![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
The result of the move request was: not moved for the original proposal and there's also no consensus that "the Levant" should be changed to "al-Sham". However, there is a consensus to change "in" to "of" and thus the new title will be Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Jenks24 ( talk) 15:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant →
Islamic State in Iraq and Syria – The
WP:COMMONNAME for the group has clearly shifted:
(Note that these numbers are likely to change over time) Philpill691 ( talk) 17:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
*Support - When the acronym ISIS is taken into account, ISIS & Islamic State in Iraq and Syria is probably more common than ISIL & Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant. A possible compromise could be Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham, though that's the least common of the names I've seen (which is why I'd oppose it). I now support Islamic State in/of Iraq and al-Sham (I have no preference between in or of).
Blaylockjam10 (
talk)
08:04, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
AntiqueReader ( talk) 20:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Whichever title is decided upon above, I suggest the word of be used instead of in in the title, as of seems to be used in more sources than in for virtually all translations of the group's name. -- Philpill691 ( talk) 03:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Islamic State of/in Iraq and ... | "of" used | "in" used |
---|---|---|
"Syria" | 4,290,000 results | 1,070,000 results |
"the Levant" | 8,800,000 results | 4,060,000 results |
"al-Sham" | 1,140,000 results | 816,000 results |
"Sham" | 4,650,000 results | 996,000 results |
See [5]. 68.118.53.183 ( talk) 15:45, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Should this page be moved to The Islamic State to reflect its new name? — Zcbeaton ( talk) 17:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
The establishment date of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant is listed as 3 January 2014, the source is a Reuters piece about militants taking over parts of Fallujah and declaring an 'Islamic state', with no exact quotes given. However, this group has been a self proclaimed state since 2006. Reports on the declaration of a state from 8 years ago - 'The Mujahideen Shura Council, al Qaeda in Iraq's front group designed to legitimize its actions, has released a video announcing the formation of a Sunni Islamic State of Iraq, which is comprised of "Baghdad, Anbar, Diyala, Kirkuk, Salah al-Din, Ninawa, and in other parts of the governorate of Babel," according to the SITE Institute. The Sunni Islamic State would "will judge according to the Islamic Shari'a (law), using such as an aegis for the people, and to defend the religion."' The Rump Islamic Emirate of Iraq
'The individual who delivers the message, whose face is obscured (see photo below), is identified in the video as "the official spokesman of the Islamic State." He explains that, since the Kurds and the Shi'ites have established de facto states of their own in Iraq, and since the Iraqi government headed by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki has betrayed the Iraqi Sunnis and robbed them of their rights, the jihad groups that have recently taken the "oath of the scented ones" [2] have decided to establish an Islamic state which will incorporate the Iraqi provinces of Baghdad, Al-Anbar, Diyala, Kirkuk, Salah Al-Din, Ninveh, and parts of Babil Province (see map below). The announcer adds that the purpose of establishing the Islamic state is twofold: to unite the mujahideen and prevent fitna, and to make the word of Allah supreme in the region. He calls upon the Sunnis around the world to support the newly established Islamic state, and urges the Sunnis in Iraq to pledge allegiance to 'Umar Al-Baghdadi, who is referred to as amir al-muaminin, a title traditionally given to the Muslim Caliphs. The Shura Council of the Jihad Fighters in Iraq Announces the Establishment of an Islamic State
Based on Baghdadi's group proclaiming themselves to be a state in 2006, I am updating the infobox to reflect this. Gazkthul ( talk) 23:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
That was the date the group was founded, not the nation. It didn't become an unrecognized state until it seized control of Fallujah in 2014. Their is a major difference between the date the group was founded and the actual foundation of the state. 205.232.106.254 ( talk) 20:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
The ISIL was an insurgency in 2006, with no control over any territory, so at that time they didn't fit the definition of an unrecognized state. Furthermore, until late 2013, the group was working with the FSA and the other Syrian opposition groups, so it can be argued that they were still just another faction of the Syrian rebels at that time. As the source I provided claims, it was on January 3, 2014, that they proclaimed an independent state in Fallujah. By then, they had firm control of areas in both Syria and Iraq, and were no longer associated with the other Syrian rebels. Therefore, as is stated in the category section of the article, the 2014 date is the legitimate date of the state. I suppose it could be argued that the group could be considered an unrecognized state in 2013, but because of the fact that they were working with the other Syrian rebels, I don't think it should be included in the establishment date of the UNRECOGNIZED STATE info box, but it can be included in the war faction box. The 2006 date could also be included in the war faction box, but it definitely doesn't belong in the country info box. Toolen ( talk) 18:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Further to the above, the article variously gives 2003, 2004, and 2006 as the year in which the group was established. It would be helpful if someone with knowledge of the subject matter could clear this up. -- Nizolan ( talk) 12:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
In 2006 they did not control any territory. As you said, they were an underground insurgency movement. Thus, in that year they did not fit the definition of an unrecognized state. That date can go under the war faction infobox, but not the country info box. Toolen ( talk) 18:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
the narrative contained in many of the ISIS Wilayat Twitter pages in Syria, which focus more on education, Shari‘a law, and reconstruction, especially in ar-Raqqa, which ISIS declared to be the beginning of the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham.
The Wilayat of Raqqa Twitter account was set up on November 19, 2013, although attempts to establish governance pre-date this. [“Wilayat of Raqqa”], Twitter post, November 19, 2013, https:// twitter.com/raqqa98/status/402766535829098497
OK, let's get this declaration nailed down! Some seem to think declared January 2014 in Iraq, but I have an ISW report saying November 2013 in Syria. AntiqueReader ( talk) 17:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
January 3: Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) announces an Islamic state in Fallujah and detains 75 members of the Iraqi Army. Reportedly, an AQI commander addressed a crowd at major Friday prayers and announced that the group is in Fallujah to "to defend Sunnis from the government." AQI increases its presence in Fallujah while the Iraqi Army calls up reinforcements outside the city and begins a bombardment of suspected enemy positions. These events produce a humanitarian crisis in Fallujah with at least hundreds of families fleeing the city. Meanwhile, a political standoff has renewed between Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and speaker of the Iraqi Council of Representatives (COR), Osama al-Nujaifi.
we shouldn't add wrong information just because of a journalist who knows nothing about ISIS. 3bdulelah ( talk) 06:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I have found an article from what appears to be a Pakistani Taliban source which claims a sort of alliance (albeit informal) between the Pakistani Taliban and what is known as ISIS (based on a harmony of purpose). I do not know whether this source is definitively valid or trustworthy enough to be cited, but I think it is a connection worth being investigated at some point. If these groups do officially collaborate, that would effectively double the current estimated size of either independently (from ~30,000 to ~60,000 combined) in militant member numbers. The web site I will link to also includes information of global support for ISIS, including in Indonesia. If this information is correct, it may be possible for us to have a more clear understanding of how widespread the influence of ISIS may quickly become.
Aforementioned source: abu al bawi blogspot - pakistani-taliban-stance-on-isis... BillyHamsterdave ( talk) 02:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Maps are very helpful to those like myself that process information visually Nickjbor ( talk) 16:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
The map that is there is horrendously out of date Nickjbor ( talk) 04:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you to whoever updated the map!
198.96.35.90 (
talk)
07:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
@ Technophant: Is the lead still too long? I refer to my revision at 16:17 today. It seems to me about the right length for an article of this size, judging by other Wiki articles. (AntiqueReader cut it right down and with his agreement I restored some of it, but I think he disagrees about the length it is now. I don't want to get into an edit war over this!) -- P123ct1 ( talk) 15:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Is there a reason that this article exists, it says that it's the same group with a different name. Charles Essie ( talk) 20:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
In a recent edition by @ User:AntiqueReader some omissions are seen two of which are as such:
I'd like to know the reason of this editions, since nothing were mentioned in the edit summary. Note that, for the second one, same phrase was used by the News Website and I think it has nothing to do with NPOV or sth. Mhhossein ( talk) 13:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
When adding information, please take care to reflect citations accurately. I have found some glaring inaccuracies.
ISIS now claims control over all the world, so I don't think it's relevant to show which areas do they claim, in orange. Either the legend should be corrected, or the file itself should be corrected, I suppose. Mondolkiri1 ( talk) 20:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I think we should refer to this organization primarily as ISIL (with a note that it and its allies insist it should be called "The Islamic State") until most notable, reliable sources refer to it by the new name outside of quotations. In particular, I changed the lead from
to
for the time being, until there is a consensus among Enlish-language RSs and Wikipedia editors that we should use the new official name here as the main one. The infobox and references within the article should be consistent with this. This is in keeping with the convention still present in This AP article and most other sources too. On the other hand, at least two (the Telegraph and AFP) have adopted the change. We should keep a close eye on what sources do -- I suggest keeping track of which sources follow which conventions in this section. I think we should weight Al Jazeera, AP, the BBC, NPR, and AFP heavily in deciding which convention to follow. Josiah Stevenson ( talk) 22:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Partial list of reliable sources that still call it ISIS/ISIL despite acknowledging the name change announcement by the group (as we should too, as long as there are a significant number of sources here):
Partial list of reliable sources that have adopted the name change:
Josiah Stevenson (
talk)
22:44, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
The Economist is now using "The IS". -- Ypnypn ( talk) 22:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Kuwait is not apart of the Levant or Al-Shams region, it is not mentioned in the two sources either. Levant area is near east and includes Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria.
newname
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite web}}
: External link in |website=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |website=
(
help)
Ibrahim
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite web}}
: External link in |website=
(
help)
Is " Wahhabi movement" suitable to be included in "See also" section? some websites claim it to follow wahhabi ideology. Mhhossein ( talk) 12:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Why was this page moved? The former title doesn't even redirect to this page. I suggest we return the former title. See. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibrahimsqureshi ( talk • contribs) 17:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
@ Sa.vakilian The following part of the article mentioned in Ideology and beliefs section is omitted merely for being published in PRESS TV:
Zaid Hamid, a Sunni Muslim defense analyst from Pakistan, says that ISIS and related terrorist groups are not Sunnis, but Kharijite heretics serving an imperial anti-Islamic agenda.[Barrett, Kevin. "'Is ISIL really 'Sunni'? Not at all'". Press TV. Retrieved 6 July 2014.]
It should be mentioned that this claim is quoted from an article by Dr. Kevin Barrett, a Ph.D. Arabist-Islamologist, who is one of America's best-known critics of the War on Terror. Dr. Barrett has appeared many times on Fox, CNN, PBS and other broadcast outlets, and has inspired feature stories and op-eds in the New York Times, the Christian Science Monitor, the Chicago Tribune, and other leading publications. Dr. Barrett has taught at colleges and universities in San Francisco, Paris, and Wisconsin, where he ran for Congress in 2008. He is the co-founder of the Muslim-Christian-Jewish Alliance, and author of the books Truth Jihad: My Epic Struggle Against the 9/11 Big Lie (2007) and Questioning the War on Terror: A Primer for Obama Voters (2009).
@ Gazkthul & @ Septate So please do research before doing such omissions and let other editors comment on these matters by discussing them in the article talk page before doing any thing. Thanks Mhhossein ( talk) 06:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Therefor, I suggest to add a sentence which says some of the Muslim scholars resembles/describes ISIS as Kharijites.-- Seyyed( t- c) 07:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Sunnis who don't subscribe to Takfiri ideology are always refered to as modern day Kharwarij (not Kharjites),by the Muslims who don't believe in Takfir, but every group fighting Assad isa Takfiri, or they cojuldn't fight him, as usualy by those without understanding of the basis of takfir, and its practice among the ASahaba (Abu Bakr fought a Muslim group just for giving up one aspect of sharia, PAYING ZAKAT, SO WHAT OF THOSE WHO ABANDON IT COMPLETELY? wAS ABU bAKR AS-SIDIQ A Kharwarij? Yassin.
I have already once removed (giving reasons in the edit summary) the statement about Al-Qaeda cutting ties with ISIS because it was "too extreme", but it has been put back in by the same person. The footnotes appended do not back up the statement. "Too extreme" is a quotation from the headline in an article cited in one of the footnotes. Al-Qaeda has never said in so many words that ISIS is "too extreme". If everyone is happy for this misleading quotation to remain in the article, so be it; I am not reverting it again as I do not want to edit-war. -- P123ct1 ( talk) 09:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
The article lacks a section describing the ideology and beliefs of this ISIL. It should be notified what makes them toward such a movement. Mhhossein ( talk) 13:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
In That Case then it was not "Absolute Monarchy". but "Constitutional Monarchy" at best. you cannot Ignore the Shura Council Factor here, and we were talking about Government System, not Religion or Age etc
the Link of 'Absulute Monarchy' of Vatican city http://www.catholic-pages.com/vatican/vatican_city.asp and the website's for description of Government System were Superficial, and again if you think "Monarchy" same as "theocracy" then it was all wrong( Ahendra ( talk) 17:47, 6 July 2014 (UTC))
![]() | This
edit request to
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The date in the caption of the map near the bottom of the article (in the section "2014 events") reads "Current (June 2014) situation". The map was last updated today, July 11, and so the date in the caption needs to be "July 2014". Thanks. SaltySeas ( talk) 22:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
This section makes a variety of unsourced claims about weapons and equipment, including the claim that ISIS fighters wear US uniforms and body armor. It would be get a source for this claim, because it seems unusual that a militant jihadist group would wear US uniforms. OnBeyondZebrax ( talk) 16:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Article by Patrick Cockburn about Saudi and ISIS. I don't have time to add it just now, but can do so later today. If anyone else wants to add it before then, feel free, obviously. AntiqueReader ( talk) 08:40, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
User:Ahendra has been Reverting my reverts for him. He thinks that this section of the article is "Propaganda", while I see it as well sourced and relevant. Should it be deleted, or is User:Ahendra just causing trouble? Staglit ( talk) 23:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
...who went door to door in Mosul, the second largest city in Iraq, taking "women who are not owned" for "Jihad Nikah" or sex Jihad. Between June 9th and June 12th, women's rights activists documented 13 cases of women who were kidnapped and raped by militants of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)...
according to this source and some other sources,"The reports came from Al-Masryalyoum, a well-respected Egyptian daily newspaper as well as other sources in the Arab press."
@ User:Ahendra So, the mentioned materials are creditable and verifiable. These article is viewed many times per day. So, be careful about what you write or what you omitt and revert. As I said before, do a little research before doing such reversions. Mhhossein ( talk) 05:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
It looks like many ppl were Pissed because im telling the truth, it looks like i must point my Evidence,
lets take Example Al-Arabiya report about 'sexual Jihad' http://english.alarabiya.net/en/variety/2013/09/28/Kidnapped-Syrian-women-forced-to-make-sexual-jihad-claims-on-state-TV.html
and THEN ONE RESEARCH CAST DOUBT OF IT AS VIRAL PROPAGANDA IN SYRIA-IRAQ WHICH EMULATED BY STIRRED OPINION AND ANOTHER SETUP WHICH IS REPORTED BY BIASED MEDIA! http://www.moroccoworldnews.com/2013/10/107183/sex-jihad-in-syria-a-mere-hoax/?print=pdf YOU ALL SHOULD TAKE SUSPICION TOO( Ahendra ( talk) 07:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC))
this is Opinion which doubt the credibility of report about 'Sexual Jihad' in Syria
The Syrian regime published testimony by female teenager who was a purported victim. Rawan Qadah narrated a story of such proportions that only the Syrian regime could have fabricated it. Rawan narrated an incoherent story of how her father conspired against her and used her as a sexual commodity.
Perhaps the story which Rawan narrated is itself a crime committed by the Syrian regime; it doesn’t stop at anything for the sake of staying in power. The tragedy of Rawan, who was kidnapped months ago and whose father is an opponent of the regime, urged several media outlets to dig into this made-up phenomenon dubbed “sexual jihad.”
French daily Le Monde and American magazine Foreign Policy wrote articles and conducted investigation reports on this lie. After that, a torrent of Western and Arab articles were published in media outlets around the world in an attempt to compensate for falling in the trap of such a lie.
Perhaps the best means which Le Monde and Foreign Policy adopted in solving the case was beginning their investigation at the root of the issue. The sheikh whom the fatwa was attributed to has confirmed several times that he did not issue this fatwa. The media outlet which marketed this story for the first time was one that supports the Syrian regime. Not a single case of sexual jihad could be proven. Tunisian officials who spoke on the subject did not present solid evidence either. It later turned out that they had personal interests to achieve by making these statements.
http://www.aawsat.net/2013/10/article55318787
i Revert it not because im vandalist, i Revert it because the topic were full of Opinion and Suspicious, if i want to Vandal then i will not Delete it Instead change the Information about 'Sexual Jihad' to 'Mutah Marriage of Shia'and then i delete the Entire Section about the treatment to Civilian,
All i want is Wikipedia should be Accurate and Objective article instead of Propaganda Media( Ahendra ( talk) 07:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC))
Since they don't go by modern law this might be kind of an absurd question, but because of the rules for putting content on Wikimedia Commons I'm wondering what the copyright status is for media like "Clashing of the Swords IV". Has al-Furqan Media Productions (which is listed as producing that video) or Global Islamic Media Front (GIMF) ever made a statement about public domain status or Creative Commons licensing for the materials they distribute? (See also the Commons thread and a user there whose uploads were deleted or pending deletion for lack of copyright status) Wnt ( talk) 12:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
It does not seem right to use publications that have subscription paywalls in citations, such as the Financial Times. Perhaps these should be avoided in footnotes, for the sake of transparency. -- P123ct1 ( talk) 12:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Please note that I did not add the list below. It is unsigned. -- P123ct1 ( talk) 12:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
It seems to be a major source here - how does it meet WP:RS? Dougweller ( talk) 20:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
The result of the move request was: not moved for the original proposal and there's also no consensus that "the Levant" should be changed to "al-Sham". However, there is a consensus to change "in" to "of" and thus the new title will be Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Jenks24 ( talk) 15:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant →
Islamic State in Iraq and Syria – The
WP:COMMONNAME for the group has clearly shifted:
(Note that these numbers are likely to change over time) Philpill691 ( talk) 17:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
*Support - When the acronym ISIS is taken into account, ISIS & Islamic State in Iraq and Syria is probably more common than ISIL & Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant. A possible compromise could be Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham, though that's the least common of the names I've seen (which is why I'd oppose it). I now support Islamic State in/of Iraq and al-Sham (I have no preference between in or of).
Blaylockjam10 (
talk)
08:04, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
AntiqueReader ( talk) 20:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Whichever title is decided upon above, I suggest the word of be used instead of in in the title, as of seems to be used in more sources than in for virtually all translations of the group's name. -- Philpill691 ( talk) 03:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Islamic State of/in Iraq and ... | "of" used | "in" used |
---|---|---|
"Syria" | 4,290,000 results | 1,070,000 results |
"the Levant" | 8,800,000 results | 4,060,000 results |
"al-Sham" | 1,140,000 results | 816,000 results |
"Sham" | 4,650,000 results | 996,000 results |
See [5]. 68.118.53.183 ( talk) 15:45, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Should this page be moved to The Islamic State to reflect its new name? — Zcbeaton ( talk) 17:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
The establishment date of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant is listed as 3 January 2014, the source is a Reuters piece about militants taking over parts of Fallujah and declaring an 'Islamic state', with no exact quotes given. However, this group has been a self proclaimed state since 2006. Reports on the declaration of a state from 8 years ago - 'The Mujahideen Shura Council, al Qaeda in Iraq's front group designed to legitimize its actions, has released a video announcing the formation of a Sunni Islamic State of Iraq, which is comprised of "Baghdad, Anbar, Diyala, Kirkuk, Salah al-Din, Ninawa, and in other parts of the governorate of Babel," according to the SITE Institute. The Sunni Islamic State would "will judge according to the Islamic Shari'a (law), using such as an aegis for the people, and to defend the religion."' The Rump Islamic Emirate of Iraq
'The individual who delivers the message, whose face is obscured (see photo below), is identified in the video as "the official spokesman of the Islamic State." He explains that, since the Kurds and the Shi'ites have established de facto states of their own in Iraq, and since the Iraqi government headed by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki has betrayed the Iraqi Sunnis and robbed them of their rights, the jihad groups that have recently taken the "oath of the scented ones" [2] have decided to establish an Islamic state which will incorporate the Iraqi provinces of Baghdad, Al-Anbar, Diyala, Kirkuk, Salah Al-Din, Ninveh, and parts of Babil Province (see map below). The announcer adds that the purpose of establishing the Islamic state is twofold: to unite the mujahideen and prevent fitna, and to make the word of Allah supreme in the region. He calls upon the Sunnis around the world to support the newly established Islamic state, and urges the Sunnis in Iraq to pledge allegiance to 'Umar Al-Baghdadi, who is referred to as amir al-muaminin, a title traditionally given to the Muslim Caliphs. The Shura Council of the Jihad Fighters in Iraq Announces the Establishment of an Islamic State
Based on Baghdadi's group proclaiming themselves to be a state in 2006, I am updating the infobox to reflect this. Gazkthul ( talk) 23:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
That was the date the group was founded, not the nation. It didn't become an unrecognized state until it seized control of Fallujah in 2014. Their is a major difference between the date the group was founded and the actual foundation of the state. 205.232.106.254 ( talk) 20:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
The ISIL was an insurgency in 2006, with no control over any territory, so at that time they didn't fit the definition of an unrecognized state. Furthermore, until late 2013, the group was working with the FSA and the other Syrian opposition groups, so it can be argued that they were still just another faction of the Syrian rebels at that time. As the source I provided claims, it was on January 3, 2014, that they proclaimed an independent state in Fallujah. By then, they had firm control of areas in both Syria and Iraq, and were no longer associated with the other Syrian rebels. Therefore, as is stated in the category section of the article, the 2014 date is the legitimate date of the state. I suppose it could be argued that the group could be considered an unrecognized state in 2013, but because of the fact that they were working with the other Syrian rebels, I don't think it should be included in the establishment date of the UNRECOGNIZED STATE info box, but it can be included in the war faction box. The 2006 date could also be included in the war faction box, but it definitely doesn't belong in the country info box. Toolen ( talk) 18:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Further to the above, the article variously gives 2003, 2004, and 2006 as the year in which the group was established. It would be helpful if someone with knowledge of the subject matter could clear this up. -- Nizolan ( talk) 12:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
In 2006 they did not control any territory. As you said, they were an underground insurgency movement. Thus, in that year they did not fit the definition of an unrecognized state. That date can go under the war faction infobox, but not the country info box. Toolen ( talk) 18:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
the narrative contained in many of the ISIS Wilayat Twitter pages in Syria, which focus more on education, Shari‘a law, and reconstruction, especially in ar-Raqqa, which ISIS declared to be the beginning of the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham.
The Wilayat of Raqqa Twitter account was set up on November 19, 2013, although attempts to establish governance pre-date this. [“Wilayat of Raqqa”], Twitter post, November 19, 2013, https:// twitter.com/raqqa98/status/402766535829098497
OK, let's get this declaration nailed down! Some seem to think declared January 2014 in Iraq, but I have an ISW report saying November 2013 in Syria. AntiqueReader ( talk) 17:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
January 3: Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) announces an Islamic state in Fallujah and detains 75 members of the Iraqi Army. Reportedly, an AQI commander addressed a crowd at major Friday prayers and announced that the group is in Fallujah to "to defend Sunnis from the government." AQI increases its presence in Fallujah while the Iraqi Army calls up reinforcements outside the city and begins a bombardment of suspected enemy positions. These events produce a humanitarian crisis in Fallujah with at least hundreds of families fleeing the city. Meanwhile, a political standoff has renewed between Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and speaker of the Iraqi Council of Representatives (COR), Osama al-Nujaifi.
we shouldn't add wrong information just because of a journalist who knows nothing about ISIS. 3bdulelah ( talk) 06:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I have found an article from what appears to be a Pakistani Taliban source which claims a sort of alliance (albeit informal) between the Pakistani Taliban and what is known as ISIS (based on a harmony of purpose). I do not know whether this source is definitively valid or trustworthy enough to be cited, but I think it is a connection worth being investigated at some point. If these groups do officially collaborate, that would effectively double the current estimated size of either independently (from ~30,000 to ~60,000 combined) in militant member numbers. The web site I will link to also includes information of global support for ISIS, including in Indonesia. If this information is correct, it may be possible for us to have a more clear understanding of how widespread the influence of ISIS may quickly become.
Aforementioned source: abu al bawi blogspot - pakistani-taliban-stance-on-isis... BillyHamsterdave ( talk) 02:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Maps are very helpful to those like myself that process information visually Nickjbor ( talk) 16:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
The map that is there is horrendously out of date Nickjbor ( talk) 04:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you to whoever updated the map!
198.96.35.90 (
talk)
07:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
@ Technophant: Is the lead still too long? I refer to my revision at 16:17 today. It seems to me about the right length for an article of this size, judging by other Wiki articles. (AntiqueReader cut it right down and with his agreement I restored some of it, but I think he disagrees about the length it is now. I don't want to get into an edit war over this!) -- P123ct1 ( talk) 15:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Is there a reason that this article exists, it says that it's the same group with a different name. Charles Essie ( talk) 20:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
In a recent edition by @ User:AntiqueReader some omissions are seen two of which are as such:
I'd like to know the reason of this editions, since nothing were mentioned in the edit summary. Note that, for the second one, same phrase was used by the News Website and I think it has nothing to do with NPOV or sth. Mhhossein ( talk) 13:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
When adding information, please take care to reflect citations accurately. I have found some glaring inaccuracies.
ISIS now claims control over all the world, so I don't think it's relevant to show which areas do they claim, in orange. Either the legend should be corrected, or the file itself should be corrected, I suppose. Mondolkiri1 ( talk) 20:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I think we should refer to this organization primarily as ISIL (with a note that it and its allies insist it should be called "The Islamic State") until most notable, reliable sources refer to it by the new name outside of quotations. In particular, I changed the lead from
to
for the time being, until there is a consensus among Enlish-language RSs and Wikipedia editors that we should use the new official name here as the main one. The infobox and references within the article should be consistent with this. This is in keeping with the convention still present in This AP article and most other sources too. On the other hand, at least two (the Telegraph and AFP) have adopted the change. We should keep a close eye on what sources do -- I suggest keeping track of which sources follow which conventions in this section. I think we should weight Al Jazeera, AP, the BBC, NPR, and AFP heavily in deciding which convention to follow. Josiah Stevenson ( talk) 22:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Partial list of reliable sources that still call it ISIS/ISIL despite acknowledging the name change announcement by the group (as we should too, as long as there are a significant number of sources here):
Partial list of reliable sources that have adopted the name change:
Josiah Stevenson (
talk)
22:44, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
The Economist is now using "The IS". -- Ypnypn ( talk) 22:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Kuwait is not apart of the Levant or Al-Shams region, it is not mentioned in the two sources either. Levant area is near east and includes Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria.
newname
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite web}}
: External link in |website=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |website=
(
help)
Ibrahim
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite web}}
: External link in |website=
(
help)
Is " Wahhabi movement" suitable to be included in "See also" section? some websites claim it to follow wahhabi ideology. Mhhossein ( talk) 12:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Why was this page moved? The former title doesn't even redirect to this page. I suggest we return the former title. See. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibrahimsqureshi ( talk • contribs) 17:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
@ Sa.vakilian The following part of the article mentioned in Ideology and beliefs section is omitted merely for being published in PRESS TV:
Zaid Hamid, a Sunni Muslim defense analyst from Pakistan, says that ISIS and related terrorist groups are not Sunnis, but Kharijite heretics serving an imperial anti-Islamic agenda.[Barrett, Kevin. "'Is ISIL really 'Sunni'? Not at all'". Press TV. Retrieved 6 July 2014.]
It should be mentioned that this claim is quoted from an article by Dr. Kevin Barrett, a Ph.D. Arabist-Islamologist, who is one of America's best-known critics of the War on Terror. Dr. Barrett has appeared many times on Fox, CNN, PBS and other broadcast outlets, and has inspired feature stories and op-eds in the New York Times, the Christian Science Monitor, the Chicago Tribune, and other leading publications. Dr. Barrett has taught at colleges and universities in San Francisco, Paris, and Wisconsin, where he ran for Congress in 2008. He is the co-founder of the Muslim-Christian-Jewish Alliance, and author of the books Truth Jihad: My Epic Struggle Against the 9/11 Big Lie (2007) and Questioning the War on Terror: A Primer for Obama Voters (2009).
@ Gazkthul & @ Septate So please do research before doing such omissions and let other editors comment on these matters by discussing them in the article talk page before doing any thing. Thanks Mhhossein ( talk) 06:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Therefor, I suggest to add a sentence which says some of the Muslim scholars resembles/describes ISIS as Kharijites.-- Seyyed( t- c) 07:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Sunnis who don't subscribe to Takfiri ideology are always refered to as modern day Kharwarij (not Kharjites),by the Muslims who don't believe in Takfir, but every group fighting Assad isa Takfiri, or they cojuldn't fight him, as usualy by those without understanding of the basis of takfir, and its practice among the ASahaba (Abu Bakr fought a Muslim group just for giving up one aspect of sharia, PAYING ZAKAT, SO WHAT OF THOSE WHO ABANDON IT COMPLETELY? wAS ABU bAKR AS-SIDIQ A Kharwarij? Yassin.
I have already once removed (giving reasons in the edit summary) the statement about Al-Qaeda cutting ties with ISIS because it was "too extreme", but it has been put back in by the same person. The footnotes appended do not back up the statement. "Too extreme" is a quotation from the headline in an article cited in one of the footnotes. Al-Qaeda has never said in so many words that ISIS is "too extreme". If everyone is happy for this misleading quotation to remain in the article, so be it; I am not reverting it again as I do not want to edit-war. -- P123ct1 ( talk) 09:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
The article lacks a section describing the ideology and beliefs of this ISIL. It should be notified what makes them toward such a movement. Mhhossein ( talk) 13:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
In That Case then it was not "Absolute Monarchy". but "Constitutional Monarchy" at best. you cannot Ignore the Shura Council Factor here, and we were talking about Government System, not Religion or Age etc
the Link of 'Absulute Monarchy' of Vatican city http://www.catholic-pages.com/vatican/vatican_city.asp and the website's for description of Government System were Superficial, and again if you think "Monarchy" same as "theocracy" then it was all wrong( Ahendra ( talk) 17:47, 6 July 2014 (UTC))
![]() | This
edit request to
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The date in the caption of the map near the bottom of the article (in the section "2014 events") reads "Current (June 2014) situation". The map was last updated today, July 11, and so the date in the caption needs to be "July 2014". Thanks. SaltySeas ( talk) 22:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
This section makes a variety of unsourced claims about weapons and equipment, including the claim that ISIS fighters wear US uniforms and body armor. It would be get a source for this claim, because it seems unusual that a militant jihadist group would wear US uniforms. OnBeyondZebrax ( talk) 16:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Article by Patrick Cockburn about Saudi and ISIS. I don't have time to add it just now, but can do so later today. If anyone else wants to add it before then, feel free, obviously. AntiqueReader ( talk) 08:40, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
User:Ahendra has been Reverting my reverts for him. He thinks that this section of the article is "Propaganda", while I see it as well sourced and relevant. Should it be deleted, or is User:Ahendra just causing trouble? Staglit ( talk) 23:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
...who went door to door in Mosul, the second largest city in Iraq, taking "women who are not owned" for "Jihad Nikah" or sex Jihad. Between June 9th and June 12th, women's rights activists documented 13 cases of women who were kidnapped and raped by militants of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)...
according to this source and some other sources,"The reports came from Al-Masryalyoum, a well-respected Egyptian daily newspaper as well as other sources in the Arab press."
@ User:Ahendra So, the mentioned materials are creditable and verifiable. These article is viewed many times per day. So, be careful about what you write or what you omitt and revert. As I said before, do a little research before doing such reversions. Mhhossein ( talk) 05:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
It looks like many ppl were Pissed because im telling the truth, it looks like i must point my Evidence,
lets take Example Al-Arabiya report about 'sexual Jihad' http://english.alarabiya.net/en/variety/2013/09/28/Kidnapped-Syrian-women-forced-to-make-sexual-jihad-claims-on-state-TV.html
and THEN ONE RESEARCH CAST DOUBT OF IT AS VIRAL PROPAGANDA IN SYRIA-IRAQ WHICH EMULATED BY STIRRED OPINION AND ANOTHER SETUP WHICH IS REPORTED BY BIASED MEDIA! http://www.moroccoworldnews.com/2013/10/107183/sex-jihad-in-syria-a-mere-hoax/?print=pdf YOU ALL SHOULD TAKE SUSPICION TOO( Ahendra ( talk) 07:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC))
this is Opinion which doubt the credibility of report about 'Sexual Jihad' in Syria
The Syrian regime published testimony by female teenager who was a purported victim. Rawan Qadah narrated a story of such proportions that only the Syrian regime could have fabricated it. Rawan narrated an incoherent story of how her father conspired against her and used her as a sexual commodity.
Perhaps the story which Rawan narrated is itself a crime committed by the Syrian regime; it doesn’t stop at anything for the sake of staying in power. The tragedy of Rawan, who was kidnapped months ago and whose father is an opponent of the regime, urged several media outlets to dig into this made-up phenomenon dubbed “sexual jihad.”
French daily Le Monde and American magazine Foreign Policy wrote articles and conducted investigation reports on this lie. After that, a torrent of Western and Arab articles were published in media outlets around the world in an attempt to compensate for falling in the trap of such a lie.
Perhaps the best means which Le Monde and Foreign Policy adopted in solving the case was beginning their investigation at the root of the issue. The sheikh whom the fatwa was attributed to has confirmed several times that he did not issue this fatwa. The media outlet which marketed this story for the first time was one that supports the Syrian regime. Not a single case of sexual jihad could be proven. Tunisian officials who spoke on the subject did not present solid evidence either. It later turned out that they had personal interests to achieve by making these statements.
http://www.aawsat.net/2013/10/article55318787
i Revert it not because im vandalist, i Revert it because the topic were full of Opinion and Suspicious, if i want to Vandal then i will not Delete it Instead change the Information about 'Sexual Jihad' to 'Mutah Marriage of Shia'and then i delete the Entire Section about the treatment to Civilian,
All i want is Wikipedia should be Accurate and Objective article instead of Propaganda Media( Ahendra ( talk) 07:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC))
Since they don't go by modern law this might be kind of an absurd question, but because of the rules for putting content on Wikimedia Commons I'm wondering what the copyright status is for media like "Clashing of the Swords IV". Has al-Furqan Media Productions (which is listed as producing that video) or Global Islamic Media Front (GIMF) ever made a statement about public domain status or Creative Commons licensing for the materials they distribute? (See also the Commons thread and a user there whose uploads were deleted or pending deletion for lack of copyright status) Wnt ( talk) 12:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
It does not seem right to use publications that have subscription paywalls in citations, such as the Financial Times. Perhaps these should be avoided in footnotes, for the sake of transparency. -- P123ct1 ( talk) 12:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Please note that I did not add the list below. It is unsigned. -- P123ct1 ( talk) 12:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
It seems to be a major source here - how does it meet WP:RS? Dougweller ( talk) 20:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)