Talk:Islamic State

Population, Area Data, Foreign Fighters?

35,000 km2 (Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxX_THjtXOw&index=5&list=PLw613M86o5o7ELT6LKyJFKawB6gUsZSf7, at 2:16 ). More data? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.93.61.117 (talk) 23:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

400 fighters from Germany (Russia Today)

Location map of Islamic State

Where has the location map of Islamic State - showing areas controlled by them and claimed by them - gone ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoneCahill85 (talk • contribs) 12:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

It was removed right here[1] because the map does not match the source given at File:Territorial control of the ISIS.svg and even that source is 27th July, not August 9th. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 12:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

United Nations designation of ISIS as a terrorist organization

The United Nations Security Council reference (citation number 55, http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2013/sc11019.doc.htm) does not use the word terrorist to describe ISIS, so the reference provided does not sufficiently evidence that the UN classifies ISIS as a terrorist group. I didn’t see the term anywhere so wanted to suggest removing the United Nations Security Council and its reference from the sentence. Checking here before editing. Zurose (talk) 16:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Zurose: You are quite right. I have tried looking on the internet to see if the UN has an official list of groups they designate as terrorist organisations, but cannot find one. That doesn't mean one doesn't exist, of course. --P123ct1 (talk) 15:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I looked too, P123ct1. I have removed the UN mention and citation for now. Zurose (talk) 08:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Zurose: I hope you don't mind, but I have turned this into a separate discussion, as I think this is a major point. Not only is the word "terrorist" not mentioned in this document, it has nothing to do with designating organisations as terrorist groups, although it does suggest there might be a UN document somewhere doing that, doesn't it? Someone today has included Amnesty International as calling them a terrorist group, without a citation, and one will be needed there, too. We can't play fast and loose with such important organisations and possibly misrepresent them in Wikipedia. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Clicking on the link in the UN source document leads to this: [2]. ISIS appears here under "Al-Qaida in Iraq" (p.42). Is this a list officially designating the people and organisations the UN class as terrorists? --P123ct1 (talk) 12:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

P123ct - I'm glad you've found this important enough for a new discussion! You are too right that 'fast and loose' doesn't cut it. Looking at the UN Al-Qaeda Sanctions List I still don't see the UN explicitly designating ISIS a terrorist organisation, although the list does link ISIS to Al-Qaeda, members of which the document also asserts have been convicted of acts of terrorism by various states (perhaps a fine difference, but a vital one in my view). I wonder if this source belongs somehow in the second paragraph of the WP article (which is sadly sourceless!)? What do you think? Zurose (talk) 10:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Zurose: This discussion continued below at #43. Did you see it? It was agreed that sanctions list cannot be used as it isn't specific enough, and it is very unclear exactly what that document is - but it seems there are sources which quote the UN calling ISIS a "terrorist" group, though that isn't a formal designation, of course. After removing the UN from the list of countries with a formal designation yesterday I have put it at the end of the sentence with those sources that call ISIS terrorist and now a couple of citations are needed to back up its inclusion there. Have a look at the discussion in the link Dougweller gave in #43, WP:RSN#Is this UN document a reliable source to say the UN Security Council designated the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant is a terrorist organisation?, to get a fuller picture. --P123ct1 (talk) 08:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Flag

its top templet two flag its not systmatic top templeteAmt000 (talk) 02:35, 3 August 2014 (UTC

Can you rephrase that, please? --P123ct1 (talk) 09:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

where your reviwer or admin . i am not expercined Amt000 (talk) 08:37, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what Amt000 is trying to say, but that flag has been around a lot longer than ISIS has existed. Here in New Jersey, somebody was threatened for flying the same flag he's been flying on Ramadan for 10 years because somebody erroneously associated it with ISIS. Sources: http://www.nj.com/union/index.ssf/2014/08/garwood_resident_removes_isis_flag.html http://www.nj.com/union/index.ssf/2014/08/man_who_thought_flag_was_isis_apologizes_for_tweeting_photo.html For this page to simply say it's an ISIS flag is a misrepresentation at best, and an incitation of hatred at worst. Kire1975 (talk) 01:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

DAESH or DAIISH?

One of ISIS's names is the acronym, DAESH, which ISIS considers to be insulting (see "Name & name changes"). Does anyone know why? A curious reader (e.g. self) might want to know. What is DAESH an acronym of anyway? The US Department of State (see footnote #81) lists one of ISIS's names as "al-Dawla al-Islamiyya fi al-Iraq wa-sh-Sham" (it lists "Daesh" as well), so shouldn't the acronym be DAIISH, as other sources say? (e.g. Washington Post, footnote #79) --P123ct1 (talk) 20:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

It's arguably unwise for me to comment on this, since I'm not sure, but I believe Daʿesh is an acronym for ʾal-Dawlah ʾal-ʾIslāmīyah fī ʾal-ʿIrāq wa-ʾal-Shām, where the ʾ and the ʿ count as the "first letter" of those words. It appears to ignore all instances of ʾal, fī, and wa (just as words like "the" and "and" are usually ignored in English acronyms). I believe the ʾ (hamza) can be read as either a consonant or a long vowel, so, in the case of Daʿesh, it is being read as the a. The Sh in Shām is, naturally, one letter. I'm not sure about the e; it's clearly a dialectical pronunciation of either short a or short i; in the former case, it would have be a neutral epenthetic vowel added to make the word more pronounceable; in the latter case, I guess it would be the second sound in ʿIrāq, included for the same reason. – Greg Pandatshang (talk) 20:57, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

IMHO I've also wondered about this, however I figured that the Arabic speaking contributors to this page know best concerning Arabic acronyms. If it is some kind of issue of bias instead of verifiable/reliable sourced statements then this needs to be discussed further. Rightswatcher (talk) 21:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The sources in the footnotes (in "Name & name changes") vary - DAIISH, Da'ash and Daesh (but no DAESH, as in the Lead). Before I changed the name in "Name & name changes" to match "DAESH" in the Lead, it said "Da'ish". I couldn't find anything on the internet to help with this, except that "DAASH" is a common variant and that the acronym is currently widely used in the region to refer to ISIS. This subject has been discussed talked about before (see #1 on this Talk page and in Archive 1), but no conclusion was reached. The wide variation in the acronyms most probably has to do with how the Arabic is transliterated – different transliterations can be a nightmare, leading to many variants of the same Arabic word or name. --P123ct1 (talk) 22:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The BBC has said "Some have also started referring to the group as "Da'ish" or "Daesh" a seemingly pejorative term that is based on an acronym formed from the letters of the name in Arabic, "al-Dawla al-Islamiya fi Iraq wa al-Sham" ... Some Arab media outlets and politicians have meanwhile started using the term Da'ish. It appears to have originated from posts by Syrian opposition activists and social media users. Da'ish is not an Arabic word and the use of acronyms is not common in Arabic. Furthermore, the jihadist group objects to the term and has advised against its usage." (see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-27994277). Is this any help? Robertm25 (talk) 22:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• It was originally changed by User:Tshuva right here Supersaiyen312 (talk) 18:59, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

The latest change in the Lead (reverting to an earlier edit) solves nothing. It just gives one more acronym to contend with, DAISH. The "Name & name changes" mention of DAESH has not been changed, so that is just one more inconsistency in this article (see topic #29 below). --P123ct1 (talk) 20:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

The confusion over the name is actually happening in other language too. The medias in French, Spanish, and German debating about what to call the group. If anyone knows how to speak Arabic here, maybe they can help translate it. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 21:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Supersaiyen312, I just want to go on record that I know a very good editor who speaks English, Arabic, French and Spanish proficiently, but that editor was shamelessly discouraged from editing this article even when flagrant inaccuracies are clearly observed. It's just not worth it. Wikipedia loses. Worldedixor (talk) 00:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

We should simply use what reliable sources use. If there are several transliterations, we might use several all with sources. It really isn't up to us to decide which transliteration to use. There isn't necessarily one correct one. Dougweller (talk) 05:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

It is being suggested below (Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#"Daash", "Da'ish" or "Daesh", coverage in Arabic media and reflected content in the article) that the a common use of "Da`ish" be adopted as MOS. Please comment at link. Gregkaye ✍♪ 19:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The option Da`ish is beig discussed at Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#"Daash", "Da'ish" or "Daesh", coverage in Arabic media and reflected content in the article below.Gregkaye ✍♪ 19:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The name Islamic State

All the major newspapers call it now "Islamic State": See Google News for Islamic State --2A01:E35:8B2F:7630:A1C3:E987:D9F:79D3 (talk) 18:27, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. We need to start a new discussion on the move to rename. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 18:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

The decision is urgent. The obvious confusion in this article is making Wikipedia look very foolish, with one box saying Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and another saying Islamic State with caliphate (the latest revert has caused this), and with some of the article calling ISIS ISIS and later parts calling it ISIS and/or the Islamic State. --P123ct1 (talk) 20:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I smell a sock-puppet. --P123ct1 (talk) 21:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean? Supersaiyen312 (talk) 22:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Just to point out, the Arabic version of Wikipedia is still calling it the "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant". And so is the Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, and Russian versions still calling it "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant". On the other hand, the German and French versions have switched to "Islamic State". The majority of other inter-wikis seems the be calling it "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant". Supersaiyen312 (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Good sleuthing. All I can say is that until it is decided what to call it, the article must remain consistent. People coming in and half-changing it are not helping Wikipedia's reputation. There are thousands of people looking at this article every day (see statistics under "Page information" in the left-hand column here) and we have to remember this. --P123ct1 (talk) 22:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

We shouldn't pay attention to what other Wikipedias do. We follow the sources. Others may have different ways of working. Dougweller (talk) 17:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Dougweller. It's the media's and general public's choice of name that matters, not other Wikipedias. The other Wikis should use the name that is used by reliable sources. The BBC, The Mirror and plenty of other media agencies refers to them as the Islamic State. --92.232.49.38 (talk) 19:00, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

1) They call themselves the Islamic State now. I also think the name should be changed. 2) As for those Wikipedias, just make a redirect from The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant Shimmy (talk) 02:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 8 August 2014

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. Clear consensus against simply "Islamic State". There were plenty of alternatives also suggested but none of them came close to getting any sort of agreement. Jenks24 (talk) 10:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

---

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State – The last completed move request is at[3] and was closed as no consensus. It is now over a month since that move request was raised people are making changes to the article that don't reflect the article title. Many sources still use the current name[4] (although some of those use the new name but mention an old name) but many others use just "Islamic State".[5] We need to come to some sort of decision even if it is to keep the current name. Please note that "The Islamic State" would need clear consensus among those reliable sources that use "Islamic State" and that translation issues do not apply, we go by what the English sources use. Dougweller (talk) 13:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Note to anyone closing this. The discussion started here on the 8th but due to something I did wrong with the template the RfC wasn't procedurally opened until today. Dougweller (talk) 16:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Support

• Islamic State, without "the", for reasons set out below. --P123ct1 (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support Islamic State without the "The". Most sources I've seen just use "Islamic State". I'm fine w/"The Islamic State" or "Islamic State (organization)" as a compromise, but it's not my #1 choice. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 10:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

• Keep as is "The Islamic State" and "Islamic State" should redirect to caliphate or islamic state -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:27, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
• Keep the current name. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 16:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
• oppose; per 65.94.169.222, for now "Islamic state" has the far more common meaning of an Islamic state, whether 'state' is capitalised or not; the additional 'of Iraq and the Levant' is probably the best way to disambiguate it. If the group's still around and still has the same name in a few months then it might be the primary topic, but it's unclear how likely that is.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:23, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
• Strong oppose move to Islamic State, since treating this possible transient political grouping as the primary meaning is very problematic, other titles might be worth considering, but inclined to leave it at the status quo until some issues become clearer. PatGallacher (talk) 21:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
• Keep as is What something is, and what that thing bombastically claims to be, can be different things. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:39, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
• Keep at current name - The news media varies widely in what they call this entity, but US diplomats and POTUS continue to refer to it as ISIL (as of the Secretary of Defence's comments at a media call in Australia yesterday). Not common as "Islamic State" yet. Per JohnBlackburne, let's see if it has changed in a couple of months time. Monthly RM's aren't helping. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
• Keep the current name. The official name is irrelevant. We frequently give articles names that are (a) not official or formal and/or (b) precisely correct only for one period of time. Srnec (talk) 08:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Alternatives

• Support "The Islamic State": I know you are not keen on quibbles about the Arabic, Dougweller, but for what it is worth, the title in Arabic shows a "the" in the script. (I could demonstrate if needed.) So I am for "The Islamic State." --P123ct1 (talk) 10:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support "Islamic State (organization)" because I think it's a good compromise to rename this article with the new official name of the organization ("Islamic State", "al-Dawlah al-ʾIslāmiyyah" in romanized Arabic) without create a confusion with Islamic state. In Google News we find 4,560 results for "Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant" 6,770 results for "Islamic State in Iraq and Syria" and 7,700,000 results for "Islamic State". The new reliable sources (not only from US) use "Islamic State", Al Jazeera, The Time of India, The Jakarta Post, I24 News, Washington Post, The Guardian, The Wall Street Journal, Huffington Post, USA Today, Los Angeles Time, Fox News, Reuters, Ria Novosti, The Independent. --Monsieur Fou (talk) 22:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Several of those are AP wire service stories, so there are not really 14 different sources here. If you want to follow AP, I expect that they will announce something official on their site soon. We could wait until then. Clodhopper Deluxe (talk) 03:38, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• Move to ISIS, per CNN, Fox News, New York Times, CBS News. New York Daily News, Times of London and Huffington Post. Those are all headlines published in the last 24 hours. Clodhopper Deluxe (talk) 09:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support move to Islamic State (organization) as per Monsieur Fou as a good compromise between article confusion and current "not so accurate" article name. ~Technophant (talk) 23:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
• How about Islamic State (insurgent group)? That makes it more specific. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I think "insurgent group" is too narrow to speak about IS, the group has territorial claims (in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan...) and controls de facto a large part of Iraq and Syria. In these territories IS aren't only a insurgent group but it's an unrecognized state with their laws and their administration. Both, unrecognized state and insurgent group are two type of organization, that's why I consider "organization" as more appropriate term. The term "organization" can cover different acceptations. An insurgency is an armed rebellion against a constituted authority. That implies a local perspective and a clearly identified authority, but IS's aim is not local but global and their fighters come from all around the world. Their leader proclaimed himself "Caliph of Islam", "Commander of the Believer" and order to all muslims in the world to obey him. In Syria IS fought Al Qaeda and challenges their role in global jihadism (They have recently absorbed Al-Nusra Front). Sorry for my frenchified English, I learned it at school, but I don't practice it anymore today.--Monsieur Fou (talk) 14:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there is any need for us to agonise over it; as Dougweller said, there are ways of disambiguating a plain "Islamic State" or "The Islamic State." --P123ct1 (talk) 22:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• Islamic State (insurgent group) - ISIS is seen as a terrorist group by (if not all) the most of rest of the world. Using just Islamic State to refer them will be bit controversial and confusing. Because, some legitimate states like Pakistan and Iran call themselves as Islamic State. ISIS is most commonly known name for this terrorist group, although they (as well as their leader) can not settle for a name, they now call themselves as the Islamic State, which I (as a Muslim) and most other Muslims, as well as all other sovereign body refuse to recognize. I know, my POV might affect my editorial sense, but no one is now able to be completely objective about ISIS; still I am trying to be as much neutral as possible. Islamic State (terrorist group) could have been the best name, but probably it is not pure NPOV. So, I would vote for moving to, Islamic State (insurgent group). --» nafSadh did say 05:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
• How about Islamic State (formerly Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant)? That is neutral but clear. That would suffice until the name of this group stabilises, and distinguishes itself from "Islamic State" as other countries call themselves, as you say. I am not clear if this discussion has been closed. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

It'll be OK for me if contributors who opposes accept it as a compromise to use the official name (Islamic State) AND keep the outdated name. Another form could be Islamic State (formerly ISIL or ISIS) because some contributors (Clodhopper Deluxe) want to move to ISIS and some other prefer the acronym ISIL.--Monsieur Fou (talk) 16:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Sorry, I didn't follow the previous discussion and am confused by the wording of this one. Do you propose renaming Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant to The Islamic State? The article's lead now begins: "The Islamic State (IS) … also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS)." All other things being equal, if The Islamic State is the group's official name, renaming our article would make sense. However, all other things are not equal. Last night at the White House, delivering a 1,332-word prepared statement explaining authorization of two operations in Iraq—targeted airstrikes and humanitarian airdrops—President Obama referred eight times to "the terrorist group ISIL" but not once to The Islamic State. Have the preponderance of reliable sources switched to The Islamic State? If you could somehow demonstrate that, your proposal would carry more weight. As is, it seems premature. Since POTUS hasn't adopted the change, we probably ought to wait until the sand stops shifting. JohnValeron (talk) 17:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Since the US Government called it ISIL when most of the world was calling it ISIS and now are calling it IS, it could be a long wait. (For non-Americans: see the Wiki article POTUS for what this is.) --P123ct1 (talk) 20:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Until a decision is made, the article ought to be consistent. How acceptable is it to have one name in the first infobox and another name in the second one? And how acceptable is it to hive off some of the group's former names - still very widely used, especially DAESH, its common name in the region - into a small-print note at the end of the article (the latest edit)? --P123ct1 (talk) 20:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

This is what I am trying to settle. And I am definitely not suggesting "The Islamic State" as an alternative, the alternative suggested is "Islamic State". POTUS isn't the determining factor here. Dougweller (talk) 21:05, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

A STABLE temporary fix is needed in the meantime for the Lead and the boxes. There have been too many back and forth reverts, leaving the article contradicting itself each time. Not good for Wikipedia's image. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:34, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Between "ISIL" and "ISIS", the U.S. chooses to use "ISIL". People also commonly say "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" but then abbreviate it to "ISIS". I think it is time to rename it to "Islamic State" as more reliable sources are starting to use it but keep in mind that this group also changes their name alot. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 07:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

As for "The Islamic State", the issue is WP:Commonname which is clear about this:"it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." And so far no one has come up with any arguments based on sources. Dougweller (talk) 10:58, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Apologies, I overlooked WP:Commonname. On other pages about name changes, people have drawn up useful statistics about media usage. I don't know how that is done, but that would be the best way to find out which version is most frequently used now. --P123ct1 (talk) 12:36, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

What do you think about "Islamic State (organization)"? It's the true name without ambiguity with islamic state and it's OK with the reliable sources that use "Islamic State". In the French version we have switched to fr:État islamique (organisation).--Monsieur Fou (talk) 22:21, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

See Google news for Islamic State. All the major newspaper use now "Islamic State". There is only 4,560 results for "Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant", 6,770 results for "Islamic State in Iraq and Syria", but 7,700,000 results for "Islamic State".--Monsieur Fou (talk) 09:47, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I googled the following to see what names they have been using in the past seven days or so —

The Times[6], The Telegraph[7], The Guardian[8], The Independent[9], The Economist[10], The Spectator, Financial Times[11], The New York Times, The Washington Post[12], The Wall Street Journal[13], TIME, Al-Ahram (Egypt), Middle East Eye, BBC News[14], CNN, NBC, Aljazeera, Al Arabiya, Reuters, Associated Press and Agence France-Presse

— and with the exception of The New York Times and Al Arabiya, they are all now calling ISIS either "Islamic State" or "the Islamic State", with a few of them using the new name and "ISIS". I can provide links if required, though they are easy to google. (None of them call it "The Islamic State", unless at the beginning of a sentence.) That is a big change from only three weeks ago, when most were mainly using "ISIS". I therefore think Islamic State (IS), without "the", should be the new title. --P123ct1 (talk) 12:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Nope. We already have that one. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 12:54, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

No, that's a different article. At the moment we actually do have a redirect Islamic State which redirects to Islamic state, but we can fix that. We've discussed this above. We have ways of disambiguating. Dougweller (talk) 13:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Search "The Islamic State". You will find less entries but more used to describe this terrorist organization. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 13:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Discard anything where 'The' is the first word of a sentence. Although today's Guardian article starts a sentence with just "Islamic State".[15] Then remove any where 'the' isn't the first word and isn't in upper case. It's really not that easy to search. Dougweller (talk) 15:22, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

The BBC suddenly started using "Islamic State" only very recently. Probably because it distances the public perception that those operating in Iraq are the same as those operating in Syria. The BBC takes a Recdep approach to such changes: what change? It never happened, we always called it that. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The official name is Islamic State, all other articles about an organization are named with their official name. For example, the article The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints isn't named Mormon Church.--Monsieur Fou (talk) 16:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• Different media organizations are using different names for IS. even Obama used to call it ISIL and now he uses Isis. as no common name exist. Wikipedia should use the right name and call it Islamic State (IS) 3bdulelah (talk) 20:16, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

The right name is the/The Islamic State, not Islamic State - see below for explanation. --P123ct1 (talk) 21:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

• We use the name used by most reliable English sources. Dougweller (talk) 20:29, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

@Clodhopper Deluxe:Headlines are not written by the journalist who wrote the story. Your first link[16] says "He said the step was taken to defend U.S. personnel in the city of Irbil and protect religious minorities facing what he called a "potential act of genocide" from the Islamic State, the extremist group most recently known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)." So it uses "Islamic State" making it clear it was ISIS. Your link to the Huffington Post[17] also calls it the "Islamic State". So does your Fox News link[18] "Obama announced action against the Islamic State". Dougweller (talk) 20:37, 10 August 201 4 (UTC)

• I'm sure more people read the headlines than the fine print. Clodhopper Deluxe (talk) 03:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I almost wish IS had hired an English speaking publicist or marketing specialist to help the English speaking world understand what the proper name to call the group is. This would have saved us Wikipedians and world a lot of confusion. In business speak this is called rebranding. 21:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

They really don't need to. The translation of the formal Arabic name for the group is "the Islamic State". If you compare the Arabic script, you can see there is a clear difference in the Arabic for "Islamic state" دولة اسلامية and "the Islamic State" الدولة الإسلامية Compare this second one to the Arabic script in the first line of the Lead (which is its official name in Arabic) - it is the same. Arabic script reads from right to left, and I believe the two extra strokes to the far right in the second one indicate "al", which is "the" in English. Interesting, but irrelevant, as we have to settle for the name most commonly used by reliable sources. --P123ct1 (talk) 22:24, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1, well maybe not now but when we had the debate whether to call it Islamic State in/of Iraq and Syria/Levant/Sham/Shaam (ISIS or ISIL) then it would have really helped. ~Technophant (talk) 23:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• @rebranding: You may be underestimating the barbarians! They've put out a slick English-language publication that explains it all. ("It's either the Islamic State or the Flood," according to one article. I guess that's why they need dams.) Clodhopper Deluxe (talk) 03:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Clodhopper Deluxe. I added it to User:Technophant/Al Furqan Media Productions#Magazines It's actually a weekly e-zine. Take a look at ISIS militants produce slick weekly magazine packed with English language Islamist propaganda designed to recruit and radicalise would-be extremists in the West from the Daily Mail. ~Technophant (talk) 05:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Whenever I hear/read it being referred to in the UK Media it seems to be something like "ISIS now called the Islamic State". Indeed, ISIS + "Islamic State" is picking up 13.6M google hits which seems to confirm my impression that WP:COMMONNAME should point us toward ISIS (The Islamic State) as a title. Just a thought. DeCausa (talk) 10:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I concur, DeCausa, but with a slight correction if I may: "the" with a lower case "t" in the article and, of course, uppercase "T" in the title. Not sure who used "The Islamic State" in the middle of a sentence but that was not what I initially coined. I have provided enough support for changing the title to "The Islamic State" and using "the Islamic State" everywhere else in the article where an uppercase is not warranted, e.g. after a period or at the beginning of a sentence. "Islamic State" makes no sense to me. Worldedixor (talk) 10:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

DeCausa, do you not think that could just be a temporary phase while the media move from "ISIS" to "Islamic State"? "Islamic State" is rapidly picking up speed and changing the title to anything other than "Islamic State" or "The Islamic State" could quickly become out of date, couldn't it? --P123ct1 (talk) 10:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Possibly, but WP:CRYSTAL means we shouldn't take that into account. My personal guess is that in the long run "Islamic State" is going to be too indistinct for the media to use on a sustained basis and they will ultimately always use a disambiguator. At least while they remain just a militia. Of course if they really do set up "the Islamic State" over a swathe of MidEast things might be different. DeCausa (talk) 11:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, it's pretty clear now that we aren't going to get consensus to change the name. There's another problem which is that other articles use different names, eg some actually do use "Islamic State", and once this RfC is closed we need to clean that up. Dougweller (talk) 08:16, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

WP:OWN to new editors

Some contributors feel possessive about material they have contributed to Wikipedia. No one has the right to act as though he or she is the owner of a particular article. Worldedixor (talk) 08:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, since you've replaced this, I agree that you are right that possessiveness is a bad thing.. But I don't see that there is a problem here and I feel that rather than make vague statements like this you should be pointing out such problems that you see to the editors you have in mind on their talk pages.

I also note that you seem to be at 3RR on a 1RR page. Whatever you may feel about WP:OWN, you should not be doing this. The whole point of the 1RR restriction is to avoid edit warring. Dougweller (talk) 11:47, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I ask you not to repeatedly violate WP Rules and gang up on me via e-mails to "remove the joy of editing Wikipedia". The record shows what you did after you misconstrued "once again" what I said and after I provided well sourced edits to the article. Everyone was editing peacefully. Do not just remove my edits and falsely accuse me of stuff, and do not use bureaucracy as a pretext to make unwanted contact and instigate me. As for explaining WP rules, I have my way of doing so.Worldedixor (talk) 18:39, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I think you might have mis-interpreted him. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 07:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Unrecognised state

Clicked on the link and noted that this is not at the link List of states with limited recognition (although it was very briefly). It isn't sourced and appears to be original research. Please don't replace this without discussion. Start an RfC if you wish, this is a major claim and needs clear justification. Dougweller (talk) 12:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 12:45, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Those are a bunch of savage and evil terrorists not a state.Worldedixor (talk) 18:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Worldedixor, this may be a talk page, but that doesn't entitle you to say whatever you please, no matter how inflammatory or disruptive. Your personal opinions are your own, but they don't belong here. I have already notified you of WP:SCWGS, and in my view, the edit above is sanctionable. I'm not going to sanction you, but if you repeat it or anything similar, you risk being blocked per the community sanctions applicable to this page.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23. Isn't it true that Dougweller "e-mailed" you? Also, how can what I said on the article talk page be sanctionable? ALL my edits on the article were well sourced and made in good faith. Please specify the WP rule that you are basing your contact with me that does not allow me to explain (on the talk page not in the article) that I do not believe that ISIS is a state and like many CIVILIZED countries beleieve, I strongly believe that they are terrorists? I understand your view and respect your right to your view but your contact with me, when warranted, should be based on WP rules. Worldedixor (talk) 19:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

@Worldedixor: See WP:NOTFORUM. Even on talk pages we strive to keep our personal opinions about the article's subject to a minimum. If I said "X is a blowhard" on X's article talk page I would be admonished. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks NeilN . Will scrutinize and respond. Worldedixor (talk) 19:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, NeilN, I understand… While my intent and my edit history on this article and its talk page were certainly not meant to engage in forum chat, I can see how my choice of words to explain that ISIS is not a state but rather terrorists could be "selectively" interpreted by someone as a forum chat. In any case, what took place today after misconstruing "once again" my edits, transcend this small matter. Thanks anyway. I appreciate it. Worldedixor (talk) 20:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Barzani: we are fighting a terrorist state not terrorist group. here 3bdulelah (talk) 20:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, a state with borders and a population that are constantly changing. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 08:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

:-) Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 08:50, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I noticed that someone must have changed group to unrecognized state. I just reverted it. Is my understanding that there is no consensus on "unrecognized state" correct? If there is, then I'll be glad to revert it back. Just let me know here. Worldedixor (talk) 04:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

"Genocide"

Dougweller has advised that the word "genocide", like "terrorist", should not be used in this article without sources to back it up. --P123ct1 (talk) 14:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I've been out the loop for a while, however I Agree in principle. - Technophant (talk) 21:04, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I Agree . The reliable and verifiable source I have provided (The Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/08/08/when-obama-talks-about-iraq-his-use-of-the-word-genocide-is-vital/) does indeed back it up. I also add two more reliable sources that also back it up (The Guardian http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/08/isis-persecution-iraqi-christians-genocide-asylum) and (Al 3arabi http://www.alaraby.co.uk/flashnews/4624503a-9999-4864-836f-c3f3a8b72340). Why was my edit reverted twice (not by the same editor)? Changing WP rules and reverting well sourced edits is disruptive. I cannot revert it back today in a 1RR article. Worldedixor (talk) 05:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

No one has changed the rules - it's ok for two editors to revert you and shows you don't have consensus and need to get agreement here - reverting again would be a bad idea as such actions may be seen as edit warring. We can however use the word in context, ie say that Obama and Archbishop Athanasius Toma Dawod describe it as genocidal, perhaps with a couple of quotes. But note that Patriarch Louis Sako doesn't call it genocide but states there is a risk of genocide. الأناضول - which Google translates as Anatolia is a Turkish News Agency. the article is quoting Salama al-Khafaji. The French Foreign Minister has also referred to it as genocide.[19][20]. But we need to attribute and Obama should not be described as the US. Why not work out some wording here on the talk page so what we can get consensus and avoid edit warring? Dougweller (talk) 06:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The solution is very simple. As with all things here, it really isn't a question of whether it really is or is not genocide, but what RS say. We simply state who said it was genocide, and include the source(s) every single time the word is used in the text, even in the lead (because it's controversial). There are likely several notable people and institutions which have used that term. Wikipedia is not censored, including use of strongly pejorative terms. If a source uses the term, we are not allowed to shy away from also using it. NPOV requires that we reproduce the spirit of the source. This is not a BLP issue. So,... attribution solves this problem. (BTW, it really is genocide. ). -- Brangifer (talk) 07:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Brangifer. You make a lot of sense. I will let whoever wants to discuss "genocide" discuss it. It weighs on my consciousness what's happening to innocent people over there who have never hurt anyone, and it really is a genocide. There's something wrong in WP when an editor is allowed to just dismiss ALL reliable sources and revert a well sourced edit in a 1RR article, and we have to sit here and debate the obvious. Those poor folks fled fearing genocide which unfortunately happened. I made my research and shared it in good faith. I now recuse myself from this particular process "i.e. adding genocide" that I don't particularly find enjoyable. Perfection is not required in WP. Worldedixor (talk) 08:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I think Brangifer has the right idea here, except that I don't agree Wikipedia can use the word directly. I reverted the word "genocide" only because it wasn't backed up by that particular source, although it is quite clear that this is what it is. If some other RS source can be found to support the statement, I think it can be kept in, but only as "X reported .... genocide ...", or making it plain that they are not Wikipedia's words but someone else's. --P123ct1 (talk) 08:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I was another editor who (12 Aug) changed the word ‘genocide’ into a description with ‘killings’, simply because by the mentioning on 5Aug2014 in the article no source was added qualifying it as ‘genocide’. And if no such source is delivered, Wiki should report facts and not make political or juridical or whatever sort of judgments. Ofcourse the terrible events in IS-country weighed on Worldedixor’s consciousness, as he said 12Aug,08:02, but the only thing to do here in that case is make a good, neutral encyclopedia. --Corriebertus (talk) 09:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposed wording for description of actions as genocidal

Starting a new section to discuss wording. Dougweller (talk) 06:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

• Persecution of Yazidis by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (I moved it to its current title) was begun as "Yazidi Genocide" on 8 August 2014, when there were not even news on a Yazidi massacre. (Which I still consider as a "claim" until independently confirmed.) A similar story/history is valid for Persecution of Assyrians by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. I am afraid when questions on violations of human rights arise we tend to take Wikipedia as a News Agency or an Internet Forum and rush to create articles. This is an encyclopedia. We have to act in cold blood. For me, we can wait until an international court (for months) or an international body like UN (for weeks perhaps) define the issue. Nobody expects from Wikipedia to cover events on-line. When an airplane falls or is downed nobody -except WP editors- rush here to "read" the news in Wikipedia. (Let's be honest, indeed we rush to be "first" to write, not to read.) News are read in news-sites. People come here to read the Holocaust, for example, not Israel's ongoing operation in Gaza. (At least I hope so.) If they do come here to read current events, they may cool off from Wikipedia. Which of us can tell me that while we are discussing if something is a genocide or not we do not have CoI? If I had Assyrian or Yazidi relatives or friends in Iraq I could be looking at things differently, I imagine. (Thank God I don't have anybody in Iraq; so I hope I am looking neutrally into all this.) I know people may talk to me about sources or censure but I will repeat myself: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It has no reason to run after the events and try to cover them "on-line". Let us wait until everything is clear; we will not lose anything (including prestige). Regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 08:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the title of this sub-section (…wording for description…as genocidal…?) is nonsensical, so this is not really a discussion. The User(12Aug,08:07) who refuses to take on a normal, short, Username seems to be obstinate by profession and I disagree with him at some points, but since this is not a serious discussion (and he not a serious User) I won’t elaborate on that. --Corriebertus (talk) 11:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

If you don't want to elaborate on something then don't do it; no need to explain. I don't think there are many users here wondering why Corriebertus did not elaborate on anything. I also cannot understand why a user's user name could be an issue for you. If you want to tell something to me you may use WSIHAUN, or simply call me Pepe, no problem. (There are other people who have had no problem interacting with me; I guess they copy-paste the user name.) The words "not a serious user" could be seen as a personal attack by others but I am a mature person, I only see that as an unnecessary (indeed it is never necessary) rudeness. Please do not talk or opine on the contributors, concentrate on their contributions. Regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 19:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, no offence meant. Since this ‘discussion’ is total nonsense, as I said before, I got confused by reading important things said by mr “Why” in an otherwise nonsensical sub-section. Mr Why poses that Wikipedia should better not write al all about Islamic State until a court or the UN has “defined” some “issue”. I disagree: it is good and important for Wiki to write immediately about ‘current events’ like Gaza or IS. (What means: “...we do not have CoI?” ?) --Corriebertus (talk) 11:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Suggested split of Al-Hayat Media Center as own article

I've had an article in my userspace now moved to User:Technophant/Al Furqan Media Productions where anybody who is wishing to help develop this article can edit. Even though Al Furqan Media (recently renamed Al-Hayat Media Center (HMC)) is an integral part of IS/ISIS, it is its own separate entity, notable, and has enough written about it to develop into a separate article. ~Technophant (talk) 22:11, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

If it has enough to become its own article, then go for it. It still needs some developing though. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 22:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The Long War Journal as a reliable source

I took a look at the Reliable Source Noticeboard for the latest discussion of this website as a source. It has been used in this article quite a bit. The consensus is: "it should be quoted with attribution" due to its potential POV issues here. ~Technophant (talk) 00:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

This is quite alarming. The LWJ has been cited 13 times in this article and three times in the Al-Baghdadi article. Those mentions will all have to be gone through and checked, making sure that there is an attribution each time. --P123ct1 (talk) 09:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Have gone through the LWJ mentions in this article and only one needed an in-line attribution (done). The rest backed up facts and expressed no POV. --P123ct1 (talk) 21:08, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

The LWJ mentions in the al-Baghdadi backed up facts only. --P123ct1 (talk) 16:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

1RR restriction redux

Either people aren't reading the edit notice that you see when you edit the article and/or the notice at the top of the talk page or they are just ignoring it. Please folks, stop this if you don't want to be blocked. And to clarify, reinstating something that an editor has removed is a revert. 1RR can include several edits in a row with no one editing in between, that's fine. But revert something, another editor edits, and revert again is a violation. Dougweller (talk) 07:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I made that mistake because I did not know how this functioned. I had also not noticed this explanation before. Thank you Dougweller. I will consider and obey it. Regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 07:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

"2014 events" section

I have been feeling uncomfortable for some time about how the "2014 events" section is turning into a bulletin board for this conflict. I don't think it is appropriate for Wikipedia to act like a newspaper or a press agency. Editor Why should I have a User Name? has criticised this as well (see above). Perhaps it might be an idea to have a separate page where these events can be listed in the way they are being now, and after each month, write up a resume of the month's main events as a historical narrative and then put it into this section. People will be reading Wikipedia this article for information about ISIS/IS, not about how the conflict is developing. --P123ct1 (talk) 08:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. See Timeline of the Syrian Civil War. Dougweller (talk) 16:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

That Syrian Civil War timeline looks like a good idea. It would need to be decided at what point in 2014 this timeline should begin, i.e. exactly when did this latest conflict begin, with what event? What should the page be called? I wouldn't have a clue how to set up a page like that, but I am sure someone here could. It would also get round the vexed problem of what tense to use when reporting these events. Do people think this is a good idea? --P123ct1 (talk) 18:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The whole Timeline of Events section sticks out like a sore thumb and should be split off into another page, with key events summarised into the article. Gazkthul (talk) 22:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Is United Kingdom an opponent?

I'm wondering if there are any reliable references that could decide this. I know that they have sent aid drops, and that is obviously not a declaration that they are an opponent. However, they have stated they have sent Tornado jets, but I'm unsure as to whether they are for military surveillance, or if they are for the surveillance of the aid drops. I did find this reference post showing David Cameron's union with Barack Obama, and since the United States of America are listed as opponents - well, you get the idea. Ryanicus Girraficus (talk) 21:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Surveillance[21]. Changing your ref to an url as otherwise it will keep dropping down to the thread at the bottom of the page (which this is at the moment but not for long). I would have thought opponent meant taking action against. Dougweller (talk) 08:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller could you be kind enough to use this somewhere in this or parallel articles? Thank you and regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 08:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Why should I have a User Name?, why me? Why don't you do it? I'll have to see, I am really busy, have a huge watchlist and need to spend some time off Wikipedia today. :-) Dougweller (talk) 09:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Because I saw in your page that you are a "Most Plusquamperfect Looshpah Laureate" and an admin. I don't know what the former means but the latter inspires some experience. What is better and more normal than asking help from a more experienced user? Look into my recent edits and you will see I have asked help to other users like yourself -those that I thought could to this or that thing better than me. Do it tomorrow if you're busy today and don't spend your time to answer me but to help me. Thank you. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 09:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Are your fingers broken? - why don't YOU do it - this is perhaps one of the silliest/laziest requests I've seen of another editor. Are you topic-banned or something?HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you alright? Is your name Dougweller? Please mind your own editing. Good-bye. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 14:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Hilary Clinton hoax/conspiracy theory

Not sure if this should be in the article but at the very least useful for editors to know about and read in a reliable source.[22] Dougweller (talk) 09:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree and would go further. There seems to be a whole host of conspiracy theories, most claiming that ISIS is a creation of the USA or Mossad. [23] and, of course, those that blame Mrs. Clinton [24]. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

If due weight doesn't allow it in our over-crowded article it fits in Conspiracy theories in the Arab world and I added a line there. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

specific section on massacres?

I knew that ISIS was committing murder, but until last night's BBC report and this morning's somewhat briefer mention on NPR, I did not know the extent of what was going on. I will try to find journalistic reports that focus on numbers and those affected, but since it is this "serious" should the article have a section on this group's mass-murders? HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

There are already separate articles for the mass murders, so a link in the sections should be enough. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 02:07, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

A section presenting a summary of the main articles devoted to the mass murders is the best. Mhhossein (talk) 05:49, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

As the weeks go by, it becomes more urgent that there is a section in this article dealing with this, and with ISIS's religious persecution. They are religious fundamentalists of the worst kind. It reminds me of how the terrorism issue was not broached in this article until it became obvious to the whole world that the ISIS are terrorists. How can Wikipedia possibly ignore what is going on now? A summary of other articles on these two topics with links to them would be best, I think, but with judicious additions as events unfold, not a daily bulletin. If the timeline in this article could be turned into a separate article (like the timeline article on the Syrian Civil War), summaries of events to go into this article would be easier to make. --P123ct1 (talk) 14:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

What is the current relationship between IS and Al Qaida?

The infobox for IS lists AQ as "opponents" (along with the the US, the Iraqi army, and all the governments and militias actively fighting against them). Is this correct? Are AQ and IS in active hostilities, or are they (as I had thought), merely non-cooperative? (Note also that the AQ article doesn't list IS as an opponent). Iapetus (talk) 16:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

IS and Nusra (Al Qaeda's franchise in Syria) are in conflict in Syria. There aren't active hostilities between IS and AQ Core. Gazkthul (talk) 23:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Official language

This terrorist organization has no "official language". Terrorist organizations do not have an official language. They may have a common language (linguna franca) with which the militants can understand each other, and I doubt it is Arabic in this case. We all know that the militants of ISIS come from very different national and geographic backgrounds. I read somewhere of Australian presence for example. There are people of many nationalities, Indians, Pakistanis, Australians, Syrians, Iraqis, Afghans, etc. A third generation Australian muslim (of Indian, Indonesian, Arab or whatever origin) speaks in Arabic with the Pakistani or the Afghan? No Sir. They speak mostly English. (How could I know that? :-) I am making Original Research just as our absurd Infobox does, stating an "official language". Therefore I delete that so-called official language and will resist any attempt to put it back there without "multiple independent reliable sources". Thank you. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 08:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Please do not assume that all terrorists act according to the stereotypes in your mind.

Devout Muslims learn Arabic because only the Arabic versions of their scriptures are considered authoritative.

If the Jews can resurrect the dead Hebrew language for their Jewish state, then how much easier is it for the Muslim fanatics to learn the living Arabic language for theirs? JRSpriggs (talk) 05:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Haven't you then just made a stereotypical assumption? I agree with WSIHAUN?: "Official language" needs a source. DeCausa (talk) 06:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

It would make sense that they would want the state to be Arabic-speaking though, furthermore because they are mostly active in Iraq and Syria. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 06:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

On the subject of infoboxes, how appropriate is to have time zones, calling codes and geographical co-ordinates? Adding such things smacks of displacement activity. Better to concentrate on either improving what is already in the article or making new additions, e.g. setting up new sections on IS's mass murders and religious persecution, perhaps splitting off the timeline into a separate article, and tackling the place of Wahhabism in IS's religious beliefs, in the "Ideology and beliefs" section. --P123ct1 (talk) 15:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Country designations of ISIS as a terrorist organization

I have brought back the footnotes from section 12 (where I moved them yesterday) and appended them to the countries in the Lead, and added "citation needed" tags to the new countries added today. I know it looks messy, but there are many thousands reading this article daily (see statistics) and it would be wrong to mislead them. I hope citations can be added soon to these other countries. --P123ct1 (talk) 11:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Could the countries be listed in date order of when designated rather than alphabetical? I think this would make it more meaningful. Robertm25 (talk) 22:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Section headed "As Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant"

Looks redundant User:Mehdi ghaed, why did you add it? You can remove your own edit without it being counted as a revert for the purposes of 1RR. Dougweller (talk) 12:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

it seems that,unlike your opinion(User talk:Dougweller), in the early paragraph of the page, there is no accurate and comprehensive about ISIL. because of this I add this explanation to headline.. of course the information mentioned , are both in summary and also give a preliminary knowledge on ISIL..I can summarize it...Mehdi ghaed (talk) 12:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

UN security council statement

As I can't see anything in the statement about terrorism I've taken this to WP:RSN#Is this UN document a reliable source to say the UN Security Council designated the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant is a terrorist organisation? rather than just reverting. Dougweller (talk) 12:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I have seen the decision on that page and have therefore removed the UN from the list in the Lead. --P123ct1 (talk) 14:16, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

What decision? Also, "editors" are breaking the 1RR rule and others doing "reverts" and getting away with it. Worldedixor (talk) 17:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I would say you could get it back in with the wording suggested in the last message there, which I think is fair. I hadn't seen that message until now. I reverted AGF, as I didn't want Wikipedia readers to be misled (see my comments in #8 and #41 above). I put all those "citation needed"s in for the same reason, just until we can fix it. I think your input on that linked page has helped to come to a solution here. --P123ct1 (talk) 18:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

tangential discussion

I rest my case. What you are "permitting" me to do constitutes edit warring and a violation of the 1RR in 24 hours. They are very strict on this "apparently". However, competence matters, and impatient and baseless "complete" reverts of well known United Nations facts and well sourced content without the absolute minimum of due diligence (it took me 2 seconds) is tedious and disruptive. As for 1RR, this is one example of violations of 1RR in 24 hours. There are others by other editors. 14:13, 14 August 2014‎ P123ct1 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (234,124 bytes) (-362)‎ . . (→‎top: Adjusted punctuation, removed unnecessary wikilinks from countries, and removed UN Security Council (see Talk page for reasons)) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant&diff=621213898&oldid=621204472 19:27, 13 August 2014‎ P123ct1 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (232,152 bytes) (-4)‎ . . (Undid revision 621091737 by Lahaun (talk) There is already a wikilink for him two paragraphs above) (undo | thank) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant&diff=621103288&oldid=621102636 Let us see an unbiased admin address this matter without any further bias and double standards, and WP:OWN. Worldedixor (talk) 19:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC) Admins don't get involved as Admins in content disputes. I took this to WP:RSN because I could not find the word 'terrorist' in your source. If you want to complain that an editor has broken 1RR then the place to report this is WP:AE. As the Secretary General has called it a terrorist group, we can add that. But not that the Security Council has designated it as a terrorist group without a UN source stating that explicitly. And the lack of good faith and the personal attacks aren't conducive to a collegial environment, which is what we want this to be. Dougweller (talk) 21:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC) You have just proven my point. Your recent actions show that you "did" get involved many times in content disputes the latest being today when I reverted a baseless revert. The record also shows flagrant bias, double standards and your and your pals'"selective" enforcement of WP rules. I am abiding by WP rules regardless of your digs and your false insinuations about me. All is documented and organized and can be verified. I don't see you send an "e-mail" like you did before about 1RR. I don't see you remove "personal attacks" against me when I asked you to. Also, it was not "my" source. Another editor found it and it has been used more than once on WP. The reliable source I found "in 2 seconds" confirms that the other editor's source was a reliable UN source. I am NOT adding well sourced content because it is tedious. Worldedixor (talk) 21:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC) Just picking up on your first point, I think you misunderstood. An admin could either be acting as an admin on the page - in which case they wouldn't be engaged in any content issues - or they could be acting as an editor - in which case they wouldn't be using admin tools or acting with admin authority, But they're not permitted to do both. An admin has no more authority than any other editor in a content dispute. There's no point looking for admins to "adjudicate" on a content dispute, therefore. Dougweller is clearly participating on this page as an experienced editor not as an admin. DeCausa (talk) 22:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC) Thank you DeCausa for expressing your opinion. I honor your unalienable right to do so. However, it is far more involved than this. I have it all organized, and I reserve all my rights. Worldedixor (talk) 22:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC) My revert was a holding action until something could be sorted out. It was to protect Wikipedia's reputation, as I have clearly said before. Is it okay to let Wikpedia persist in stating a fact it knows to be untrue (after the document was found by others on the other page not to support the statement), just because of a pending dispute among editors? Is it okay for Wikipedia to knowingly mislead its readers? As for my 1RR infraction, I had completely forgotten about removing one single wikilink the day before the UN reversion. I am very tired of having my edits and comments interpreted as "personal attacks", and I don't like veiled threats. --P123ct1 (talk) 01:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC) "Editors are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction when reverting logged-in users on all pages related to the Syrian Civil War, broadly construed. 'When in doubt, assume it is related, and don't revert". Do not be impatient to revert a well sourced content. Leave my FACTUAL revert in a 1RR article until something could be sorted out not violate 1RR and revert it. The record clearly shows that the biased admin was quick to send an "email" unsolicited to his "pal" when I "inadvertently" did a 1RR in GOOD FAITH and "protecting WP", and did not do anything in your case even though I brought it up with strong and convincing evidence. That reeks of double standards and selective enforcement of WP rules. Also, you are NOT the only one who is concerned about WP. Most importantly, one of your personal attacks (that I expressly asked to be removed and the biased admin ignored my request AND instead added insult to injury in a vindictive manner, something an admin should never do) is your saying "I think he is unbalanced". If that was not a personal attack (that is clearly non-conducive to a collegial environment), what is? RESPECT WP Rules and "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Cease and desist... I am following WP Rules and you are removing the joy of my editing WP. Worldedixor (talk) 01:32, 15 August 2014 (UTC) Yes, the comment "I think he is unbalanced was made. But you left out the rest of the sentence, which was " and having more people on him will only make it worse for him and therefore for Wikipedia in the end." In other words, a suggestion that you be left alone. That was followed in another post by ". I didn't mean what I said unkindly at all, it was just how I see it. I seem to have put my foot in it again." All of this was on my talk page. Not on yours. Bringing stuff from my talk page to an article talk age is entirely inappropriate. Use of article talk pages is discussed at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Dougweller (talk) 17:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Name "doesn't matter"

"It doesn't matter if you call it ISIS, ISIL or Islamic State, the extremist brand is winning" (Washington Post). Would still prefer Islamic State. :P AntiqueReader (talk) 14:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Nice source surveying the name issue! DeCausa (talk) 06:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

It would be easier to just call it the "Islamic State" or ISIS. The U.S. government has decided to call them ISIL though. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 07:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

There is a source on the UN calling them an "armed group". This source also names the four ethno-religious groups "persecuted" by this armed group. We have articles on the persecution of two of them, but not the other two: Turkmens and Shabaks. Why? Please also see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Iraqi_Turkmens#No_persecution.3F. Thanks. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 08:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Should ISIS redirect to this article?

The ISIS page is currently a redirect to Isis (disambiguation). Shouldn't it be to redirected to this article? Supersaiyen312 (talk) 07:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

No. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 07:32, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, the redirect was made in 2008. The Isis page (with lowercase) links to the Egyptain goddess. I guess I could understand why ISIS needs to redirect to a disambiguation page though. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 07:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Citations needed for countries in Lead

I have added "citation needed" tags to the countries added to the list of those designating ISIS as a terrorist organization, as no citations were given when they were added. I have asked the editor to provide citations but there are none yet. I propose removing the countries from the list if none are provided soon. If there are any objections, please give them here. --P123ct1 (talk) 12:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I support this initiative of P123ct1. As to removing them "soon": I think, surely after 36 hours you may remove them if not yet sourced, perhaps even sooner. Have you asked the responsible editor, and is he active these days on Wikipedia? Then 24 hours should be long enough. --Corriebertus (talk) 12:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The edit was made at 8.08 UTC on the 14th, and I have reminded the responsible editor today. He is not a regular editor here, but he is currently active on other pages. I can't revert yet as I have reached my 1RR limit! --P123ct1 (talk) 13:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I agree. I just searched for a statement by Amnesty and found nothing saying they call it terrorist. I'd say no more than 24 hours (less now(, they can always be replaced, just leave a list here of the ones removed. Dougweller (talk) 14:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller: So that means now would be okay? Obviously I have to be very careful here. --P123ct1 (talk) 16:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

No, too soon, at least 24 hours from when you added them. This isn't a BLP. Dougweller (talk) 17:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, we were talking at cross-purposes. So 24 hours after I added the tags [25](when I first informed the editor), the countries can be removed. --P123ct1 (talk) 19:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Have now removed the EU and countries with citation tags and Amnesty International from the Lead:-

Iran

Iraq

Israel

Syria

Lebanon

European Union

--P123ct1 (talk) 20:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

There were also some other questionable changes by that same user in the same edit. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 01:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

The one that bothers me most is the inflammatory language used about ISIS being violent [26], which I refer to in the next section "Lead and NPOV". It really should not remain in, IMO. --P123ct1 (talk) 06:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for continuing this discussion. However, I’m stunned by edit 16Aug2014,07:17 of Mr. P123ct1 himself. We testified here to be displeased with unreferenced mentionings of countries etc. calling IS a terrorist organization; and now, mr. P123 himself adds the United Nations as calling them a terrorist group without source citation—and immediately adds his selfcriticism that a citation is needed... That seems inconsistent behaviour to me, illogical, and not in accordance with Wiki philosophy—but more important: if the required citation is not added before 17Aug,07:17, ofcourse that reference to U.N. must also quickly be removed, I suppose and suggest. --Corriebertus (talk) 16:17, 16 August 2014 (UTC) P.S. I've contacted mr. P123 about this. --Corriebertus (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Corriebertus: I am happy to remove it until sources to support including the UN there can be found and have done so. I had the impression from the discussion at WP:RSN#Is this UN document a reliable source to say the UN Security Council designated the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant is a terrorist organisation? (referred to in Talk page section #43 on this subject) that there were such sources around, but it was perhaps a little premature to make that inclusion before some could be found. We will have to keep this discussion open until then. --P123ct1 (talk) 17:13, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I see my removal has been reverted! There are three options here: (a) leave out "UN" until a supporting source can be cited, (b) leave it in with a {{citation needed}} tag, or (c) leave it in with no citation. Only (a) and (b) can be countenanced. Such a big statement about such an important organization simply has to be backed up. If there is a source, and I am quite sure there will be many, quote it! Put it in a footnote! --P123ct1 (talk) 19:07, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

What is wrong with putting it in with a "citation needed" tag? It gives editors a day to come up with something (more if you consider time zones), doesn't mislead the public, and can be taken out after 24 hours if no-one comes up with one. (In other words, I've changed my mind!) --P123ct1 (talk) 19:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again. Some colleague(s) have in the mean time done good work and added at least one good proof of the UN calling them a terrorist group. --Corriebertus (talk) 11:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Lead and NPOV

This is a recent edit in the Lead [27]: " ISIS is known for its extreme and brutally harsh interpretation of the Islamic faith and sharia law and has a record of horrifying violence" (giving suitable citations) and then it goes on to give detail that I think is inappropriate for the Lead (the list of those ISIS persecute) and would be more suitable somewhere in the main article. That sentence with its intemperate language seems to me to flout NPOV outrageously. What do others think? --P123ct1 (talk) 14:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 15:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Reverted edit with "loaded" words. --P123ct1 (talk) 14:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

@P123 (and all others): Please be clear in your statements on talk pages. You think the list of ‘Assyrian Chrs., Yazidis,…’ would be “more suitable” somewhere else. So please give a suggestion of what place in the article would be more suitable. If you can’t think out such a place, it would seem that you just don’t want to read these facts at all in the article. --Corriebertus (talk) 15:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Corriebertus on this. It is always best to present a problem with at least one possible solution. Worldedixor (talk) 17:04, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I took care of NPOV with that edit. Action speaks louder than good advice! --P123ct1 (talk) 17:57, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I had been thinking there could be a section on the persecution of religious groups and others in this article (see my comment yesterday in "A serious discussion" below), but where it should go and how it should be headed I cannot think at the moment. I spent most of my time on this page today cleaning up footnotes and converting bare URLs left by editors in their new additions. Any ideas? --P123ct1 (talk) 21:44, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

See my comment, on a separate section for persecutions by IS, in the next section on this talk page. --Corriebertus (talk) 11:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

A serious discussion

I will be re-formulating a discussion which I tried to begin before with no response: We have parallel articles on Persecution of Yazidis by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and Persecution of Assyrians by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The only ethno-religious groups persecuted by the ISIL in northern Iraq are not these two. There are also Turkmens and the Shabaks, who are also a Turkic people according to some sources, being persecuted. The majority of these two peoples are Shia Muslims (or seculars, as in the case of many Iraqi Turkmens). That is why the ISIL terrorists persecute them. Not to forget, please, that there are also many Sunni Muslims in northern Iraq (Arabs, Turkmens, Kurds) that are also secular and being persecuted. The ISIL is not a "Sunni Muslim" organization, it is a radical, armed organization that is "terrorizing" everybody who do not share and obey their extremist ways. There are many Sunni Muslims suffering this persecution (persecution is not only killing) in their daily lives in northern Iraq. We have to see this fact and not limit our "persecution" articles to the Assyrians and the Yazidis. These two are the only -non-Muslim groups there and our readers are going to think that we are only concerned for the non-Muslims. (If I were only a reader I would think so; but as I am also a Wikipedian I want to attract everybody's attention to this concern of mine.) Please, if we cannot find enough material for a "persecution article" for every ethno-religious group suffering from the ISIL's persecution, let us at least make a general article on "Religious persecution by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant". Please participate in this discussion and/or help to begin that article directly. Thanks. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 06:16, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Mr. "Why should...": please stop abusing this talk page. If you want to seriously discuss something, state shortly and understandably the issue of your problem in the title of the talk section. We don't have time, and even less desire, to read your long philosophies or reasonings or whatever they are, on these pages. --Corriebertus (talk) 16:34, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

It may be a long preamble, but I think he makes a good point. It probably would be worth having a separate article on ISIS's persecution of other groups, and have just a short section on it in this article. The Yazidi and Assyrian articles are not very long and could easily be merged into one and built onto. I think he is right that all groups being persecuted by ISIS deserve equal treatment by Wikipedia. --P123ct1 (talk) 17:25, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you. we should have an article that talk about IS persecution of anyone who doesn't give Bay'ah to them otherwise we will have ten articles at least! IS massacred Sunni Muslims in Deir ez-Zor and Northen Aleppo. 3bdulelah (talk) 19:22, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Would you mind beginning it? I will build onto. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 10:46, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Colleagues: me being critical every now and then on a colleague must not be understood as not appreciating their (good) work on Wikipedia: on the contrary. Apparently, this section is about a new article on IS’s persecution of (groups of) people. The simple and correct solution would be: first start a section: 'Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#IS’s persecution of (groups of) people'. As soon as that section gets big (one screen page, 750 words), turn it over into a new article leaving a summary (200 words) in main article. --Corriebertus (talk) 11:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Corriebertus If I'm getting you right then this is a future split proposal? We could vote on it now and set a condition (word count or text size in kB) that needs to be met, or repropose this when the time comes. I think that the editors at The Yazidi and Assyrian articles would not want them merge because it will seem to take importance away from their event. ~Technophant (talk) 03:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Live Leak as a reliable source

First, I commend Peachster2 for being a useful contributor who adds well sourced content. His/her RT reliable source is sufficient for me. Live Leak cannot be used as a reliable source. I have used my 1RR. Can Peachster2 or someone who has not done 1RR or more today, remove the Live Link source? Thanks. Worldedixor (talk) 23:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Not sure who removed it, but thanks. Worldedixor (talk) 17:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Recent large revert

Do people think that [28] was a good revert? I'm willing to use my 1RR to restore it if that's what others want, but obviously if people think that material should not be in the article I don't want to put it back. Dougweller (talk) 09:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Forgot - not impressed by the edit summary "the quotations are not relevant, as US intelligence or Hillary Clinton is not super-partes. They are involved in the political situation, and should not be considered reliable source of information. Wikipedia should not do propaganda". Dougweller (talk) 09:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Without looking at the merits of the content, I just want to give you a word of support and agree with you on principle only. In my opinion, NO editor should make such large revert of someone else's work in a 1RR article without giving advance notice on the talk page. 24 hours is reasonable but a few hours is better than nothing. So, if you have 1RR (I had to use mine today on reverting the cn request), feel free to use it and let the editor who wants it removed give advanced warning with some justifying. Worldedixor (talk) 16:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. I'll give it until tomorrow however. No rush. Dougweller (talk) 20:57, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it should also be included. I wasn't impressed by the edit summary either, and that was quite a big chunk of material removed. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 06:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I've restored it now. Dougweller (talk) 14:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear all, I'm not a big editor on Wikipedia, therefore I'm not very familiar with the procedures to follow. Do you really think that material is relevant? Isn't it like asking Bayer whether the aspirins they produce is good or not? There're a clear conflict of interests. In my opinion analysis should be done by historians, after proofs. Not by politicians that try to get consensus in US/try to continue their business in Iraq. I'm sorry if someone put that material with innocent mind, but I think it's propaganda. If it's not so, please show the reasons why Hillary Clinton or the others think in that way. Thanks for the support.teoporta

Discussion on cn requests

In the best interest of improving WP, and before I say what I need to say, I want to verify who inserted ||cn|date=17 August 2014||

for the well-sourced content I added

16 August: The Islamic State massacred 80 Yazidis.441 "The EU agreed to supply Kurdish forces with arms", and US military forces continued to attack Islamic State fighters in the area around Iraq’s crucial Mosul dam.[442]

noting that the reliable source 441 that I already provided in the same article and the same paragraph clearly says: "The EU agrees to supply Kurdish forces with arms" and there was no need neither for a cn request nor for another reliable source to support what was already well-sourced.

Worldedixor (talk) 16:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

tangential discussion

IMPORTANT UPDATE: I just found out the name of the editor who made the cn request (that I removed) on "very well sourced" content that says. It was P123ct1 and this can be duly verified at [29]. So, to P123ct1: 1. Please adhere to WP:EQ. I think you should have let me know that it was you who made this edit. 2. Please do not add cn requests on "very well sourced" content that I add when the content "The EU agreed to supply Kurdish forces with arms" is already in the reference and the "reliable source" that I provided 441 clearly says The EU agrees to supply Kurdish forces with arms. This pattern of editing and confrontation is appearing like WP:Wikihounding, and as one good admin already told you "you might be shocked to learn how many edit wars are over tags". I am communicating with you so you don't repeat the same thing again. Worldedixor (talk) 02:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Using YouTube for citations

There is a creeping use of YouTube as a source to back up edits in this article. How appropriate is this? There is even a YouTube clip cited which is spoken entirely in Arabic. How appropriate is that in the English Wikipedia? Fortunately I managed to find a written source to supplement that YouTube clip, guided by the text. This extra work shouldn't be necessary; edits and sources should be transparent. There are more and more citations of articles and news reports in Arabic as well, again not suitable for the English Wikipedia, whatever the subject matter is. A few are acceptable, but not as many as are being used now (see "References"). --P123ct1 (talk) 23:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I see the latest YouTube clip has been removed by Gazkthul, and another was removed not very long ago by another editor. --P123ct1 (talk) 23:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I view your use of "creeping use" in reference to my use of an OFFICIAL non-English news media video on Youtube as one of WP:EQ, WP:NPA and repeated WP:Wikihounding. Why do you repeatedly confront my edits, single-handedly modify WP Rules at whim, and assert, without any basis, that "reliable Arabic sources are not suitable for the English Wikipedia"?... What about Spanish and French reliable sources?... This is an article about events taking place in the Middle East. There are very good reasons why Citations to non-English sources are expressly allowed on Wikipedia, otherwise the rules would completely prohibit citations to non-English sources. So, there is really no need to attack me or attack my non-English reliable sources. I am certainly NOT violating WP rules in providing "very well sourced" content and using citations to non-English sources, am I? I am providing good content. Worldedixor (talk) 00:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

tangential discussion

IMPORTANT: As discussed in "Discussion on cn requests" above, I found out that it was you, P123ct1, who made that edit even though my "reliable source" in that case was completely in English. Worldedixor (talk) 02:50, 18 August 2014 (UTC) One more sign of WP:EW today by P123ct1 who, out of all the other sections of the article that she could revert, chose to incorrectly revert the correct Mosul Dam content I edited. [30] A good admin spelled it out clearly "Technically, any change to an article or the restoration of material previously deleted is a revert". An unnecessary and incorrect revert to another editor's accurate edit is a revert. Worldedixor (talk) 09:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC) I request the mediation of a non-involved admin to help put an end to this matter. Worldedixor (talk) 00:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC) I'd be interested to see any Admin who would consider changing "Dam" to "dam" a revert, and in any case the editor reverted themself. Dougweller (talk) 10:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC) Indeed, P123ct1 has already admitted the mistake and apologised. No admin action is required here. Yunshui 雲水 10:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC) Worldedixor: As I said at the beginning, it is a matter of degree, not whether or not foreign language sources can be used. I can see now how my wording was unclear. Of course any foreign source can be used, and particularly Arabic ones on this page, but in moderation in the English WP is what I meant - I think DeCausa made that point in an earlier discussion - and preferably with a translation if there isn't a second citation in English, though Google translations aren't that good! I am sorry about the muddle over "Mosul Dam". I honestly didn't realise until you reverted that I could be mistaken. I automatically go through new entries in the timeline and certainly don't single anyone out. When you firmly reverted, I looked it up in WP, found I was wrong, made that change and apologised. Obviously I am not infallible! As for using YouTube for citations, I think it is frowned on by WP:RS, isn't it? --P123ct1 (talk) 16:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC) OK, I accept your apology and ask that you do not keep repeating the same pattern as it's certainly not the first time that you make incorrect reverts to my edits. Your saying "frowned upon" is not a decisive term. Where in the rules does is say "in moderation in the English WP is what I meant"? Not to validate your new rules, but the percentage of non-English citations in this article is minimal and used for a very good reason as EXPRESSLY ALLOWED by WP as non-Arabic sources quote the original Arabic sources incorrectly, and the Arabic sources provide more elaborate and timely details of events as they are in the midst of it. For example OBL statements in the past were not accurately reported. More importantly, where, in WP:RS, does it prohibit the use of OFFICIAL Youtube news broadcasts and videos for OFFICIAL News Media channels? Worldedixor (talk) 18:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• For those looking for an original CC-BY upload of the video of journalist James Foley recently executed to check archive.org here as an often undiluted source for videos. Videos on YouTube tend to not be original uploads, get deleted frequently, and have unclear chains of custody. 16:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Stop linking and unlinking edit war over "BBC News"

I have noticed that at least once per day someone goes through the article and makes all "BBC News" into links to "BBC News" and then someone goes through it and unlinks them all. Please stop. This is senseless and wasteful. JRSpriggs (talk) 05:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Change of sentence

I read a sentence in the Lead, "Economic and political discrimination against Arab Iraqi Sunnis since the fall of the secular Saddam Hussein also helped it to gain support." Did that really happen? If not, the sentence should be changed to "Allegations of economic and political discrimination against Arab Iraqi Sunnis (as propaganda) since the fall of the secular Saddam Hussein also helped it to gain support." I am also reading in the newspapers and online news portals that the "ISIS" or "ISIL" is attracting a lot of Sunni muslims from all over the world, but I don't see that in this article. Why?–Krish8 (talk) 13:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Krish8: I am not sure about the first point, but on the second, you are right and you have pointed to a gap in the article. Can you help by giving some sources, i.e. articles in newspapers or journals? I am sure quite sure the gap is inadvertent and it should be filled. --P123ct1 (talk) 16:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

What about "The reported economic and political discrimination ...."? Would that not cover it? "Alleged" would be too strong a word as it implies bias, and as for the propaganda point, this article isn't really the place to cover this. --P123ct1 (talk) 16:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

To Krish8 Your use of the word "allegations" is the correct word to use to show neutrality and objectivity. For example when a criminal is arrested and has not been convicted as criminal, the media use "alleged criminal" to show non-bias, objectivity and neutrality. Worldedixor (talk) 19:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually WP:Alleged says "Words such as supposed, apparent, alleged and purported can imply that a given point is inaccurate, although alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial; when these are used, ensure the source of the accusation is clear." Your example is correct but shouldn't be generalised. However, the suggested phrase is "allegations of" and I'd support that. It's a synonym for assertions is subtly but significantly in context different to alleged. Dougweller (talk) 20:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

So "Allegations of economic and political discrimination against Arab Iraqi Sunnis since the fall of the secular Saddam Hussein also helped it to gain support." - so leaving out "(as propaganda)" - would be the best wording? --P123ct1 (talk) 07:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Here are some news articles I could find online (to show that the "ISIS" or "ISIL" is attracting a lot of Sunni muslims from all over the world): http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9270361/its-jihad-innit-bruv-meet-the-british-muslims-going-to-fight-in-syria/ , http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/12/editorial-where-is-muslim-outrage/ , http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-08-10/news/52648271_1_indian-muslims-sunni-muslims-isis , http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/08/us-and-uk-can-t-defeat-isis-arab-states-have-take-lead , http://upww.us/vinienco/2014/08/13/america-europe-asia-isis-attracting-recruits/ , http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/students-hand-out-isis-recruitment-4043705 , http://www.bangkokpost.com/most-recent/426498/isis-attracting-se-asian-fighters , http://arg.uk.com/malaysia-and-indonesia-in-cross-hairs-of-isis-terrorists/ and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2721230/Thats-boy-Australian-jihadists-seven-year-old-son-poses-decapitated-head-Syrian-solider.html-Krish8 (talk) 14:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The last one is pretty "gruesome". There are lots of other such newspapers and news portals online, but I will stop here-Krish8 (talk) 14:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Can someone add the references I mentioned above into the article appropriately?-Krish8 (talk) 15:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

You guys can ignore the replies from "Krish8". He was just banned for being a sock of a former user. AcidSnow (talk) 23:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Please note that Krish8 is a sock, whose new sock name is Krishna39, who attempted an edit yesterday using all those docs as citations. They are both socks of Khabboos and should be ignored and reverted if they make an appearance in this article. --P123ct1 (talk) 14:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposed edit

I submit here a proposed change to an entry in the timeline, removing a redundant footnote and moving another to a different position. (See main text for footnote details - providing them here creates footnotes that carry forward to subsequent entries on this page.)

"16 August: The Islamic State massacred 80 Yazidis.¹ The EU agreed to supply Kurdish forces with arms, and US military forces continued to attack Islamic State fighters in the area around Iraq’s crucial Mosul Dam.^{1 2}

Do you agree that this amendment can be made? --P123ct1 (talk) 10:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Strength = 50,000?!

According to this, IS's strength might be over 50 thousand! Is this figure confirmed by reliable sources? If it is, the infobox should be updated to reflect this. 94.253.204.194 (talk) 20:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

How reliable is that single source, used as a citation in the infobox? The jump from 4,000 troops in Iraq mentioned in the Lead (quoted from the reputable Wall Street Journal 14/6/14) to 30,000 in the infobox, as per Al Jazeera (19/8/14), is a glaring and farcical discrepancy that any reader will notice and call Wikipedia into question over. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Map

The map's current state imo suggests too strongly that the areas "claimed" by ISIL are actually part of it. I think the infobox map should only represent those areas in which ISIS actually has some control. The territorial claims should at best be shown in a map below, as they are rather irrelevant compared to the actual extent of the entity. I can introduce the changes myself, just looking to see if there's consensus. -- Director (talk) 21:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe just make the colour for the claimed area fainter, so it is just visible.

Done. -- Director (talk) 20:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Punctuation

Suggest that "Islamic State" should always be in quotation marks, since it is recognized as a 'state' by no other state. Sca (talk) 16:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Removal of 'Islamic' as anything actual and only as reference to the users

The name 'ISIL' or 'Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant' has been condemned by two prominent Islamic religious leaders from Egypt and Saudi Arabia. I believe that the wiki pages should be altered to reflect that the entire Muslim world condemns the use of the word 'Islamic' to describe this evil terrorist state. Ref http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/12/muslim-leader-condemns-islamic-state_n_5671572.html and http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/19/saudi-arabia-grand-mufti-islamic-state-enemy_n_5690701.html. This entry should only refer to the 'self proclaimed' name and also reference that other Islamic countries, states and people refuse to recognize ISIL as an actual state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmd63 (talk • contribs) 12:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

they don't need to be recognized by islamic or non-islamic states for being a state and it doesn't matter how some islamic leaders choose to call them. their controll on the people and territory combined with their firm leadership makes them a state in similar way to most states in the world including some unrecognized ones (as the islamic state) like northen cyprus and transnistria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.32.36 (talk) 15:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Move

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

The result of the move request was: Quick close A move discussion was concluded today with no clear consensus amongst the variety of proposed titles. There is also no rational placed as part of this request.(non-admin closure) Labattblueboy (talk) 04:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

---

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State (organization) – Please place your rationale for the proposed move here. Panam2014 (talk) 21:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• Strong support - New name. --Panam2014 (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - I support the use of the term "Islamic State" (with another disambiguation) as it now the common name used in the media however they're not really an Organisation, they're a Paramilitary/ Terrorist Group and a Self Proclaimed State in the form of a Caliphate. I really don't think an 'Organisation' is the correct term to describe them as, I'd say they're rather disorganised. Perhaps "Islamic State (Caliphate)" / "The Islamic State (Caliphate)" would be a more appropriate title??? IJA (talk) 22:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

IJA (talk · contribs) We could create an article for the state and another for the organization. --Panam2014 (talk) 01:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure it already justifies a separate page, the state is a de-facto that can be changed every day. Shimmy (talk) 02:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose - This is obvious that the name of the organization isn't The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant anymore. In the other hand, the term Islamic State defines the subject of an Islamic State, which makes it obvious that the new name shouldn't be just Islamic State. I vote for The Islamic State as the correct name, or maybe as IJA suggested above, anyway we should add a reference on top of the page Islamic State to redirect here. Shimmy (talk) 02:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
• Request that this discussion be closed – @Jenks24: A previous requested move discussion closed as "no consensus" today. TODAY! There needs to be a cool off time, and perhaps a temporary moratorium on further requested moves. RGloucester — ☎ 02:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Map #2

The map grossly overestimates the extent of control the IS has. Many maps show that the IS controls a web like pattern of land and not the huge amount of territory shown in this article. http://s.telegraph.co.uk/graphics/Lightbox/published/263/images/THUMB.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-LV2afhXCA0k/U5cagTg__II/AAAAAAAAA7I/NLlCMJajbs8/s1600/ISIS+Actual+Sanctuary+June+2014.jpg

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/world/isis-timeline-map/img/isis-control.jpg

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/dailystar/Pictures/2014/06/12/320003_mainimg.jpg --92.232.49.38 (talk) 02:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

There are two ways of depicting areas of control in the Middle East: you can include or exclude uninhabited (i.e. desert) areas in your map. The mode of depiction currently used in the infobox map doesn't exclude areas of desert that generally fall within the sphere of control of the IS. That is to say, neither types of map are wrong, its just a matter of which one you pick. -- Director (talk) 11:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Flags in infobox

An editor has removed these, citing MOS. According to MOS, they are acceptable when the subject is military conflict - see flag icons in infoboxes (2.1.2. para 2). The Syrian Civil War article contains a large number. Should they be restored? --P123ct1 (talk) 07:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

New name

Hello there. Before changing the title is now out of fashion, I think we should discuss the new title to offer demand renaming. When we have reached a consensus, the application will be made. --Panam2014 (talk) 09:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

I propose Islamic State (organization) since it is still an organization. Moreover, one can also create an article for the caliphate but that's another discussion does not address at this time, to complete this discussion. Regards. --Panam2014 (talk) 09:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I would not agree with the concept that the Islamic State is an "organization", as it is such only to the extent of any other unrecognized state. The Islamic State is, in fact, an unrecognized political entity. I would suggest "Islamic State (entity)", or something along those lines. Perhaps even Islamic State (state); a perfectly legitimate phrasing. -- Director (talk) 11:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I have been thinking about this calmly for a while, and I saw the use of the Islamic State group which, in my informed opinion, is the correct name to use. Feel free to discuss. Worldedixor (talk) 13:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I support either "Islamic State (Caliphate)" or the "The Islamic State (Caliphate)". It is definitely not an "Organisation". The Islamic State is a Paramilitary / Terrorist group winch has declared a State in the form of a Caliphate. IJA (talk) 14:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Correct, it's a self-declared sovereign caliphate which is a form of "state", just as Islamic state states in the first sentence: "An Islamic state is a type of government". Could also say Islamic State (government) which would be more generic and clear for those who don't know what a Caliphate is. The definition of Caliphate is self-referential saying it is an Islamic state. -- GreenC 15:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

We shouldn't use "government", "organization", or "group". This is a self-proclaimed, unrecognized state. -- Director (talk) 16:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Is self-declared state an issue? There are dozens of micro-nations which are self-declared Empires, Duchys, Republics etc... not recognized by anyone. Or, is ISIS so evil that we have to go out of our way to make sure everyone knows Wikipedia doesn't support it while more benign self-declared states like Grand Duchy of Flandrensis are acceptable without disambiguation. -- GreenC 16:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the term group is appropriate because it is also an entity, you wouldn't refer to Azawad or the Donetsk People's Republic as a "group". IJA (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Director has a point but I agree with GreenC. There was an American that recently declared himself King of the Kingdom of North Sudan by placing a flag over Bir Tawil. Does that make his kingdom an unrecognized kingdom? Of course not. IS is no different. Worldedixor (talk) 16:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Another thought is rename Islamic state to Islamic state (government) would free up Islamic State for the actual state. -- GreenC 17:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose To rename to Islamic State. Hi. It is not a State but a very special state. Il am not agress with you. --Panam2014 (talk) 17:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
• Strongly Support If they changed their name then we shoud also refer to them the same. in addition, all media outlets are also already using the new name. --Midrashah (talk) 17:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • My support is in any form of change : "Islamic state"/"Islamic State (organization)" etc. --Midrashah (talk) 17:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello. This is not enough because when you have homonyms, they are called in the same way by sources and the type of government is called Islamic State. We can name this article The Islamic State. --Panam2014 (talk) 17:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• Another point: They are called The Islamic State so how about titling the article as such with the word The distinguishing it from other articles? --Midrashah (talk) 18:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Strongly Support It is a good solution because it is the unique subject called The Islamic State. Regards. --Panam2014 (talk) 18:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• Al Salam Alaikum. I don't think this is the right form to do it... But when someone does create the correct request, I will SUPPORT Midrashah and Panam2014 and add my support to The Islamic State as an article title and the Islamic State in the rest of the article. Worldedixor (talk) 18:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

While the ideas with "organization" are reasonable, I have a new suggestion that gives a bit more context: Islamic State insurgency.--Pharos (talk) 18:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• This is just a discussion not a vote. No one's counting and no one has proposed any particular solution just exploring ideas. -- GreenC 18:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• That's all good, and since this name change has been running in circles for a while, I just felt that I'd encourage a consensus, even though, I personally prefer the addition of group. However, in the best interest of Wikipedia, we can be flexible to we can reach logical consensus. Worldedixor (talk) 18:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

This one is going to be controversial and difficult to reach consensus. There are some passionate voters and this is a high-profile article. I'm prepared for a few weeks of RfCs and the like it won't be solved anytime soon. The first thing is some discussion on a good starting point and where the arguments are. When a formal proposal is put forward it should include things like Google counts to establish most common name, a summary of main arguments and proposals, relevant policy and guidelines, etc.. then it needs to be advertised and bring in as many people as possible and let it run for 3 weeks or more. If no consensus then we repeat and escalate. -- GreenC 19:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The majority of sources call it Islamic State, and that is what it's actually called, there's no debate on this fact. The problem remains the article Islamic state about the form of government is in the same name space. That can be renamed to Islamic state (government) or similar which is standard. Calling it The Islamic State kind of works but it's non-standard because the group doesn't use "The" and most sources don't use "The" (in capital proper-noun form). See earlier comment above about micro-nation names on Wikipedia, we don't discriminate against a state just because it's not formally recognized or happens to do evil deeds. -- GreenC 19:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

An RfC was closed today with no consensus, another RfC was started but closed because of the RfC closed today, and now we have this which is not an RfC. User:Panam2014 I don't understand why you did this, but please notify everyone who !voted in the RfC that was closed today. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 19:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

GreenC: When you say the "group", do you mean ISIS? If so, then a friendly correction: ISIS now call themselves "the Islamic State" with the "the". Still, I am not sure what works in an RFC, is it what ISIS call themselves? is it "facts" as you correctly pointed out? or is it consensus?... Based on my several years of experience on Wikipedia, I believe it is consensus, even when it repeatedly ends up in "running in circles" and "no consensus". Worldedixor (talk) 19:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi.It is not a RfC but a pre-RfC. We could name the article Islamic State (Iraq and Levant) or Islamic State (Iraq and Syria). Regards. --Panam2014 (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

A pre-RFC makes sense, and to help you avoid running in circles as before, I will state that I will oppose what you proposed just now. In my opinion, this would be redundant and wrong as ISIL already removed "Iraq and Levant" from their name, and "Iraq and Syria" was a bad translation, and a common mistake, from the start. Worldedixor (talk) 19:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Wait a sec.. the "s" is not capitalized in the title of the Islamic state article. If I'm not mistaken, Wikipedia can have two articles of the same title if they're capitalized differently? -- Director (talk) 20:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Good question, Director. Let me find out if this is even allowed or at least there is a precedent. \Worldedixor (talk) 20:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

yes, Director, it appears to be permitted. Worldedixor (talk) 20:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they can coexist when one is lowercase letters and the other majuscule letters. Sinon for me even if they have removed "Iraq and the Levant" from their name, they are still operating in Iraq and the Levant as before, so when you put in parenthesis, that does not mean it's their name, but rather that we should not confuse the Iraq and Syria group and historical Islamic state. --Panam2014 (talk) 20:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I disagree Panam2014. The now old references to "Iraq and the Levant" must be included in the article but it would be confusing in the encyclopedia. Worldedixor (talk) 21:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I said that the group still claims Iraq and Syria but changed its name. Parentheses must show areas "of the group operation. Otherwise, if you're for, I agree to Islamic State not to be confused with Islamic state. --Panam2014 (talk) 21:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

One thing to consider. ISIS is a more appealing sound in speech than ISIL or just IS as it is easily recognized and understood. In text, it also looks better than IS. So expect ISIS to be used for a long time. Worldedixor (talk) 22:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Well great. Then I support a move simply to "Islamic State" over redirect (provided its the most common in sources of course, as usual). {{Distinguish}} templates would of course be essential. -- Director (talk) 05:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I would support Islamic State. There are many articles where upper and lower case versions co-exist at the same time. -- GreenC 14:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Midrashah, Panam2014 and Worldedixor. The name of the article should be The Islamic State, as this is how the official Arabic name of the group translates into English, and it should be called the Islamic State in the article. Am I right, Worldedixor, that the Arabic language makes no distinction between "the" and "The"? (See my question here to a user on this page, [31].) --P123ct1 (talk) 19:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

It is more complicated than that but, to give as simple an answer as I can, no, there are no such things as capital letters in Arabic. Worldedixor (talk) 20:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I rather suspected it. That clears up a point that has bothered me for quite a while! --P123ct1 (talk) 20:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Can anyone request the move? or move it by himself? --Midrashah (talk) 15:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

For me, you could move. Regards. Midrashah. --Panam2014 (talk) 16:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't able to move. The page The Islamic State is already redirected here, and I don't know how to re-redirect the opposite way. I think we need the help of an admin. --Midrashah (talk) 19:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

For a move of this page, which seems very likely to be challenged, you should formally request a move and establish a consensus after a discussion of more than a few days. Three days ago this was "not an RfC but a pre-RfC", when did that change? Huon (talk) 20:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose "The Islamic State" in favor of "Islamic State". The definitive article is most inappropriate, and we can have a different article through capitalizing "State". -- Director (talk) 19:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Question: How is it in Arabic? Is it "The Islamic State" with "the" or without? caus in the opening of the article the translit show: الدولة الإسلامية‎ ad-Dawlah al-ʾIslāmiyyah. I don't speak arabic but I do know that "a-" and "al-" mean "the" in Arabic....? --Midrashah (talk) 22:25, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't really matter at all: the issue doesn't pertain in any way to naming policy.. There shouldn't be any definitive article there, its just unwarranted. -- Director (talk) 00:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Unofficial vote:

Supporters of "The Islamic State"

• Support --Midrashah (talk) 19:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
• Strongly Support The name of the organization is (الدولة الإسلامية‎) ad-Dawlah l-ʾIslāmiyyah not (دولة الإسلامية) Dawlah l-ʾIslāmiyyah but the name of the Nusra Front is (جبهة النصرة) Jabhat an-Nuṣrah not ad-Jabhat an-Nuṣrah (الجبه النصرة). Regards. --Panam2014 (talk) 08:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
• Weak support More sources are starting to use Islamic State at this point. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 01:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Er, you just voted for "The Islamic State", not "Islamic State". I agree that sources are using "Islamic State". They are not using "The Islamic State" with a capitalised definite article. See the other section below. RGloucester — ☎ 01:52, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I just took a look at it agian, and you're right. The (Capital) and (non-capital) part confused me, so I just said "Weak support" right here. I'll change my vote. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 02:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Supporters of "Islamic State" (Capital)

• Support. Why "The"?? -- Director (talk) 00:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Why "The"?? Do you speak Arabic? Do you think that calling Al-Qaeda just Qaeda is correct? Do you say "boy went to school" or "I want book"?... I explained the importance of the "the" in a previous discussion above. Feel free to refer to it. Worldedixor (talk) 05:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

In English, "the United States" or "the United Kingdom" is the correct way to write the names of those countries in a sentence, yet the articles are "United States" and "United Kingdom", that's because we don't use the definitive article unless explicitly mandated by WP:THE. Further: this is the English-language Wikipedia, and the correct spelling in Arabic has absolutely no bearing on the issue at hand. -- Director (talk) 08:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

But the article in Arabic wikipedia is: "الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام" - "The Islamic State in...", Whereas in English "United States" in English wikipedia is without "the". So if you look each to its original language you can tell how it is titled on wikipedia. --Midrashah (talk) 09:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

What other Wikipedias do isn't relevant here, we have our own policies and guidelines. And WP:COMMONNAME applies here - the most common name used in English language reliable sources. Dougweller (talk) 09:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Would editors please read the previous discussions on the Talk page about what this article should be called? The same points are being repeated over and over again. Dougweller has referred more than once to WP:COMMONNAME - that the name should be the one most commonly used in by reliable sources - there was a long discussion about this on another thread, please refer to it.[32]. If we have to abide by WP:COMMONNAME, we should concentrate on finding out what that is. Another look at reliable sources and current usage is the only line of inquiry we should pursue now. --P123ct1 (talk) 13:42, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I assumed "Islamic State" was the COMMONNAME? -- Director (talk) 14:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it is, but others have disagreed. I will note that "Islamic State" is used in the media at times with no preceding "the" -- thus Reuters[33] "It was the Syrian army's last foothold in an area otherwise controlled by Islamic State, which has seized large areas of Syria and Iraq." Dougweller (talk) 15:48, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Articles with Capital "The": The beatles, The Who, Al-Qaeda. I'm sure many articles in the newspapers refer to "(the) Beatles", for example. However, since The Beatles is its official name the article is named as such. --Midrashah (talk) 19:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

"The" is used in accordance with WP:THE. Those titles warrant "The", this one does not.. -- Director (talk) 00:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I was giving examples exaclly from WP:THE article. You haven't given any reason why in this case there is no justification for "The". Merely stating that isn't good enough... --Midrashah (talk) 11:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes those examples use "The" in accordance with requirements at WP:THE. How do you justify using "The" here? -- Director (talk) 21:12, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

It's the official name The Islamic State. The WP:THE states: "These conditions are sometimes met if the page name is:...*the official or commonly used name or nickname of a group, sports team or company (e.g., The Beatles, The Invincibles, The Hershey Company), or *another official or commonly used proper name (e.g., The Hague, The Crown). --Midrashah (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• Still needs disambiguation, but I support dropping the definite article. Nonsense about Arabic language trivialities isn't helpful here. This encyclopaedia is written in English, and it would be very unusual to have a capitalised "the" in this context. Most media sources use "Islamic State" without the definite article capitalised. "Al-Qaeda" is a fundamentally different matter, as that is not translated, but transliterated. As this name, unlike that one, is translated, it must adhere to English language conventions. RGloucester — ☎ 22:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The Beatles adhere to English language conventions... still many news papers refer to them as "(the) Beatles"...? --Midrashah (talk) 22:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

That's an exception (a proper name that relies on the "the" to convey meaning), and one that doesn't apply here. Unless you'd like us to retitle United States as The United States, of course. RGloucester — ☎ 22:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The Islamic State also relies on the "the" to convey meaning - It's their official name, so this is what they wanted to convey to people. However, Practically speaking to be specific as to what should be done with the title of the article, I think we all exhausted all arguments here, so I think those two options should be put to a real vote. I wouldn't know how to open a real vote process or the procedures, and the article clearly needs a new title. Can anybody help? --Midrashah (talk) 23:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The definite article with respect to the "Islamic State" doesn't convey any meaning whatsoever. It is only there as a function of the English language, which requires that nouns have articles. In reference to such a thing as "The Beetles", the "the" conveys meaning that "Beetles" does not. This meaning is simple, in that it implies a "a specific group of people called 'The Beetles', as opposed to beetles generally". With regard to the Islamic State, this is not the case. It already conveys the meaning that it is a specific group of people (state, organisation) through capitalisation of the word "state", which differentiates it from Islamic states generally. RGloucester — ☎ 23:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

It is not merely a function of English, since this is part of their official name. Capital "Islamic State" is the one who is merely a fuction of English, which technically differs it from lower-case "Islamic state", but does not reflect the broader meaning of 'The Islamic State a specific state that implemnts the idea of the general term (lower case) "Islamic state"...--Midrashah (talk) 17:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support "Islamic State" (Capital), and let all redirects point to the disambiguation page. Reason: "On 29 June 2014, ISIS was renamed the Islamic State (IS)." [34] [35] -- Brangifer (talk) 23:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support "Islamic State", and there are ways of disambiguating, as Dougweller has said before. I don't think there is any point in discussing what the media call other groups, it really is irrelevant, we should concentrate on what the media call this particular group now! I did a straw poll some time ago, and it is clear the media are now calling the group "the Islamic State" (sometimes along with "ISIS/ISIL" and never "The Islamic State" except at the beginning of sentences) or "Islamic State", as in Dougweller's example above. I think there was even a Guardian article that started the sentence with "Islamic State". So as long as it can be established that it complies with WP:COMMONNAME, i.e. current media usage, I vote for "Islamic State". This was what I found earlier this month (see discussion at [36]):

I googled the following to see what names they have been using in the past seven days or so —

The Times[37], The Telegraph[38], The Guardian[39], The Independent[40], The Economist[41], The Spectator, Financial Times[42], The New York Times, The Washington Post[43], The Wall Street Journal[44], TIME, Al-Ahram (Egypt), Middle East Eye, BBC News[45], CNN, NBC, Aljazeera, Al Arabiya, Reuters, Associated Press and Agence France-Presse

— and with the exception of The New York Times and Al Arabiya, they are all now calling ISIS either "Islamic State" or "the Islamic State", with a few of them using the new name and "ISIS".

P123ct1 (talk) 15:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I remove my objection to (Capital) Islamic State. I still think that "The Islamic State"" is better but the article needs a new title and (Capital) 'Islamic State is better than nothing. --Midrashah (talk) 15:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

A lot of people use ISIS which apparently stands for Islamic State of Iraq and Syria in the English language, so that can also be argued to be the "common name". However, I am more neutral regarding this. Also keep in mind that this group changes their name quite a lot. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 03:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support move to Islamic State. This article is the primary meaning of Islamic State so disambiguation is unnecessary, the majority of news sources are using Islamic State, and Islamic State is the official name. Chessrat (talk) 15:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Supporters of "Islamic state" (non-capital)

I don't think anyone supports this variant, the section seems redundant. It wouldn't correspond to sources and the title is already taken by "Islamic state".. -- Director (talk) 00:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Not only that, but (a) "Islamic state" means any Islamic state and (b) the Arabic title is "the Islamic State". --P123ct1 (talk) 15:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Supporters of "Islamic State insurgency"

• Support as this both uses their common name and disambiguates the general Islamic state concept in a more meaningful and obvious way than just playing with capitalization.--Pharos (talk) 02:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

This article should be about the organisation (state), not the conflict or insurgency. Hence, I strongly oppose this proposal. RGloucester — ☎ 15:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose, per RGloucester. -- Director (talk) 19:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Others

Islamic State (IS)

• Another Idea: How about Islamic State (IS), both Capital and the acronyms of it. --93.173.188.66 (talk) 18:00, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Nice idea, but if you look at other articles for example, we don't really put the acronyms in the titles. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 08:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Conclusions

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

Also add in Government type

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

POV

The article is full of POV. Teaksmitty (talk) 04:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

That's nice.Volunteer Marek (talk)

Islamic caliphate in infox stated as fact is pov

Calling it an Islamic Caliphate in the infobox is pov - this is clearly disputed within Islam. And why does it use Ibrahim instead of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi which is what we call the article on him? That appears to be pov also. Dougweller (talk) 08:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I have tried to change that infobox back to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant more than once, only to be reverted both times. There have been similar attempts by others to remove POV in the al-Baghdadi page, but they, too, are always reverted. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

They WANT to establish a caliphate, but have not and will not achieve it. They are just an armed group "on the move" without any central government - until the Sources start to refer to this as actual fact, that term should go.HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Folks, this is an article about a state, an unrecognized state. They can call themselves Grand Imperium of the Known Universe we'd still have to use that term. Besides, there is no official "Caliphate Recognition Committee" that might at some point authorize someone to use that term. Bokassa I proclaimed himself "Emperor"... Even if they're an organization, if they choose to call their leader "Grand Poobah" we have to refer to him as the "Grand Poobah of the Imperium of the Known Universe". -- Director (talk) 16:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Let's not impose our personal biases and treat this Caliphate differently from the Grand Duchy of Flandrensis. If they consider themselves a Caliphate then that's what we report. There is no authority. Throughout history most states are self-proclaimed and often violently. -- GreenC 18:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree with GreenC but not about the violent part. Teaksmitty (talk) 11:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Do we care then what they are called by reliable sources? I don't see how we can just ignore sources and choose what the organisation wants us to use. Dougweller (talk) 11:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

No source denies that the Islamic State considers itself a caliphate.. If they say its a "caliphate", set it up as such (i.e. a monarchy), and declare their leader a "caliph", what source can we use to say "no, this state isn't a caliphate". The title is very pretentious, of course, implying both religious and secular rule over all Muslims worldwide. This entity can only be viewed as not being a "caliphate" in the sense that it doesn't actually exercise such authority, but this is also true of almost all historical "caliphates", only excepting perhaps the early Rashidun and Umayyad Caliphates.

The title is similar to the original meaning of the terms "emperor" and "empire".. which also later became used much more freely, originally indicating a universal secular and religious ruler, and universal state. Yet, as I pointed out, we also have Bokassa I.. -- Director (talk) 16:13, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Paradoxically, you could argue that Wikipedia calling this a Caliphate is both POV and NPOV: POV because it looks as if Wikipedia is taking sides in the argument, where so many dispute its legitimacy, and NPOV because it is only recording what the IS call themselves now, i.e. a fact. --P123ct1 (talk) 16:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Word Jihadist and Terrorist in the lead

First of all loaded words like Jihadist and Terrorist may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. Teaksmitty (talk) 14:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Basically the entire world's news services refers to them as terrorists now, with all the massacres and the beheading of American journalist Foley. That ship has sailed. Why? Because that's what they are.HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

"Terrorist" is a loaded term, not for encyclopedic use. As for "jihadist", don't they call themselves such anyway? -- Director (talk) 16:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed on both counts. Gazkthul (talk) 22:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

It's a mystery why Wikipedia is so queasy about using "Jihadist". It's a neutral and accurate term, commonly used by the press, one they use themselves, and appropriate in certain contexts to disambiguate from other Muslim-country militants who are not Jihadists (such as the FSA). It must stem from a misunderstanding of the word, a populist view that "Jihadist" is a pejorative slang description (like "Christinite" or something). Every time I try to use it, it quickly gets removed. Crazy. -- GreenC 18:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Jihadism isn't a nice ideology, but its a legitimate ideology.. I don't see why it should be viewed as loaded. "Terrorist" is, however, unspecific and known to be a loaded term. I'm not at all sure the leaders of this entity would reject such a term.. -- Director (talk) 18:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Muslim intellectuals have actually condemned the ISIS/ISIL

I would like to add this sentence to this article: Muslim intellectuals have slammed the ISIS/ISIL as anti-Islamic, using these as references: http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-muslim-intellectuals-slam-isis-brutality-in-iraq-2012096, http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report-muslim-and-christian-groups-condemn-isis-as-anti-islam-2012168 and http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Delhi/isis-action-is-worse-than-genocide-muslim-intellectuals/article6333688.ece-Terror4us (talk) 15:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia can not claim all "Muslim intellectuals" in the world are unanimous on this. And we of course can not use the word "slammed", this isn't Fox News.. The claim must be qualified and moderated. -- Director (talk) 16:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think he was claiming "all" Muslim intellectuals, obviously. Anyway, "condemned" would be a better word than "slammed". Supersaiyen312 (talk) 20:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

"All" is implied in the sentence "Muslim intellectuals have condemned this state". Also, what qualifies one as a "Muslim intellectual"? The whole sentence seems unnecessary and weasel-wordy. Like something that would be suggested by a Muslim user opposed to the state who wants Wikipedia to suggest everyone agrees with him... Well of course some "Muslim intellectuals" (whatever that term means) will have condemned the state, but that on its own is hardly information for the lead. With sources provided, we can't even claim "most Muslim intellectuals" or "many"... -- Director (talk) 01:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

That's fine, I wasn't really expecting a debate here. I'm more neutral in this case. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 03:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Reverts and 1RR

Here is some guidance on this:

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

--P123ct1 (talk) 13:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

You're right. Worldedixor (talk) 17:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

United Nations Reference to IS as terrorists

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

The reliable sourced used is [46]

Who reverted it and why did it completely remove the "express" and "very well sourced" reference by the United Nations? Worldedixor (talk) 14:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

This happened accidentally when I reverted earlier; I have put it back in now. (NB ref to "other media sources worldwide" has been moved by another editor to the end of the article. Don't agree, but have had my 1RR today.) --P123ct1 (talk) 15:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Super. I will bring it back the way you had it earlier after discussion.Worldedixor (talk) 15:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. --P123ct1 (talk) 15:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

1RR should not be used to revert well discussed entries

Editors go to extreme lengths to find the right language for the article following long discussions. 1RR per 24 hours should not be used to revert well discussed entries. Worldedixor (talk) 15:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. --P123ct1 (talk) 15:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd say it's a bad idea to revert edits that have consensus - easier to determine if something has consensus than what "well discussed" means. Dougweller (talk) 16:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I suggest every time an edit is made by consensus, it should be clearly recorded in the relevant discussion on the Talk page. That way there can be no argument. --P123ct1 (talk) 16:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

ISIS / ISIL / the Levant / al-Shaam / Syria

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

Of course, The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant has also been deprecated, although again ISIL remains used by some like the US. AFAIK the group never called itself The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, and that is a confusion of ISIS not being an acronym in one language. 71.221.67.50 (talk) 06:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

[47] Not true. "If we concede again that "al-Sham" means not only Syria, then there is a name for that: Greater Syria. When we use the older term "Levant", that should be used alongside the older name "Mesopotamia" for Iraq. When you use modern "Iraq", use the modern term "Greater Syria" — in that case, it's the Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria (still ISIS)." No one in the Middle East uses Levant. That was a colonial name and doesn't mean the same thing. Syria is the only proper term. 173.153.3.254 (talk) 02:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

AQI ("Al-Qaeda in Iraq") name changes

Quote:

"The Organization of Jihad's Base in the Country of the Two Rivers," more commonly known as "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" (AQI).

"Country of the Two Rivers" links to Mesopotamia. Media also translated that to "Al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia" which is not mentioned in this long section on names and name changes.

Group or State?

Outsiders call them a group but IS call themselves a State. Which one should be used in the intro? Teaksmitty (talk) 16:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

It probably should be an unrecognized state but there is no consensus as of yet. The article from inception refers to them as a group. So, once consensus in the discussion is reached, we will know. Worldedixor (talk) 17:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

We should use "group". Describing them as a "state" would be incorrect. Meatsgains (talk) 22:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I think "organization" is a better term. Group is slightly ambiguous, as they could just be a group of peoples (like an ethnic group). Organization suggests that it's a group of people who have some structure and a common goal. I'm not an expert on this matter, just someone who follows current events and saw this discussion, but if I'm not mistaken ISIL has some basic leadership structure and then there's the caliphate and associated religious structure. State isn't appropriate because I don't think they've made any motion to perform the functions of a state (bureaucracy, provision of government-like services) except perhaps a rudimentary "justice" system (but many rebel groups carry out "justice"). AHeneen (talk) 16:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2014

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

I also have two relevant references:

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

Thanks.

Noorkhan1985 (talk) 23:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

It seems that most of the operable planes and helicopters were evacuated before the fall of the base, judging from the photos Islamic State have started releasing from Taqba. Gazkthul (talk) 01:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

This is a pretty big gain for them. The battle for this airbase has been raging a long time...and they've captured helicopters before (a black hawk variant I think if my memory serves me correctly), and it is generally believed they don't have the ability to use them. This should be in the article I think (but I can't and won't make any big edits on the awful airport wifi I am connected to now! Someone will hopefully add it soon). Somchai Sun (talk) 09:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Debunking 'Islamic State'

The Grand Mufti of Egypt, Shawki Allam, previously said the extremists violate all Islamic principles and laws and described the group as a danger to Islam as a whole. Now, the Dar el-Ifta he oversees will suggest foreign media drop using "Islamic State" in favor of the "al-Qaida Separatists in Iraq and Syria," or the acronym "QSIS," said Ibrahim Negm, an adviser to the mufti. [48]

Sca (talk) 01:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Is he calling for Shariah to be redefined to remove the penalties for apostasy and blasphemy? If not, this is merely an attempt to whitewash Islam. JRSpriggs (talk) 04:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

And that is an entirely inappropriate post - talk pages are not here to argue about or attack a religion. Dougweller (talk) 18:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The comment was not really constructive or topically targeted but, in all fairness, it's also far less contemptuous of religion and religious people than your user boxes. Food for thought, if you're going to actively participate in articles involving religion and controversial religious interpretation. GraniteSand (talk) 23:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

You are right, I should not include my personal opinion. But any addition to the article of claims by some people that ISIL is not Islamic should be balanced by the claims from ISIL that such moderate Muslims are apostates (traitors to their religion). Excommunication goes both ways. JRSpriggs (talk) 03:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The Washington Post Article on Naming

I found it odd that [49] this link is used a couple times but is misquoted and miscited. This is what the article ultimately declares, which is against the ISIL naming: 'If we concede again that "al-Sham" means not only Syria, then there is a name for that: Greater Syria. When we use the older term "Levant", that should be used alongside the older name "Mesopotamia" for Iraq. When you use modern "Iraq", use the modern term "Greater Syria" — in that case, it's the Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria (still ISIS).' This should be fixed in the article so that we are not citing the Washington Post to say the opposite. 173.153.3.254 (talk) 02:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

No, Al Sham in Arabic means either Damascus (Syria's Capital) or the Levant. The name "الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام‎" always meant the Levant, never Damascus nor Syria, and it's correct translation was "the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" aka ISIL. ISIS was incorrectly used and will continue to be used because it is a more appealing and clearer sound than ISIL. Nevertheless, the Islamic State now calls itself just that. Worldedixor (talk) 03:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Ad-Dawlah l-ʾIslāmiyyah الدولة الإسلامية

Who has been changing this back and forth? "ad-Dawlat al-ʾIslāmiyyah" is WRONG!...

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

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

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

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

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

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

Figures for Iraq and Syria redux

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

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

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

50,000 and 30,000 sound accurate [50]. Who changed the lead back to 4,000 in Iraq and nothing in Syria? Nothing in Syria? That is incorrect. Its thousands of fighters control roughly a third of Syria. Worldedixor (talk) 18:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Something strange has gone on today. I have been reverted but there is no record of it on the "View History" pages. I have lost some other edits as have quite a few others, with seemingly no record of reverts. I have reported the problem to the Village Pump Technical Help Desk. --P123ct1 (talk) 19:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

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

I don't think it's a software issue. This is the editor TimIsTimisTimIsTim (talk) who reverted so many things [51] including the number of fighters. I am handling one part of its revert on its talk page. I leave it to you to handle the number of fighters since you have been on top of it. Worldedixor (talk) 19:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Worldedixor Have just had a message from the Village Pump HD and this is what they say. [52]. Have informed Dougweller. --P123ct1 (talk) 20:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I saw it. That was intentionally or unintentionally disruptive. Only 2-3 minor edits have been made after its revert, so it is critical to revert now. I will do it as it is a critical, time-sensitive and justified exception. Worldedixor (talk) 20:44, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Unintentional but do whatever needs to be done. Dougweller (talk) 20:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't do it. It has to be done manually. An admin should probably protect the article completely (edits must be accepted by established users) and should be able to clean up the mess to save the article. I just noticed that I already used my 1RR to fix the Arabic transliteration that was reverted. Worldedixor (talk) 20:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this needs to be fixed straight away and it will probably need expert outside help. --P123ct1 (talk) 21:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, done. I had to take a calculated risk and it worked. I also set a precedent for clean up, when needed, under extraordinary circumstances that admins may want to remember and hope to never use. It was a little tedious but the article is now saved, and we are now back to the time before TimIsTimisTimIsTim (talk) graced us with its presence. Worldedixor (talk) 21:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

For full disclosure, TimIsTimisTimIsTim (talk) explained on its talk page that this was not intentional. Worldedixor (talk) 21:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for getting us out of a fix yesterday, Worldedixor. You went to great lengths to sort out the muddle and it is much appreciated. --P123ct1 (talk) 18:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

"Islamic" nature

I believe we need to add a section on the controversy revolving the "Islamic" nature of ISIS. On the one hand, many leading muslims/islam experts say that the actions of ISIS contradict Islam. On the other hand, there are indications that some or many ISIS members do not have a good understanding of Islam, or don't practice their faith regularly: [53]. Morgengave (talk) 12:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

There is always people who do not want to accept that someone of their faith is committing atrocities, crimes or anything else that is unethical. This is especially true when the perpetrators justify their actions with their faith. Muslim believers are of course motivated to deny the connection of such activities to their religion, Islam, in order to move their religion into a better light. I find it preposterous to the maximum if someone tries deny ISIS's ties to Islam. This is comparable to implying that the Christian Crusades were not in any way related to Christianity. What the few inherently biased Muslims journalists say about this is irrelevant, especially considering the amazingly low outcry in the Muslim world against the violence of ISIS and other islamic terrorist groups. Compare this outcry for once to the outcry in the Muslim world that could be seen in the past in regards to anything related to Israel, which itself has been a very frequent victim of Islamist terror attacks killing hundreds of civilians. Also your source is heavily biased and uninformative. Kulmanseidl (talk) 12:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

My suggestion is not to "deny" that ISIS is Islamic though, it's about including in a separate section a criticism on ISIS, a criticism which is widespread and recurring amongst commentators. It's not about "biased Muslim journalists", I would say that this view is equally spread amongst non-muslim commentators, at least so in Western Europe. It's not hard to find US commentators either... or critics in the Muslim world itself. Not sure why you think we would need widespread protests against ISIS for such an inclusion. Morgengave (talk) 13:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit request August 25, 2014

The opponent section lists Hezbollah under Iran, while it should be listed under Lebanon; WikiInki (talk) 14:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Unbelievable. Can someone please rectify this immediately? (I can't do flags.) --P123ct1 (talk) 22:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Rfc: Russian TV as a reliable source

Re [54], this "non-scientific" poll was originated on Facebook, the propagated on a bunch of non-reliable, newly created websites and non-official Youtube channels. Does the simple fact that RT published it make it "well sourced content"? Worldedixor (talk) 21:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The "poll" is utterly ridiculous, and the edit should be reverted Gazkthul (talk) 03:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I have always regarded RT as most definitely not a WP:RS. It is Russian-owned. But it is used as a citation three times in ISIS --P123ct1 (talk) 22:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I invite someone, preferably an admin, to help us find the exact provision in WP:RS or another rule to support your POV that I personally support. Worldedixor (talk) 23:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Just the Lead in the Wiki article on RT, which I hadn't actually read before, tells you the sort of reputation it has. --P123ct1 (talk) 00:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, let me get the ball rolling in this Rfc... content from RT cannot be used as WP:RS I this article unless it is also supported by another reliable source. Anyone opposed to this? Worldedixor (talk) 01:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm for using RTV, with attribution. Its all propaganda to some degree or another, fellas.. -- Director (talk) 02:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)]

It should not be used, full stop, in my opinion. The Wiki article on RT demonstrates, with back-up citations from reliable sources, that many regard RT as a propaganda machine: "RT has been accused of providing disinformation and commentary favorable to Russian foreign policy. The U.S. Department of State, Ukrainian journalists, English news reporters, former Russian officials, and former RT reporters have accused RT of being a propaganda outlet for the Russian government." Take note that even RT reporters make this claim. --P123ct1 (talk) 07:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

It is hard to disagree with this. So, unless someone who opposes comes up with a stronger argument than P123ct1's in the next few days, can we all have a consensus to treat RT as an unreliable source in this article and dismiss and remove content solely relying on RT's unreliable news, after making an effort to look for alternative reliable sources for the content to be deleted? Worldedixor (talk) 08:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Loads of discussion at RSN in the past about this source, eg [55], [56] and [57] all concluding no consensus. The key thing is I think who else has reported on this? If we can't find any reports on it in the usual media, then we shouldn't use it. Dougweller (talk) 10:22, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Before getting carried away with this, how noteworthy is this poll anyway? I agree with the first comment here from Gazkthul, tbh. --P123ct1 (talk) 15:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I reverted the poll blurb. We seem to be heading towards consensus towards not accepting content based on RT unreliable news after making an effort to look for alternative reliable sources. Let's give it a few days more to hear opposing arguments. Worldedixor (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Ideology and beliefs

It should be clearly stated at the top of the article that they believe in Sunni Islam. The end of the first sentence should be changed from: "is a jihadist group in the Middle East." to: "is a jihadist group in the Middle East that believes in Sunni Islam."

Now added to Lead and second infobox. --P123ct1 (talk) 17:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I hope this is correct. There is no mention of "Sunni" in the "Ideology and beliefs" section either. --P123ct1 (talk) 18:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I think adding "that believes in Sunni Islam" would be offensive to true Sunni Moslems. IS is using Islam as a whole as a pretext to commit the most evil and heinous crimes against humanity. Worldedixor (talk) 18:59, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The way it is now is correct. Yes, they are a "Sunni" group in the sense that their pretext religion is Sunni.Worldedixor (talk) 21:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@Worldedixor and P123ct1: I Agree with Worldedixor, they killed even sunni scholars and showed that they are misusing the name of Islam to perform their brutal actions. Yes, they are a "Sunni" group in the sense that their pretext religion is Sunni. Take a look at this. Mhhossein (talk) 03:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Someone has reverted "Sunni" and put "Kharijite (Sunni perspective)" in the second infobox, without giving any reason for it, though they could be referring to the fact that there is controversy over what their religion is. I have reverted back to "Sunni Islamism" and said refer to the Talk page. This will probably need to be discussed so consensus can be reached. In the "Ideology and belief" section there is no mention of "Sunni", and whether they are Kharijites (who are neither Sunni nor Shia) is a matter of opinion, as it states there. ISIS probably are using their religion as a pretext for this conflict (as in so many religious wars in history), but the article must state "Sunni" here, I think, and in the "Ideology and beliefs" section as well. I have contacted the editor who drew up this section. --P123ct1 (talk) 13:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Have put "Sunni" in the "Ideology and beliefs" section, as no-one wants to discuss this further. --P123ct1 (talk) 20:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, its very clear that their Ideology is Kharijtes from all perspectives, and they are considered to be Kharijtes by the vast majority [58], [59] . Also, its completely vague who is considering them as Sunni with no supportive resources. Therefore, unless there is something telling the opposite, I strongly believe the phrase Sunni Muslim shouldn’t be there as per Wikipedia procedures and guidelines. Ahmad2099 (talk) 19:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Ahmad 2009 had again reverted "Sunni" back to "Kharijite" and I reverted it back to "Sunni Islamism", as I know this is quite a controversial point. Earlier discussion on the Talk page about this is here. --P123ct1 (talk) 22:51, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

In the interests of consensus, I have notified Mhhossein and Worldedixor of this. Perhaps Gazkthul and Seyyed could look at it as well. --P123ct1 (talk) 23:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Re your message on my talk page, P123ct1, I don't have much time, but Ahmad2099 has brought a very informed and advanced insight that accurately describes the ideology and beliefs of the Islamic State that uses Sunni Islam as a pretext to commit all crimes that are not permitted by Islam, and the term Khawarij (also known as Kharijites) is accurate. The two Arabic sources he provided, support this. Now, the discussion is much more elaborate and when I get time, I may be able to contribute more. Worldedixor (talk) 23:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I will also trust Ahmad2099's appropriately sourced research and insight and give support, in principle, to Ahmad2099's edit especially that the Kharijites declare other Muslims to be unbelievers and therefore deem them worthy of death. I may change position based on other informed and logical arguments. Worldedixor (talk) 23:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I strongly oppose putting Kharijite as their ideology. Khawarij is being used as a general pejorative term by their opponents, basically saying that IS are extremists and outside the Muslim community. 1) The Kharijites revolted against and killed Ali, while the Islamic State considers Ali to have been one of the Rightly Guided Caliphs.[60] 2) IS base many of their actions on those taken in wartime by Abu Bakr ,[61] who was Caliph before the Kharijites even existed. 3) Islamic State follow the same ideology/methodology as Al Qaeda, AQAP, AQIM, Al Shabab and other Jihadist groups. If the first are Kharajite, then all the other ones would have to be also. 4) They follow the Sunni Hanbali school of jurisprudence, and come out of the tradition of Sunni scholars such as Ibn Taymiyyah and Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab.[62][63] 5) Abu Mohammad al-Adnani, the official spokesman of the Islamic State, has explicitly denied the group are Kharajites: "I swear by Allah we aren’t Kharijites."[64] Gazkthul (talk) 02:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Compelling insightful arguments by Gazkthul. To Ahmad2099 or anyone else insightful, please support or rebut their arguments. Worldedixor (talk) 03:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

It's hard to find an objective reliable source, but I found one that supports Gazkthul's arguments "And so it was that after the Battle of Siffin, the Khawarij became yet another political group to oppose the Islamic state" [65] Worldedixor (talk) 03:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, I am leaning now to support Gazkthul's insightful arguments. This is why: In addition to what Gazkthul asserted, a. Al Khawarij is a sect that rebelled against Imam Ali Ibn Abi Talib after Abdel Rahman Bin Moljim killed him. b. Al-Baghdadi allegedly claims to be a decedent of Imam Ali Ibn Abi Talib. I have not found objective reliable sources to support point b. But if it's true, then that settles it. We need to include a reliable source that says that the Islamic State are using Sunni Islam as a pretext for there crimes which is a common knowledge, and that would be the end. However, there are some powerful Saudi fatwas that calls them neo-Khawarij, and that needs to be considered. Also to be considered is Wahabism and/or Salafism which may be the most accurate description if we dismiss their crimes. Worldedixor (talk) 04:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

First of all, consider that we are talking about two different issues. Kharejites and sunni Islam are not things to be compared. As we know, Al Khawarij were rebels and were against other muslims. At the same time, it does not mean they are not following sunni Islam. In other words we can say that, they are sunni muslims who have put steps beyond the religion boundaries and can be called "mutant generation of sunni muslims". Using same arguments as User:Gazkthul they are sunni muslims. But, what kind of sunni muslims are they? Kahrejites! We should not forget that Kharejites of Ali ibn abi taleb's era were muslims who separated Ali's army after Battle of Siffin, but still used to be considered as muslim because of believing in Allah. Now after thousands of years, a new generation of them which stem from sunni Islam (as it appears) has risen against others claiming to be the only one who deserves to rule the Islamic world. So considering the sect they are sunni but considering the ideology and beliefs they are Kharejites. Mhhossein (talk) 06:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I also think that Kharejite is a label used in a pejorative sense by critics of ISIS (as pointed about above) just as Mutazilite is often used as a pejorative used by some Muslims to apply to other Muslims that follow more rationalistic or secular strains of Islam. Neither is usually self-applied (pointed out above) nor is the actual historical movement by those names used as a foundational source by the groups so labeled (pointed out above). It is not unusual for adherents to question the legitimacy of other adherents. When I was a little boy the nuns would say that Lutherans were heretics. This would not be in an info box on Lutheranism in an encyclopedia ... I hope! Sunni is more general (pointed out above) and the vast majority of sources leave it at that. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Based on analytic viewpoint I agree with Ahmad2099 that this group has too many similarities with Kharejites. We can consider the Kharejites as the first ones who promote Salafist jihadism. Please read these works to understand what I mean:

[66], [67], [68]. However, I think these are not sufficient to adding Kharejite in the infobox.--Seyyed(t-c) 08:41, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Ideology and beliefs (2)

The question whether ISIS can be called Kharijites under "Ideology" in the Lead and in the "Ideology and beliefs" section in this article is controversial, as can be seen from the discussion above. Jason from nyc (see above) has added a sentence to a para in "Ideology and beliefs" in this way:

"ISIS's ideology originates in the branch of modern Islam that aims to return to the early days of Islam, rejecting later "innovations" in the religion which it believes corrupt its original spirit. It condemns later caliphates and the Ottoman empire for deviating from what it calls pure Islam and hence has been attempting to establish its own caliphate.[108] However, there are some Sunni commentators, Zaid Hamid, for example, and even Salafi and jihadi muftis such as Adnan al-Aroor and Abu Basir al-Tartusi, who say that ISIS and related terrorist groups are not Sunnis, but modern-day Kharijite heretics serving an imperial anti-Islamic agenda. [NEW SENTENCE:] Critics include Salafists Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi and Saleh Al-Fawzan, who claims Western forces are behind ISIS."

This suggests those last two critics hold that ISIS are Kharijites, but this isn't borne out by the citation. According to the citation they clearly are critics of ISIS's religion, but they don't call them Kharijites, so I suggest this alteration of the wording just to avoid any misunderstanding:

"Other critics of ISIS's brand of Sunni Islam include Salafists Abu Muhammad ... ", etc.

Is this alteration acceptable? --P123ct1 (talk) 20:36, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you're saying. That's an improvement and avoids the mistaken implication. I also added "modern-day" to the previous sentence as it is used in the Economist to avoid the implication that critics are saying that ISIS is actually a continuation or revival of the original Kharijite movement. Thank you. Jason from nyc (talk) 21:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done --P123ct1 (talk) 08:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Human Rights

There are a number of human rights related sections scattered through the article - 9.4.4 Treatment of civilians, 9.5.1 Guidelines for civilians, part of the lead. I've combined them into one section, similar to the Taliban article. Any concerns with this? Gazkthul (talk) 03:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

None at all. I would have done it myself, but couldn't think of an appropriate title for the section. --P123ct1 (talk) 14:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! I wrote most of those sections and thank you for arranging them. This is better now! Mhhossein (talk) 03:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

International opinion

The content below has been reverted while it is perfectly sourced : "According to the results of a poll conducted by ICM Research in August 2014 for the Russian news agency Rossiya Segodnya, up to 15% of French people said that they have a positive attitude toward the Islamic State. The share of IS supporters is the largest among people aged between 18 and 24 (27%), and it is the smallest among those aged over 45." 15% of French people back ISIS militants, poll finds — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.200.172.237 (talk) 06:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussed in the section above headed "Rfc: Russian TV as a reliable source". Not at all perfectly sourced. Dougweller (talk) 09:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Map is misleading

Most of the big red splotch of Islamic State is empty desert controlled by no one. At most, ISIS/ISIL controls the cities/towns they occupy and the routes between the cities/towns. The area fully controlled by Islamic State (and the for that matter most formal governments in a desert region) would look more like a spider web. --Naaman Brown (talk) 09:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

"Note: map includes uninhabited areas" was added to partially address this. I don't believe it's technically feasible, or at least far more challenging, to create and update a map using the 'spiderweb' that Institute for Understanding War and others are using. Gazkthul (talk) 02:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

If you were to modify the map, you should add another color for "no man's land (desert)". To be fair, that territory does not count for either side in the conflict. JRSpriggs (talk) 03:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Which part is Syria and which part is Iraq? That is a basic question any reader would want answered looking at this map. Why is this considered so unimportant? The maps have never shown borders. Why? --P123ct1 (talk) 11:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Leaflets

Found some better sources, eg [69] and [70]. This didn't happen on the 14th as the edit said it did but on the 9th according to the Newsweek article (the Saturday before the 12th. Or maybe the 12th or 13th (the Independent's story seems confused about the date). Or this is ongoing, the London Evening Standard says yesterday.[71] That's quite likely so we can't assign it to a date. I'm not sure it's even worth adding to the article. A few ignorant people passing out leaflets? It did pick up a lot of Engliah language media coverage though. Dougweller (talk) 16:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

It probably isn't noteworthy enough to go into the timeline. I know the timeline has developed into a blow-by-blow account, but one has to draw the line somewhere. If this leafleting was happening everywhere in the West, then it might be worth adding. --P123ct1 (talk) 17:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

And we can't maintain a daily timeline indefinitely. Dougweller (talk) 18:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Timeline and History sections

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.

---

As FutureTrillionaire suggested earlier, it seems rather redundant that there is both a history and timeline on the same article. Perhaps the timeline should be split into its own article?--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 01:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Stongly agree The timeline is getting out of hand with daily updates, and frankly I question what additions like "20 August: US President Obama denounced the "brutal murder of Jim Foley by the terrorist group ISIL"" and "22 August: The US is considering airstrikes on ISIS in Syria, which would draw US military forces directly into the Syrian Civil War, as President Obama develops a long-term strategy to defeat the Islamic State" contribute to the article.

Articles like Taliban insurgency, which contain timelines of incidents, might be a good model. Gazkthul (talk) 02:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• Strongly agree -P123ct1 (talk) 23:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support - Sounds like a good idea.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
• Wait – Don't split this yet. There is an ongoing discussion at Iraqi insurgency (2011–present) about a split there. My personal opinion is that it would be best to split off a lot of the content here and from that article into a new article for the 2014 Iraq conflict. Regardless, that discussion is ongoing, so please to do comment. 04:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
• Neutral at this time, but I want to respond to Gazkthul's question. The two entries first are very well sourced, and second, they are a critical historical "crossroads" in what will most likely become a "direct action by the US against the Islamic State" in Syria. Worldedixor (talk) 05:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a source that Obama condemning the killing of Foley is a "critical historical crossroad"? Gazkthul (talk) 22:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

No... where did I say those were President Obama's words? I am not quite sure you understood the premise of my argument, but, assuming good faith, and to help you understand, I will give you an analogy: the "critical historical crossroad" of what became World War I was one assassination [72]. Worldedixor (talk) 23:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I think what Gazkthul meant is that "critical historical crossroad" is very much a judgment and this is an encyclopaedia, which records events, it doesn't interpret them. and that it can only go in if someone else has said this. --P123ct1 (talk) 07:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I iterate that I am not quite sure you understood the premise of my argument. My choice of words are not used in the article, they were used only on the Talk page. I was giving a logical cause-effect reasoning, and I gave a logical historical analogy. In any case, the upcoming "direct action" by the US against the Islamic State in Syria is already weighed/underway. [73] Worldedixor (talk) 16:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I understood your argument and think you are right about this being a crossroads, but "which would draw" in the entry is a judgment about the future not backed up by a source and WP per WP:OR should not make independent statements of its own, that was my point. But I don't feel strongly enough to revert it. --P123ct1 (talk) 17:30, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I am sure you mean what you say. But, you are also misquoting WP:OR. I reiterate that the word "crossroads" was not used in the article. I was simply explaining something on the Talk page not in the article, I gave an analogy with WWI, and it was supported with a source that confirms that a direct action against IS is being weighed. Worldedixor (talk) 17:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Saying "crossroads" in the Talk page and "which would draw" in the edit are the same thing, they are judgments. But I see now the "judgment" about the future is already in the headline in that WSJ source, so your edit is backed up anyway. I will see if can fix that citation so that it isn't paywalled; I can sometimes do it with the WSJ, but never with the FT, unfortunately. The NYT source looks good. Why not add it to the other one, as extra back-up? --P123ct1 (talk) 18:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I completely disagree with your first opinion and subjective assertions, but that's the beauty of WP. As for your question, feel free to read [74]. Worldedixor (talk) 18:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Let's agree to differ. As for citation overkill, I'd forgotten the remark someone made here about too many in the Lead and had already been thinking myself they should be reduced. -P123ct1 (talk) 19:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone NOT want to split the 2014 Timeline into a separate article?Ericl (talk) 14:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support Article is way too long (<260kB). This is a great place for a WP:SPLIT. ~Technophant (talk) 11:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment If this is done I would like to keep the last 30-60 days of most recent timeline on this page then "archive" them to the new page as they age. It will make this page more timely, easier to manage, and keep people informed of latest events without going to another page. I think we should drop the rewrite and prose tags and keep them in list format. ~Technophant (talk) 00:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
• Strongly agree Although honestly, is there a reason to have the timeline exist as its own article? I'd be tempted to make sure that the relevant details were covered in the History section (being especially cognizant of WP:RECENTISM) and then ditch the timeline altogether. Suomichris (talk) 22:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The Syrian Civil War has separate timeline articles. I think a timeline article is very useful, not only in its own right, but it provides the raw data for a concise historical narrative to be drawn up that can be put into the main article later. The clear shape of events is often only discernible some time after they happen.

The discussion above 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.

• Comment - While this needed to be done I'm not happy with the results. I think all timeline history (2003-2013) should be split to it's own article. I've transcluded the most recent part of Timeline of ISIS aggression: December 2013-Present (poor name choice) with the adjustable <includeonly>text here</includeonly> markup tags. That way any recently added text should instantly show up on this page, with the Timeline page being the only place where timeline events should be added.~Technophant (talk) 00:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

My experiment with transclusion works however it is complicated and comes to an error page when the edit tab is clicked. There looks like a better way to do this using Help:Labeled section transclusion. I'll be working on using this to selectively include one or two months from the timeline summary.~Technophant (talk) 01:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

By changing some formatting I now have both sections (august and september) with the edit functions working correctly. Once October begins the includeonly line can be moved down to only list sept and oct.~Technophant (talk) 03:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

History 9.2 & 9.3

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

Proposed split into new article

Please join the main discussion here. Thanks, Fitzcarmalan (talk) 02:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I went and did it myself. It's not premature, it's actually quite late, but if you wish to change the title, be my guest.Ericl (talk) 18:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I object very strongly to this unilateral action taken by a new editor without proper discussion on the Talk page first. --P123ct1 (talk) 19:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I've been here since the middle of the last decade, aside from possibly the title, what would you do differently?Ericl (talk) 19:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I beg your pardon, I meant new to the ISIS page. --P123ct1 (talk) 20:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ericl (talk). In this article, we try to agree on important and/or large changes (and sometimes on important small changed) after a well discussed consensus... This way we make sure to discuss the cons and pros. I have changed positions at times based on logical arguments presented by other editors. Worldedixor (talk) 20:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, folks, Who here does NOT want to split the Timeline 2014 section into a new article?Ericl (talk) 14:15, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Revert of "Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi named as its caliph"

Who removed this and why? Worldedixor (talk) 03:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean in this article or the Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi article? Because I see that someone removed "Caliph" from his name in the infobox. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 00:04, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this article. The revert had been reverted since I raised the issue. Worldedixor (talk) 02:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Establishment Date

Just in case this isn't clear, allow me to verify and explain the reasons the 2013 date is not used and the 2014 date is considered the establishment date. 1. In 2006 the group was a insurgency within Iraq. The insurgents during the Iraq War were never considered an unrecognized by anyone throughout the conflict (not even here on Wikipedia). At this time they were still part of Al Qaeda, which is a terrorist organization. 2. With the end of the war in 2011, the insurgency continued, and eventually what would become ISIS would join the Syrian Opposition. This group already has its own separate article, including an article for the political entity formed for the group. Since ISIL was operating with the rebels in 2013, that date isn't used, as they were working with other members of the opposition. 3. At the very end of 2013, ISIL began to fight the other members of the opposition, which angered the leaders of Al Qaeda. Then, on January 3, 2014, the ISIL took complete control of Fallujah and, as the source provided says, proclaimed an Islamic State. Soon after the takeover, ISIL's ties with Al Qaeda were severed. ISIL was now not only in control of parts of Syria and Iraq, but was also acting on its own, with no further ties to either the opposition or Al Qaeda. It was effectively independent and acting strictly for its own self-interests. It was now an independent unrecognized state.

This is also reflected within the template section. The 2006 and 2013 dates belong either within the text of the article itself or within the war faction infobox. Should further explanation be necessary, I will provide more info. Toolen (talk) 08:18, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry Toolen, but there are some serious mistakes in what you have written, this entity has always considered themselves to be a sovereign state, nothing unique or special happened in Jan 2014 beyond them taking over parts of Fallujah.

1. Firstly, the Islamic State of Iraq was declared in 2006 as a state. Contemporary media reports clearly show that this was their intention, regardless of whether any other parties recognised them (Much like their self proclaimed caliphate many years later).

Reuters 18 October 2006: Dozens of al Qaeda-linked gunmen took to the streets of Ramadi on Wednesday in a show of force to announce the city was joining an Islamic state comprising Iraq's mostly Sunni Arab provinces, Islamists and witnesses said. "We are from Mujahideen Shura Council and our Amir (Prince) is Abu Omar al-Baghdadi. God willing we will set the law of Sharia here and we will fight the Americans," said a man who identified himself as Abu Harith, a Mujahideen field leader. "We have announced the Islamic state. Ramadi is part of it. Our state will comprise all the Sunni provinces of Iraq," he told Reuters in a telephone interview.

As per New York Times shortly after this announcement: the group published a pamphlet laying out its vision for Iraq. It cited trends in globalization as well as the Quran in challenging modern notions of statehood as having absolute control over territory. Mr. Fishman referred to the document as the “Federalist Papers” for what is now ISIS. Under this vision, religion is paramount over administering services. Referring to citizens under its control, the pamphlet states, “improving their conditions is less important than the condition of their religion.” And one of the most important duties of the group, according to the pamphlet, is something that it has done consistently: free Sunnis from prison. “When you go back and read it, it’s all there,” Mr. Fishman said. “They are finally getting their act together.”

Anyone interested can read a lengthy translation and analysis of this document from the Combating Terrorism Center [75]

2. "since ISIL was operating with the rebels in 2013, that date isn't used, as they were working with other members of the opposition". This sounds like WP:OR to me. All sources [76] agree that on 9 April 2014, Abu Bakr al Baghdadi released an audio message announcing the formal expansion into Syria as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

3. All the source says is "On Friday, al-Qaida militants raised their flag over government buildings .....and declared an independent Islamic state" No quotes or attribution. No details of what this state is called. A more detailed source [77] gives context: At Friday prayers, held outdoors and attended by thousands of people, a masked ISIS fighter took the podium and addressed the crowd, declaring the establishment of an “Islamic emirate” in Fallujah. There is nothing unique or unprecedented about this announcement, back in 2013 it regarded the Syrian towns it exercised exclusive control over as emirates [78]. An 'emirate', as used by ISIS, refers to towns and cities that are run by an emir. Gazkthul (talk) 10:53, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

First, who posted the last comment? Secondly, just to correct a slip, the date of the audio message referred to in 2. above and in the source quoted is 2013, not 2104. In that message, posted by al-Baghdad on 8 April 2013 (date given by [79]), al-Baghdadi announced the group's adoption of a new name, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, so incontrovertible proof. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, signed the previous comment. Thanks for pointing out the typo, it was 2013. Gazkthul (talk) 10:53, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I would like to know what reliable source or perhaps linguist told you that "emirate" in Arabic means "towns" or "cities"? Worldedixor (talk) 18:48, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Nobody told me that emirate means towns or cities, nor did I make such a claim. ISIS divides it's territory into provincial wilayah [80], with further subdivisions of emirates. When they took over the Syrian town of Azaz for example, they assigned an Emir to run it [81]. This is quite common for Jihadist groups, when al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula captured the Yemeni town of Jaar, they (re)named it the Emirate of Waqar [82]. I can't read Arabic to confirm for myself, but are you able to translate the following image that has been painted on ISIS controlled territory in Aleppo? [83] Gazkthul (talk) 23:49, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I can. Worldedixor (talk) 00:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant I have read a translation that it says Jarablus Emirate, Wilayah Aleppo, Islamic State, but I can't confirm that is accurate. Gazkthul (talk) 00:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I can understand your limitations. Who told you that further subdivisions of a "wilaayah" are called emirates? Also do you know how the United States is translated in Arabic? Worldedixor (talk) 01:03, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I had been hoping that you would be able to translate the above image, as that could provide one possible example. Gazkthul (talk) 01:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

The above image is not a reliable source. It is also very tricky to get into its translation without a lengthy qualifying explanation of the mentality, tribal culture and the variations of something that is not nearly as clearly defined as black or white. I was asking whether you knew how the United States is translated into Arabic as that may possibly indicate your ability to understand a much more elaborate explanation.Worldedixor (talk) 01:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Gazkthul, Wikipedia doesn't consider every group that announces its intent to form a nation an unrecognized state. The argument you used above could also be applied to the Caucasus Emirate, which also declared the establishment of a Islamic state, and which is still considered a terrorist organization/insurgency. At the time of the 2013 announcement, ISIL was still affiliated with Al Qaeda and was also still part of the Syrian Opposition. If you require a more reliable source, here is a detailed account of the groups history and recommendations on US policy towards the group written by the United Muslim Association of America: http://www.umaamerica.net/sites/default/files/2014_06_19_UADV_TheIraqCrisis_FINAL.pdf Note how the document emphasizes the 2014 establishment date in Fallujah, while little is mentioned of the events of 2006 and 2013, which are defined as name changes only. I will go ahead and add the source to the article. Toolen (talk) 19:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, if that document isn't POV, I don't know what is. Are you suggesting Wikipedia should ignore what this group says about itself? Isn't Wikipedia about recording facts, and recording the views of others as just that, views? --P123ct1 (talk) 21:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Your source says "ISIL proclaimed to establish an Islamic state in Fallujah". I am not disputing that, whenever they take over territory, they seek to rule it as an Islamic state. This is no different to what they were doing in Iraq years earlier, when they were governing territory until the Iraq Sunnis got sick of them and rose up in the Awakening movement. They have established Islamic states/emirates in other areas they control like Raqqa, Syria.

In a background piece on the group from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, the author writes: excitement surged online over the prospect of an Islamic state following ISI’s announcement of its own establishment. Since the announcement, all major online jihadist forums list the number of days since the Islamic state was formed (2,813 days, as of June 26, 2014) [84] Jihadists date the State back thousands of days, not a few months. Gazkthul (talk) 00:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the jihadist do Claim they have ruled for that long, but the problem with that is that there is a difference between what the Jihadist say and what really happened. Consider, for example, the way they view the Iraq War. They claim they won the war and that they defeated and pushed out American military forces. The truth, as I'm sure you're aware, is not that simple. The outcome of the fighting is largely up for debate, but it certainly wasn't a victory for the insurgents. The casualty count for both sides makes that perfectly clear. Furthermore, the United States left of their own accord, as popular opinion had turned against the war. They were certainly not defeated militarily by the insurgents. The Jihadist have a habit of twisting and stretching the truth to suit their own goals and needs. While they certainly make claims of triumphs and conquest in their videos, what they say isn't always the truth. Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not denying that proclamations were made on those dates. I've read the documents, and I've watched some of the videos. They definitely declared that they had created an Islamic State, but the truth is that they were still just an insurgent group at that time. Other, outside sources state that they didn't have as much control as they claimed. We need to differentiate between the propaganda and the truth. None of my sources come from the ISIL. They are outside sources, and they are neutral in the current conflict. They have no connection to ISIL or its associates. One of the sources is even from the UMAA, a Muslim organization. Furthermore, I have already mentioned the fact that they were still part of Al Qaeda at the time of the announcements, and that they were also part of the Syrian Opposition, rather than acting on their own. That changed in early 2014. The group cut its ties to both the Syrian Opposition and Al Qaeda, and they completely took over Fallujah and the surrounding territory, in addition to the areas it held in Syria, which it was now in sole control of (it was no longer working for the Syrian Opposition and the other radical Muslim groups that have sided with the FSA). I also wish to point out that the UMAA document mentions the 2013 date, but considers it merely a name change of the insurgent group. I also offered another example of a similar declaration made by the Caucasus Emirate, which Wikipedia still considers an insurgent group, not a unrecognized state. Like the ISIL, the Caucasus Emirate announced the formation of an Islamic State, but the announcement and the actual formation of a state aren't always the same thing. In the ISIL's case, when the 2014 proclamation was made, they actually had control over a set geographic area at the time, and they were no longer affiliated with the other major insurgent groups in Syria and Iraq. They were also in the process of severing what little connections they had left with Al Qaeda. By the time Al Qaeda announced that it was distancing itself from the ISIL in February, the ISIL was already effectively independent of Al Qaeda. That is part of the reason why the article uses the 2014 date. The 2006 and 2013 dates go in the war faction infobox. Toolen (talk) 18:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I just don't see the events on 3 January 2014 matching the label of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant declared. So I would suggest either that event be renamed to something else, or it be deleted entirely and we just have the Caliphate declaration, which is much more of a definitive and official date in terms of being an undeclared state. Gazkthul (talk) 03:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Gazkthul. Encylopaedias record events, they don't interpret them. History books interpret events, and the finer points listed by other editors above are to do with interpretation and history-writing, not writing an encyclopaedia. The plain event here is the audio message by Al-Baghdadi in April 2013 announcing the establishment of an Islamic state. Wikipedia should record that event and leave it to historians to quibble about when it actually became an Islamic state. --P123ct1 (talk) 21:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

ISIL shows up in google search, ISIS doesn't

Is there a way to change the metadata or something for this page so that it shows up when you search "ISIS" on google? Currently only ISIL will get you here. Ahavahisrael (talk) 13:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Is it possible your search results are impacted by 'filter bubbles'?MeropeRiddle (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

It does for me, granted for "ISIS" its only the 4th suggestion.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 05:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

That's part of the arguement as to why ISIL is a better acronym, it's (almost) unique. The only other ISIL is The Indian Society of International Law. Can Wikipedia do something to change it's page rank, besides page renaming and redirects? Good question. ~Technophant (talk) 17:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

@Ahavahisrael - A question like this could be put to the Reference Desk/Computing section. Perhaps there's some Help:Magic Words that could help. There's an interesting post here regarding why WP is so high in Google's page ranking (ie. WP sucks less than the rest of the web). ~Technophant (talk) 07:01, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Great article

... and very informative. Would it be possible to remove the refs from the lede? Too many refs there makes it really hard to read, and in any case I am sure all the refs are already somewhere in the body of the article. Thanks! - Cwobeel (talk) 15:16, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Good constructive criticism worth consideration. For us involved editors, it does not bother us, but for a "fresh eye" reading an encyclopedia, I can understand how it may be hard to read. I don't believe there is a quick solution, but it definitely should be brainstormed. Worldedixor (talk) 16:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

There are an awful lot of references in the lead section. Some of them that are referenced elsewhere in the article could probably be removed. Per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Citations: "Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material...Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." Some references in the lead certainly are appropriate, but I think right now we have erred on the side of too many. For example, the sentence that references which nations have designated it as a terrorist organization has 12 references! We have an entire section in the article about this that is well referenced, I don't think 12 references are required in the lead just for that. I also don't see a need for 3 different references for "Islamic State" when there is also a footnote about the name. Surely 1 reference along with the footnote would be more than enough for that. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I Agree . Worldedixor (talk) 17:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

This essay might be useful in the context of the above comments.  Philg88 ^♦talk 17:40, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Before reading this, I was going to suggest removing those designation as terrorist organization footnotes as they are all in section 13. I have already used my 1RR allowance but can do this tomorrow, if others agree. I could also remove the "Western and Middle Eastern" footnotes as they are in section 13 as well. That would cut down the footnotes in the Lead by by 11. Needless to say, the first UN footnote must remain. --P123ct1 (talk) 19:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done since no-one responded. --P123ct1 (talk) 18:24, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Addition to name/name changes

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

Edit to say, disregard, as it was added already, and I missed it.MeropeRiddle (talk) 16:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Suggest splitting older history sections to own pages

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.

---

• Result of split proposal was to split the material.~Technophant (talk) 04:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

This article is now over 260kB long and needs to be split for readability (WP:SIZESPLIT) to be under the suggested 100kB length. I suggest that the first and most logical split should be the section on Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad (JTJ). This group was formed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in the aftermath of the Soviet-Afghan War in 1999. It takes up a big part of this article is an obvious choice to split back to it's own article. A summary section should be created, and a {{Main}} template should be placed the top of the section to link to the new page. The last known good version of the page before the merge can be viewed here. ~Technophant (talk) 04:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Support, the Tawhid wal-Jihad section could be split off with a minimal impact on the rest of the article. Gazkthul (talk) 07:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Support Have always thought the early days of ISIS had too much space devoted to it. --P123ct1 (talk) 08:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Support I tried to do just that, but they wouldn't LET meEricl (talk) 14:10, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Ericl, you have the right intentions by attempting this, however major changes like this need to be proposed and discussed first. ~Technophant (talk) 21:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

So I'm asking....Ericl (talk) 22:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Since there's no urgent need to split then this request should remain open for 7 days, then it will be closed and the split performed if consensus is there. If or somebody else wishes to start the summary section in a sandbox that would be a big help. ~Technophant (talk) 06:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

SupportAlso the History and Timeline sections could be usefully split off to one or two separate articles. GoldenRing (talk) 01:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Support This is a self-contained subject worthy of its own article. There are enough reliable sources to sustain its notability in its own right. The connection to ISIS should be in our article with the full treatment in a self-contained article on JTJ. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Split section Involvement in Iraqi Insurgency to Al-Qaeda in Iraq

This section is historical in nature and stable, has relevance to the current page, but could probably be best be spilt to Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) or Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn. A summary section should be created, and a {{Main}} template should be placed the top of the section to link to the new page. The last known good version of the page before the merge can be viewed here. ~Technophant (talk) 05:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Support The Al Qaeda in Iraq page was merged into the Islamic State page only last year, which I supported at the time, but events and the page itself have evolved so that it could probably be split back into it's own article, with a summary left in this article. Gazkthul (talk) 04:51, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Split section to Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn instead

• Support this is actual name not given name. It's more encyclopedic and accurate to use this name. ~Technophant (talk) 14:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
• SupportAgree with Technophant.ChamithN (talk) 08:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad revisions

I've edited the mass of stuff at Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad to remove redundancies and add the right content from here, and I think it now roughly stands on its own. There may be things missing or present that still need adjustment, but I think it is independent enough that you can start thinking about summary style on this end... checking carefully to make sure nothing's being lost. I am picturing that the oath of allegiance, death of Zarqawi, death of al-Masri, and repudiation by al-Qaeda are the main dividing lines that should be used to split the history into sections, each with its own article. Wnt (talk) 07:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Levant region

File:Levant (orthographic projection).png

From Wikipedia:

"The Levant (/ləˈvænt/), also known as the Eastern Mediterranean, is a geographic and cultural region consisting of the "eastern Mediterranean littoral between Anatolia and Egypt". The Levant today consists of the island of Cyprus, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, and part of southern Turkey (the former Aleppo Vilayet)."

It Wikipedia says Iraq is sometimes included. --P123ct1 (talk) 15:09, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Very true, but you can't use Wikipedia as a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.23.134.189 (talk) 16:15, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

That was not intended. It was general guidance for editors. --P123ct1 (talk) 16:19, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Iraq is not part of the Levant. Who told you so? Worldedixor (talk) 16:47, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I think what P123ct1 means is that the article Levant has a map where the legend for the medium green says "Countries and regions sometimes included in the Levant region. (Iraq and Sinai)". ~Technophant (talk) 17:42, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

This map is misrepresented. Sinai and Egypt are also not part of the Levant. This is one of the many misunderstood facts that I see regularly in Wikipedia because of certain editors Wikipedia-wide who can't understand articles that they're editing. When I have some time, I do what I can but when I see uninformed opposition, I just let it be.Worldedixor (talk) 18:09, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

To start with, use the Arabic term which is apparently "shaam" or the like. Wiktionary says it means Damascus or "Greater Syria". There's clearly a lot of room to figure out what they actually mean; I wouldn't be surprised (but have no idea) if the goal was simply to avoid using a word that refers to borders drawn by European powers. Wnt (talk) 22:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: we have an article on Greater Syria, to which I've added an old map of Bilad al-Sham for comparison. Wnt (talk) 07:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

New RS by Alastair Crooke

A possible RS by an expert:

• You Can't Understand ISIS If You Don't Know the History of Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia, Alastair Crooke

Brangifer (talk) 17:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Al-Qaeda in Iraq

This name is repeatedly being changed to "al-Qaeda in Iraq" in the Lead. Please note that the spelling adopted throughout the article is "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" and that the spelling Wikipedia adopts for al-Qaeda is "al-Qaeda", not "Al-Qaeda". --P123ct1 (talk) 15:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes. This was decided by consensus earlier this year. ~Technophant (talk) 05:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the changes are made by "visiting" editors and wanted to suggest editors change it when it happens, but obviously I can't ask them to do that. --P123ct1 (talk) 06:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Timeline: entry for 29 August

The timeline entry for 29 August reads:

The UK raised its terror level to "severe" in the aftermath of the "Islamic State's butchery" and committed to fight radical Islam "at home and abroad".

The Fox News report in the citation reads:

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

The words "Islamic State's butchery" are not Cameron's but Fox News', and they do not appear as a quote from Cameron in the second citation either. That quote is misleadingly and inaccurately attributed to Cameron/UK, so to recitfy this the quote marks would have to be removed. Would the responsible editor see to this, please? --P123ct1 (talk) 17:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

What you don't seem to understand is that I never attributed those quotes to Cameron, I simply quoted what the WP:RS Fox News and what the media worldwide are calling as the "butchery" of the Islamic State atrocities. Read this [85] in justification of my logical argument. What I find amusing is that I make one entry once in a while, and, ¡Dios mío bendito!, of all the millions of articles on Wikipedia, and the thousands of entries in this and the other Syrian War articles, you and your "email pals" seem to "appear" to "dissect" and oppose my lonesome, well sourced entry. Ah well... Since I have no time nor energy for edit-wars, I do what I can, but after I see your relentless "opposition", I just let it be and almost never revert twice your reverts. No big deal. :) Worldedixor (talk) 20:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Fox News (television more than print) is a biased reliable source. They are very harsh toward the Democratic Party (esp. Obama) and very soft regarding the base (Conservative Republicans, not AQ). They often view things in black and white, like all jihadis are terrorists, therefore always bad and members of US military is always good (even though in Afghanistan JSOC special forces have earned the name "Americian Taliban" due to their brutality and execution of unarmed civilians). So while specific information, if not in conflict with other reliable sources can be used in articles, their special brand of rhetoric often will not meet our NPOV standards. ~Technophant (talk) 05:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I am sure the misattribution effect of Worldedixor's edit was unintentional, btw. I should have made that clear when I raised this. --P123ct1 (talk) 06:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that we should be very chary about using Fox. Quotes should be attributed, but we should be even more chary about quoting Fox. Comments such as Worldedixor's on other editors can poison the atmosphere for editing and need to be avoided. Dougweller (talk) 10:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

`The UK raised its terror level to "severe" and committed to fight radical Islam "at home and abroad".' That is unbiased. Would that be that acceptable? --P123ct1 (talk) 16:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I completely disagree with Dougweller. It's more like comments such as Dougweller's and his pals on Worldedixor can poison the atmosphere for editing and need to be avoided. Admins are expected to observe a high standard of conduct. Also, Fox News is FACTUALLY a major mainstream network news medium and is given equal weight as the other networks as a reliable source. If they do report something it increases the notability of the subject since the network is broadcast worldwide. We should not blatantly diminish a reliable source due to perceived biases. I have yet to be shown any evidence of stories Fox News published that were factually incorrect, or had to be retracted. People may have an issue with what stories they choose to report on, or what aspects of those stories they choose to emphasize, but that in no way reflects on the reliability or accuracy of the facts they report. Finally, everyone should read WP:QUOTE before they opine. Happy editing!... Worldedixor (talk) 16:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Yes. Worldedixor (talk) 21:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

user:Worldedixor: Wikipedia:Quotations#General_guidelines says "Where a quotation presents rhetorical language in place of more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias, it can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject, and should be avoided." which is in agreement with the consensus of this thread. ~Technophant (talk) 21:56, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

You're right!... There is no POV here. Isn't a FACT that the Islamic state are butchering people? Also, this article and other world media articles, (this is another example [86]), have summed up what the PM had said in his press conference [87] expressly as "Islamic State's butchery". Having said that, if their is a "real" consensus (as consensus is clearly defined in policy, which has nothing to do with numbers), then the entry should be changed following logical consensus. Worldedixor (talk) 22:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think since the quote fox news says "British Prime Minister David Cameron vowed to confront radical Islam "at home and abroad" and the United Kingdom raised its terror level to "severe" in the wake of new revelations about Islamic State's butchery in Syria and Iraq." The article has been misquoted from the start. I don't support quoting this article. It should be summarized. I made this diff that will hopefully end this debate. ~Technophant (talk) 22:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

tangential discussion

That would change my quoting Fox News to your quoting the PM, which is fine but my quote is not a violation of policy, is it? More importantly, isn't a FACT that the Islamic state are butchering people? Still, if you want to seek legitimate consensus and change the article, I am fine with that. BUT first, please can you clarify, as per policy, as to whether or not you and P123ct1 have ever had email interaction in relation to this article or me? Worldedixor (talk) 22:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC) @Worldedixor, yes quoting the PM not Fox. Members of IS are not kill people then "dress their flesh, sell their meat" as a butcher does! If this is put in then it could be confused that this is actually is what happening. ~Technophant (talk) 22:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC) I agree with what you said, but butchery has more than one meaning; butchery also means "the savage killing of large numbers of people". Ergo, the worldwide use in WP:RS news media. Still, at this juncture, legitimate consensus is what counts, but I can see you have already changed it, so I'll just let it be, and won't revert it to avoid an edit war. Worldedixor (talk) 22:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC) I missed all that. Actually, Worldedixor, I looked into this today and your edit is technically not in violation of WP policy, though I would have to look at Technophant's further WP wording on this more carefully. Was uncomfortable about Cameron's quoted words being mixed in with Fox News' quoted words in the same sentence, but I had thought of this: '"Fox News reported that in the aftermath of the "Islamic State's butchery", the UK had raised its terror level to "severe" and committed to fight radical Islam "at home and abroad".' That would cover it, I think, but I see Technophant has already changed it. I certainly don't want to edit-war either. --P123ct1 (talk) 23:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC) Not just technically, it was simply not in violation. I still have a reasonable question. Please can you clarify, as per policy, as to whether or not you and Technophant have ever had email interaction in relation to this article or me? If this is not a violation of policy, what's stopping me (or anyone) from soliciting other editors (or admins) to roll in and influence the editorial process in a topic or discussion? Worldedixor (talk) 23:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC) Wikipedia encourages and depends on cooperative editing to improve articles, and most editors who work together are not a tag team. Assume good faith, and keep in mind that in almost all cases it is better to address other editors' reasoning than it is to accuse them of being on a team. ~Technophant (talk) 23:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC) Please stop your accusations. The record clearly shows that I have addressed other editors' reasoning, volunteered my well sourced and well researched knowledge, and, faced with opposition and your unilateral revert of my contribution (that was not in violation of policy), shown flexibility to avoid an edit war. Also, let me be clear that I am not accusing anyone, and I am WP:AGF. This is why I am not assuming anything nor accusing anyone, and I have made no subpoenas. I am asking a reasonable question, and since you both are responding, I ask for a responsive answer, if you care to respond: Please can you clarify, as per policy, as to whether or not you and P123ct1 have ever had email interaction in relation to this article or me? Worldedixor (talk) 23:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC) I'm sure if you think about it you'll realise that article talk pages are not the appropriate place to discuss email between editors. @P123ct1:The Guardian is not considered pretty left-wing. It's liberal, that's for sure, but not left-wing. Dougweller (talk) 08:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC) @Dougweller: Sorry. That was always my impression and I had done a quick check on the internet before I made that post and it seemed to confirm it. Not that I think its political leanings would influence its reporting on the Iraq crisis, it is a solid RS. I may have been misled - as people always say, you can't trust everything you read on the internet. --P123ct1 (talk) 09:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC) A check on RS:N here shows that "The Guardian is a "use with caution" source in my book. It is very biased in its international and political reporting and I have often noticed erroneous facts and figures, often skewed to reflect their bias." and that it is more considered liberal than left-wing. ~Technophant (talk) 11:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC) Um, that was a quote from one editor unhappy with an opinion piece. At least one other editor disputed that. Any conservative or right winger is going to see a liberal paper as biased, that seems obvious. It's normally considered an RS and is certainly better than Fox, the Daily Mail, and many other sources. Ane even the best sources sometimes need to be treated with caution. Dougweller (talk) 15:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Should Ba'ath Party Loyalists really appear among "Opponents" in the infobox?

Among the "Opponents" in the infobox, Ba'ath Party Loyalists[29] appear. This needs to be reconciled with the later-cited [88] as well as [89]. I suppose that the rather obscure citation in the infobox may refer to a Ba'ath minority, and should be deleted. And should Ba'ath Party Loyalists conversely appear among "Allies"? And is this alliance significant enough that it should be addressed in a separate paragraph or section? Layzeeboi (talk) 07:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Please note the source for the "opponent" category: Shaafaq News. And that article includes the sentence "The dissolved party said in a statement published by pro-sites in which “Shafaq News” [sic] could not make sure if it is correct [my bold] that "ISIS is a terrorist organization that carry the project of destroying the popular revolution sweeping Iraq, and we will stand against it with all our power”. On the other hand, the Ba'athist "statement" quoted by the article praises ISIS for "fighting with us today for the liberation of the entire territory of Iraq". And the accompanying photograph is unidentified. So this citation appears to me to fail to meet Wikipedia's standards. Layzeeboi (talk) 16:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Good point. Who is the spokesperson for a dissolved politic party? Nobody. It's just a random bunch of opinions without organization. ~Technophant (talk) 23:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Status of countries as "allies"

The info in the "allies" section is based solely on this article: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29004253 . It seems that the article has not been read thoroughly by the editor of this information. This is greatly based on suspicions, and no country has openly declared itself an "ally" of the IS. In any case any country where the IS has received help from, be it resources or fighters, directly or indirectly, would be listed as "allies" and that would be ridiculous. ~~Taikun20~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taikun20 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with User:Taikun20. I removed the 3 countries as allies here with edit summary "(Rm countries as allies, not enough evidence for this. no official announcement." ~Technophant (talk) 23:27, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

All we have to do is wait long enough and {{Infobox war faction will fill the entire side of the article! lol ~Technophant (talk) 00:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Successor or name change?

The lede claims that ISIS is the "successor" to ISI, but the text then says ISI changed its name after it started spilling over into Syria. We should nail down this point, because I feel like there is something of a misunderstanding in some sources (or is it?) that treat this as a "new group" that just materialized somehow, rather than recognizing that this is the same old Iraq resistance, same old beheading videos, nothing much changed except Syria has been vulnerable. Wnt (talk) 23:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Successor to Tawhid wal Jihad and Al Qaeda in Iraq would be fair, as in both cases it combined with other groups into a new group. However as you say the ISI simply expanded into Syria when the opportunity arose, it retained the same flag, media outlet, leadership when doing so. Gazkthul (talk) 04:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Metamorphosing is a better way of putting it than materialising! It is the same core group, which particularly in its early days combined with other groups at various stages, each time adopting a new name, and even when it became a stable entity continued to change its name. It is confusing at first, so perhaps there should be a sentence in the Lead making this crystal clear. I agree that the word "successor" is slightly misleading. The "Name & name changes" section makes these changes pretty clear I would have thought, though, and that comes straight after the Lead. --P123ct1 (talk) 02:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree with User:P123ct1.~Technophant (talk) 10:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I think there is quite a problem with saying in the Lead that ISIS is the successor to Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn (or Tawḥīd wa-al-Jihād, for that matter), and then saying in "Name & name changes" that ISIS began as Jamāʻat al-Tawḥīd wa-al-Jihād which then became Tanzim Qaidat. I don't think the word "successor" should be used at all, as all three are the same group but in different forms. --P123ct1 (talk) 18:21, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton

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

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

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

[Hillary Clinton and Jessica Lewis] SECTION 5, Analysis Teoporta (talk) 05:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 133.87.146.69 (talk) 05:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

There is guidance in WP on this somewhere. WP has to be NPOV in stating facts, but it is perfectly entitled, if not obliged, to record varying points of view on an article's topic. I therefore think it should stay, but indicating that her words represent only one point of view. That paragraph on her stuck in there starkly on its own with no preamble is obviously not the way to do it. As for Jessica Lewis' views, the way they are presented does not suggest that WP thinks she is right, surely? If it does, some wording will have to be added there as well. --P123ct1 (talk) 09:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Hillary is considered the de facto democratic candidate for the 2016 presidential race and likely to be the next president. On the other side of the isle, Ted Cruz has been the one making statements saying "They want to go back and reject modernity. Well, I think we should help them. We ought to bomb them back to the Stone Age." For neutrality, the argument the current statements from the leaders of both parties should be included. ~Technophant (talk) 11:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Wow. Anyway, P123ct1, we wouldn't say it's only one point of view because that's obvious. Ssomething like that might be seen as deprecating her statement. Dougweller (talk) 14:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't mean necessarily using those words. I am sure diplomatic wording could be devised to indicate/get the idea across. --P123ct1 (talk) 14:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I see now that this is referring to her statement in the Analysis section and I'm striking out my statement above about including opinions from both political parties. As the former Secretary of State, she's qualified to give this opinion. This opinion adds to the analysis section and I think we should keep it. ~Technophant (talk) 02:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I would call it propaganda but it is basically an empty truism that politicians make. She's basically saying the failure of alternatives left a vacuum for ISIL. It just isn't substantial or worthy of an encyclopedia. She could obviously say something more informative with her knowledge and access to information. Perhaps we should wait until she is more specific. Jason from nyc (talk) 02:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk page too long

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

Map concerning to the capture of region around Amerli

I've consulted a source concerning to the capture of the region surrounding Amerli: [90], but it displays several flags, some of which I don't have a clue about which do they belong. I recognize the Kurds, the Turkmens and the Iraqi flags, but others I have no idea. Someone could help about this, and update the map? (if it's considered to be a reliable source, of course) Mondolkiri1 (talk) 15:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Mondolkiri1 I reposted your comment to File talk:Territorial control of the ISIS.svg ~Technophant (talk) 00:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Technophant Thank you very much! ~Mondolkiri1 (talk) 21:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

2nd American journalist dead/murdered/beheaded

NPR broke in with breaking news that the terrorist organization that calls itself the I.S. has beheaded the other American journalist they held captive and released a video thereof. Sad. I'm sure the article will be updated shortly.HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Currently the text says the Aug. 19 'IS' video of James Foley's murder "promised that a second captured US journalist, Steven Sotloff, would be killed next if the airstrikes continued."

According to Reuters, AP, BBC and The New York Times, 'IS' on Sept. 2 issued a similar video purporting to show the murder of Sotloff. The article should be updated immediately. Sca (talk) 21:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The article Steven Joel Sotloff has been updated. What nomenclature are we using to link to this article? Is [[Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant|Islamic State]] (IS/ISIS) the best way? We need to decide here so links to this page can be standardized or there's going to be issues like this. ~Technophant (talk) 00:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Too many cooks.... Sca (talk) 01:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The link to the video of the beheading is faulty. It doesn't link to that. I couldn't find any video of it, as youtube censors everything. Please adjust it if you can.Teoporta (talk) 04:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Archive.org is the best place to find videos. here is video with German subtitiles.~Technophant (talk) 03:59, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Islamic state is now in control of northern NIgeria, someone care to update?

Boko Haram declares 'Islamic state' in northern Nigeria http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-28925484 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.82.6 (talk) 11:30, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The report talks about the group announcing an "Islamic state". It seems to have no connection with the Islamic State. --P123ct1 (talk) 07:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

@99.238.82.6 You're misunderstanding. There is a difference between a "Islamic state" and "the Islamic State". Supersaiyen312 (talk) 21:10, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Amnesty report on ethnic cleansing

So far the article does not mention "ethnic cleansing". Amnesty International's reports that it is ethnic cleansing on history scale and that they operate on racist grounds, persecuting non-Arabs and non-Sunnis. The report has been featured in several news outlets: BBC, Independent, CBC etc. This could be worked on. --Pudeo' 16:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I Agree and I have added a blurb. Worldedixor (talk) 22:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't this and the UN's statement on war crimes go into the "Human rights abuses" section? --P123ct1 (talk) 18:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think they should be in the lead as well as the "Human rights abuses" section. Worldedixor (talk) 22:45, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps this summary should go into the Lead (without footnotes as we are trying to cut them down in the Lead), "The United Nations and Amnesty International have accused the Islamic State of human rights abuse", with those two sentences with their footnotes moved to that section. Would that be a good idea? --P123ct1 (talk) 07:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Copied to "Human rights abuses" section. Summary needed for Lead, suggested above. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done Have replaced the last sentence in the Lead with a summary statement, without footnotes. The footnotes have already been transferred to the "Human Rights Abuse" section. The Lead now uses "IS" in the first para and "ISIS" in the others. A decision will have to made on which name to use in the Lead; it cannot have both. --P123ct1 (talk) 15:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Expand the human rights abuses section or split off into its own article?

As it is currently, the human rights abuses section is notably incomplete. The list of abuses this group has committed is vast; I'd say it could constitute an article of its own, even. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

If this section eventually becomes too big for the article, it could be split off into a separate article. There is already a Wikipedia article on the Persecution of Yazidis by the Islamic State, which should be summarized into this article. --P123ct1 (talk) 07:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Red-linking

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

See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Have a clearly defined policy in regards to Hostages and their notability or lack there of. Dougweller (talk) 12:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. It is very useful in this context. --P123ct1 (talk) 12:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Revision deleted material

As WP:Oversight has been involved in this issue I've followed up by revision deleting a sentence added by I believe Technophant and the name in the section above. An article about this person has been deleted by someone on the Oversight team. Just to be sure my actions are correct I'll contact the appropriate people. As this was dealt with by people above my pay grade I am asking editors here not to try and restore it. Please folks. If I'm told I was wrong I will of course replace it. Note that 'NO other text was removed, although the history of who did what is inaccessible. Dougweller (talk) 12:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I did not create or add anything to that sentence. --P123ct1 (talk) 14:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Oversight has stepped in and Oversighted the material I rev/del'd. The difference is that what I did could still be viewed by Administrators, but Oversight can suppress so that even Admins can't view the material. The family has requested that this person's name not be mentioned in the media, which makes this a BLP issue. We need to be very careful and remember that BLP applies to hostages and indeed to anyone executed as a hostage for 2 years after their death. Dougweller (talk) 13:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

The revdelete was done by Nyttend. The discussion about this has been placed on User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Section_removed. Please don't add the name of the next hostage victim mentioned at the end of the Steven Sotloff video until this issue is resolved.~Technophant (talk) 13:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Not this rev/del however, I did the ones on the article and here. Oversight was also done with Nyttend's revdels. Dougweller (talk) 13:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

There's a related discussions going on regarding this matter at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Guideline_for_crime_victims_of_world_wide_significance and Talk:Steven Sotloff.~Technophant (talk) 19:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

disinfo

I changed "suggested" to "alleged", but I'd take out the whole paragraph, as unnamed "western sources"-this is clear disinfo and a smear campaign-it has been established that in fact the west originally colluded with these folks, (just like Osama, Saddam, Noriega...) it's a smear-the-other-guy tactic and doesn't belong on Wikipedia unless the actual US et.al. collusion is given equal weight.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:27, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

The West did not collude with bin Laden ("The agency directed around three billion dollars to the Afghan mujahideen during the war against the Soviets, but there is no evidence that any of that money went to the Afghan Arabs, nor is there any evidence of CIA personnel meeting with bin Laden or anyone in his circle...The theory that bin Laden was created by the CIA is invariably advanced as an axiom with no supporting evidence".), and your personal conspiracy theories on unrelated issues are not a valid reason to delete reliably sourced material. It is well-known that much of the Islamic State's funding comes from oil sales to the Syrian regime (that's not even "alleged"). Assad released, armed, and trained jailed Islamist radicals to tar the opposition and refrained from attacking ISIS with the same ferocity as other groups. Assad has even used ISIS to attack other rebels. This is well known.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Well said, TheTimesAreAChanging. I couldn't agree more. Worldedixor (talk) 18:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Equipment

I notice we now have 2 tables in the Equipment section, one for 'Assault rifles' and one for 'Armored fighting vehicles', complete with large photos of each type of weapon. The source appears to be some sort of rightwing blog. Is any of that necessary or adding anything that isn't already covered in the equipment section? Gazkthul (talk) 06:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

These pictures add very little of value to the article. --P123ct1 (talk) 13:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree with P123ct1. Pictures add wp:undue weight to equipment section.~Technophant (talk) 22:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I, too, agree—honestly, I feel the tables themselves are pretty unneeded. A prose description of some of the equipment used would be sufficient; it need not be exhaustive nor laid out with photos and lots of details. Suomichris (talk) 22:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh man, just looked at the source used for those tables—yeah, all of that should definitely go. Suomichris (talk) 22:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I just looked at the source again, and it doesn't even claim that these are weapons that ISIS has. It says "This is by no means meant to be an exhaustive and comprehensive list of weapon systems being used by ISIS, et al., but rather a list of some of the more commonly used weapons, and few rare ones as well." Given this, I've removed the tables completely. Suomichris (talk) 23:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

New US-ally: Qassem Soleimani

Please add: The Iranian commander Qassem Soleimani, commander of the elite Revolutionary Guard's Quds Force, has been in the Iraqi city of Amerli, to work with the United States to push back militants from the Islamic State (IS). According to The Los Angeles Times, which reported that Amerli was the first town to successfully withstand an ISIS invasion, it was secured thanks to "an unusual partnership of Iraqi and Kurdish soldiers, Iranian-backed Shiite militias and U.S. warplanes". The US acted as a force multiplier for a number of Iranian-backed arm groups — at the same time that the head of the Revolutionary Guard's foreign operations was present on the battlefield.

Merci, --91.10.32.90 (talk) 07:28, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

1 revert per 24 hours - Reminder to new editors contributing to this article

In accordance with a July 2013 motion and community consensus on August 2013, all editors of this article are restricted to 1 revert per 24 hours when reverting logged-in users. Violations of this restriction will lead to blocks or other sanctions. Sanctions may include blocks for up to one year, page bans or topic bans. Worldedixor (talk) 09:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Footnotes

Are all editors aware that footnotes appended to edits need to be converted from bare URLs to the standard Wikipedia format, using the cite templates on the edit page?

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, the link will be broken and readers will be unable to read the citation!

Please remember to include all parameters when filling in the cite templates.

These bare URL footnotes have appeared in the last week or so.

1. http://rt.com/news/183048-isis-grow-expand-jihadist/
2. http://www.aina.org/news/20140810150643.htm
3. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syria-conflict-president-assad-finally-turns-on-isis-as-government-steps-up-campaign-against-militant-strongholds-9679480.html
4. http://www.ntvmsnbc.com/id/25506321/
5. http://www.aksam.com.tr/guncel/istanbulda-isid-operasyonu/haber-294981
6. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/08/un-accuses-islamic-state-group-war-crimes-2014827153541710630.html
7. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29026491

• http://time.com/3273185/isis-us-nato/
  
• France24. 31 August 2014 http://www.france24.com/ar/20140830-%D8%AA%D9%86%D8%B8%D9%8A%D9%85-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AF%D9%88%D9%84%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A5%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D8%AE%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%81%D8%A9-%D8%A5%D8%B9%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%86-%D9%88%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D8%A5%D8%B1%D9%87%D8%A7%D8%A8/ |url= missing title (help). Retrieved 6 September 2014.

--P123ct1 (talk) 19:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Change the name of the “Analysis” section

“Analysis” is too vague and many parts of the article rely on an analysis. The content of this section mostly describes the recent growth of ISIS. Perhaps rename this section “Growth and development” (can someone think of a better title?) and incorporate “Territorial claims” into it. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I would recommend incorporating an expanded section on the Syrian government's role in creating ISIS into that and removing the section on relations with Syria. Could also mention Assad's extensive involvement in supporting al Qaeda in Iraq to kill American troops.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 15:52, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Turkey: Both an ally and an opponent??

Turkey is listed in the infobox both as an ally and an opponent! It can't be both at the same time!Mondolkiri1 (talk) 17:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

It's been removed from the allies. Someone has also added Qatar and Saudi Arabia to the allies too. Looks like someone has an agenda, or some dices to roll. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 02:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia's government has designated ISIS as a terrorist organisation, but turns a blind eye to ISIS supporters in the kingdom. Plainly some editors don't bother to read the article (let alone Talk page discussion) to inform themselves before editing. That information about Saudi Arabia's designation is in the first para of the Lead, smh. --P123ct1 (talk) 14:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes I have removed it. Saudi Arabia and Qatar are known to provide support to fundamentalist groups but that doesn't mean they provide support to ISIS. I don't know why people are using "individuals in those countries funded ISIS" to equate that to the Saudi government. Qatar funds IF & FSA, both of which are enemies of ISIS. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 19:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

There is an interesting article here on the relationship between Saudi Arabia and ISIS by the respected and experienced Middle East correspondent Patrick Cockburn. There is an interesting analysis by him on the rise of the Islamic State and its relationship with Saudi Arabia and Syria on YouTube here as well. --P123ct1 (talk) 21:45, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

New wilayah

IS diclared a new wilayah in parts of Syrian Deir ez Zor (AL-Khair wilayah) and Iraqi Anbar. The new wilayah is named Furat Wilayah. the biggest cities are Al-Qa'im (Syrian) and Al-Qa'im (Iraqi). The reson of establishing this new wilayah is to Show the opposition to Sykes-Picot Agreement3bdulelah (talk) 17:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC) http://www.france24.com/ar/20140830-%D8%AA%D9%86%D8%B8%D9%8A%D9%85-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AF%D9%88%D9%84%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A5%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D8%AE%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%81%D8%A9-%D8%A5%D8%B9%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%86-%D9%88%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D8%A5%D8%B1%D9%87%D8%A7%D8%A8/

I've added the new wilayah, I used the above source as I couldn't find any English language ones with the same level of detail. Gazkthul (talk) 03:06, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Concern about a source

In the second paragraph under "Ideology and beliefs", one of the citations is from one Kevin Barrett ("Is ISIL really 'Sunni'? Not at all"). However, it's pretty clear that Barrett is far from neutral. Some of his other pieces at Press TV have titles like "Zionist Settlers Dig Israel's Grave" and "Child-killing sociopaths of Israel".

I was tempted to simply remove the reference, as most of the claims in the sentence appear to be supported by the other sources. However, I can't find any mention of Zaid Hamid in any of the other English-language sources; it seems to appear only in the Barrett source, of the English sources.

Could someone who can read Arabic check the two Arabic-language sources and see if they mention Zaid Hamid? The sentence in full currently reads:

However, there are some Sunni commentators, Zaid Hamid, for example, and even Salafi and jihadi muftis such as Adnan al-Aroor and Abu Basir al-Tartusi, who say that ISIS and related terrorist groups are not Sunnis, but modern-day Kharijite heretics serving an imperial anti-Islamic agenda."

Cheers! Suomichris (talk) 20:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Meh, just did a find in both Arabic sources for both Zaid (زید) and Hamid (حامد) and no dice—I'm removing the source along with Hamid's name. Suomichris (talk) 21:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree with your removal of "heretics" after "Kharijite". Of course it is redundant as you say in your edit summary, but for the general reader with no background on this subject I think it adds something for them. We have to think of the article's general readers at all times, IMO - after all, Wikipedia's articles are written for them and not for those in the know on a subject. I agree with your other change, however. --P123ct1 (talk) 09:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

You know, you're right—we probably should have a description of what a Kharijite is. However, I don't think it should be "heretic", which is an inherently biased term (a Sunni would say a Kharajite is a heretic, a Kharajite would say a Sunni is). What if we stay closer to the meaning of the Arabic and do something like: "...say that ISIS and related terrorist groups are not Sunnis, but modern-day Kharijites—Muslims who have stepped outside the mainstream of Islam—serving an imperial anti-Islamic agenda."

Would that work for you/other editors? If so, I can make the edit so no one else has to use their one revert on this. Cheers, Suomichris (talk) 16:38, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree Hadn't thought about the WP:NPOV aspect, and should have done, as I'm always banging on about it. --P123ct1 (talk) 17:54, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Updated! I'm working on restructuring/rewriting this section a bit, so might post some other suggestions here on Talk in the coming days. My main objection is that the current section says that ISIS are Sunni, then that they're Salafi, then that maybe they aren't Sunni after all. I think it could be written in a way that makes their ideology more clear to someone not familiar with the various groups. Suomichris (talk) 22:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Have just looked at the Wiki article on Salafis, where it mentions links to Wahhabism. Could you say something about Wahhabism and ISIS as well, please, as that goes in and out of the infobox under "Ideology" a lot as well. Could you also look at earlier Talk page discussions on the "Ideology and beliefs" section here . .? You will get an idea of what other editors' views are on ISIS's religion. It would be good to get a final consensus on what to put under "Ideology" in the infobox and in this section. --P123ct1 (talk) 23:37, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

PS You've set yourself a hard task, I think! --P123ct1 (talk) 23:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Suomichris, see also Brangifer's useful link to an article on Wahhabism and ISIS here. --P123ct1 (talk) 20:37, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Hah, yeah, I reckon I have my work cut out for me—thanks for the sources, though, as well as pointing me to previous discussion. Will definitely consult before I start reworking! Suomichris (talk) 16:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

A bit late to the party, but we shouldn't be using Press TV or Kevin Barrett at all. See for instance [91] - neoconservative Zionists behind 9/11!. Dougweller (talk) 16:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed—I double-checked and it doesn't look like Barrett is cited elsewhere in the article. Suomichris (talk) 23:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

New section:Legacy/Influence/External support?

ISIS has clearly sent waves across the world, either positive or negative. Is it not right to have Legacy/Influence/External support sections, under which we can describe the support that it received among youth Muslims in UK, Europe,India and in Islamic countries. Also, we can describe pamphlet distribution supporting ISIS in UK[92] and Pakistan [93]. - Vatsan34 (talk) 14:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree , and not only youth support. This and this, for example, shows how much international support they are getting through recruitment. ISIS fighters are being widely reported as representing 81 nations now, not to mention the massive increase in their numbers since June this year, from an estimated 4,000 in Iraq in June to up to 100,000 in Iraq and Syria now, according to Iraqi observers. (See Lead and footnotes in infobox.) Even ex-Iraqi Army soldiers are joining ISIS now, apparently. --P123ct1 (talk) 15:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I had been planning on creating a subsection giving more detail on their declaration of a Caliphate, and include the groups and individuals that have expressed support or pledged allegiance. At present the article really only gives info on those (albeit the vast majority) who have rejected the claim. Gazkthul (talk) 23:22, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

New section: Strategy and tactics?

There is an interesting Wikipedia article on the Management of Savagery, a kind of terrorist's or jihadist's manual (a bit like Machiavelli's "The Prince" for tyrants), which illustrates how the extreme and seemingly mindless violence of ISIS/IS is calculated and part of their long-term strategy. As one of the footnotes to it appears this article, which describes this as well. Should there be a specific section on their strategy? Obviously the goal is the widening of the caliphate, but the means to that end perhaps warrants description. This has become more than a conflict and should be treated more as war now, I think, especially as the West is slowly albeit reluctantly being drawn into it. --P123ct1 (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. "Strategy and tactics" could be a subsection to the Analysis section. I would support a "See also" link to Management of Savagery. ~Technophant (talk) 19:54, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think anyone reading that article would disagree with having a "See also" link to it. --P123ct1 (talk) 23:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Have added link to Management of Savagery in "See also" section. I do not mind being reverted if editors think this is inappropriate. --P123ct1 (talk) 08:44, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1, I think you've accidently put the page under external links rather than see also. Gazkthul (talk) 23:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I did. Sorry. Rectified. --P123ct1 (talk) 01:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

QSIS

In § Name and name changes, this sentence is flagged for "importance?"

In late August 2014, a leading Islamic authority Dar al-Ifta al-Misriyyah advised Muslims to stop calling the group "Islamic State" and instead refer to it as "Al-Qaeda Separatists in Iraq and Syria" or "QSIS", due to the militant group's un-Islamic character.

With so many names in use for this group, especially over time, we should at least provide this much help for somebody who's seen mention of this name. I'm removing the flag. Thnidu (talk) 19:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I support you in that. I think it is of importance, as indicative of the backlash that is happening now generally among many Muslims, which I am surprised wasn't more evident much earlier. --P123ct1 (talk) 23:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC

The statement represents the views of the military government in Egypt, which is less concerned about events in Iraq than the need to justify its suppression of the Muslim Brotherhood. Clodhopper Deluxe (talk) 01:27, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I do agree that this should be included, but I'm not sure it belongs in the "Name and name change" section, since these are, ostensibly, official names used by ISIS. Suomichris (talk) 23:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Since there is a great deal of news and discussion about this entity under many names both official and otherwise (quoting from the article)—

• The name is abbreviated as ISIS or alternately ISIL.
• ISIS was also known as al-Dawlah ("the State"), or al-Dawlat al-Islāmīyah ("the Islamic State").
• ̌ISIS's detractors, particularly in Syria, refer to the group as "Da'ish" or "Daesh", (داعش), a term that is based on an acronym formed from the letters of the name in Arabic, al-Dawla al-Islamiya fi Iraq wa ash-Sham.
• On 14 May 2014, the United States Department of State announced its decision to use "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" (ISIL) as the group's primary name.[96] The debate over which acronym should be used to designate the group, ISIL or ISIS, has been discussed by several commentators.

—we should not leave it up to the reader to figure out whether or not the group officially uses or accepts the name, or ever did so, in order to find the name. At present we list them chronologically in one section, each with its provenance and status. We should keep it this way. I have added an alphabetical list of names as a subsection, with links to their first mentions in the section.

--Thnidu (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

That alphabetical list was a very good idea. --P123ct1 (talk) 11:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Move request - 6 September 2014

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State – The result of the last move request on 8 August was inconclusive. However, the page "Islamic state" has now been moved to Islamic state (government) making way for this page to be moved to its WP:COMMONNAME. Keep in mind that WP does make a distinction between pages with capitalized letters. ~Technophant (talk) 02:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. So far as I can tell from reading the news, this group is most frequently referred to as "ISIS", not "Islamic State" (or "IS"). "Islamic State" is too generic a term for this specific movement, geographically limited from many other areas that have referred to themselves as an Islamic State in the past. To move it at this point smacks of fairly extreme WP:RECENTISM. bd2412 T 03:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Also, I have reverted the undiscussed move of Islamic state, as WP:DIFFCAPS may apply, and there has been no determination that the form of government is not the primary topic of the lowercase term. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose word for word as bd2412, and there have been other entities with the title (the) "Islamic State" in world history. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per IIO and BD2412. "Islamic State" should either redirect to islamic state or caliphate or the first unified caliphate period. It should not be the unqualified name of this topic. If this topic is renamed, it needs to carry disambiguation. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:08, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose any unilateral moves, and I thank bd2412 T for correcting that. As for the name, there is still no consensus, and there is no rush to rush without consensus, is there?... Good to see you In ictu oculi... Marhaba... Ahlan wa sahlan... :) Worldedixor (talk) 06:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I requested the move from Islamic state → Islamic state (government) and changed the move request to a controversial type at Talk:Islamic state. There also an edit war regarding the redirect of Islamic State. It currently goes to Islamic state (disambiguation), however I and other think it should redirect here. This has become a Redirect for Discussion (RfD) here.~Technophant (talk) 17:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment My impression is that at the moment Islamic State and ISIS are being used equally and often in the same source, with ISIL slightly less often but in the same way as ISIS. I don't think the usual searches will really give us much help with WP:COMMONNAME because it is all so fluid/recent. My suggestion would be to have one of the three as the first name with the other two as a kind of disambiguator eg Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) or maybe ISIS/ISIL (Islamic State). I think the current state of confusion warrants a slightly different approach than usual. DeCausa (talk) 09:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Islamic state leads to a disambiguation page from where a reader can choose which page he wants to go to exactly, so I suggest we keep this article's title as it is and not move it.-Terror4us (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Leave it as it is until the media decide which name to settle on. All three names are still being used, with "Islamic State" often being used with "ISIS" or "ISIL" in the same article/broadcast. I have the impression "ISIL" is now being used more than it was. It is too soon to make a decision. --P123ct1 (talk) 16:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Use the stable and first known name ISIS or ISIL until things settle down. After all ISIL/ISIS/IS may not be around next year, and it may not be around under the same name. The proposed name is a meaningful phrase in itself ('an Islamic state') which has been long used in other settings. All its prior use should be considered and given due weight. Imc (talk) 16:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose ISIL is their unofficial name, but they change their name a lot. Their attempt is to gain legitimacy. If an organization changes its name to Islam, would we accept that just because they feel like that is their true name? IS should redirect to ISIL. If an organization changes its name to Wall Street, does that mean we accept that? At some point you have to draw the line and accept that the names can get confusing. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 18:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Everyone here (except Technophant) has opposed the re-directing of the "Islamic State" to this article, but someone has gone and re-directed it to this article, so someone please re-direct it to the disambiguation page again. Thanks!-Terror4us (talk) 19:58, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I have opened a discussion on this point at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 September 7#Islamic State. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:34, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment – Labelling of this group/state/organization (whatever) is a great muddle right now. There is no reason to complicate this further. Per WP:TITLECHANGES, there should be no changes to titles unless it is absolutely necessary and worthwhile. This is not worthwhile, nor is it necessary. Leave the title alone until there is clear primacy for one of these names. RGloucester — ☎ 20:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support - Many sources are now using Islamic State to refer to them, which is after all their official name. Gazkthul (talk) 23:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - On Meet the Press this evening Obama referred to them as ISIL and Chuck Todd referred to them as ISIS.MeropeRiddle (talk) 23:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - there is a lot of recentism going on with these RMs. Can we just concentrate on content for a bit? The name will settle out over the rest of the year, I expect. I would like to see a three-month move proposal ban so people can just get with adding content as things proceed, rather than wasting energy on RMs. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I quite agree, though I didn't know it was called recentism!. --P123ct1 (talk) 01:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - It matters less what they call themselves than what English-language news sources and governments refer to them as. On that score, I nearly always here "ISIL" or "ISIS", and almost never "IS". Thus, the current title is probably the best WP:COMMONNAME available for this group, whereas the proposed name is decidedly not. --IJBall (talk) 02:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support The argument that a change to Islamic State is a matter of WP:RECENTISM is, in the content of a dynamic and tertiary source, rather melodramatic. Clinging to ISIL or ISIS under the aegis of WP:COMMONNAME fails to account for the substantial amount of politicking involved in the dissemination of the preferred Western political lexicon in regards to contemporary Islamism, something casually revealed in appeals to the political usage of the American President Barack Obama and the political pundit Chuck Todd on a recent episode of a political talk show. The fact remains that this is still an encyclopedia and, as such, we do not endeavor to regurgitate trending nomenclature but to reflect realities as defined by reliable sources. Many reliable sources refer to both ISIS and ISIL but, since the official name change after the reorganization of the subject of the article into a self-proclaimed Caliphate, many have shifted to IS. In light of this, and the acknowledgement that the group itself has identified as such, it is prudent and objective to move then article to Islamic State or even Islamic State (Islamist group). There are no organizations anywhere in the world who identify as ISIS or ISIL. GraniteSand (talk) 04:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

But WP:COMMONNAME is what governs this question. There's no policy ground that allows it to be ignored because of "politicking" or what the group calls itself. DeCausa (talk) 09:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, WP:RECENTISM is not just about the fact that this group has only recently adopted a particular name; it is about all other uses of the name historically, and whether this one use outweighs those. Compare Avatar, which some editors thought should refer to the film when it was at the height of its popularity, but which continues to refer to the ancient cultural concept. bd2412 T 13:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Strong Oppose, We use Democratic Republic of the Congo, Republic of Ireland, Republic of Macedonia, Federated States of Micronesia and Kingdom of the Netherlands. Arabic Wikipedia uses ar:الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام which translates as existing title. There is no reason to change. Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: CNN just published an article on this very topic, Ray Sanchez, "ISIS, ISIL or the Islamic State?", CNN (September 9, 2014). bd2412 T 01:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Establishing standardized naming in wikilinks

• Commment There's clearly no census to rename however there's another related problem - how to should this article be referred to from other articles? Should it be Islamic State of Iraq and Levant (ISIL/ISIS) or some other variant? From what I understand we can establish by consensus (like on al-Qaeda) how this group should be wlinked on this talk page as an authoritative guide for other editors.~Technophant (talk) 23:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Regional Map

I think a simple map of the region showing the various countries and their borders (Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iran) with the main cities that are mentioned in this conflict would be of great help to readers. The Lead is crowded already, but I think a small infobox (that could be expanded) showing this would be invaluable. In any discussion of this conflict in the media, this is always done. Why not in Wikipedia? I don't think a wikilink for each city or province is enough; something visual is instantly informative. The same map could be usefully placed at the head of the new timeline article as well. The current maps showing the territorial gains in Syria and Iraq are very difficult to interpret without the borders being shown. --P123ct1 (talk) 07:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Something like this is worth many words. --P123ct1 (talk) 18:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

'House of blood'

Zeid Ra'ad al Hussein of Jordan, newly appointed UN high commissioner for human rights, on Sept. 8 urged world leaders to take action against 'IS' , which he said aims to create "a harsh, mean-spirited, house of blood." Sca (talk) 13:22, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done Added to "Human rights abuses" section. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposing updated language for "Ideology and belief" section

Hey folks, as I mentioned above, I've drafted what I think is an improved "Ideology and beliefs" section, which both describes terms, and attempts to present things in a more coherent order than the current section. However, since there's some controversy related to these details, I've dropped my draft into my userspace so folks and review it and provide feedback. Here's the draft.

I know there's been some discussion of this section here before, and believe this still fits within the consensus acheived in those discussions, but please let me know if I've missed anything. I very much consider this a draft, and not a final version, so happy to discuss possible alternatives.

Very curious on people's thoughts here. Suomichris (talk) 23:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

A couple thoughts. The sentence There is disagreement over whether or not ISIS ideology is Sunni or not gives WP:UNDUE weight to this, as essentially all Governments, media outlets, academics etc. accept them as coming out of the Sunni tradition. Those who reject it are typically other Sunnis who condemn the group and (understandably) don't want it to be associated with their beliefs.

Yeah, I'm honestly not sure how to handle this—ideally, we'd find a piece which discusses the debate, and point to that, but I wasn't able to find one. In some ways, I feel like there's no WP:NPOV way to do this. Two parties say two different things, and their motivations in both cases could be seen as biased. Definitely open to suggestions from other editors on how to handle this. Suomichris (talk) 01:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Jihadist Salafists like ISIS believe that only a legitimate authority can undertake the leadership of jihad is incorrect, Salafists believe this, Salafist Jihadists believe in the notion of Jihad being an individual duty regardless of what Governments say, this is the main thing that distinguishes them from mainstream Salafists. Gazkthul (talk) 00:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, a see—removed "jihadist", so this should now be accurate. Suomichris (talk) 01:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Training of ISIS

I have removed the sentence The IBT reported: "As per several corroborated reports, hundreds of ISIS militia were indeed trained by US instructors for covert operations to destabilize Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's government, though the training was strictly for Syria." The source says reports have now surfaced that way back in 2012, the US Army had trained members of the same terrorist group in Jordan However the rest of the article refers only to training given to members of the FSA, not Islamic State. It's possible that some of these men would later defect to IS, but this is not stated in the article, and the sentence is WP:Fringe as written. Gazkthul (talk) 00:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

"Daash", "'Da`ish" or "Daesh", coverage in Arabic media and reflected content in the article

I just did a search on ("داعش") OR (" الدولة الإسلامية‎"). That's "Daash" / "Da'ish" / "Daesh" OR "Islamic State". "Daash" / "Da'ish" / "Daesh" got a lot of coverage.

I am curious about the following extreme results:

• "Daash" / "Da'ish" / "Daesh" as "داعش" gets "About 45,700,000 results"

(I am yet to find other meanings for "Daash" / "Da'ish" / "Daesh": https://translate.google.com/#ar/en/%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%B9%D8%B4 )

• "Islamic State" as "الدولة الإسلامية‎" gets "About 9,830,000 results".

First I think we should decide on a prevalent use of one English representation of "داعش" and I propose "Daash"

• "Islamic State" AND Daash gets "About 1,210,000 results"
• "Islamic State" AND Da'ish gets "About 62,800 results"
• "Islamic State" AND Daesh gets "About 219,000 results"

Second, I propose that "Daash", "Da'ish" or "Daesh" should be given a far higher level of representation in the article.

Dāʿish is currently mentioned twice; Daash does not appear; Da'ish is mentioned once in the article and once in references; Daesh is mentioned once in the article and once in notes.

In this connection I also propose that the lead be changed perhaps as follows:

At the moment the lead reads: The Islamic State (IS); (Arabic: الدولة الإسلامية ad-Dawlah l-ʾIslāmiyyah), formerly the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL /ˈaɪsəl/; Arabic acronym: داعش Dāʿish)...

I propose: The Islamic State (IS); (Arabic: الدولة الإسلامية ad-Dawlah l-ʾIslāmiyyah), previously self-described as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL); (Arabic: الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام - Arabic acronym: داعش Dāʿish, DaashDa`ish)...

I do not think that "formerly" is sufficient. There is significant use of "Daash", "Da'ish" or "Daesh" in Arabic sources while the United States and others make direct reference to the "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant".

Gregkaye ✍♪ 00:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I really don't see why Daash needs a far higher level of representation in the article. Outlining the term in the lead and repeating it with spelling variations in the 'Name and Name changes' subsection should be more than sufficient. Gazkthul (talk) 00:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I might have missed some previous discussion, but shouldn't we be deciding this based on the MOS's guidelines about Arabic transliteration? "داعش" should appear as "Da`ish" throughout, no? Suomichris (talk) 01:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Gazkthul:, I said "should be". Reason, its a term in prodigious use and this "should be" fairly reported. @Suomichris: in reflection of the high level of use in arabic, "Daash", "Da'ish" or "Daesh" is widely reported in western media. In this regard I had assumed that WP:Use commonly recognisable names applies. Gregkaye ✍♪ 02:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

My 2 cents. The داعش acronym is correctly pronounced Da3esh, where 3 is the internet representation of the guttural sound that Arab speakers can pronounce like they do in the word 3ayn - eye-, and is correctly transliterated as Dāʿesh. Daash is incorrect but it may be used by uninformed persons. I have never heard anyone call them Daash. An analogy may be something like a Latin speaker trying to say "my son" and it comes out "mi zhon". Worldedixor (talk) 02:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Whatever you all decide on this time, it will be changed again by a new editor down the line, and the discussion will start again and perhaps another variant will be chosen, and so on. Have lost count of the variants on this acronym that have appeared in this article in just a few months. The beliefs in the infobox are ever-changing as well, and the titles of the infoboxes. Some Wikipedia articles are like an amoeba, and this is one of them. So much for solid information from Wikipedia. --P123ct1 (talk) 07:15, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, I don't think it should stop us that other editors will change it later—there's a clear MOS guideline here, and if we can also get consensus here on the Talk page, anything that doesn't match those two things should be reverted. Worldedixor and I seem to be largely in agreement that this should be represented as "Da`ish" (note that the transliteration guidelines have the kasra as a /i/, regardless of actual pronunciation, and not /e/). Also, Gregkaye, the guideline you point to about recognizable names is specifically for article titles. Suomichris (talk) 14:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

TY Suomichris It is a good point about article titles and I have withdrawn my proposal for Daash above. The thing that was on my mind is that the the topic of Da`ish/Daash might develop to a point where it warrants an article in its own right but this may be thinking too far ahead. Would people be in agreement on the consistent use of Da`ish then?

I just did a search on "Islamic State" AND Dā'ish which merely got "About 3,480 results".

with similar results for "Islamic State" AND Da3esh getting "About 3,180 results".

The search on Da`ish got "About 62,800 results" and, if people are happy that this fits the MOS criteria, is this something could be used consistently.

On the same basis how does this amended the proposed opener as: The Islamic State (IS); (Arabic: الدولة الإسلامية ad-Dawlah l-ʾIslāmiyyah), previously self-described as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL); (Arabic: الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام - Arabic acronym: داعش  Da`ish)...

Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the general Wikipedia reader will be far less bothered by how it is spelled and pronounced than why it is used pejoratively, what its pejorative meaning is and why it is disliked so much by ISIS! This remains a mystery despite Google searches. --P123ct1 (talk) 19:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Dā'esh as a word has no meaning in the Arabic language. Some uninformed journalists just parrot that it has a pejorative meaning.Worldedixor (talk) 20:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

RS sources back it up in "Name & name changes". Examine them. That's my last word on it. --P123ct1 (talk) 21:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

1 more cent from moi... I am aware of MOS's guidelines and its common errors. However, Dāʿesh (not Dā'esh) can only be pronounced Daa3esh... Dāʿish may be pronounced Daa3eesh by most readers, which is wrong! Worldedixor (talk) 21:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Propose the consistent use of Da`ish in article

Can we use a consistent spelling? Da`ish? Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

That would be my vote, yes, as it conforms to the MOS. Suomichris (talk) 18:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Israel

An editor has added Israel to the list of countries designating ISIS as a terrorist organization. That is the first time I have seen "unlawful" mean "terrorist". (See appended citation.) --P123ct1 (talk) 16:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

For purposes of discussion, where is this list? --Thnidu (talk) 20:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The diff in question is here.~Technophant (talk) 03:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The countries are listed in the Lead and in the designation box in section 13,Thnidu - it is not a "list" as such. The governments of those countries have each made a formal designation of ISIS as a terrorist organization (as you will see from the footnotes in the designation box), but Israel has only designated them as an "unlawful" organisation. There were discussions about all this which you will find much earlier on in the Talk page here and here.. Those countries do keep a list of the groups they have formally designated as terrorist organisations (click on the US citation, which is a good example - ISIS is about half-way down, as "Al-Qaeda in Iraq, I believe, one of its former names), but the United Nations does not keep such a list, surprisingly. Israel would be best added after the United Nations and Amnesty International in the first para of the Lead, saying that it has designated them as an unlawful organization. Hope this helps. --P123ct1 (talk) 21:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 Thanks. --Thnidu (talk) 22:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 Done.--Thnidu (talk)¿

To Thnidu: Do you understand the legal definition of an unauthorized organization in Israeli law? Before rushing to revert another editor's contribution in a few hours and without consensus, remember WP:ROWN. It may be a good habit to take a couple of seconds to verify what you are reverting, keeping WP:ROWN in mind. I can read more than English, and in a couple of seconds, I was able to verify that even the Israeli mfa and mod official sites designate the Islamic State as terrorists [94] [95]. Although I can revert your revert, I will give you the courtesy to do a search yourself and revert your own revert, and hopefully learn a good lesson in the process. Hope this helps. Have a good day, mate. Worldedixor (talk) 00:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I took a few more seconds to help you find an Arabic reliable source [96] and, since Google Translate is completely unreliable, I will help you with the translation of "صادقت وزارة الدفاع الإسرائيلية على اعتبار (داعش) حركة إرهابية" which basically translates to "The Israeli Ministry of Defense approves the designation of Daa3esh as a terrorist movement". Hope this helps. Worldedixor (talk) 00:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

looks as if we have been misled yet again by a bad translation from the Arabic. This time the original source for this edit was not in Arabic but already translated into English, wrongly! Thanks, Worldedixor.Restored. My mistake, Hebrew, not Arabic. --P123ct1 (talk) 04:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

There was no bad translation and the original announcement was made in Modern Hebrew not in Arabic. The reliable source provided by the informed editor, Hariboneagle927 (talk), who added Israel in the first place, was correctly translated into English when it said "On Sept. 3, Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon signed an order declaring Islamic State to be an “unauthorized organization". Worldedixor (talk) 04:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

According to this document from the Israeli Ministry of Justic. "Unlawful organizations/associations" is a term to designate terrorist organizations and financiers of other "unlawful organizations". According to this however, IS was already declared a "terrorist organization".--Hariboneagle927 (talk) 07:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, Hariboneagle927. You are an informed editor, and I enjoyed the accuracy of your edit and your welcome insight... Salamat. Worldedixor (talk) 07:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting that out, Hariboneagle927. Before this it was impossible for non-Arabic and non-Hebrew readers to tell those words in your citation meant formal designation as a terrorist designation. Your citation there should be added to your first for complete clarity on this point. --P123ct1 (talk) 08:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@Worldedixor and Hariboneagle927:

1. Thank you for providing a reference that makes it clear, in English, that the Government of Israel considers ISIS a terrorist organization, as Hariboneagle927's original reference (Ya'alon Designates Islamic State as Unlawful Organization) did not. I have replaced it with one you provided that does (Israel Moves to Declare Support for ISIS Illegal as Photo of Groups Flag Appear).
2. But I do not understand why, having found an appropriate reference, you decided it was my responsibility to edit it in. Do you understand that each editor is responsible for the verifiability of their own posts, rather than leaving it to the reader to research (including in other languages) the subtleties of foreign legal codes and translated terminology? P123ct1 understands this. In adding Israel to the table, Hariboneagle927 may have assumed that the equation between "unlawful" and "terrorist" would be obvious and would constitute sufficient citation. It is not and does not. --Thnidu (talk) 19:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Thnidu and Hariboneagle927, that citation now put in (which actually Hariboneagle927 provided!) is only second-hand evidence that Israel has designated ISIS a terrorist organization. I am now not sure this is enough. I think some first-hand evidence from the Israeli government might have to be found to make the edit stick. Perhaps Hariboneagle927 can help out with this. --P123ct1 (talk) 20:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome but I completely disagree with you. Unless an uninformed editor understands that unlawful organizations in Israel clearly include terrorists organizations, they should not just revert (Read WP:ROWN) especially when an editor doesn't understand non-English reliable sources which are expressly permitted per policy for time tested reasons especially in articles like this one where English RS, if any, are very hard to come by while non-English RS, like the Israeli mod and mfa, are easier. Other informed editors can assess new contributions better than them. I don't have time for misunderstandings. I ended up reverting you myself with my 1RR after giving you a "courtesy" time to revert yourself but you mistook this courtesy for something else, and that's your problem. The "oh, my mistake", "oops, I was wrong", "I am sawwy" and the uninformed reverts and what have you are getting old. This has already been discussed before so no need to rehash. The informed editors are the ones who end up cleaning up the mess and we get many (secret) Thank yous for our edits or P123ct1 says thank you and then removes it (I am not making this up... This is verifiable... see the history of this thread. I caught it by mistake).... which is not the norm in a civilized society but that's her style. In any case, this has all been fixed now and Israel is now correctly added as a country that has designated the IS as a terrorist organization. No need to dwell more on this... Worldedixor (talk) 20:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I will add the following: "Clearly, every editor is incompetent in some subjects, so it is important to know or discover your limitations. Respectfully pointing out to another editor that they do not have sufficient knowledge about the subject of an article or their command of the language of the subject is insufficient to challenge your edits should not be taken as an insult."Worldedixor (talk) 20:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

My stating verifiable facts is not a violation of policy. Worldedixor (talk) 21:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Crucial documents that are in untranslated Arabic or Hebrew are of not much use in the en.Wikipedia. --P123ct1 (talk) 22:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@Worldedixor:, how about this - please get consensus before adding potentially controversial material. If you get reverted don't revert back (potential edit warring), follow WP:BRD and take it to the talk page, BE CIVIL, and stop giving overly dramatic arguments as to why you are right and other editors are wrong.~Technophant (talk) 23:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

How about this? Get your facts straight before you use something as a pretext to instigate me. Do you even know who added this content? Do you know who was reverted? Worldedixor (talk) 23:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

No. The original diff wasn't included when this section was started. I took the liberty of adding it above. What I do see is misuse of the Talk page. Please take a look at WP:TALK. Worldedixor used yellow above to address me. Is that like flashing a yellow card? Too much in my opinion. Participating in this project is a privilege, not a right, and this privilege can be removed by community discussion.~Technophant (talk) 01:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, misuse by you!... You were NOT involved in this matter, and I did not invite you... Just when I have said all I needed to say with verifiable facts, and moved on, you come back and throw smoke screens to cover your initial attack on me WP:PA when you did not even know who added this content, or cared enough to find out before you attack me!... You continue to use anything as a pretext to hound me even though I have repeatedly ignored all your incivility, personal attacks, removed all your comments from my talk page, and moved on away from you. My stating verifiable facts is not a violation of policy. Why are you attacking me for my highlight? Is using "highlight" not permitted per policy? If so, what rule prohibits it? I will then gladly remove it? If no, it stays and you lose your pretext to attack me. Also, isn't your "taking the liberty" to change a Talk page comment after other comments have been made a policy violation? Answer me and STOP instigating me... Finally, don't get involved in something that I have not initiated against you... MOVE ON as you were told by one or more admins... and do NOT "gang up" on me at every opportunity you can...Worldedixor (talk) 01:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Israel (2)

The discussion on this was side-tracked by the long digression above; it can be resumed here. --P123ct1 (talk) 17:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The foreign minister of Israel referred to ISIS as a terrorist group. See here. Is that good enough? JRSpriggs (talk) 05:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

No, unfortunately. It is still only second-hand evidence. He does not state that there is a formal desgination of ISIS as a terrorist group, he only speaks of it as a terrorist organization. The United Nations similarly only speaks of ISIS as a terrorist group. It has never made a formal designation, which is why it is not included in the list in the Lead of the countries which have done this. --P123ct1 (talk) 17:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Until this matter can be resolved satisfactorily, I have removed Israel from the infobox in section 13. None of the citations suggested so far are solid enough, except possibly the Arabic and Hebrew sources suggested in the discussion earlier, but they cannot be used in any case as they have no accompanying English translation. --P123ct1 (talk) 18:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

US State Department - Anti ISIS Twitter, Videos etc.

It seems that the US Department of State has set up a Twitter account [97] and YouTube channel [98] with which they are apparently trying to dissuade foreign ISIS recruits. I believe that the reception so far has been mixed. [99], [100], [101], [102].

What do you guys think about adding this info in this article?Myopia123 (talk) 17:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that an appropriately sourced blurb could be added. Worldedixor (talk) 22:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theories

Why "Conspiracy theorists in the Middle East have advanced false rumors that the US is secretly behind the existence and emboldening of ISIS"? What indisputable reference is there to the rumors being false? I'm pretty sure it's standard for an article such as this to remain impartial... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.250.79 (talk) 18:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I am not interested, don't have the time, nor am I competent enough in speculative, often fabricated, conspiracy theories, but you may want to join this discussion [103]. Hope this helps. Worldedixor (talk) 22:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@92.40.250.79: When this infomation came out we had an extensive discussion on it. You can view this discussion at Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant/Archive_4#Alleged_Snowden_leaks.~Technophant (talk) 23:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

al-Shams

An uniformed editor Ericl (talk) seems to think erroneously that al-Shams in Arabic means the Levant [104] which is wrong. His misinformation made this page [105] look odd in an encyclopedia. I am incompetent in correcting the name, and I recognize my limitations. So, before I ask for admin help, does anyone know how to change al-Shams which is wrong to al-Sham which is correct? Worldedixor (talk) 04:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

a simple spelling mistake. However, I was right and informed. al-Sham is indeed a an antique term for the Levant, which is is also an antique term in itself. ISIS is is an acronym for Islamic State in Iraq and al Sham, after all....Ericl (talk) 12:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Excellent!... Then please fix your spelling mistake on this page [106] and replace al-Shams which is wrong with al-Sham which is correct. Thanks. Worldedixor (talk) 18:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Details based on new AP and CNN refs

In Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Name and name changes, after this sentence

On 14 May 2014, the United States Department of State announced its decision to use "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" (ISIL) as the group's primary name.

Add the following,

A month later, The Associated Press said it "believed ['ISIL'] is the most accurate translation of the group's name and reflects its aspirations to rule over a broad swath of the Middle East"; CNN has noted that "part of the confusion stems from the fact that al-Sham has many meanings in Arabic."

Cite these two references as sources:

• Kent, Tom (June 17, 2014). "Is it ISIL or ISIS in Iraq?". Associated Press. Retrieved 2014-09-11.
• Sanchez, Ray (September 9, 2014). "ISIS, ISIL or the Islamic State?". CNN. Retrieved 2014-09-11.

—72.244.200.230 (talk) 15:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Page name

I have no opinion on whether the name of the page should be Islamic State, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or anything else but I do find it odd that the page name does not match the initial use in the lead. --Khajidha (talk) 15:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I could not agree more. This has largely arisen because of long discussions on the Talk page about what the title of the article should now be which never result in a decision. Also inconsistent is the use of both IS and ISIS to describe the group in the Lead (and throughout the article). I have raised this and the inconsistency between the article's name and the infobox titles more than once, but it has always been ignored. This sort of thing injures Wikipedia's reputation as an encyclopaedia, in my opinion. --P123ct1 (talk) 16:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

official website ?

Due to censorship , it is difficult to find official website and other official digital material( made by ISIS ). Some official sources should be listed ( with date , when they was valid ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4118:16:1:0:0:0:16 (talk) 16:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Use of bold text on talk pages

WP:SHOUT says "Avoid excessive emphasis: CAPITAL LETTERS are considered shouting and are virtually never appropriate. Bolding may be used to highlight key words or phrases (most usually to highlight "oppose" or "support" summaries of an editor's view), but should be used judiciously, as it may appear the equivalent of the writer raising his voice." Now I do see a bit of using it to highlight key words that may be considered appropriate, I think it's being overdone - I don't recall seeing it this much on other talk pages. And it actually makes the talk page harder to read, IMHO of course. Dougweller (talk) 16:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

ISIS Is Attacking Women, And Nobody Is Talking About It - HuffPost headline

See [107]. Dougweller (talk) 16:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)