Talk:Islamic State/Archive 6

Also add in Government type
How about in addition to being an "Islamic Caliphate" that you could possible add in the bottom "Totalitarian dictatorship". Considering in the areas where the group controls, they have imposed too much totalitarian-style rules. Maybe it would really shape up, plus a lot of the Caliphates in the past were a lot less controlling and even gave non-Muslims civil liberties. So I think it would be best to rename the Government type from "Islamic Caliphate" to "Totalitarian dictatorship", "Islamic totalitarianism", "Islamic Socialist state", etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.209.161.190 (talk) 19:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

United Nations Reference to IS as terrorists
This (well discussed) entry has been reverted: "and has been referred to as a terrorist group by the United Nations[66] and media sources worldwide.[67][68][69][70][71]"

The reliable sourced used is

Who reverted it and why did it completely remove the "express" and "very well sourced" reference by the United Nations? Worldedixor (talk) 14:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * This happened accidentally when I reverted earlier; I have put it back in now. (NB ref to "other media sources worldwide" has been moved by another editor to the end of the article.  Don't agree, but have had my 1RR today.) --P123ct1 (talk) 15:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Super. I will bring it back the way you had it earlier after discussion.Worldedixor (talk) 15:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --P123ct1 (talk) 15:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

1RR should not be used to revert well discussed entries
Editors go to extreme lengths to find the right language for the article following long discussions. 1RR per 24 hours should not be used to revert well discussed entries. Worldedixor (talk) 15:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I couldn't agree more. --P123ct1 (talk) 15:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd say it's a bad idea to revert edits that have consensus - easier to determine if something has consensus than what "well discussed" means. Dougweller (talk) 16:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I suggest every time an edit is made by consensus, it should be clearly recorded in the relevant discussion on the Talk page. That way there can be no argument. --P123ct1 (talk) 16:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Reverts and 1RR
Here is some guidance on this:
 * Self-reverts are penalty-free, per WP:EW.
 * Several reverts in a row, with no intervening edits by other editors, counts as one revert, per WP:EW. (See Dougweller's comment below and #1RR restriction redux earlier on the Talk page.)
 * Correcting grammar, punctuation and spelling mistakes does not count as a revert, provided that the meaning of the text is not altered.
 * Correcting a footnote does not count as a revert.
 * Removing text or adding back in text that has been removed is a revert.
 * Removing vandalism does not count as a revert
 * Attaching a "citation needed" tag is not normally a revert. Removing a tag and/or the text that it is appended to is normally a revert.  Replacing a tag with a citation is not a revert.
 * Some further guidance on citation tags is here.
 * --P123ct1 (talk) 13:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * This is good but I have question: Where exactly in WP rules does it say "Several reverts in a row, with no intervening edits by other editors, counts as one revert for the purposes of 1RR"? If WP rules actually allow this, then this would be one permitted way to "go around" the 1RR restriction. Worldedixor (talk) 15:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * It's policy. See WP:EW. It isn't a way around anything, it's the way we work. "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." And it is very tricky on a busy article, especially with 1RR in place. Any editor doing this should after they finish check the article history to see if there were intervening edits and if there were, revert back far enough so they don't have a 2nd revert. Dougweller (talk) 16:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You're right. Worldedixor (talk) 17:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

ISIS / ISIL / the Levant / al-Shaam / Syria
ISIS remains in currency even as "Islamic State" has been declared to be the official name. As an acronym ISIS is inappropriate for the reason that it mixes translated and untranslated words. That is, The Islamic State of Iraq and al-Shaam. "the Levant" is how we've translated "al-Shaam."

Of course, The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant has also been deprecated, although again ISIL remains used by some like the US. AFAIK the group never called itself The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, and that is a confusion of ISIS not being an acronym in one language. 71.221.67.50 (talk) 06:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Not true. "If we concede again that "al-Sham" means not only Syria, then there is a name for that: Greater Syria. When we use the older term "Levant", that should be used alongside the older name "Mesopotamia" for Iraq. When you use modern "Iraq", use the modern term "Greater Syria" — in that case, it's the Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria (still ISIS)." No one in the Middle East uses Levant. That was a colonial name and doesn't mean the same thing. Syria is the only proper term. 173.153.3.254 (talk) 02:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The Washington Post Article on Naming
I found it odd that this link is used a couple times but is misquoted and miscited. This is what the article ultimately declares, which is against the ISIL naming: 'If we concede again that "al-Sham" means not only Syria, then there is a name for that: Greater Syria. When we use the older term "Levant", that should be used alongside the older name "Mesopotamia" for Iraq. When you use modern "Iraq", use the modern term "Greater Syria" — in that case, it's the Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria (still ISIS).' This should be fixed in the article so that we are not citing the Washington Post to say the opposite. 173.153.3.254 (talk) 02:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No, Al Sham in Arabic means either Damascus (Syria's Capital) or the Levant. The name "الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام‎" always meant the Levant, never Damascus nor Syria, and it's correct translation was "the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" aka ISIL. ISIS was incorrectly used and will continue to be used because it is a more appealing and clearer sound than ISIL.  Nevertheless, the Islamic State now calls itself just that. Worldedixor (talk) 03:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Ad-Dawlah l-ʾIslāmiyyah الدولة الإسلامية
Who has been changing this back and forth? "ad-Dawlat al-ʾIslāmiyyah" is WRONG!...

Depending on whether MSA or Classical Arabic is used, there are more than one transliteration, none of them is "ad-Dawlat al-ʾIslāmiyyah" which is what we have now:

1. ad-Dawlah l-ʾIslāmiyyah, الدولة الإسلامية which would be the most correct way of transliterating it if MSA is used, and which is what WP uses.

2. ad-Dawlah al-ʾIslāmiyyah, which is a common mistake as it is never pronounced as such.

3. ad-Dawlatou l-ʾIslāmiyyah, الدَوْلَةُ الإِسْلَامِيَّة (marfou3ah) which would be the most correct way of transliterating it if Classical Arabic is used.

4. ad-Dawlatou al-ʾIslāmiyyah, which is another common mistake as it is never pronounced as such.

Worldedixor (talk) 06:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit request August 25, 2014
The opponent section lists Hezbollah under Iran, while it should be listed under Lebanon; WikiInki (talk) 14:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Unbelievable. Can someone please rectify this immediately? (I can't do flags.) --P123ct1 (talk) 22:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Figures for Iraq and Syria redux
We need to keep sources updated. The lead says "ISIS has at least 50,0000 fighters in its ranks in Syria and 4,000 in Iraq" sourced to a 2 June 2014 newspaper report. The infobox contradicts with saying 30,000 in Iraq - although the source is more recent we should probably point out that the 30,000 is simply a claim by IS. A bit puzzling that the recent sources states there's been a growth in the Syrian figures, but the June and current figures are the same. That doesn't matter if we fix the reference in the lead, but we do need to say that the Iraq figures are claimed by IS. Dougweller (talk) 08:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The 12 June 2014 WSJ report (footnote in text) says at least 4,000 in Iraq but nothing for Syria. The 19 August Al Jazeera report says IS claims to have 50,000 in Syria and 30,000 in Iraq.  The previous infobox figures were much lower and I think the citation then was the BBC, but one would have to look back for this.   --P123ct1 (talk) 10:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I have adusted the Lead to reflect the fact that 50,000 and 30,000 are IS's figures. I have also reordered the paras in the Lead, but am not very happy with what I have done.  Can someone think of a better way to order them or join them up?  --P123ct1 (talk) 15:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


 * 50,000 and 30,000 sound accurate . Who changed the lead back to 4,000 in Iraq and nothing in Syria? Nothing in Syria? That is incorrect. Its thousands of fighters control roughly a third of Syria. Worldedixor (talk) 18:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Something strange has gone on today. I have been reverted but there is no record of it on the "View History" pages.  I have lost some other edits as have quite a few others, with seemingly no record of reverts.  I have reported the problem to the Village Pump Technical Help Desk. --P123ct1 (talk) 19:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


 * If you undo an edit at the same time that someone else also undoes the same edit, only one of you will be shown in the revision history. JRSpriggs (talk) 21:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's a software issue. This is the editor TimIsTimisTimIsTim (talk) who reverted so many things including the number of fighters. I am handling one part of  its revert on its talk page. I leave it to you to handle the number of fighters since you have been on top of it. Worldedixor (talk) 19:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Worldedixor Have just had a message from the Village Pump HD and this is what they say. Village_pump_(technical)/Archive 129. Have informed Dougweller.  --P123ct1 (talk) 20:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I saw it. That was intentionally or unintentionally disruptive. Only 2-3 minor edits have been made after its revert, so it is critical to revert now. I will do it as it is a critical, time-sensitive and justified exception. Worldedixor (talk) 20:44, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Unintentional but do whatever needs to be done. Dougweller (talk) 20:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I couldn't do it. It has to be done manually.  An admin should probably protect the article completely (edits must be accepted by established users) and should be able to clean up the mess to save the article. I just noticed that I already used my 1RR to fix the Arabic transliteration that was reverted. Worldedixor (talk) 20:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that this needs to be fixed straight away and it will probably need expert outside help. --P123ct1 (talk) 21:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, done. I had to take a calculated risk and it worked. I also set a precedent for clean up, when needed, under extraordinary circumstances that admins may want to remember and hope to never use.  It was a little tedious but the article is now saved, and we are now back to the time before TimIsTimisTimIsTim (talk) graced us with its presence. Worldedixor (talk) 21:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * For full disclosure, TimIsTimisTimIsTim (talk) explained on its talk page that this was not intentional. Worldedixor (talk) 21:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting us out of a fix yesterday, Worldedixor. You went to great lengths to sort out the muddle and it is much appreciated.  --P123ct1 (talk) 18:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

International opinion
The content below has been reverted while it is perfectly sourced : "According to the results of a poll conducted by ICM Research in August 2014 for the Russian news agency Rossiya Segodnya, up to 15% of French people said that they have a positive attitude toward the Islamic State. The share of IS supporters is the largest among people aged between 18 and 24 (27%), and it is the smallest among those aged over 45." 15% of French people back ISIS militants, poll finds — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.200.172.237 (talk) 06:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussed in the section above headed "Rfc: Russian TV as a reliable source". Not at all perfectly sourced. Dougweller (talk) 09:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

POV
The article is full of POV. Teaksmitty (talk) 04:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That's nice.Volunteer Marek (talk)

Islamic caliphate in infox stated as fact is pov
Calling it an Islamic Caliphate in the infobox is pov - this is clearly disputed within Islam. And why does it use Ibrahim instead of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi which is what we call the article on him? That appears to be pov also. Dougweller (talk) 08:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I have tried to change that infobox back to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant more than once, only to be reverted both times. There have been similar attempts by others to remove POV in the al-Baghdadi page, but they, too, are always reverted. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * They WANT to establish a caliphate, but have not and will not achieve it. They are just an armed group "on the move" without any central government - until the Sources start to refer to this as actual fact, that term should go.HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Folks, this is an article about a state, an unrecognized state. They can call themselves Grand Imperium of the Known Universe we'd still have to use that term. Besides, there is no official "Caliphate Recognition Committee" that might at some point authorize someone to use that term. Bokassa I proclaimed himself "Emperor"... Even if they're an organization, if they choose to call their leader "Grand Poobah" we have to refer to him as the "Grand Poobah of the Imperium of the Known Universe". -- Director  ( talk )  16:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Let's not impose our personal biases and treat this Caliphate differently from the Grand Duchy of Flandrensis. If they consider themselves a Caliphate then that's what we report. There is no authority. Throughout history most states are self-proclaimed and often violently. -- Green  C  18:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with GreenC but not about the violent part. Teaksmitty (talk) 11:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Do we care then what they are called by reliable sources? I don't see how we can just ignore sources and choose what the organisation wants us to use. Dougweller (talk) 11:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No source denies that the Islamic State considers itself a caliphate.. If they say its a "caliphate", set it up as such (i.e. a monarchy), and declare their leader a "caliph", what source can we use to say "no, this state isn't a caliphate". The title is very pretentious, of course, implying both religious and secular rule over all Muslims worldwide. This entity can only be viewed as not being a "caliphate" in the sense that it doesn't actually exercise such authority, but this is also true of almost all historical "caliphates", only excepting perhaps the early Rashidun and Umayyad Caliphates.


 * The title is similar to the original meaning of the terms "emperor" and "empire".. which also later became used much more freely, originally indicating a universal secular and religious ruler, and universal state. Yet, as I pointed out, we also have Bokassa I.. --  Director  ( talk )  16:13, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Paradoxically, you could argue that Wikipedia calling this a Caliphate is both POV and NPOV: POV because it looks as if Wikipedia is taking sides in the argument, where so many dispute its legitimacy, and NPOV because it is only recording what the IS call themselves now, i.e. a fact. --P123ct1 (talk) 16:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Word Jihadist and Terrorist in the lead
First of all loaded words like Jihadist and Terrorist 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. Teaksmitty (talk) 14:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Basically the entire world's news services refers to them as terrorists now, with all the massacres and the beheading of American journalist Foley. That ship has sailed. Why? Because that's what they are.HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "Terrorist" is a loaded term, not for encyclopedic use. As for "jihadist", don't they call themselves such anyway? -- Director  ( talk )  16:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed on both counts. Gazkthul (talk) 22:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a mystery why Wikipedia is so queasy about using "Jihadist". It's a neutral and accurate term, commonly used by the press, one they use themselves, and appropriate in certain contexts to disambiguate from other Muslim-country militants who are not Jihadists (such as the FSA). It must stem from a misunderstanding of the word, a populist view that "Jihadist" is a pejorative slang description (like "Christinite" or something). Every time I try to use it, it quickly gets removed. Crazy. -- Green  C  18:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Jihadism isn't a nice ideology, but its a legitimate ideology.. I don't see why it should be viewed as loaded. "Terrorist" is, however, unspecific and known to be a loaded term. I'm not at all sure the leaders of this entity would reject such a term.. -- Director  ( talk )  18:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Muslim intellectuals have actually condemned the ISIS/ISIL
I would like to add this sentence to this article: Muslim intellectuals have slammed the ISIS/ISIL as anti-Islamic, using these as references: http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-muslim-intellectuals-slam-isis-brutality-in-iraq-2012096, http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report-muslim-and-christian-groups-condemn-isis-as-anti-islam-2012168 and http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Delhi/isis-action-is-worse-than-genocide-muslim-intellectuals/article6333688.ece -Terror4us (talk) 15:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia can not claim all "Muslim intellectuals" in the world are unanimous on this. And we of course can not use the word "slammed", this isn't Fox News.. The claim must be qualified and moderated. -- Director  ( talk )  16:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think he was claiming "all" Muslim intellectuals, obviously. Anyway, "condemned" would be a better word than "slammed". Supersaiyen312 (talk) 20:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "All" is implied in the sentence "Muslim intellectuals have condemned this state". Also, what qualifies one as a "Muslim intellectual"? The whole sentence seems unnecessary and weasel-wordy. Like something that would be suggested by a Muslim user opposed to the state who wants Wikipedia to suggest everyone agrees with him... Well of course some "Muslim intellectuals" (whatever that term means) will have condemned the state, but that on its own is hardly information for the lead. With sources provided, we can't even claim "most Muslim intellectuals" or "many"... -- Director  ( talk )  01:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That's fine, I wasn't really expecting a debate here. I'm more neutral in this case. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 03:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Group or State?
Outsiders call them a group but IS call themselves a State. Which one should be used in the intro? Teaksmitty (talk) 16:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It probably should be an unrecognized state but there is no consensus as of yet. The article from inception refers to them as a group. So, once consensus in the discussion is reached, we will know. Worldedixor (talk) 17:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * We should use "group". Describing them as a "state" would be incorrect. Meatsgains (talk) 22:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think "organization" is a better term. Group is slightly ambiguous, as they could just be a group of peoples (like an ethnic group). Organization suggests that it's a group of people who have some structure and a common goal. I'm not an expert on this matter, just someone who follows current events and saw this discussion, but if I'm not mistaken ISIL has some basic leadership structure and then there's the caliphate and associated religious structure. State isn't appropriate because I don't think they've made any motion to perform the functions of a state (bureaucracy, provision of government-like services) except perhaps a rudimentary "justice" system (but many rebel groups carry out "justice"). AHeneen (talk) 16:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Leaflets
Found some better sources, eg and. This didn't happen on the 14th as the edit said it did but on the 9th according to the Newsweek article (the Saturday before the 12th. Or maybe the 12th or 13th (the Independent's story seems confused about the date). Or this is ongoing, the London Evening Standard says yesterday. That's quite likely so we can't assign it to a date. I'm not sure it's even worth adding to the article. A few ignorant people passing out leaflets? It did pick up a lot of Engliah language media coverage though. Dougweller (talk) 16:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It probably isn't noteworthy enough to go into the timeline. I know the timeline has developed into a blow-by-blow account, but one has to draw the line somewhere. If this leafleting was happening everywhere in the West, then it might be worth adding. --P123ct1 (talk) 17:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * And we can't maintain a daily timeline indefinitely. Dougweller (talk) 18:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2014
I am requesting an update to the 'Equipment section.' On 24th August, the islamic state had captured a syrian air base, and along with it, 12 squadrons of Mig-21 fighter jets and 20 Mi-8 helicopters. They may not have the means to deploy those jets and helicopters but worth mentioning?

I also have two relevant references:

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/08/24/does-islamic-state-now-have-an-air-force/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-28918792

Thanks.

Noorkhan1985 (talk) 23:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems that most of the operable planes and helicopters were evacuated before the fall of the base, judging from the photos Islamic State have started releasing from Taqba. Gazkthul (talk) 01:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a pretty big gain for them. The battle for this airbase has been raging a long time...and they've captured helicopters before (a black hawk variant I think if my memory serves me correctly), and it is generally believed they don't have the ability to use them. This should be in the article I think (but I can't and won't make any big edits on the awful airport wifi I am connected to now! Someone will hopefully add it soon). Somchai Sun (talk) 09:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

History 9.2 & 9.3
I have gone through the history section and rearranged it somewhat. Specifically I have moved sections 9.3.2, 9.3.3 and 9.3.4 up to 9.2. This was because they largely cover events from 2004 to 2006, which is before the Islamic State of Iraq existed and when the group was using the name Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn. Happy to discuss the changes. Gazkthul (talk) 02:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Human Rights
There are a number of human rights related sections scattered through the article - 9.4.4 Treatment of civilians, 9.5.1 Guidelines for civilians, part of the lead. I've combined them into one section, similar to the Taliban article. Any concerns with this? Gazkthul (talk) 03:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * None at all. I would have done it myself, but couldn't think of an appropriate title for the section. --P123ct1 (talk) 14:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I wrote most of those sections and thank you for arranging them. This is better now! Mhhossein (talk) 03:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Addition to name/name changes
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/27/islamic-state-isis-al-qaida-separatists-iraq-syria "Dar al-Ifta wants western journalists to refer to the group as QSIS in order to emphasise to non-Muslims that the group's extremist ideology and depravity does not represent Islam's vast majority." May this information be added to the Name and name changes section of the article?MeropeRiddle (talk) 16:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Edit to say, disregard, as it was added already, and I missed it.MeropeRiddle (talk) 16:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

"Islamic" nature
I believe we need to add a section on the controversy revolving the "Islamic" nature of ISIS. On the one hand, many leading muslims/islam experts say that the actions of ISIS contradict Islam. On the other hand, there are indications that some or many ISIS members do not have a good understanding of Islam, or don't practice their faith regularly:. Morgengave (talk) 12:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There is always people who do not want to accept that someone of their faith is committing atrocities, crimes or anything else that is unethical. This is especially true when the perpetrators justify their actions with their faith. Muslim believers are of course motivated to deny the connection of such activities to their religion, Islam, in order to move their religion into a better light. I find it preposterous to the maximum if someone tries deny ISIS's ties to Islam. This is comparable to implying that the Christian Crusades were not in any way related to Christianity. What the few inherently biased Muslims journalists say about this is irrelevant, especially considering the amazingly low outcry in the Muslim world against the violence of ISIS and other islamic terrorist groups. Compare this outcry for once to the outcry in the Muslim world that could be seen in the past in regards to anything related to Israel, which itself has been a very frequent victim of Islamist terror attacks killing hundreds of civilians. Also your source is heavily biased and uninformative. Kulmanseidl (talk) 12:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * My suggestion is not to "deny" that ISIS is Islamic though, it's about including in a separate section a criticism on ISIS, a criticism which is widespread and recurring amongst commentators. It's not about "biased Muslim journalists", I would say that this view is equally spread amongst non-muslim commentators, at least so in Western Europe. It's not hard to find US commentators either... or critics in the Muslim world itself. Not sure why you think we would need widespread protests against ISIS for such an inclusion. Morgengave (talk) 13:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposed split into new article
Please join the main discussion here. Thanks, Fitzcarmalan (talk) 02:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I went and did it myself. It's not premature, it's actually quite late, but if you wish to change the title, be my guest.Ericl (talk) 18:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I object very strongly to this unilateral action taken by a new editor without proper discussion on the Talk page first. --P123ct1 (talk) 19:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I've been here since the middle of the last decade, aside from possibly the title, what would you do differently?Ericl (talk) 19:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I beg your pardon, I meant new to the ISIS page. --P123ct1 (talk) 20:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Ericl (talk). In this article, we try to agree on important and/or large changes (and sometimes on important small changed) after a well discussed consensus... This way we make sure to discuss the cons and pros.  I have changed positions at times based on logical arguments presented by other editors. Worldedixor (talk) 20:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, folks, Who here does NOT want to split the Timeline 2014 section into a new article?Ericl (talk) 14:15, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Revert of "Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi named as its caliph"
Who removed this and why? Worldedixor (talk) 03:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you mean in this article or the Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi article? Because I see that someone removed "Caliph" from his name in the infobox. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 00:04, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, this article. The revert had been reverted since I raised the issue. Worldedixor (talk) 02:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

ISIL shows up in google search, ISIS doesn't
Is there a way to change the metadata or something for this page so that it shows up when you search "ISIS" on google? Currently only ISIL will get you here. Ahavahisrael (talk) 13:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Is it possible your search results are impacted by 'filter bubbles'?MeropeRiddle (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It does for me, granted for "ISIS" its only the 4th suggestion.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 05:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That's part of the arguement as to why ISIL is a better acronym, it's (almost) unique. The only other ISIL is The Indian Society of International Law. Can Wikipedia do something to change it's page rank, besides page renaming and redirects? Good question.  ~Technophant (talk) 17:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * @Ahavahisrael - A question like this could be put to the Reference Desk/Computing section. Perhaps there's some Help:Magic Words that could help. There's an interesting post here regarding why WP is so high in Google's page ranking (ie. WP sucks less than the rest of the web). ~Technophant (talk) 07:01, 31 August 2014 (UTC)


 * There is another ISIL that I have heard of before, namely International Society for Individual Liberty. It ranks higher on the list at DuckDuckGo than the Indian Society of International Law. JRSpriggs (talk) 13:36, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Al-Qaeda in Iraq
This name is repeatedly being changed to "al-Qaeda in Iraq" in the Lead. Please note that the spelling adopted throughout the article is "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" and that the spelling Wikipedia adopts for al-Qaeda is "al-Qaeda", not "Al-Qaeda". --P123ct1 (talk) 15:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. This was decided by consensus earlier this year. ~Technophant (talk) 05:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the changes are made by "visiting" editors and wanted to suggest editors change it when it happens, but obviously I can't ask them to do that.  --P123ct1 (talk) 06:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Should Ba'ath Party Loyalists really appear among "Opponents" in the infobox?
Among the "Opponents" in the infobox, Ba'ath Party Loyalists[29] appear. This needs to be reconciled with the later-cited  as well as. I suppose that the rather obscure citation in the infobox may refer to a Ba'ath minority, and should be deleted. And should Ba'ath Party Loyalists conversely appear among "Allies"? And is this alliance significant enough that it should be addressed in a separate paragraph or section? Layzeeboi (talk) 07:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * They may have started off supporting ISIL, thinking that anything must be better than Nouri al-Maliki. But they discovered that they were wrong about that. JRSpriggs (talk) 10:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Please note the source for the "opponent" category: Shaafaq News. And that article includes the sentence "The dissolved party said in a statement published by pro-sites in which “Shafaq News” [sic] could not make sure if it is correct [my bold] that "ISIS is a terrorist  organization that carry the project of destroying the popular revolution sweeping Iraq, and we will stand against it with all our power”.  On the other hand, the Ba'athist "statement" quoted by the article praises ISIS for "fighting with us today for the liberation of the entire territory of Iraq".  And the accompanying photograph is unidentified.  So this citation appears to me to fail to meet Wikipedia's standards. Layzeeboi (talk) 16:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Good point. Who is the spokesperson for a dissolved politic party? Nobody. It's just a random bunch of opinions without organization.  ~Technophant (talk) 23:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Status of countries as "allies"
The info in the "allies" section is based solely on this article: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29004253. It seems that the article has not been read thoroughly by the editor of this information. This is greatly based on suspicions, and no country has openly declared itself an "ally" of the IS. In any case any country where the IS has received help from, be it resources or fighters, directly or indirectly, would be listed as "allies" and that would be ridiculous. Taikun20 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taikun20 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with User:Taikun20. I removed the 3 countries as allies here with edit summary "(Rm countries as allies, not enough evidence for this. no official announcement." ~Technophant (talk) 23:27, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * All we have to do is wait long enough and Infobox war faction will fill the entire side of the article! lol ~Technophant (talk) 00:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk page too long
I changed the "MiszaBot/config| algo=old" to from default 30 days to 48 days a while back to keep older discussions alive. This page gets up to 1.6M pageviews/day (!) and discussion has been lively. I think it should be set back to 30 days, or even as low as 21 days. ~Technophant (talk) 11:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Timeline: entry for 29 August
The timeline entry for 29 August reads:
 * The UK raised its terror level to "severe" in the aftermath of the "Islamic State's butchery" and committed to fight radical Islam "at home and abroad".

The Fox News report in the citation reads:
 * British Prime Minister David Cameron vowed to confront radical Islam "at home and abroad" and the United Kingdom raised its terror level to "severe" in the wake of new revelations about Islamic State's butchery in Syria and Iraq.

The words "Islamic State's butchery" are not Cameron's but Fox News', and they do not appear as a quote from Cameron in the second citation either. That quote is misleadingly and inaccurately attributed to Cameron/UK, so to recitfy this the quote marks would have to be removed. Would the responsible editor see to this, please? --P123ct1 (talk) 17:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * What you don't seem to understand is that I never attributed those quotes to Cameron, I simply quoted what the WP:RS Fox News and what the media worldwide are calling as the "butchery" of the Islamic State atrocities. Read this in justification of my logical argument.  What I find amusing is that I make one entry once in a while, and, ¡Dios mío bendito!, of all the millions of articles on Wikipedia, and the thousands of entries in this and the other Syrian War articles, you and your "email pals" seem to "appear" to "dissect" and oppose my lonesome, well sourced entry.  Ah well... Since I have no time nor energy for edit-wars, I do what I can, but after I see your relentless "opposition", I just let it be and almost never revert twice your reverts. No big deal. :) Worldedixor (talk) 20:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Fox News (television more than print) is a biased reliable source. They are very harsh toward the Democratic Party (esp. Obama) and very soft regarding the base (Conservative Republicans, not AQ). They often view things in black and white, like all jihadis are terrorists, therefore always bad and members of US military is always good (even though in Afghanistan JSOC special forces have earned the name "Americian Taliban" due to their brutality and execution of unarmed civilians). So while specific information, if not in conflict with other reliable sources can be used in articles, their special brand of rhetoric often will not meet our NPOV standards.  ~Technophant (talk) 05:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I am sure the misattribution effect of Worldedixor's edit was unintentional, btw. I should have made that clear when I raised this. --P123ct1 (talk) 06:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should be very chary about using Fox. Quotes should be attributed, but we should be even more chary about quoting Fox. Comments such as Worldedixor's on other editors can poison the atmosphere for editing and need to be avoided. Dougweller (talk) 10:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * `The UK raised its terror level to "severe" and committed to fight radical Islam "at home and abroad".' That is unbiased.  Would that be that acceptable?  --P123ct1 (talk) 16:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I completely disagree with Dougweller. It's more like comments such as Dougweller's and his pals on Worldedixor can poison the atmosphere for editing and need to be avoided. Admins are expected to observe a high standard of conduct. Also, Fox News is FACTUALLY a major mainstream network news medium and is given equal weight as the other networks as a reliable source. If they do report something it increases the notability of the subject since the network is broadcast worldwide. We should not blatantly diminish a reliable source due to perceived biases. I have yet to be shown any evidence of stories Fox News published that were factually incorrect, or had to be retracted. People may have an issue with what stories they choose to report on, or what aspects of those stories they choose to emphasize, but that in no way reflects on the reliability or accuracy of the facts they report. Finally, everyone should read WP:QUOTE before they opine. Happy editing!... Worldedixor (talk) 16:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * So maybe a bit like Britain's The Guardian, an RS source, but generally considered pretty left-wing. --P123ct1 (talk) 21:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. Worldedixor (talk) 21:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

user:Worldedixor: Quotations says "Where a quotation presents rhetorical language in place of more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias, it can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject, and should be avoided." which is in agreement with the consensus of this thread. ~Technophant (talk) 21:56, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You're right!... There is no POV here. Isn't a FACT that the Islamic state are butchering people? Also, this article and other world media articles, (this is another example ), have summed up what the PM had said in his press conference expressly as "Islamic State's butchery". Having said that, if their is a "real" consensus (as consensus is clearly defined in policy, which has nothing to do with numbers), then the entry should be changed following logical consensus. Worldedixor (talk) 22:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I think since the quote fox news says "British Prime Minister David Cameron vowed to confront radical Islam "at home and abroad" and the United Kingdom raised its terror level to "severe" in the wake of new revelations about Islamic State's butchery in Syria and Iraq." The article has been misquoted from the start. I don't support quoting this article. It should be summarized. I made this diff that will hopefully end this debate. ~Technophant (talk) 22:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That would change my quoting Fox News to your quoting the PM, which is fine but my quote is not a violation of policy, is it? More importantly, isn't a FACT that the Islamic state are butchering people? Still, if you want to seek legitimate consensus and change the article, I am fine with that. BUT first, please can you clarify, as per policy, as to whether or not you and P123ct1 have ever had email interaction in relation to this article or me? Worldedixor (talk) 22:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * @Worldedixor, yes quoting the PM not Fox. Members of IS are not kill people then "dress their flesh, sell their meat" as a butcher does! If this is put in then it could be confused that this is actually is what happening. ~Technophant (talk) 22:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with what you said, but butchery has more than one meaning; butchery also means "the savage killing of large numbers of people". Ergo, the worldwide use in WP:RS news media. Still, at this juncture, legitimate consensus is what counts, but I can see you have already changed it, so I'll just let it be, and won't revert it to avoid an edit war. Worldedixor (talk) 22:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I missed all that. Actually, Worldedixor, I looked into this today and your edit is technically not in violation of WP policy, though I would have to look at Technophant's further WP wording on this more carefully. Was uncomfortable about Cameron's quoted words being mixed in with Fox News' quoted words in the same sentence, but I had thought of this:  '"Fox News reported that in the aftermath of the "Islamic State's butchery", the UK had raised its terror level to "severe" and committed to fight radical Islam "at home and abroad".' That would cover it, I think, but I see Technophant has already changed it.  I certainly don't want to edit-war either.  --P123ct1 (talk) 23:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Not just technically, it was simply not in violation. I still have a reasonable question. Please can you clarify, as per policy, as to whether or not you and Technophant have ever had email interaction in relation to this article or me? If this is not a violation of policy, what's stopping me (or anyone) from soliciting other editors (or admins) to roll in and influence the editorial process in a topic or discussion? Worldedixor (talk) 23:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia encourages and depends on cooperative editing to improve articles, and most editors who work together are not a tag team. Assume good faith, and keep in mind that in almost all cases it is better to address other editors' reasoning than it is to accuse them of being on a team. ~Technophant (talk) 23:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Please stop your accusations. The record clearly shows that I have addressed other editors' reasoning, volunteered my well sourced and well researched knowledge, and, faced with opposition and your unilateral revert of my contribution (that was not in violation of policy), shown flexibility to avoid an edit war. Also, let me be clear that I am not accusing anyone, and I am WP:AGF. This is why I am not assuming anything nor accusing anyone, and I have made no subpoenas. I am asking a reasonable question, and since you both are responding, I ask for a responsive answer, if you care to respond: Please can you clarify, as per policy, as to whether or not you and P123ct1 have ever had email interaction in relation to this article or me? Worldedixor (talk) 23:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sure if you think about it you'll realise that article talk pages are not the appropriate place to discuss email between editors. The Guardian is not considered pretty left-wing. It's liberal, that's for sure, but not left-wing. Dougweller (talk) 08:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry. That was always my impression and I had done a quick check on the internet before I made that post and it seemed to confirm it. Not that I think its political leanings would influence its reporting on the Iraq crisis, it is a solid RS.  I may have been misled - as people always say, you can't trust everything you read on the internet.  --P123ct1 (talk) 09:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

A check on RS:N here shows that "The Guardian is a "use with caution" source in my book. It is very biased in its international and political reporting and I have often noticed erroneous facts and figures, often skewed to reflect their bias." and that it is more considered liberal than left-wing. ~Technophant (talk) 11:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Um, that was a quote from one editor unhappy with an opinion piece. At least one other editor disputed that. Any conservative or right winger is going to see a liberal paper as biased, that seems obvious. It's normally considered an RS and is certainly better than Fox, the Daily Mail, and many other sources. Ane even the best sources sometimes need to be treated with caution. Dougweller (talk) 15:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Great article
... and very informative. Would it be possible to remove the refs from the lede? Too many refs there makes it really hard to read, and in any case I am sure all the refs are already somewhere in the body of the article. Thanks! -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:16, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Good constructive criticism worth consideration. For us involved editors, it does not bother us, but for a "fresh eye" reading an encyclopedia, I can understand how it may be hard to read.  I don't believe there is a quick solution, but it definitely should be brainstormed. Worldedixor (talk) 16:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There are an awful lot of references in the lead section. Some of them that are referenced elsewhere in the article could probably be removed. Per Manual_of_Style/Lead_section: "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...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." Some references in the lead certainly are appropriate, but I think right now we have erred on the side of too many. For example, the sentence that references which nations have designated it as a terrorist organization has 12 references! We have an entire section in the article about this that is well referenced, I don't think 12 references are required in the lead just for that. I also don't see a need for 3 different references for "Islamic State" when there is also a footnote about the name. Surely 1 reference along with the footnote would be more than enough for that. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I ✅. Worldedixor (talk) 17:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * This essay might be useful in the context of the above comments. Philg88 ♦talk 17:40, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Before reading this, I was going to suggest removing those designation as terrorist organization footnotes as they are all in section 13. I have already used my 1RR allowance but can do this tomorrow, if others agree. I could also remove the "Western and Middle Eastern" footnotes as they are in section 13 as well. That would cut down the footnotes in the Lead by by 11.  Needless to say, the first UN footnote  must remain.  --P123ct1 (talk) 19:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ since no-one responded. --P123ct1 (talk) 18:24, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

There's still too many refs in the lead. Should only have 5 or so. ~Technophant (talk) 00:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton
What does Hillary Clinton's opinion add to the topic, if not only American propaganda?

I don't think it should be there, as the opinion on what US is from Al-Baghdadi is not on the US wiki page.

I understand that it is hard to be super partes on this topic, but please explain why did you pick those sources.

[Hillary Clinton and Jessica Lewis] SECTION 5, Analysis Teoporta (talk) 05:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 133.87.146.69 (talk) 05:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There is guidance in WP on this somewhere. WP has to be NPOV in stating facts, but it is perfectly entitled, if not obliged, to record varying points of view on an article's topic.  I therefore think it should stay, but indicating that her words represent only one point of view. That paragraph on her stuck in there starkly on its own with no preamble is obviously not the way to do it.  As for Jessica Lewis' views, the way they are presented does not suggest that WP thinks she is right, surely?  If it does, some wording will have to be added there as well.  --P123ct1 (talk) 09:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hillary is considered the de facto democratic candidate for the 2016 presidential race and likely to be the next president. On the other side of the isle, Ted Cruz has been the one making statements saying "They want to go back and reject modernity. Well, I think we should help them. We ought to bomb them back to the Stone Age." For neutrality, the argument the current statements from the leaders of both parties should be included.  ~Technophant (talk) 11:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Wow. Anyway, P123ct1, we wouldn't say it's only one point of view because that's obvious. Ssomething like that might be seen as deprecating her statement. Dougweller (talk) 14:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean necessarily using those words. I am sure diplomatic wording could be devised to indicate/get the idea across. --P123ct1 (talk) 14:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I see now that this is referring to her statement in the Analysis section and I'm striking out my statement above about including opinions from both political parties. As the former Secretary of State, she's qualified to give this opinion. This opinion adds to the analysis section and I think we should keep it. ~Technophant (talk) 02:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I would call it propaganda but it is basically an empty truism that politicians make. She's basically saying the failure of alternatives left a vacuum for ISIL. It just isn't substantial or worthy of an encyclopedia. She could obviously say something more informative with her knowledge and access to information. Perhaps we should wait until she is more specific. Jason from nyc (talk) 02:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Map concerning to the capture of region around Amerli
I've consulted a source concerning to the capture of the region surrounding Amerli:, but it displays several flags, some of which I don't have a clue about which do they belong. I recognize the Kurds, the Turkmens and the Iraqi flags, but others I have no idea. Someone could help about this, and update the map? (if it's considered to be a reliable source, of course) Mondolkiri1 (talk) 15:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Mondolkiri1 I reposted your comment to File talk:Territorial control of the ISIS.svg ~Technophant (talk) 00:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Technophant Thank you very much! ~Mondolkiri1 (talk) 21:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Expand the human rights abuses section or split off into its own article?
As it is currently, the human rights abuses section is notably incomplete. The list of abuses this group has committed is vast; I'd say it could constitute an article of its own, even. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If this section eventually becomes too big for the article, it could be split off into a separate article. There is already a Wikipedia article on the Persecution of Yazidis by the Islamic State, which should be summarized into this article.  --P123ct1 (talk) 07:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Conclusions
It seems like there's an editing consensus to refer to the group, on wiki, as Islamic State (ISIS) but no consensus to change the article name, am I right with that?~Technophant (talk) 11:15, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Red-linking
Someone has red-linked [redacted] said to be the IS's next victim. How justifiable is this? Should every IS victim be named and have a separate Wikipedia article devoted to them as has been happening? It seems to me disproportionate, although of course it is of absolutely major importance to the families involved and any normal person will have sympathy. But Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a book of remembrance or the Daily Mail. --P123ct1 (talk) 11:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * See Village pump (policy). Dougweller (talk) 12:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. It is very useful in this context. --P123ct1 (talk) 12:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: the intended link is probably Village pump (policy)/Archive 115 Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Jamāʻat al-Tawḥīd wa-al-Jihād
The Lead in ISIS says that ISIS is the successor to Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn, but in "Name and name changes", ISIS is described as originating as Jamāʻat al-Tawḥīd wa-al-Jihād. Should Jamāʻat al-Tawḥīd wa-al-Jihād not be mentioned in the Lead as well, for the avoidance of doubt? --P123ct1 (talk) 14:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm of two minds, ultimately Tawhid wal Jihad did come first, but it was very different to what the Islamic State is, I think that being in the Names and History sections might be sufficient. Gazkthul (talk) 08:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually i've just noticed it says currently ISIS is the successor to Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn—more commonly known as Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI)—formed by Abu Musab Al Zarqawi in 1999 that is totally wrong. Qaeda in Iraq was formed in 2004, Tawhid wal Jihad was formed in 1999, so it's the worst of both worlds at the moment! Gazkthul (talk) 08:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I just thought the general reader would be confused to see "ISIS is the successor to Tanzim" and then read in the names section that ISIS began as Jamat, which became Tanzim. I noticed that 1999 change, but can't do anything about this as I know nothing about the group's background and history beyond what is in this article. My ignorance is probably quite useful, as I can read the article as a general reader would, and so see the fuzzy areas clearly!  It's why I've been picking your brains on so many points, as you are clearly very knowledgeable about these groups in the Middle East generally - all in the interests of making the article clearer for the uniformed Wikipedia reader. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:34, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Gazkthul has some good points. The article are contradicts itself about this, and this needs to be viewed and discussed by a wider audience. I think this discussion should be moved the ISIL talk page.~Technophant (talk) 12:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

disinfo
I changed "suggested" to "alleged", but I'd take out the whole paragraph, as unnamed "western sources"-this is clear disinfo and a smear campaign-it has been established that in fact the west originally colluded with these folks, (just like Osama, Saddam, Noriega...) it's a smear-the-other-guy tactic and doesn't belong on Wikipedia unless the actual US et.al. collusion is given equal weight.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:27, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The West did not collude with bin Laden ("The agency directed around three billion dollars to the Afghan mujahideen during the war against the Soviets, but there is no evidence that any of that money went to the Afghan Arabs, nor is there any evidence of CIA personnel meeting with bin Laden or anyone in his circle...The theory that bin Laden was created by the CIA is invariably advanced as an axiom with no supporting evidence".), and your personal conspiracy theories on unrelated issues are not a valid reason to delete reliably sourced material. It is well-known that much of the Islamic State's funding comes from oil sales to the Syrian regime (that's not even "alleged"). Assad released, armed, and trained jailed Islamist radicals to tar the opposition and refrained from attacking ISIS with the same ferocity as other groups. Assad has even used ISIS to attack other rebels. This is well known.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well said, TheTimesAreAChanging. I couldn't agree more. Worldedixor (talk) 18:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Islamic state is now in control of northern NIgeria, someone care to update?
Boko Haram declares 'Islamic state' in northern Nigeria http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-28925484 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.82.6 (talk) 11:30, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The report talks about the group announcing an "Islamic state". It seems to have no connection with the Islamic State.   --P123ct1 (talk) 07:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * @99.238.82.6 You're misunderstanding. There is a difference between a "Islamic state" and "the Islamic State". Supersaiyen312 (talk) 21:10, 4 September 2014 (UTC)