Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:19, 17 April 2015

Template:Pbneutral

Islamic State received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Islamic State article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44Auto-archiving period: 21 days

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

Template:Syrian Civil War sanctions

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Iraq High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IraqWikipedia:WikiProject IraqTemplate:WikiProject IraqIraq High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Middle East This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Middle Eastern military history task force Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Syria High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Arab world Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as High-importance).

:Composing footnotes using the WP cite templates (Summary of WP:FOOTNOTES section 3.1.) Please note that bare URL footnotes – i.e. footnotes that contain only the website http address – are susceptible to link-rot, which means that if the website moves to a new domain with a new URL, the link will be broken and readers will be unable to read the citation. First put the cursor at the point in the edit text where you want the footnote to go, then click "Cite" in the edit strip at the top of the Edit Page, then click "Templates" on the left, and a drop-down menu appears. Choose "cite web" or "cite news" (for articles and websites), "cite book" or "cite journal", click and a box comes up. Fill in the all details of the citation, then click "Preview" and "Show parsed preview" to see it looks right. (To correct anything, correct the box entries, then click the two "Previews" again.) In "cite book" remember to add the page number(s) of the book. Click "Insert" and the citation automatically goes into the edit text. (It may not go in at the exact point where the cursor is if you use Firefox or Chrome.)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Islamic State article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44Auto-archiving period: 21 days

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination. Discussions: RM, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State, Not moved, 7 September 2014, /Archive 10#Move request - 6 September 2014 RM, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State (Organisation), No consensus, 17 September 2014, /Archive 11#Requested move 17 September 2014 RM, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State (islamist rebel group), No consensus, 9 January 2015, /Archive 28#Requested move 9 January 2015 Content discussion, References in the text: ISIS or ISIL?, ISIL chosen, 17 September 2014, /Archive 10#References in the text: ISIS or ISIL? Older discussions: Islamic State of Iraq and Syria → Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, Moved, 13 August 2013, /Archive 1#Rename RM, Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, Not moved (but moved back to "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant"), 12 June 2014, /Archive 2#Requested Move RM, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → The Islamic State, No consensus, 29 June 2014, /Archive 3#Requested move 2 RM, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, Procedurally closed, 31 July 2014, /Archive 3#Requested move RM, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State, Not moved, 8 August 2014, /Archive 5#Requested move 8 August 2014 Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State (organization), Quick close, 20 August 2014, /Archive 5#Move

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on April 8, 2015.

ISIS is a state

ISIS is a state, not an "Islamist rebel group that controls territory in Iraq and Syria". If Northern Cyprus is a state, and the Donetsk People's Republic, then so is ISIS. It purports to be a state, it controls territory, it has an army, and it has a rudimentary form of government. It seems to me that there is no justification for not describing it as a state. This is an entirely different matter to whether it should be allowed to continue exist. To pretend that it is not a state is like pretending that Adolf Hitter was not the ruler of Germany.101.98.186.134 (talk) 05:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Donetsk is classed as a state? That's odd. Regardless, as it's in the middle of active fighting for the territory as the civil war is going on., it shouldn't be considered a state. I think this is stated on list of sovereign states' talk. Donetsk is also listed as a rebel group. Banak (talk) 10:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

'SIL is neither recognised as a state by the international community, by academia or by reliable sources. This has been extensively discussed in previous threads. It would be appreciated if editors would check through previous threads on topics before presenting proposals. I think that this case again raises the issue of potentially requiring editors to register and login b4 editing this talk page. To describe groups like Boko Haram and 'SIL as states is quite far into the realm of original research and, I think, POV. GregKaye 08:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources do not recognise the possibility of Islamic State being "an unrecognised state" so we have to wait to see if and when reliable information points to the contrary. Mbcap (talk) 09:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The contrast between the lede on Northern Cyprus and the one on the Islamic State is significant. "Northern Cyprus is a self-declared state that comprises the northeastern portion of the island of Cyprus. Recognised only by Turkey Northern Cyprus is considered by the international community as part of the Republic of Cyprus."
It seems to me that as soon as one single state recognises the Islamic State, the lede here will have to be harmonised to that of Northern Cyprus. However, if it hasn't happened yet, it might be premature to acknowledge that the Islamic State is yet one, even though it clearly meets all other criteria, including the collection of taxes. XavierItzm (talk) 16:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

It fails as a state on multiple fronts, including no international recognition, all territory seized by arms, no acceptance by the population it controls, active fighting, no stable territory etc. Legacypac (talk) 08:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Disagree. You cannot claim a state is not such just because "all territory seized by arms". England, for instance, is a state, and yet it was all seized by arms. Just ask William the Conqueror. Iran was also seized by arms by a Muslim cleric from its previous ruler, the Shah, and many today regard it as a legitimate state. Bottom line is, The Islamic State is a perfect state except for international recognition. XavierItzm (talk) 14:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

XavierItzm There are a great number of politicians and academics that will consider views as to whether "the armed group", as the UN describes it, is classified as a state. This is not something that you or anyone else can push. There is no source justification for considering it is a state and yet there is a seemingly unanimous view to say that it is not. GregKaye 12:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC) strikes added GregKaye 17:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Greg I wrote the Islamic State is already a perfect state except for international recognition. I.e., I wrote that it is not a state. It will not be a state until at least one established state recognises it. When that happens, the encyclopaedic thing to do will be to harmonise its entry with that of Northern Cyprus. XavierItzm (talk) 15:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

XavierItzm apologies for my earlier misreading/understanding of your content. I was also unaware of the content of List of states with limited recognition#Criteria for inclusion which certainly mentions two options, either to satisfy the declarative theory of statehood, or to be recognised as a state by at least one UN member state. I don't know if you can help with a guide to the rational for the second case or on what it is based.

The self-declared "Islamic State" does not itself consider the validity of any other state.

I do not know of any other situation in which international views have been put more clearly to say that the group is not a state.

If we go by the mentioned declarative theory then we find that a state has to have a defined territory. How is this possible with a group whose whole creed denies the existence of borders. This is a warring group that shows no signs of wanting peace and, perhaps, would only be declared a state by a state that had become its puppet. I doubt that it would come to this but don't personally think that Misplaced Pages should advocate shotgun statehood. I would also be interested to know when the declarative theory or statehood was itself first declared. In any case I don't think that your comparisons to nations like England carry any weight. The "the land of the Angles" has long been "the land of the Angles" with a largely consistent population no matter who was in charge and which has not, as in the unstable nature of the ISIL situation, suffered consistent "ethnic" cleansing. This group would need to be able to sit down with stated borders and a stable population to have the possibility of even being considered as being a state on an international basis. Otherwise I think that Ban Ki-Moon's interpretation of an 'Un-Islamic Non-State', echoed across the Arabic world, carries. GregKaye 20:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The original Bolsheviks of 1917, led by Lenin, Stalin, Bubnov, Zinoviev (Ovsei-Gershon Aronovich Radomyslsky), Kamenev (Rosenfeld), Sokólnikov (Brilliant), and Trotsky (Bronstein) were not much for borders either; they fully expected the Socialist International to take over the world. The Soviets in fact took over half of Europe when they had the chance and otherwise fought proxy wars until their bitter end. Didn't they use to say that borders were a Capitalist construct? Never did anyone refuse statehood recognition to the Socialists just because they are expansionist. Likewise, the Islamic State is a perfect state but for the fact it has yet to be recognised by some other state. XavierItzm (talk) 21:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

While the entity is not a qualifying "state" under the constitutive theory of statehood, it satisfies every requirement set forth in the declarative theory of statehood, including "the capacity to enter into relations with other states". (See Sovereign state for elaboration.) Jean-Jacques Rousseau, in The Social Contract, considers "war" a "relation between State and State." It is a matter of fact that a multitude of States have engaged in open warfare against this entity. Whether war constitutes a bilateral relation aside, it is a matter of fact that this entity, on an institutional level, has at least dealt with Turkey (and has thus far respected the sovereignty of Turkey), whereby said dealings resemble relations more than they resemble lack thereof. Recognition by a recognized state is one way of attaining statehood, it is not a requirement. Sapiocrat (talk) 16:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the clarification; makes perfect sense. From a strictly pragmatic POV, however, isn't it true that in the ignorant media and public imagination, the established ideas of Grotius, de Vitoria and other other founding fathers of international law have been usurped by the UN political process, which will reject statehood for whatever the five real powers of the Security Council deem politically unacceptable? XavierItzm (talk) 12:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Why Nigeria?

Why is Nigeria included in the list of territories controlled by ISIS? It is Boko Haram who has swore allegiance, but that means this fact also? RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 12:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Boko Haram swore allegiance and ISIL accepted and so now the portions of territory they control are effectively under ISIL control. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | 3 Nisan 5775 12:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Swearing allegiance to and being are not necessarily the same thing. I think that the current interpretation is likely but is not certain. GregKaye 12:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Nigeria is NOT in any 'list of territories controlled by ISIS', don't make or see a problem where there is none. --Corriebertus (talk) 18:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The very first sentence of the article erroneously posits that ISIL controls territory in Nigeria. I'm fixing it. TheBlueCanoe 02:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

It is not erroneous. Boko Haram pledged allegiance to ISIL and ISIL formally accepted said pledge. Thus, the territory controlled by Boko Haram is now under ISIL control. DylanLacey (talk) 04:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

According to the cited references, BH say they will obey orders from IS. However, is there any evidence of them actually doing so, or is this just a statement of intent / bluster? Unless we have a reference to say that IS is actually directing BH operations, I'm not sure it's accurate to say they actualyl control territory in Nigeria. (Also, the article currently says that this alliance gives IS "an official presence in Nigeria, Niger, Chad and Cameroon". However, I can't see a statement to that effect in any of the cited sources, and I don't think an alliance should be eeen as the same as "an official presence", which to me implies IS having troops/commanders/political officers on the ground). Iapetus (talk) 13:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

At this stage it's bluster, done mainly for propaganda purposes. There is no evidence of actual operational links between the two groups. Also, for what it's worth, Boko Haram does not control much territory anymore. They might remain an effective guerrilla group for some time, but they've been driven from the towns and population centers.TheBlueCanoe 23:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

It is not erroneous! ISIL spread to Libya in the same manner. Plus, the last time I heard anything, the Boko Haram still controlled small sections of Nigeria, specifically a few villages and a forest. Anasaitis (talk) 23:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

No. ISIL does not control territory in Nigeria. Please read the sources on this; at best it is a symbolic alliance. Look, even if we were talking about real states, alliances are not tantamount to controlling other states' territory. NATO countries have a collective self-defense agreement, but that does not mean that Poland controls territory in Iowa.TheBlueCanoe 14:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Sentence in the lead --> "Many Islamic and non-Islamic communities judge the group unrepresentative of Islam."_"Many_Islamic_and_non-Islamic_communities_judge_the_gro-2015-03-26T20:45:00.000Z">

This sentence is in the first paragraph of the lead;

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

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

I've read the Wood piece, the statement you are referring to is our corollary to "Muslims can reject the Islamic State; nearly all do." in the Wood piece. The statement you talk about describes an opinion some people hold. It would probably work better to interpolate Wood's quote: "pretending that it isn’t actually a religious, millenarian group, with theology that must be understood to be combatted, has already led the United States to underestimate it and back foolish schemes to counter it". Maybe you can say "Graeme Wood argues 'the religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam'". Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 22:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

That sentence in the lead (at the end of first paragraph) appeared to be not sourced: it was NOT being said in the given newspaper article... So I've removed that sentence. --Corriebertus (talk) 16:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Discuss-Dubious. I have added the last suggestion you made. Do you think we should add the first one as well? Corriebertus you are right, the citation does not support the statement so I have removed the reference. Mbcap (talk) 20:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

A Lead is supposed to summarise the article. "Many Islamic and non-Islamic communities judge the group unrepresentative of Islam" summarises the Criticism section. If editors want to refine this statement, it should be done in the Criticism section, not the Lead. Recent edits to the Lead show that editors are ignorant of what the purpose of a Lead is. 11:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.70.218 (talk)

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

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

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

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

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

Corriebertus you say: "That sentence in the lead (at the end of first paragraph) appeared to be not sourced".
That sentence, as anyone checking the content would see, is written: "Many Islamic and non-Islamic communities ] the group unrepresentative of ]." Reference is made to an extremely large content all of which is sourced.

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

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

To the question of "When a group within a religion is waging war against other people in the same religion, who are the ardent followers?" raised above, the answer is provided by the British Broadcasting Corporation BBC, which states categorically on its "What is Islamic State" page: "IS members are jihadists who adhere to an extreme interpretation of Sunni Islam and consider themselves the only true believers. They hold that the rest of the world is made up of unbelievers who seek to destroy Islam, justifying attacks against other Muslims and non-Muslims alike." I hope this WP:RS is useful to any wikipaedia editors making efforts to discern whether the Islamic State is composed of ardent followers of Sunni Islam. XavierItzm (talk) 19:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

XavierItzm Please do not misrepresent sources: You quote that they: "adhere to an extreme interpretation of Sunni Islam". You present, "... discern whether the Islamic State is composed of ardent followers of Sunni Islam." Even following your use of selective reference why then drop reference to extremism? GregKaye 08:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

You have just misrepresented a full quote I made from a very solid WP:RS, namely the BBC on the page the BBC uses to define "What is Islamic State". I will repeat here the full text I quoted just so anyone can see that the quote stands on its own and that you are making unfounded aspersions with regard to my citation of it: "IS members are jihadists who adhere to an extreme interpretation of Sunni Islam and consider themselves the only true believers. They hold that the rest of the world is made up of unbelievers who seek to destroy Islam, justifying attacks against other Muslims and non-Muslims alike.". There you have it. Islamic State is a type of Sunni Islam. Jihadi Muslims, extreme Muslims, Sunni Muslims, whatever adjectives you want to use to qualify them, they are Muslims. XavierItzm (talk) 12:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

The sentence in the lead about the group being unrepresentative of Islam suggests that the group is not Islamic. The expert views on the subject differ from this. Graeme Wood and Tom Holland disagree that Islamic State is not Islamic. Graeme Wood does have his own article and he is a notable figure, having written a well researched 10,000 word article. He has been interviewed by Vice News and invited to a panel by Center for Strategic and International Studies to talk about the Islamic State. You can view it here. People who study this subject at an academic level and write about it, expressing their analysis therein, have to be credited as such. Wood says that the Islamic State is very Islamic. Bernard Haykel offers a similar view in the Atlantic Piece. Tom Holland a British Historian offers a similar analysis. Please do let me know if there are other sources written by people who study this at an academic level. There is no WP:LABEL or NPOV issue here as we are reporting what reliable sources are saying. Lastly as to me not providing quotes, I did not have the time and assumed editors had read it. Discuss-Dubious certainly had read it and was able to provide assistance in the matter raised. Mbcap (talk) 19:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

XavierItzm-The assumption was that I was saying that ISIL are the "most ardent followers" of Islam. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 03:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

GregKaye,Thank you for your comments. You make a good point about not needing to label them, the article can label the group itself. I never intended to suggest keeping that thought that ISIL's claims are widely disputed of the article. I could honestly live with balancing it with an article about the more modern aspects about it, like this :, but the article by Graeme C. A. Wood with quotes from Bernard Haykel is really generating a lot of discussion, so I think the statement "Graeme Wood argues that ISIL believes it is a millenarian, religious group in a 2015 Atlantic article" would work, right?

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

Mbcap-Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#Islamic_criticism, Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#Theological_objections both substantiate that people feel this way about the group. They statement that this is how they "judge" ISIL is correct, but even Bernard Haykel can say that the "QSIS" thing is reasonable as a critique. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 02:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Discuss-Dubious I agree. That is why I only removed the citation and not the sentence itself because other parts of the article support the statement. But we still need to write the opposing view as there are sources now which contain an opposing view therein. Mbcap (talk) 05:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Discuss-Dubious, thanks for your explanation and clarification above: I have changed the text to say:

• "Many Islamic and non-Islamic communities judge the group unrepresentative of Islam. Political scientist Graeme Wood comments on IS that "the religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam".

There does not seem to be a contradiction between the contents of the two sentences so I have withdrawn the "However". This still seems to give a relatively small content on a large voice of criticism and a lot of text to a much discussed, recently raised contention. GregKaye 10:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)_"Many_Islamic_and_non-Islamic_communities_judge_the_gro"> _"Many_Islamic_and_non-Islamic_communities_judge_the_gro">

Lead (reader opinion)_"Many_Islamic_and_non-Islamic_communities_judge_the_gro-2015-03-31T21:07:00.000Z">

_{Moved from standalone section Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 22:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)}

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

Discussion re: Graeme Wood quote in lead section_"Many_Islamic_and_non-Islamic_communities_judge_the_gro-2015-04-06T03:51:00.000Z">

Invited to participate:@Khestwol and Gouncbeatduke: & 82.20.70.218.
Other relevant parties:@GregKaye, Mbcap, and Corriebertus:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've highlighted the edits I & Banak suggest and that the IP wants in bold. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 22:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Regarding this edit, what does BH actually do in Nigeria? State-wise, I mean. Are punishments and fighting in the bush all they do, or do they actually operate services? It would help to give a source. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 02:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Takfiri?

I think we should add Takfiri in the infobox under ideology? On Google there are 458,000 results and on google news there are 4,660 results for Takfiri and ISIS. Here is two sources from new york times. Eulalefty (talk) 21:15, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Makes sense. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 00:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Takfiri has been removed from the infobox ideology section on multiple occasions. Takfir is not an ideology, it is simply the act of declaring a Muslim to have committed apostasy. Incidentally, anyone who claims that ISIS members are not Muslims are, by definition, committing Takfir themselves. Gazkthul (talk) 02:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Gazkthul Reference, perhaps to something like Takfiri practice could be gainfully added to a number of contents. Takfiri practice is common with groups like ISIL who threaten severe punishment for religious infringement.

On second thoughts see results on: takfirism ideology. there are "About 173,000" of them. There is nothing I have seen to support the view of: takfirism "not an ideology" and this seems to me to be original research. I would like to see better citation on Takfirism. GregKaye 09:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Takfirism is not an ideology, it is rather an umbrellat term originally used in Shia literature to describe those Sunni extremists who consider Shiites to be apostates رافضة (Rafiḍah). This term is also lately used by moderate Sunni opponents of militants Islamism, Sunni Silamists call the latter مرتدين (Murtaddīn).--Kathovo talk 12:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Takfirism is not an ideology. There is no source that stipulate's "Takfirism" to be an ideology. It may be part of an ideology, such is the case with Salafism. Even Madkhali Salafi's learn the concept of "al-Ma’loom min al-Deen bil-Dharoorah" (Matters known in Islam by Necessity) which stipulates things which every Muslim must accept and know, otherwise they declare takfir on such individuals. That is why you had the imam of Mecca mosque declaring takfir on the Shia a few years ago. The same takfir is practised by the Shia on the Salafis. I am sure the takfir of Islamic State is covered in sources and we can add content accordingly to this page but as an ideology, the sources do not substantiate such an assertion. Mbcap (talk) 15:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

• Kathovo, Mbcap, There is a huge content on links as found via searches on:

• (isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND (takfiri OR takfirism) via: web, news, books and scholar.

The contention is that Isil act this way out of habit. I have often seen references citing perceptions of takfirism going into the article and, it seems to me, they have been consistently edited out. As indicated, various sources describe takfirm as an ideology and, from what I have seen, it is a big part of Isil's brand of Salafi Jihadist ideology. GregKaye 12:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

If we can have a consensus we cad add Takfiri surely. I too support the inclusion of it. Khestwol (talk) 12:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

References

1. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/09/opinion/the-saudis-can-crush-isis.html?_r=0
2. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/03/opinion/the-caliphate-fantasy.html
3. https://www.google.ca/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=s20YVeeDK-mM8Qf9rIG4DQ&gws_rd=ssl#q=isis+takfiri
4. https://www.google.ca/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=s20YVeeDK-mM8Qf9rIG4DQ&gws_rd=ssl#q=isis+takfiri&tbm=nws

Oppose. The waters are already muddied by a cacophony of "Salafi jihadism Salafism /Wahhabism Sunni Islamism". Next thing you know, someone may wish to add "Mahometanism", on the pretext that Islamic State devotees follow Mahomet. Let's keep it the way it is. XavierItzm (talk) 22:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Greg none of the sources establish tafiri to be an ideology. The searches have revealed statements such as "ISIL tafiri", "takfiri ISIL" and so on but no statement which says that is their ideology. It is also interesting that from the news sources, press TV come up often which in my view has no reliability and is simply a vessel through which we get blessed with ululating Iranian propaganda. This is not to say that the group does not do takfir. It does but it is not an ideology, rather it forms a component of their ideology. No one can deny their takfiri nature because by definition they must be takfiri as they have denounced both the khawarij and the murji'a. Their takfir is covered in sources such as this one in The Australian and also the Brooking's report. I would agree with you that they act like this out of habit but I would go one step further and say that they do this with real intent because takfirism is part of their doctrine. Not only that, they would say that the one who does not declare takfir against what they percieve to be apostates, is himself an apostate. Such is the case with the group. I would suggest we cover the takfiri nature of the group in the article or the standalone Ideology article but we should not add it as an ideology. Mbcap (talk) 23:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

• Mbcap in about 30 seconds of looking (by adding "AND ideology" to the search) I found: http://www.eurasiareview.com/30032015-the-prospects-for-reform-in-islam-analysis/ which includes the texts: "Salafist takfiri ideology" quoting, in this case, the Hudson Institute. Its late but I can look at some more later. As mentioned there are many texts putting takfirism as ideology and you also commented that it is present, or something like that, in Salafism. GregKaye 23:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Greg my apologies, the ping system has not been working for me as of late. Regarding Takfiri, it is my opinion that it is not an ideology thought I appreciate that this groups engages in barndoor takfirism. I came across the article which you have mentioned but my impression is that it is used as a description rather than the qualifier for ideology. Mbcap (talk) 02:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

All that matters here is what RS says. I think Wahhabism and Takfirism both needs to be in the ideology section in infobox. Khestwol (talk) 04:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Mbcap Khestwol Ty both, I think the article can go either of two ways. Schlolarly sources say that the group's ideology is ~"based on Salafist Jihadism". News reporters etc. describe the group as takfirist. While I think that references to takfirist practice can go in the article. We should stick with a based on type of reference. GregKaye 12:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

"The Islamic State"

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.

1. "Un-Islamic State" is not the name of the entity this article concerns itself with, notwithstanding if it is a state, or if it is Islamic in nature, self-declared or otherwise. Referring to the entity as such is loaded as it is an inherent ideological statement, and thus reference to the entity as such should be removed from the list of this entity's names. This expression got removed from the article soon after the edit request was posted. Issue 1 is no longer under dispute.

2. As the entity claims territory outside of Iraq and al-Sham as within it's scope, and has demonstrably been active outside the geography that is Iraq and al-Sham, I believe clarification is needed on why the entity should not be referred to by it's primary self-designation. In the event of further expansion by the entity, it is assured that the present method of primary referral will quickly become outdated. In any case, a refusal to refer to this entity as "the Islamic State" can also be considered loaded, as it is also an inherent ideological statement, seeking to specifically denounce a certain attribute of this entity (more so than it is denounced as an entirety.)

Sapiocrat (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Sapiocrat Declaring the group as "Islamic State" i.e. a state for Islam, in condition that the group only finds a section of Sunni Islam as acceptable, is also misleading and loaded. The wording "Islamic State ..." is presented in the article title". The redirect Islamic State group is functional. GregKaye 12:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

GregKaye Yet, we call it the "Islamic State" of Iraq and the Levant anyway, not the "Sunni Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant"; the sole source of that name is their past self-designation, not what we deemed correct to call them. I do not comprehend the grounds on which we refuse to refer to them by their up-to-date self-designation. Furthermore, the concept of Jihad is not a concept isolated to Sunni Islam, the Shia sect has the concept as well. The fact of the matter is, this entity is jihadist, and it's target is a pan-Islamic, post-nationalist world. What justification do we have for not calling it as it defines itself and its own goals? Where we differ is, I do not think it is still an ideological statement if I call it with its self designation; because it is no longer MY statement, it's theirs. You don't see Turkey renaming the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) to something to the tune of Kurdish Terrorist Organization of the Turkish South-East, which reflects the state opinion infinitely more accurately; there is no better authority on this entity's name but themselves, and yes, it is "official." Whether their name is representative of what they are is another, entirely separate and relative issue. Sapiocrat (talk) 14:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Sapiocrat, The group could have called itself "Islamic State for people adhering to our interpretation of Islam" or similar to previous states and groups claiming to be states, they could have called themselves "Islamic State of X region". Examples of this are:

• Islamic State of Azawad
• Islamic State of Qadian
• Islamic State of Waziristan
• Islamic State of Indonesia

(There are also a number of other Islamic states that, only dependent on theological interpretations, actually are so but which do not include the title in their names.

As it is Baghdadi's group has ambiguously been called "Islamic State" which I interpret raises the question of what? They claim to be the Islamic State for all Islam but with this Islam being according to their interpretation. While many describe the "Islamic State group" others use Islamic State (as well as ISIS, ISIL and Daesh). The argument is that when Islam represents a significantly prevalent belief/set or beliefs and practices, is misrepresentative to present one group as ambiguously the Islamic State. GregKaye 15:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

GregKaye Islamic State ; it is the definition of jihad: a worldwide Islamic caliphate, they are not being ambiguous, they are being extremely precise. Sapiocrat (talk) 15:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

You hit the nail on the head as to what the "Islamic world" finds objectionable. GregKaye 23:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

On this Talk page there has been more hot air on this than any other aspect of the group. They call themselves the "Islamic State". Would you quibble over the name of any other group/institution/organization/body/state/country/person and say they must not be called by their name? Censorship gone mad to refuse to. 82.20.70.218 (talk) 20:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Re 1: where in the article does Misplaced Pages list "un-Islamic State" as one of the group's names? What point is being made here? 82.20.70.218 (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

That got removed soon after I posted this edit request, so there is no issue there. We're debating point 2. Sapiocrat (talk) 22:32, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Lets just wait a while, I say a few months, then we can have another RM where no doubt the page will be moved to Islamic State which has become the common name. We can move the current Islamic State article to another disambiguated name. It makes no sense to leave the "Iraq and the Levant" part. They now have territory in Nigeria, Libya, Yemen, Iraq and Syria, not to mention their presence in other countries. They cannot really call themselves Islamic State of anything, because they are not confined to a single area. In their ideology it would not be allowed for the Caliph to ever have a permanent stop to the expansion of the borders. Why would you call yourself Islamic State of a specific area when you intend to take over all of Saudi, Lebanon, Egypt, etc, etc. Mbcap (talk) 21:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Italics are used for emphasis. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 12:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Iraq articles
• High-importance Iraq articles
• WikiProject Iraq articles
• B-Class military history articles
• B-Class Middle Eastern military history articles
• Middle Eastern military history task force articles
• B-Class Syria articles
• High-importance Syria articles
• WikiProject Syria articles
• B-Class Arab world articles
• Mid-importance Arab world articles
• WikiProject Arab world articles
• Unassessed Crime-related articles
• Unknown-importance Crime-related articles
• Unassessed Terrorism articles
• High-importance Terrorism articles
• Terrorism task force articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• Misplaced Pages articles that use British English
• Selected anniversaries (April 2015)