![]() | 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 25 | ← | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | → | Archive 35 |
The moratorium on page moves was quite successful for moving the article forward. How do editors feel about reimposing it - with the current proposed move discussion being the last one allowed. Legacypac ( talk) 21:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Strongly oppose such an action; if this move is the last one allowed. Otherwise I am happy with a moratorium if the current move request can be snowed, as it has no merit.
Mbcap (
talk)
21:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I have no preference either way. Mbcap ( talk) 22:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Of course not. If the logic behind constant calls for a name change can't be meet with simple reference to previous discussion then perhaps there's something worth talking about. GraniteSand ( talk) 00:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I am both uneasy in regard to moves that close down or otherwise curtail discussion and about discussions such as the Islamic State (islamist rebel group) RM in which the same content is added time and again by the same editors on repeat. I find both sides, some manifestations of restriction and all manifestations of pushing to be disruptive. Wikipedia is supported by a very wide range of competent editors who can address issues as they are raised. RM discussions run for a minimum of seven days and I cannot fail to notice that the proposal for the moratorium was raised within 10 hours of the RM being proposed. I presented an option for a move without pushing while presenting arguments on both sides. I think that it would have been a sign of respect to let the discussion progress a little before pushing for further restriction on dialogue. Greg Kaye 08:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I would like to ask those editors involved in the map for ISIL. Going through the various related articles, the maps on the other pages are outdated in relation to the one on this article. Is there any possible way to synchronise the update to the map here, with all those across related articles? Or do they have to be done individually? Mbcap ( talk) 01:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
I use this template and take screenshots to make a map. This template runs this module which runs the Syria and Iraq modules. Those modules are regularly updated by editors. John Smith the Gamer ( talk) 15:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Khestwol -- I see you reverted another editor's edit who stated the reasons for doing so in the edit summary. Though I cannot weigh in on the validity of the information contained therin, it is correct that this section has nothing to do with the structure of the ISIL military, therefore its inclusion seems unwarranted. What are your thoughts? Mbcap ( talk) 09:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Khestwol It is not strictly correct that "US, Saudi, Turkey, but also Jordan and Qatar etc have all calimed to support ISIL". As far as I am aware, there have been no governmental acknowledgement of that nature. Whilst it may be true of the middle eastern contries, it is not so crystal clear regarding the support being sanctioned by the ruling apparatus of those countries. For example the gulf countries and Saudi do support ISIL but that is only support provided by wealthy citizens who are sympathetic to the ISIL cause. It is not the case that those states are supporting them but rather their domiciled subjects who choose to do so. For the US, it is neither their citizens nor the government providing any aid to ISIL. What happened was, if the sources are correct, is that the US in an effort to preserve their strategic interests aided those groups that were amenable to having a shared aim in the region. Those groups were helped but then all of that was just taken as "war booty" by the ISIL group when they took over or overran them. Therefore, it is slightly difficult to see how US is providing military aid to ISIL. Then again I could be wrong so please do let me know if you still think it needs to stay in. Mbcap ( talk) 17:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Is it me, or is the "Participant in.." section of the infobox becoming increasingly irritating (visually)? What if the group involves itself in further conflicts, will we keep listing them all here? I propose moving those to the sidebar template. Thoughts? Fitzcarmalan ( talk) 22:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
| battles =
parameter. I'm not saying that we can't be creative to improve Wikipedia, but that simply isn't the case here. The list is becoming too long and it shouldn't be the first thing our readers come across when opening the article. These should be moved to the sidebar where they would appear less confusing.
Fitzcarmalan (
talk)
12:02, 2 February 2015 (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. |
Please add to Allegations of outside influence - Iran
Ali Shirazi representative of Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Hosseini Khamenei during an interview published by the Defa Press news agency on January 25, 2015 was quoted as saying
"The Houthi group is a similar copy to Lebanon's Hezbollah, and this group will come into action against enemies of Islam,"
"The Islamic republic directly supports the Houthis in Yemen, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the popular forces in Syria and Iraq," he said, adding that "officials in the country have reiterated this many times."
Last year Ali Akbar Velayati senior advisor to Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Hosseini Khamenei said Iran supported the "rightful struggles" of the Houthi movement in Yemen, and "considers this movement as part of the successful Islamic Awakening movements". [1] [2]
Iran attempted to smuggle arms to Houthi separatists in Yemen [3] [4]
References
DrSalted ( talk) 01:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. --
Sam
Sing!
09:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
–"Designation as a terrorist organization"–
Under this section, why is the UK listed first since they determined that they were a terrorit Org. when they were Part of Al-Qaeda? First, It seems trival and not needed. Second, I think the USA, Al-Qaeda's first sworn enemy and main combatantin Iraq , would have also determined they were a terrorist Org. around the same time if not earlier.
Would someone kindly take part in the discussion here regarding whether the existence of Turkish intervention against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant as a stand-alone article or its title are accurate or not. Regards. Fitzcarmalan ( talk) 11:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
inapropriately casual in tone, bordering on American slang. "Would-be mujahadeen" would be a better choice of words.
Passive in tone while being less vague. 72.199.56.229 ( talk) 15:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC)anonymous (american)english geek
It appears that Hand snoojy is reinserting into the section on "Sexual violence and slavery" essentially the same content that has been found problematic in the past, that resulted in his being blocked (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Hand snoojy reported by User:NeilN (Result: Blocked)), and has been the subject of edit warring by several sockpuppets (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Absolution provider 1999). Since I took it on myself to merge what seemed useful from that material into the article, it seems slightly more likely to trigger an edit war if I'm the one to review and revert or modify these new edits (I fear that one may be inevitable in any case). I would appreciate it if some other editors would take a look at these edits for their appropriateness. Thanks. EastTN ( talk) 14:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
The sexual slavery claims are made up by the United States government. This is United States propaganda. 108.27.38.227 ( talk) 20:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I just changed my username back from "John Smith the Gamer" to "Banak" because it's shorter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banak ( talk • contribs) 01:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
These images have been added to the article and I would like to ask about/question their appropriate usage here, their authentication and their notability. They are added as Emblem of Barqa Province, Emblem of Sinai Province and Emblem of Algerian Province. In these cases I think that we can also write things like "claimed" Algeria province as many people may regard that places like Algeria and Sinai are best otherwise described than being provinces of ISIL. This is not something that I think we should be saying in Wikipedia's voice. Where, how and to what extent have these images been used? If these images are lesser used or unestablished I don't think that Wikipedia should be used for showcasing not greatly relevant and potentially non representative contents. On the last point I would be interested if anyone finds out about the local styles of presentation used in and around the group in relation to Islam/Islamic religion.
I had deleted the images here after doing some rudimentary image checks and finding minimal content and leaving edit summary "Removing unsubstantiated and potentially fan art images". This was reverted by Ritsaiph with edit summary "Sources are reputable for all images. Prove to the contrary." I personally believe that burden of proof is lies with the people that want inclusion partly due to the difficulties of demonstrating Evidence of absence especially in relation to origination. Greg Kaye 12:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Talk about official website was removed :-( Why ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.160.215.12 ( talk) 10:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm wondering how this content developed within the article. There article already had a section on "Group goals, structure and characteristics" which had a subsection on Territorial claim (which perhaps should be called something like "ISIL controlled territory" - I still don't know of any specific territorial claim that they made). The main article for this content, ISIL territorial claims, already has much of this information and, in a long article, this seems to me to be unnecessary repetition of content. Greg Kaye 12:09, 13 February 2015 (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. |
"NATO-All 27 members are taking part" Should be changed to "NATO-all 28 Members are taking part" due to the fact that NATO has 28 member states, and not 27. Source: http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/nato_countries.htm Thelockheedr22 ( talk) 16:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/28/rape-and-sexual-slavery-inside-an-isis-prison.html and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2874435/Isis-puts-Iraq-s-second-biggest-city-lockdown-cutting-phone-lines-banning-residents-leaving-ahead-expected-assaults-government-forces.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I think some useful text in the section on "Sexual violence and slavery" was lost during the recent edit wars. I've put back in what I think is appropriate and consistent with the pre-war consensus. It does not include the lengthy quotations from the Quran, and I do not believe it includes any copyright violations. It does have a couple of direct quotations, but they are within quotation marks, the speakers are clearly indicated and the sources are cited. If anyone does believe the text as it stands still contains copyright violations, I'd appreciate it if they would identify the specific sentences involved so we can resolve them. I think what we have is reasonably encyclopedic, but if there are concerns about the tone or balance, let's talk about it. Thanks. EastTN ( talk) 21:20, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
ISIL claims it has religious justification for the treatment of its captives based on the Hadith and Qur’an, which has received widespread criticism for explicitly citing verses from the Qur'an by Muslim scholars and the rest of the Muslim world. Muslim leaders say it is forbidden to use part of the Qur'an to derive a ruling in isolation, rather that they must consider the he entire Qur’an and Hadith. They publicly claim religious justification in enslaving and raping captive non-Muslim women citing Qur'an verses. [1] [2] [3] [4] An ISIL source claimed they wish to ethnically cleanse the land they control of all non-believers. [5] Non-Muslim women have reportedly been married off to fighters against their will. They claim women provide new converts and children to spread ISIL's control. [6] Dabiq, an ISIL magazine claimed "enslaving the families of the kuffar and taking their women as concubines is a firmly established aspect of the Sharia’s that if one were to deny or mock, he would be denying or mocking the verses of the Qur'an and the narration of the Prophet … and thereby apostatizing from Islam,". Captured Yazidi women and children are then divided amongst the fighters who captured them, with one fifth taken as a tax. Dabiq claims that taking forced wives reduces risk of infidelity. [1] [7]Yazidi and Christian girls are sold for a price of around $175 in Iraq. [8] Those who don't cooperating ‘would be executed.’ [9]
Dabiq cites the severe punishments the Prophet Mohammed gave to traitors as a justification for their actions. [10] An Al-Qaida-affiliated leader expressed support for the beheading of American journalist James Foley by a member of ISIL to terrorize "the enemies of Islam". He points out he is responsible as he didn't pay for religious protection from ISIL. and that Islam since it is a religion of violence. [11] A captured fighter said he deliberately drew out the beheading of others to inflict more pain on them. [12]
ISIL has publicly crucified people, including a 17 year old boy in Syria, and those who had already died. People who are convicted of supplying information to media outlets or counter-terrorism establishments are executed. They claim that the Qur'an justifies executing, including by crucifixion those "who wage war against Allah" [13] An ISIS commander claimed they try to convert others before they die to save them punishment in the afterlife. [14]
Yazidis, a religious minority of 650,000 in Iraq and 50,000 in Syria, have been persecuted and considered as devil worshippers by ISIS. Some have been forced to convert to Islam.
References
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: line feed character in |title=
at position 40 (
help)
Based on the logic used in renaming the Bradley Manning article Chelsea Manning (that that is what verifiably the subject of the article prefers), should not this article be titled simply "Islamic State"? Or are there different rules depending on the non-neutral opinions of wikipedia editors? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.5.253 ( talk) 13:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Is there any RS on the emblem? The emblem reads "Islamic State of Iraq and Sham" so we need a good RS dating to after their name change.-- Kathovo talk 17:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Can we therefore delete the emblem because it is inaccurate information. Mbcap ( talk) 21:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
I would like to get editors comments on this section of the main article. To me at least, the title and placement of this section at the current position that it holds on the page, suggests that all of the mentioned provinces constitute territory. Whilst for example, Barqa and maybe Sinai Province do hold territory, the same cannot be said for Khorasan or the Algerian province. My own impression is that these provinces are not provinces as such but the new names of the groups which have now pledged allegiance to Islamic State, some of which have territory under their control. In light of this I thought, maybe we need to rethink how to place these provinces on the page. As I mentioned, Barqa and Sinai Province's could stand where they are at the moment as they do hold territory (not sure about Sinai though), but the other provinces may need to be appropriately placed elsewhere. Otherwise we may give the impression that they hold more territory than they actually hold. If I have overlooked anything or misunderstood the situation, please do let me know. Mbcap ( talk) 09:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
The sentence looks like a WP:ORIGINAL to me. In the article of War on Terror, it has been stated that Al-Qaeda is the primary target. And i believe Al-Qaeda is still the #1 target if we look at international intervention. We didint see any Afganistan scale intervention against ISIS. kazekagetr 21:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Funny how I was coming to discuss the very same thing here as well, and I've found this thread. I strongly object to the inclusion of the "War on Terror" in the "part of.." section of infoboxes in articles which involve ISIL. This term still remains a controversial one, and it mainly (if not always) applies to US-led anti-terrorism campaigns. I came across it when editing 2015 Egyptian military intervention in Libya [10] and I've previously noticed it on Sinai insurgency [11]. This merits discussion because I fail to see sources claiming that these conflicts are particularly related to this "war". Fitzcarmalan ( talk) 09:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
In Archive 25 I made a comment regarding the LEAD's unclear and confusing prose/grammer. Unfortunatly as a reader who just wants basic information (as in asking Siri what ISIS stands for) I would get this grammatical nightmare:
The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL /ˈaɪsəl/) is a jihadist most extreme terrorist[24]and a rebel group that controls territory in Iraq and Syria and also operates in eastern Libya, the Sinai Peninsula of Egypt, and other areas of the Middle East,[25] North Africa, South Asia,[26] and Southeast Asia.[
Honestly, I don't know about you, but this seems pretty confusing to me. What is a "jihadist most extreme terrorist?" Buffaboy (formerly Dekema2) ( talk) 04:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I suggest you change the map in the infobox to Territorial control of the ISIS.svg. -- 67.166.194.80 ( talk) 16:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Two days later, BBC quotes "sources in the community" as saying the number abducted may be as high as 200. Sca ( talk) 15:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
A Quranic quotation supporting slavery has been inserted into this section again with this edit. The question of what to put into this section has been extensively discussed in the past. My sense of the consensus is that we should summarize the gist of ISIL's primary arguments, but not repeat their propaganda. I can imagine an appropriate way to indicate which portions of the Quran ISIL picks to support its arguments, putting ISIL's interpretation into context with the standard interpretations of Islamic scholars, but this text doesn't appear to be doing that. As it stands, it seems to me to lean towards promoting ISIL's point of view. EastTN ( talk) 16:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Hum num gitu and XavierItzm, is the use of quotes from the Qur'an used in reliable sources in this way and if so, can you provide a list. Mbcap ( talk) 18:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I mentally considered a few things when I previously decided what I felt about the inclusion of the quote, they included how much of IS's viewpoints we should include in their own article, the weight given to IS's viewpoints and noteworthiness of their viewpoints. In the end I decided that, IMO it would be wrong for a mixture of WP:SOAPBOX and Neutrality (kind of like the second example at WP:INTEXT only without the majority opinion at all), but the issue of how much weight IS should be given in their own article is... interesting. Banak ( talk) 23:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
The "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" should be called as the terrorist organization. Should it put on the front page of topic? Marxistfounder ( talk) 11:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Banak ( talk) 16:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State (rebel group) – Now that your using it as an offical name in the intro, we really should start calling it that. 67.166.194.80 ( talk) 15:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Despite content of the above mentioned discussion there has been an edit war so as to replace the more commonly used description "Islamist" within News, Books and Scholarship with "jihadist". Please consider the following search results:
Greg Kaye 16:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
My apologies for being the cause of confusion. To be honest I think I was confused when I wrote my original post. I mean can we provide attribution to the term "extremist" in the first line of of the article. Mbcap ( talk) 19:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
The infobox "Establishment" section lists: Declaration of "Caliphate" 29 June 2014
Why are there quotes around the word Caliphate? The word declaration implies quotes around whatever follows it, so the added quotation marks only serve to add biased commentary. ISIL is generally considered illegitimate and Wikipedia should reflect that, but the quotation marks are not the appropriate way.
I looked at another self-declared state for comparison; Abkhazia's infobox lists: Declaration of Independence 23 July 1992, First international recognition 26 August 2008. This seems like a more appropriate model because it highlights the difference between declaration and recognition without giving an opinion on either. ISIL's infobox should list their declaration in an equally unbiased manner, with the absence of international recognition drawing attention to its illegitimacy. GreetingsThree ( talk) 23:44, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
A caliphate covers all muslims. Clearly there is no caliphate or caliph regardless what they call themselves. The group in Libya is sponsored by returned ISIL fighters, more of an expansion than acceptance. Legacypac ( talk) 08:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I am concerned with the following sentence: the Iraqi President Nouri al-Maliki[476] and some media outlets like NBC, BBC, and NYTimes stated that Saudi Arabia is funding ISIL.[477][478][479][480] None of the four cited sources contain this claim, and in most cases assert the exact opposite, so I have changed it accordingly.
Gazkthul ( talk) 12:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
This should be added, because they invaded specifically to fight the terrorists ...and probably also to conquer the area around their former rulers grave. GMRE ( talk) 12:21, 22 February 2015 (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. |
include Muslim Brotherhood strong relation and support to The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
references here:
http://en.rightsreporter.org/connection-between-isis-and-muslim-brotherhood-alarm-in-jordan/ http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/arnold-ahlert/the-muslim-brotherhood-isis-connection/ http://www.horowitzfreedomcenter.org/arnold_ahlert_the_muslim_brotherhood_isis_connection https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/africa/14190-muslim-brotherhood-decries-foreign-intervention-against-islamic-state https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/articles/africa/14277-the-muslim-brotherhood-and-is-are-not-the-same-thing
this links to a simple search on Muslim Brotherhood own webportal justifying and supporting ISIL crimes http://www.ikhwanonline.com/Search.aspx?SearchKey=%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%B9%D8%B4
Maged mmh ( talk) 15:02, 1 March 2015 (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 25 | ← | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | → | Archive 35 |
The moratorium on page moves was quite successful for moving the article forward. How do editors feel about reimposing it - with the current proposed move discussion being the last one allowed. Legacypac ( talk) 21:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Strongly oppose such an action; if this move is the last one allowed. Otherwise I am happy with a moratorium if the current move request can be snowed, as it has no merit.
Mbcap (
talk)
21:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I have no preference either way. Mbcap ( talk) 22:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Of course not. If the logic behind constant calls for a name change can't be meet with simple reference to previous discussion then perhaps there's something worth talking about. GraniteSand ( talk) 00:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I am both uneasy in regard to moves that close down or otherwise curtail discussion and about discussions such as the Islamic State (islamist rebel group) RM in which the same content is added time and again by the same editors on repeat. I find both sides, some manifestations of restriction and all manifestations of pushing to be disruptive. Wikipedia is supported by a very wide range of competent editors who can address issues as they are raised. RM discussions run for a minimum of seven days and I cannot fail to notice that the proposal for the moratorium was raised within 10 hours of the RM being proposed. I presented an option for a move without pushing while presenting arguments on both sides. I think that it would have been a sign of respect to let the discussion progress a little before pushing for further restriction on dialogue. Greg Kaye 08:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I would like to ask those editors involved in the map for ISIL. Going through the various related articles, the maps on the other pages are outdated in relation to the one on this article. Is there any possible way to synchronise the update to the map here, with all those across related articles? Or do they have to be done individually? Mbcap ( talk) 01:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
I use this template and take screenshots to make a map. This template runs this module which runs the Syria and Iraq modules. Those modules are regularly updated by editors. John Smith the Gamer ( talk) 15:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Khestwol -- I see you reverted another editor's edit who stated the reasons for doing so in the edit summary. Though I cannot weigh in on the validity of the information contained therin, it is correct that this section has nothing to do with the structure of the ISIL military, therefore its inclusion seems unwarranted. What are your thoughts? Mbcap ( talk) 09:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Khestwol It is not strictly correct that "US, Saudi, Turkey, but also Jordan and Qatar etc have all calimed to support ISIL". As far as I am aware, there have been no governmental acknowledgement of that nature. Whilst it may be true of the middle eastern contries, it is not so crystal clear regarding the support being sanctioned by the ruling apparatus of those countries. For example the gulf countries and Saudi do support ISIL but that is only support provided by wealthy citizens who are sympathetic to the ISIL cause. It is not the case that those states are supporting them but rather their domiciled subjects who choose to do so. For the US, it is neither their citizens nor the government providing any aid to ISIL. What happened was, if the sources are correct, is that the US in an effort to preserve their strategic interests aided those groups that were amenable to having a shared aim in the region. Those groups were helped but then all of that was just taken as "war booty" by the ISIL group when they took over or overran them. Therefore, it is slightly difficult to see how US is providing military aid to ISIL. Then again I could be wrong so please do let me know if you still think it needs to stay in. Mbcap ( talk) 17:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Is it me, or is the "Participant in.." section of the infobox becoming increasingly irritating (visually)? What if the group involves itself in further conflicts, will we keep listing them all here? I propose moving those to the sidebar template. Thoughts? Fitzcarmalan ( talk) 22:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
| battles =
parameter. I'm not saying that we can't be creative to improve Wikipedia, but that simply isn't the case here. The list is becoming too long and it shouldn't be the first thing our readers come across when opening the article. These should be moved to the sidebar where they would appear less confusing.
Fitzcarmalan (
talk)
12:02, 2 February 2015 (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. |
Please add to Allegations of outside influence - Iran
Ali Shirazi representative of Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Hosseini Khamenei during an interview published by the Defa Press news agency on January 25, 2015 was quoted as saying
"The Houthi group is a similar copy to Lebanon's Hezbollah, and this group will come into action against enemies of Islam,"
"The Islamic republic directly supports the Houthis in Yemen, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the popular forces in Syria and Iraq," he said, adding that "officials in the country have reiterated this many times."
Last year Ali Akbar Velayati senior advisor to Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Hosseini Khamenei said Iran supported the "rightful struggles" of the Houthi movement in Yemen, and "considers this movement as part of the successful Islamic Awakening movements". [1] [2]
Iran attempted to smuggle arms to Houthi separatists in Yemen [3] [4]
References
DrSalted ( talk) 01:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. --
Sam
Sing!
09:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
–"Designation as a terrorist organization"–
Under this section, why is the UK listed first since they determined that they were a terrorit Org. when they were Part of Al-Qaeda? First, It seems trival and not needed. Second, I think the USA, Al-Qaeda's first sworn enemy and main combatantin Iraq , would have also determined they were a terrorist Org. around the same time if not earlier.
Would someone kindly take part in the discussion here regarding whether the existence of Turkish intervention against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant as a stand-alone article or its title are accurate or not. Regards. Fitzcarmalan ( talk) 11:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
inapropriately casual in tone, bordering on American slang. "Would-be mujahadeen" would be a better choice of words.
Passive in tone while being less vague. 72.199.56.229 ( talk) 15:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC)anonymous (american)english geek
It appears that Hand snoojy is reinserting into the section on "Sexual violence and slavery" essentially the same content that has been found problematic in the past, that resulted in his being blocked (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Hand snoojy reported by User:NeilN (Result: Blocked)), and has been the subject of edit warring by several sockpuppets (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Absolution provider 1999). Since I took it on myself to merge what seemed useful from that material into the article, it seems slightly more likely to trigger an edit war if I'm the one to review and revert or modify these new edits (I fear that one may be inevitable in any case). I would appreciate it if some other editors would take a look at these edits for their appropriateness. Thanks. EastTN ( talk) 14:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
The sexual slavery claims are made up by the United States government. This is United States propaganda. 108.27.38.227 ( talk) 20:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I just changed my username back from "John Smith the Gamer" to "Banak" because it's shorter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banak ( talk • contribs) 01:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
These images have been added to the article and I would like to ask about/question their appropriate usage here, their authentication and their notability. They are added as Emblem of Barqa Province, Emblem of Sinai Province and Emblem of Algerian Province. In these cases I think that we can also write things like "claimed" Algeria province as many people may regard that places like Algeria and Sinai are best otherwise described than being provinces of ISIL. This is not something that I think we should be saying in Wikipedia's voice. Where, how and to what extent have these images been used? If these images are lesser used or unestablished I don't think that Wikipedia should be used for showcasing not greatly relevant and potentially non representative contents. On the last point I would be interested if anyone finds out about the local styles of presentation used in and around the group in relation to Islam/Islamic religion.
I had deleted the images here after doing some rudimentary image checks and finding minimal content and leaving edit summary "Removing unsubstantiated and potentially fan art images". This was reverted by Ritsaiph with edit summary "Sources are reputable for all images. Prove to the contrary." I personally believe that burden of proof is lies with the people that want inclusion partly due to the difficulties of demonstrating Evidence of absence especially in relation to origination. Greg Kaye 12:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Talk about official website was removed :-( Why ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.160.215.12 ( talk) 10:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm wondering how this content developed within the article. There article already had a section on "Group goals, structure and characteristics" which had a subsection on Territorial claim (which perhaps should be called something like "ISIL controlled territory" - I still don't know of any specific territorial claim that they made). The main article for this content, ISIL territorial claims, already has much of this information and, in a long article, this seems to me to be unnecessary repetition of content. Greg Kaye 12:09, 13 February 2015 (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. |
"NATO-All 27 members are taking part" Should be changed to "NATO-all 28 Members are taking part" due to the fact that NATO has 28 member states, and not 27. Source: http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/nato_countries.htm Thelockheedr22 ( talk) 16:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/28/rape-and-sexual-slavery-inside-an-isis-prison.html and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2874435/Isis-puts-Iraq-s-second-biggest-city-lockdown-cutting-phone-lines-banning-residents-leaving-ahead-expected-assaults-government-forces.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I think some useful text in the section on "Sexual violence and slavery" was lost during the recent edit wars. I've put back in what I think is appropriate and consistent with the pre-war consensus. It does not include the lengthy quotations from the Quran, and I do not believe it includes any copyright violations. It does have a couple of direct quotations, but they are within quotation marks, the speakers are clearly indicated and the sources are cited. If anyone does believe the text as it stands still contains copyright violations, I'd appreciate it if they would identify the specific sentences involved so we can resolve them. I think what we have is reasonably encyclopedic, but if there are concerns about the tone or balance, let's talk about it. Thanks. EastTN ( talk) 21:20, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
ISIL claims it has religious justification for the treatment of its captives based on the Hadith and Qur’an, which has received widespread criticism for explicitly citing verses from the Qur'an by Muslim scholars and the rest of the Muslim world. Muslim leaders say it is forbidden to use part of the Qur'an to derive a ruling in isolation, rather that they must consider the he entire Qur’an and Hadith. They publicly claim religious justification in enslaving and raping captive non-Muslim women citing Qur'an verses. [1] [2] [3] [4] An ISIL source claimed they wish to ethnically cleanse the land they control of all non-believers. [5] Non-Muslim women have reportedly been married off to fighters against their will. They claim women provide new converts and children to spread ISIL's control. [6] Dabiq, an ISIL magazine claimed "enslaving the families of the kuffar and taking their women as concubines is a firmly established aspect of the Sharia’s that if one were to deny or mock, he would be denying or mocking the verses of the Qur'an and the narration of the Prophet … and thereby apostatizing from Islam,". Captured Yazidi women and children are then divided amongst the fighters who captured them, with one fifth taken as a tax. Dabiq claims that taking forced wives reduces risk of infidelity. [1] [7]Yazidi and Christian girls are sold for a price of around $175 in Iraq. [8] Those who don't cooperating ‘would be executed.’ [9]
Dabiq cites the severe punishments the Prophet Mohammed gave to traitors as a justification for their actions. [10] An Al-Qaida-affiliated leader expressed support for the beheading of American journalist James Foley by a member of ISIL to terrorize "the enemies of Islam". He points out he is responsible as he didn't pay for religious protection from ISIL. and that Islam since it is a religion of violence. [11] A captured fighter said he deliberately drew out the beheading of others to inflict more pain on them. [12]
ISIL has publicly crucified people, including a 17 year old boy in Syria, and those who had already died. People who are convicted of supplying information to media outlets or counter-terrorism establishments are executed. They claim that the Qur'an justifies executing, including by crucifixion those "who wage war against Allah" [13] An ISIS commander claimed they try to convert others before they die to save them punishment in the afterlife. [14]
Yazidis, a religious minority of 650,000 in Iraq and 50,000 in Syria, have been persecuted and considered as devil worshippers by ISIS. Some have been forced to convert to Islam.
References
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: line feed character in |title=
at position 40 (
help)
Based on the logic used in renaming the Bradley Manning article Chelsea Manning (that that is what verifiably the subject of the article prefers), should not this article be titled simply "Islamic State"? Or are there different rules depending on the non-neutral opinions of wikipedia editors? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.5.253 ( talk) 13:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Is there any RS on the emblem? The emblem reads "Islamic State of Iraq and Sham" so we need a good RS dating to after their name change.-- Kathovo talk 17:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Can we therefore delete the emblem because it is inaccurate information. Mbcap ( talk) 21:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
I would like to get editors comments on this section of the main article. To me at least, the title and placement of this section at the current position that it holds on the page, suggests that all of the mentioned provinces constitute territory. Whilst for example, Barqa and maybe Sinai Province do hold territory, the same cannot be said for Khorasan or the Algerian province. My own impression is that these provinces are not provinces as such but the new names of the groups which have now pledged allegiance to Islamic State, some of which have territory under their control. In light of this I thought, maybe we need to rethink how to place these provinces on the page. As I mentioned, Barqa and Sinai Province's could stand where they are at the moment as they do hold territory (not sure about Sinai though), but the other provinces may need to be appropriately placed elsewhere. Otherwise we may give the impression that they hold more territory than they actually hold. If I have overlooked anything or misunderstood the situation, please do let me know. Mbcap ( talk) 09:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
The sentence looks like a WP:ORIGINAL to me. In the article of War on Terror, it has been stated that Al-Qaeda is the primary target. And i believe Al-Qaeda is still the #1 target if we look at international intervention. We didint see any Afganistan scale intervention against ISIS. kazekagetr 21:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Funny how I was coming to discuss the very same thing here as well, and I've found this thread. I strongly object to the inclusion of the "War on Terror" in the "part of.." section of infoboxes in articles which involve ISIL. This term still remains a controversial one, and it mainly (if not always) applies to US-led anti-terrorism campaigns. I came across it when editing 2015 Egyptian military intervention in Libya [10] and I've previously noticed it on Sinai insurgency [11]. This merits discussion because I fail to see sources claiming that these conflicts are particularly related to this "war". Fitzcarmalan ( talk) 09:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
In Archive 25 I made a comment regarding the LEAD's unclear and confusing prose/grammer. Unfortunatly as a reader who just wants basic information (as in asking Siri what ISIS stands for) I would get this grammatical nightmare:
The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL /ˈaɪsəl/) is a jihadist most extreme terrorist[24]and a rebel group that controls territory in Iraq and Syria and also operates in eastern Libya, the Sinai Peninsula of Egypt, and other areas of the Middle East,[25] North Africa, South Asia,[26] and Southeast Asia.[
Honestly, I don't know about you, but this seems pretty confusing to me. What is a "jihadist most extreme terrorist?" Buffaboy (formerly Dekema2) ( talk) 04:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I suggest you change the map in the infobox to Territorial control of the ISIS.svg. -- 67.166.194.80 ( talk) 16:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Two days later, BBC quotes "sources in the community" as saying the number abducted may be as high as 200. Sca ( talk) 15:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
A Quranic quotation supporting slavery has been inserted into this section again with this edit. The question of what to put into this section has been extensively discussed in the past. My sense of the consensus is that we should summarize the gist of ISIL's primary arguments, but not repeat their propaganda. I can imagine an appropriate way to indicate which portions of the Quran ISIL picks to support its arguments, putting ISIL's interpretation into context with the standard interpretations of Islamic scholars, but this text doesn't appear to be doing that. As it stands, it seems to me to lean towards promoting ISIL's point of view. EastTN ( talk) 16:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Hum num gitu and XavierItzm, is the use of quotes from the Qur'an used in reliable sources in this way and if so, can you provide a list. Mbcap ( talk) 18:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I mentally considered a few things when I previously decided what I felt about the inclusion of the quote, they included how much of IS's viewpoints we should include in their own article, the weight given to IS's viewpoints and noteworthiness of their viewpoints. In the end I decided that, IMO it would be wrong for a mixture of WP:SOAPBOX and Neutrality (kind of like the second example at WP:INTEXT only without the majority opinion at all), but the issue of how much weight IS should be given in their own article is... interesting. Banak ( talk) 23:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
The "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" should be called as the terrorist organization. Should it put on the front page of topic? Marxistfounder ( talk) 11:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Banak ( talk) 16:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State (rebel group) – Now that your using it as an offical name in the intro, we really should start calling it that. 67.166.194.80 ( talk) 15:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Despite content of the above mentioned discussion there has been an edit war so as to replace the more commonly used description "Islamist" within News, Books and Scholarship with "jihadist". Please consider the following search results:
Greg Kaye 16:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
My apologies for being the cause of confusion. To be honest I think I was confused when I wrote my original post. I mean can we provide attribution to the term "extremist" in the first line of of the article. Mbcap ( talk) 19:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
The infobox "Establishment" section lists: Declaration of "Caliphate" 29 June 2014
Why are there quotes around the word Caliphate? The word declaration implies quotes around whatever follows it, so the added quotation marks only serve to add biased commentary. ISIL is generally considered illegitimate and Wikipedia should reflect that, but the quotation marks are not the appropriate way.
I looked at another self-declared state for comparison; Abkhazia's infobox lists: Declaration of Independence 23 July 1992, First international recognition 26 August 2008. This seems like a more appropriate model because it highlights the difference between declaration and recognition without giving an opinion on either. ISIL's infobox should list their declaration in an equally unbiased manner, with the absence of international recognition drawing attention to its illegitimacy. GreetingsThree ( talk) 23:44, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
A caliphate covers all muslims. Clearly there is no caliphate or caliph regardless what they call themselves. The group in Libya is sponsored by returned ISIL fighters, more of an expansion than acceptance. Legacypac ( talk) 08:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I am concerned with the following sentence: the Iraqi President Nouri al-Maliki[476] and some media outlets like NBC, BBC, and NYTimes stated that Saudi Arabia is funding ISIL.[477][478][479][480] None of the four cited sources contain this claim, and in most cases assert the exact opposite, so I have changed it accordingly.
Gazkthul ( talk) 12:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
This should be added, because they invaded specifically to fight the terrorists ...and probably also to conquer the area around their former rulers grave. GMRE ( talk) 12:21, 22 February 2015 (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. |
include Muslim Brotherhood strong relation and support to The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
references here:
http://en.rightsreporter.org/connection-between-isis-and-muslim-brotherhood-alarm-in-jordan/ http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/arnold-ahlert/the-muslim-brotherhood-isis-connection/ http://www.horowitzfreedomcenter.org/arnold_ahlert_the_muslim_brotherhood_isis_connection https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/africa/14190-muslim-brotherhood-decries-foreign-intervention-against-islamic-state https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/articles/africa/14277-the-muslim-brotherhood-and-is-are-not-the-same-thing
this links to a simple search on Muslim Brotherhood own webportal justifying and supporting ISIL crimes http://www.ikhwanonline.com/Search.aspx?SearchKey=%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%B9%D8%B4
Maged mmh ( talk) 15:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)