that reliable sources do not say that ISIL controls territory in Libya and Nigeria. They do say that groups in these territories have sworn allegiance to ISIL, but there is no consensus on the implications of this. As Wikipedia editors, we cannot connect the dots on our own and conclude and ISIL controls territory in these countries; to do so amounts to original synthesis.
 * Banak, I think that's a fine proposal, though obviously it's too clunky to be the opening sentence of the article. The Blue Canoe  13:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Not sure there's anything against having a note in the lead, other than that we want to keep it concise. I'm suggesting it look like:
 * "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant is an Islamic extremist rebel group controlling territory in Iraq and Syria, and, according to some sources, Libya and Nigeria ."Banak (talk) 14:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Banak your suggestion, I think, is an improvement and would address the issues surrounding territories in other areas. Mbcap (talk) 11:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Banak your suggestion, I think, is an improvement and would address the issues surrounding territories in other areas. Mbcap (talk) 11:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Yep, it's a good compromise. Though I'm not sure what the "some sources" are that directly claim ISIL controls territory in Nigeria. The Blue Canoe  00:27, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Yemen
Ansar al-Sharia controls a large portion of Yemen, and they have apparently pledged allegiance to ISIL. Does that mean that ISIL also controls Yemeni territory? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MassachusettsWikipedian (talk • contribs) 05:25, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No they don't control any territory in Yemen, they have a number of Wilayahs operating in the country but so far these seem to be small groups of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula defectors (AQAP) carrying out hit and run operations against the Houthis. AQAP controls some territory but is an independent group. Gazkthul (talk) 13:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Citation overkill
GregKaye just removed some sources, stating "citation overkill". It was a good edit and we need to remove more. There are over 620 sources with the repeated information. It takes pretty long to edit this article.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Can editors please note that the initial text at Citing sources only goes as far as to say that: "Wikipedia's Verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, ..."
 * Also at: WP:Manual of Style/Lead section presents: "Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article."
 * Given the nature of the ISIL article I see little need for citations in the lead.
 * I think that it may often be fair to present two citations especially if from less than mainstream organisations in case one of them goes dead. I also think that the use of multiple citations is warranted when multiple groups are mentioned as in the cases of the texts, "This name and the claim of caliphate have been widely criticised, with the UN, various governments, and mainstream Muslim groups" and "Media sources worldwide have also described ISIL as terrorist."  However, in the later case I have deleted unique citations and have begun adding "" type citation repetitions.  GregKaye 12:55, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * We need many citations as many claims are extraordinary. However, we can replace several citations about different non-extraordinary claims by a single citations reused multiple times. Also glad someone else realised we don't need citations to summarise the article. Banak (talk) 13:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * We need many citations as many claims are extraordinary. However, we can replace several citations about different non-extraordinary claims by a single citations reused multiple times. Also glad someone else realised we don't need citations to summarise the article. Banak (talk) 13:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Came here to say the same. Not every claim needs to be triple-verified, and there are wider-encompassing sources that cover multiple points. We could do with some of those. Those of us with less-than-stellar Internet speed (and there are certainly more of us than people in speedy places realize), can really feel this page "bog down" while reading, nevermind editing. Text and thumbnail browsing shouldn't do that, even in the remotest regions. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Isil's "remaining" slogan or motto
I was dubious in regard to the motto reference after seeing that the cited source also used a discredited map. I really wonder how current it actually is. To make comparisons I did these searches in news:


 * "In God we trust" AND ("United States") AND (slogan OR motto) got "About 433 results" from 1 May 2014 to today
 * "baqiya wa tatamaddad" AND (isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND (slogan OR motto) got "8 results" from 1 May 2014 to today

I know that there is potential difficulty with language and transliteration here but I have to wonder how notable this claimed slogan is. The things that I have heard, which is not an ISIL slogan, include "Allahu Akbar" and other things.

Is there anything that we are missing here?

The Independent quoted a slogan use as just "baqiya"

GregKaye 17:24, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Additional (more reliable?) sources:
 * Washington Institute for Near East Policy which is evident in its famous slogan baqiya wa tatamaddad (remaining and expanding)
 * European Council on Foreign Relations The familiar slogan of the Islamic State, baqiyya wa tatamaddad (“remaining and expanding”), is indicative of the group’s aggressive, expansionist outlook
 * Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Its slogan, “baqiya wa tatamaddad” or “lasting and expanding,” originated in a speech by Baghdadi in which he responded to al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri’s call for ISIS to leave Syria.
 * Also The Wall Street Journal has a video on this topic
 * Gazkthul (talk) 04:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Gazkthul thank you. I was particularly curious about that "famous slogan" reference particularly in the light that it receives so little coverage.  Its also interesting that it originated in a speech by Baghdadi.  I was wondering about actual usage.  The only instance I know of (multiply reported is of the use of “baqiya”.  I don't know if this was an anomaly or general usage.  GregKaye 12:19, 20 May 2015 (UTC)