Talk:Military of the Islamic State/Archive 1

Table of weapons
There was a table of weapons with images created and placed on the ISIL article. It was discussed here: Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant/Archive_7. It was removed due to undue weight and questionable sourcing. It would be appropriate in this article (no undue weight) if better sourcing could be provided. I'm inserting it into the article for now.16:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Philippines Group
User:LightandDark2000 has twice added in the Philippines group as part of ISIL. I checked the supplied refs and googled but can see no evidence they folded into the military of ISIL, just pledged support. They continue to use their own name, no evidence of taking direction (or even communication with) ISIL. Quite different from the guys in Sinai or Derna Libya where there was a concerted play for power or wooing of the group. Also ISIL has not declared a province in southern Philippines, unlike in Sinai, Algeria etc. I also can't find where they control any significant territory - and a base in the mountains or a safehouse in Turkey is not territorial control. Is there better evidence I'm missing? Legacypac (talk) 02:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Military Size
We need to have only one estimate of the size of the ISIS army, can we reach a compromise or have a debate to determine the size of the army? --Weegeeislyfe (talk) 23:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The sources are all over the place. Best we can do is list a range and the source of the data. A lot of their forces are irregular - even kids with guns - so its hard to estimate. Legacypac (talk) 09:11, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Military of ISIL
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Military of ISIL's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "telegraph": From Timeline of events related to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant:  From Military intervention against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant:  From Abu Abdulrahman al-Bilawi:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 20:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Military of ISIL → Military of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant – Or Military of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant? "ISIL" must be spelled out completely. George Ho (talk) 19:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No, there is no requirement that "ISIL" must be spelled out completely. See the examples compiled at WP:SHORTFORM; I am adding another one now reflecting use of abbreviations. We have Central Intelligence Agency, but CIA World Factbook and CIA activities in Russia and Europe, not Central Intelligence Agency World Factbook and Central Intelligence Agency activities in Russia and Europe. bd2412  T 20:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, there may be, BD2412; see Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. --George Ho (talk) 20:54, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose The moratorium is related, but not against the current title. There is consensus to use ISIL as the acronym over ISIS or Islamic State. This title is consistent with that decision. Legacypac (talk) 18:19, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Military of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant for consistency -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose There is no need to change the article title.--Abdesk2008 (talk) 12:05, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Must it? Why? There are plenty of articles with "USSR" in the title, such as USSR anti-religious campaign (1921–28) and List of the busiest airports in the former USSR. Oppose in the absence of a reason to move. Egsan Bacon (talk) 21:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Change not necessary, no rule against acronyms. DylanLacey (talk) 22:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
 * bd2412 Legacypac Abdesk2008 Egsan Bacon DylanLacey The title reference to ISIL is unhelpful in that ISIL is not the most commonly used acronym for the group.  Its use here is almost begging for justified changes to the lead here which I edited to this.  IMO, its a mess.  Can any of you present a legitimate advantage in the use of the acronym in the title that is worth this type of confusion?  Can you police the article?  Do you have reason to oppose a future RM?  Ping also: George Ho, 67.70.35.44 ~ Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  08:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. "ISIL" is used in the compound form, therefore the acronym is proper. Illegitimate Barrister 01:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Iraqi Kurdistan
Is it really necessary to list the number of Iraqi Kurds who've joined ISIS? They are Iraqi citizens, and the list is supposed to be of fighters who were not from Iraq and Syria. Maybe it can be mentioned elsewhere within the article, but I don't think it should be on the list.-- RM ( Be my friend ) 03:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Exhaustive, non-encyclopedic, and deeply problematic list of weapons
Not meaning to establish a combative tone here, LightandDark, but you seem intent on re-adding every single piece of problematic content that has been removed in recent months to bring this article in line with policies on encyclopedic tone and the general format expected of Wikipedia articles, especially that content meant to augment ISIL's sense of might. this content is simply not under any circumstances appropriate to an encyclopedic summary of the topic at hand. Not even our articles on formal militaries which dwarf ISIL's forces by comparison include such exhaustive lists and it is highly distracting information here for anyone looking for a neutral encyclopedic summary of the group. I am deeply, deeply concerned that Wikipedia might in this instance be used as extension of ISIL's massive online efforts to sell itself to those who revel in in the minutia of militant extremism through one of our articles. Regardless, these kinds of long tables dwarfing all other content are not appropriate to non-list articles under any circumstances. If you want to reduce some of this information to a prose section expounding upon these details, I'd say that, depending on how it was written, that could constitute relevant, useful and more neutral information for our readers. But if you keep re-introducing this cruft, I'm afraid I will have to take this matter to the relevant noticeboards, given the stakes involved and the potential for abuse by the propaganda arm of a terrorist organization. But for the record, I don't mean to imply you are such an agent of said organization; I thoroughly employ WP:AGF with regard to your intent, but I do think you have a mixed understanding of how policy applies to what content and format is considered appropriate in an article.  S n o w  let's rap 22:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hmmmmmm...odd, the edit has been reverted within minutes by an account with an oddly similar name to the other editor insisting on keeping it in.  I begin to suspect this is going to require administrative attention...  S n o w  let's rap 22:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Planned Battle of Mosul (2015), your input most welcome 495656778774 (talk) 00:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Political allies section
On another topic, the reason you give for this revert complete ignored the several reason for why that content was removed here in the first place. First and perhaps most importantly, it's not germane to this article's topic. These are political affiliations and declarations of shared dogma; they have no real practical relevance to the military activities of ISIL. None of these groups is located in a nation that shares a border with ISIL territory and we don't have a single source which so much as suggests that they might have provided direct military aid to, or collaborated with, the group, let alone the strong reliable sourcing we would need to connect the groups militarily under WP:V/WP:WEIGHT.

What's more, you claim that the information is only summarized in the main ISIL article, but in fact these allegiances are covered in much greater detail there in WP:PROSE, unlike the unencylopedic list that is provided here, in a manner which seems designed to exaggerate the scope of their military efforts and influence; under our policies, the fact that they are not summarized and properly contextualized as they are in the main ISIL article is an argument against including it in this form here, not for it. Regardless, this information does not belong here, and unless you can provide a better argument (that is, one based in policy) for why it should be retained at this namespace, I'll be removing it again shortly, though I'd welcome some third opinions in the interim.  S n o w  let's rap 21:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Consensus from the other editors involved in the parent article was to have most of the information in this article. The actual info in the parent article is much less substantial. LightandDark2000 (talk) 22:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * That kind of non-contextualizing list is not appropriate in any article, and, per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, the fact that the editors on the main ISIL article decided to jettison the problematic non-prose content from that article does not mean it should therefore be preserved here. Again, we need a policy-based argument to decide what to do in the case of this article.  And the policies referenced above clearly demonstrate why it is inappropriate.  This article is not about groups that support ISIL's political and ideological agenda and the content is not written in prose.  If you want the information preserved (and I happen to think there is an argument to be made for doing so, if it can be reworked into prose) I suggest you raise the issue again on the main ISIL page.  But no argument that has been presented here on the talk page or the edit summary for the revert presents a policy reason for preserving it here, or at all on the project in its current form.  S n o w  let's rap 06:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Military activity of ISIL. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140726195309/http://jordantimes.com:80/local-jihadist-group-pledges-allegiance-to-islamic-state to http://jordantimes.com/local-jihadist-group-pledges-allegiance-to-islamic-state

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Discredited rumours
I've a problem with the rumours of ISIL infiltration of Europe which keep getting re-added. They're two years old and obviously empty threats, which have already been discredited. Alfie Gandon (talk) 12:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Renaming
The military are armed forces authorized to support the interests of a sovereign state and its citizens. ISIL is not a state and it does not have any citizens, so it does not have a military either. It's fighters are unlawful combatants. I request renaming this page to ISIL military activities, simular to Hezbollah military activities and according to international law. 143.176.216.29 (talk) 08:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The article is talking about weapons, equipment and fighting strength, all of which have little to do with military activities and much better matched with it's current title. Gazkthul (talk) 08:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The Military of ISIL does not exist, so the current title does not match the article at all. Having weapons, equipment and combatants does not make you military. It makes you a fighting force. 143.176.216.29 (talk) 22:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose support the current name of article remaining (Military of ISIL) LavaBaron (talk) 18:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support renaming, I would propose " Armed Forces of ISIL " and would not support "ISIL Military activities". Because the currently proposed doesn't describe the scope of the article and the current title runs afoul of arguments about independent militaries. SPACKlick (talk) 14:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong support for a rename (though I don't think the proposed title is appropriate either) and strong support for scaling back the many elements of this page which do not conform to policies on Wikipedia content and, lastly, then consider whether an independent article on this topic is even appropriate.  There is a lot wrong with this article as it is currently presented, including numerous disconnects with policy in terms of encyclopedic format, content, and structure, but let's start with the nominal problem raised by this RfC.  I agree with 143.176.26.29's ultimate position that the currently title is clearly inappropriate, though it needs to be noted that their argument is not really consistent with the policies that govern content decisions on Wikipedia.  The reason the current title is inappropriate has nothing do with the reasoning they present for why IS's forces do not constitute a legitimate military -- even if their argument is more or less accurate, on this project we do not base the nomenclature we employ on our own personal logic; rather it is the fact that our sources do not references IS forces as a formal military that makes the current title inaccurate for our encyclopedic purposes here (see WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:VNT).   Many tens of thousands of WP:reliable sources out there speak the topic of IS military strength, but virtually none of them reference those forces as a formal military, referencing them instead as "militants" or "terrorists" or simply through vague collective nouns such as "forces", and amongst that small minority of sources might use the term "military" as a noun, most of them fall afoul of our reliable source and neutrality standards (and could, in any event, be dismissed per WP:WEIGHT, being such a small minority of usable sources, overall).  On Wikipedia, we do not present our perspectives on matters, be it with regard to formal nomenclature or specific claims; we rather represent what is found in reliable sources, and in this case, there can be little question that such sources overwhelming reference IS's collective forces with terminology which directly avoids comparing them to the militaries of established and internationally recognized states.


 * But all of this raises an even more significant issue of whether or not this article should exists as content separate from our main IS article to begin with. I suspect it in fact should not.  At first blush, it seems like there's too much content here to allow it to be merged back into the main article, but looking at that content in detail, it's clear that much of it is simply not appropriate content to begin with, and much of what remains is already found in the main article.   To begin with, these detailed tables about all of the military hardware currently in IS hands is completely over-the-top are really not appropriate to an encyclopedic summary of this topic; see for example our articles on Military of the United States, Military of Russia, and Military of China, all of which dwarf IS's military strength to the scale of a tiny mote (both in terms of scale and the amount of coverage they have received in reliable sources), but none of which have their armaments listed out in this kind of exhaustive and non-encyclopedic manner.  I am deeply concerned that the article may currently be parroting the efforts to project an image of strength that IS has itself been engaged in through their propaganda elsewhere online.  I hope that is completely incidental and not a concerted effort on the part of any user involved on this page -- having not investigated the origins of this content, I make no specific allegations along those lines and apologize to any well-intentioned editors who may have added it just because they thought it deepened our coverage, but I still say this kind of military fetishism is completely inappropriate to a Wikipedia article.   Other sections simply do not belong in this particular article, such as the list of organizations in other areas around the globe that decreed allegiance to the group.   That information certainly is relevant to the main IS article (where it can already be found), but has no real relevance of the military strength of IS itself -- the information, like much of the rest on this page, is also presented in a list format, rather than prose, as it is in the main IS article.  Once we strip away all of the content that is problematic or outright inappropriate, and then consider all of the information which is already covered in numerous other articles with better prose, formatting, and context, there is really pretty much nothing left, and arguments for preserving an independent article on this topic at all.  But yes, if it stays, it without a doubt needs another name, per WP:Verifiability and WP:Neutrality.   S n o w  let's rap 00:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong support I actually support the rename for the same reasons Snow Rise just mentioned. I too believe the article should at th every least be renamed, but likely also revised and considered for deletion/inclusion in other pages. Lucutious (talk) 13:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong support for changing the page name. What about "ISIL armed combatants?" Maybe a little too specific for the page's coverage? Meatsgains (talk) 03:38, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


 * ,, Wait a minute, just how is this consensus for moving from the current title to "Military activities of ISIL", which didn't even earn a majority vote? Wikipedia is NOT a democracy, so the number of votes don't really matter as much as the actual quality of the arguments presented. Based on this, I see no actual support for renaming the article to the proposed title, with at least some favoring a variant of its original name (Military of ISIL). By the way, IF we go by a straw poll for argument quality and content, the vote is 5:3 for Rename to ... Vs. Pretty much everything else. Because of the way this discussion has been poorly handled, I would like to contest the apparent "result" and reopen the discussion. LightandDark2000 (talk) 10:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The point is that Relaible sources overwhelmingly do not regard or refer to ISIL militants as a "military". In this case, it's really that simple; see WP:NPOVTITLE/WP:POVNAMING.  The "straw poll" above is in fact a clear WP:LOCALCONSENSUS on the application of these policies.  Also be aware of WP:CANVASS; it is inappropriate of you to ping just the party who closed the discussion and the two editorts who agree with your position, as you did, failing to notify, , , the IP and myself; it gives the impression of trying to weight the discussion in your favour.   S n o w  let's rap 21:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Well this was not a WP:RM so i'm not sure how appropriate it was to move it, particularly with there not seeming to be much of a consensus either way. I stand by my earlier statement, the current title does not match the article, it is concerning the military (or paramilitary) structure of the group - leadership, weapons, numbers of militants, and has no real mention of it's military activities - battles and such. Gazkthul (talk) 22:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't particularly like the current name, and I would not have voted for it, but User:LavaBaron did not advance any argument and User:Gazkthul did not vote, and only expressed the opinion that the old name was a better match with the article contents. Against this there were several serious objections to the old title, so I judged that there was insufficient support for keeping it. There remains a possibility to rename the article again, but probably not back to Military of ISIL. My own preference was to merge it into ISIL because its contents are largely redundant with the material in that article, but this proposal has not gained traction on Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, mainly, it seems, because the latter article is near the limit according to WP:SIZERULE, at 99 kB readable. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to jump in with a key point; the fact that ISIL is not a recognized state does not mean it's fighters are unlawful combatants. The Geneva Conventions recognize non-state actors, including Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power as potential lawful combatants, provided they follow the Geneva Conventions. Also, you can still be a soldier of a regular army and unlawful combatant, the status really depends more on your conduct in accordance with the laws of war. In any event, the argument that ISIL has no a military because it is not a recognized state is parallel to claiming that the Confederate States Army was not a military because it was not a recognized state.-- RM ( Be my friend ) 09:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * To my knowledge ISIL does not follow or claim to follow the Geneva Conventions. I agree, though, that this argument is splitting hairs. Does anyone know what title ISIL uses for its army? --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Not relevant, since we must take or ques on what WP:Reliable sources call them, not what individuals would prefer, regardless of what we think of the logic employed. Reenem's observation, while worth bearing in mind for those interested in matters of international law, is not really relevant to our purposes here in editing the encyclopedia.    S n o w  let's rap 10:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, fine. I have always seen the media refer to ISIL's armed force simply as "ISIL," probably reflecting the fact that nobody recognizes them as a state, so the fighters become synonymous with the organization. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you're right; most all media (and sources in general) tend to view it as a movement, whatever the assertion implicit in their own choice of name.  S n o w  let's rap 03:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

if you move this again, against clear and overwhelming consensus, your actions will be referred for administrative review. Our policies are unambiguous that we do not use our own preferred titles, but rather what WP:Reliable sources use, and sources overwhelmingly do not refer to this group as a military. Not only were the !votes strongly in favour of this move, not a single policy-based argument was forwarded to support the position you are trying to edit war in. This is unacceptable unilateral behaviour, whereas Sammy acted as an uninvolved party in closing the discussion and acting in concert with consensus.  S n o w  let's rap 05:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * FYI for involved editors, I completely flubbed the move, breaking the revision history at first, but everything should be back in order now. However, notice in the shuffle that I changed the title to "Military activity of ISIL"  as opposed to "military activities of ISIL";  I considered changing this back to the original title, but it honestly, the present title seems good.  If anyone feels "activities" still suits better, be my guest in moving it back to that location.  However, any effort to move it back to "Military of ISIL" without first establishing a new WP:LOCALCONSENSUS will result in my taking the recurring issues with violation of policy and consensus to the administrative corps.   The only reason I've not brought these issues to the noticeboards and SPI (since there is abundant evidence of gaming and puppetry here) is because I am immensely busy, but I'll make time if I have to.  Not pointing fingers at anyone just yet, but I am deeply concerned, looking at edit history and comparing the contribs of some involved users, of the possibility of socking and other abuses to try to serve the interests of this group.  S n o w  let's rap 05:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * ISIL refers to its armed forces as Army of the Khalifah (Caliphate). The source is in the main ISIL article, for those who are interested.
 * However, the problem is that we cannot use this title if we are to rename this article, because ISIL is an illegitimate "country," and as such, no one recognizes ISIL's claims of a country, including that of its army by extension. LightandDark2000 (talk) 23:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow, I'm not seeing a consensus to move this and Snow is pretty aggressive reverting to keep their preferred title. "Activity" is about fighting, this page is about how the Military of ISIL is structured and armed.  I'm putting it back to how it was for a long time. If you want to move it again, start a proper RM. Legacypac (talk) 18:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Military activity of ISIL Army And Army Air Wing
There are already two articles covering subjects in Military activity of ISIL Army And Army Air Wing; Military activity of ISIL and Military equipment of ISIL. There is however some content in ISIL Army and Army Air Wing which could be valuable in Military activity of ISIL. lovkal (talk) 07:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Support: While I do believe that sub-articles about the different ISIL units (such as the "Caliphate Army" elite units) should eventually be created, the article "Military activity of ISIL Army And Army Air Wing" has currently no real worth on its own - thus I agree that it should be merged with "Military activity of ISIL". Applodion (talk) 08:32, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Disagree: I think Military activity of ISIL Army And Army Air Wing should not be merged with Military activity of ISIL because theise are two separate articles-SOKO Super Galeb — Preceding unsigned comment added by SOKO Super Galeb (talk • contribs) 22:55, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are two separate articles, and I believe that is unnecessary. What is the difference between "Military activity of ISIL" and "Military activity of ISIL Army and Army Air Wing"? They both document military activity/equipment of the same group, so it makes little sense for there to be two articles on the same subject. lovkal (talk) 06:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Be advised that I've decided to mark Military activity of ISIL Army And Army Air Wing for speedy deletion under CSD A10 criteria, this discussion should probably be postponed until an admin has decided what to do with the article. See Talk:Military activity of ISIL Army And Army Air Wing. lovkal (talk) 07:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Article was speedy deleted. lovkal (talk) 09:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

« Covert, no territory controlled »
Is an absolutely pointless notion.

Bc if one ISIS member or sympathizer lives within a nation and covertly schemes against that nation, that does not mean they are infiltrating that country. For the sake of impartiality we would have to include almost every single country with a Salafist Mosque.

It is absolutely redundant information. It’s like saying that communism supporters have covert operations by citing the many communist clubs on campuses that dot the US.

It’s not worth filling up the page by information that is not relevant. We are referring to the military of isis. Not people who uphold their ideologies. JasonMoore (talk) 04:53, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment

 * Someone added that they were all over the world, with no cites, or cites that did not support the additions. I just cleaned it up. Legacypac (talk) 16:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

6 years later it still needs more tidying. They’ve lost a lot of ground and don’t function in many of places still currently listed. JasonMoore (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)