Jump to content

Talk:Islamic State: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 1,442: Line 1,442:
[[User:Gregkaye|Gregkaye]] [[User talk:Gregkaye|<span style="color:Black"><big>✍</big>♪</span>]] 17:18, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
[[User:Gregkaye|Gregkaye]] [[User talk:Gregkaye|<span style="color:Black"><big>✍</big>♪</span>]] 17:18, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
:WD, [[User:Gregkaye|Gregkaye]]. Those are exactly the kind of ''intra''-RS results that I thought would be more helpful than random surveys by editors, to guage name usage. Who did this survey? You say "Copy of a letter", but I see no letter. The results are quite revealing, aren't they? Is it possible to do this for some American RSs? --[[User:P123ct1|P123ct1]] ([[User talk:P123ct1|talk]]) 18:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
:WD, [[User:Gregkaye|Gregkaye]]. Those are exactly the kind of ''intra''-RS results that I thought would be more helpful than random surveys by editors, to guage name usage. Who did this survey? You say "Copy of a letter", but I see no letter. The results are quite revealing, aren't they? Is it possible to do this for some American RSs? --[[User:P123ct1|P123ct1]] ([[User talk:P123ct1|talk]]) 18:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

== Disruptive edits ==

[[User:Atifabbasi8]] has first [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant&diff=628217768&oldid=628215652 brought a money unit from an unreliable source] and without sources [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant&diff=628217768&oldid=628215652 invented two 'official languages'] and later [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant&diff=628220116&oldid=628219521 when I removed the so-called official languages] has come back [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant&diff=next&oldid=628220116 to revert that and passing by to remove a citation needed tag without any explanation]. Therefore they have made use of not reliable sources, addition without sources, removal of a tag without explanation and a violation of the 1RR rule. Which admin is going to warn them and who is going to revert their disruptive edits? Thanks. --[[User:Why should I have a User Name?|Why should I have a User Name?]] ([[User talk:Why should I have a User Name?|talk]]) 18:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:42, 4 October 2014

Template:Pbneutral

Template:Syrian Civil War sanctions

Template:Findnotice

New name

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No clear consensus on a new article title has emerged during this conversion and two RMs have been proposed since this discussion was started. Some of the suggestions indicate that at lease some of those taking part in this discussion have not read the relevant Article Title policy as they are proposing and supporting names not supported by the Article Title policy -- PBS (talk) 19:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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, [1].) --P123ct1 (talk) 19:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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

Do we include a discussion of the American group currently being organized with female warriors to travel through Syria and Iraq and kill as many ISIL members as possible. The reason for the women warriors is to insure that the executed ISIL members will not receive any of the benefits of martyrdom such as 72 virgins, etc.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drbigd (talk • contribs) 04:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unofficial vote:

Supporters of "The Islamic State"

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Support The Islamic State is a revolutionary front. Like The Red Guard. However The Weather Underground is titled Weather Underground in wikipedia.. --User:Mr. Booger

Supporters of "Islamic State" (Capital)

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.[2]. 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)[reply]
I assumed "Islamic State" was the COMMONNAME? -- Director (talk) 14:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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[3] "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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"The" is used in accordance with WP:THE. Those titles warrant "The", this one does not.. -- Director (talk) 00:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)." [4] [5] -- Brangifer (talk) 23:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 [6]):
I googled the following to see what names they have been using in the past seven days or so —
The Times[7], The Telegraph[8], The Guardian[9], The Independent[10], The Economist[11], The Spectator, Financial Times[12], The New York Times, The Washington Post[13], The Wall Street Journal[14], TIME, Al-Ahram (Egypt), Middle East Eye, BBC News[15], 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Supporters of "Islamic State insurgency"

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)[reply]

Others

Islamic State (IS)
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)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


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.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.221.67.50 (talk • contribs) 06:58, 24 August 2014

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. [16]

Sca (talk) 01:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Are there any Islamic authorities saying anything about Islamic State/..'s claim to being a Jihadist organization? At the moment the group is described as Sunni, Jihadist. Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You raise a valid point, but the source is not accusing the members of IS of being apostates. Apostasy (kufrul) has a specific definition meaning in Islam which IS combatants as a whole clearly do not meet. Rather, the source, along with what appears to be a broad scholarly consensus, claims that the organization can't be considered Islamic. By analogy, the USA is not an Islamic State either, but that doesn't mean American Muslims are apostates or blasphemers.136.159.160.242 (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
 Done --P123ct1 (talk) 08:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @P123ct1 and Jason from nyc: The section "Ideology and beliefs" should discuss ideology and beliefs only, not the discussion on ISIS's origination! So, the following should go to another section:

Other critics of ISIS's brand of Sunni Islam include Salafists who previously publicly supported jihadist groups such as al-Qaeda, for example the Saudi government official Saleh Al-Fawzan, known for extremist views, who claims that ISIS is a creation of "Zionists, Crusaders and Safavids", and the Jordanian-Palestinian writer Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi who was released from prison in Jordan in June 2014.[219]

It has nothing to do with ideology and beliefs. We may have a section entitled "Criticisms"! Mhhossein (talk) 11:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The statement that the "map includes uninhabited areas" is facile; nearly any map of anywhere in the world above the city level includes uninhabited areas of some kind, depending on the reader's interpretation of "uninhabited". I had no idea what the note meant to communicate until I read this talk page discussion. I recommend either re-wording the note or removing it outright. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 07:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that it's ambiguous and unhelpful. The easiest fix might be to include the locations of cities so the sparseness of al-Anbar province will be more obvious. I'd also suggest replacing "uninhabited" with "uninhabitable". 136.159.160.242 (talk) 16:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to bring this discussion to your attention which deals with the same question. Kind regards. --RJFF (talk) 17:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline and History sections

WORK IN PROGRESS
Result was to split Timeline~Technophant (talk) 23:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 [17]. Worldedixor (talk) 23:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. [18] Worldedixor (talk) 16:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 [19]. Worldedixor (talk) 18:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Does anyone NOT want to split the 2014 Timeline into a separate article?Ericl (talk) 14:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article is way too long (<260kB). This is a great place for a WP:SPLIT. ~Technophant (talk) 11:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Why does the first map under "Timeline" depict Jordan as being under Israeli occupation? What does Israel even have to do with this article? This seems like something that's been added by someone with an ulterior agenda. 123.243.215.92 (talk) 17:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move request - 6 September 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 There is a rought consensus against the move, both numerically and with the weight of arguments. The most relevant arguments seem to be WP:RECENTISM and WP:COMMONNAME. (non-admin closure) Kingsindian ♝♚ 14:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I quite agree, though I didn't know it was called recentism!. --P123ct1 (talk) 01:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Oppose Not their common name, by which they are referred to in English. (Or in Arabic, as most call them DIIS, the equivalent of ISIL/S.) "Islamic State" isn't even that much of an official name, given the level of organisation they have. We should keep on referring to them primarily by ISIL in the article. Maybe this can be brought up again a little later though. —innotata 05:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. There are a lot of non-wikipedia-guideline-based opposes above. But, lacking grounding in wikipedia guidelines and policies, and as this is not a !vote, they should not be weighed as those !votes grounded in policy are. The entity was formerly of course named by the name that the article currently bears. But that has now been changed. Whenever a corporation changes its name, in accord with our policies we make the change in the wp article title. The same should be done here. This would be a no-brainer I expect if looked at with a non-POV attitude. Epeefleche (talk) 18:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Islamic State is both the official name and the name most mainstream media uses.Chessrat (talk) 17:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Epeefleche and Chessrat I agree that Islamic State is overwhelmingly supported by WP:COMMONNAME but still argue, along with many Imans and regular Muslims, that there are relevant arguments against the use of the name:

Here are some references also used in other places on this talk page:

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/multimedia/archive/01091/Fatwa_on_ISIS_1091394a.pdf

http://www.aobm.org/fatwa-on-the-so-called-islamic-state-formerly-islamic-state-in-iraq-syria/

http://www.mcb.org.uk/leading-islamic-centres-condemn-so-called-islamic-state/ http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/13/term-islamic-state-slur-faith-david-cameron

  1. notinmyname - This is a recent campaign that seems to have rapidly gained significant prominence.

"notinmyname" gets "About 888,000 results" (This search up to 29/08/14 got "About 105,000 results")

http://www.activechangefoundation.org/portfolio-item/notinmyname/

"Non-Islamic Non-State" This is from a reported comment by Ban Ki-moon: http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/09/economist-explains-19

Yes, arguments presented are not backed by Wikipedia guidelines but that does not necessarily mean that they are the wrong arguments. Gregkaye ✍♪ 18:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I got as far as reading the first link you supply. That link itself refers to the group as Islamic State. No doubt, so readers will know what it is referring to. It doesn't like that that is the name the group calls itself by -- but it reflects it, so that we will know what the link is talking about. (And, of course, "Islamic" is in the alternate name as well). This is about communication to readers as to what we are talking about. Let's not turn it into POV-pushing, as to what name we would have preferred the group or the RSs would have chosen to refer to the group. Epeefleche (talk) 19:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Epeefleche you seem to have disregarded the view of Muslim communities. How about the broader Arabic view. Note: ar:الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام has a lead that machine translates to: "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant , known for short as Daash , which calls itself now an Islamic state only ..." Please don't disregard the POV of the people that this issue actually affects. The context is of a Western media has, I think wrongly, pandered to a nonsensical name. Islamic State of what? This groups leadership have opted for slippery ambiguity in name choice and many editors here fairly reject its use. Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. We aren't a news aggregator, so the terminology the news people use is of secondary importance: wait until the secondary sources, such as academic journals and books, start using "Islamic state" or "Islamic State" to refer primarily to this organisation. The term "Islamic state" is consistently used in reference to the Rightly Guided Caliphs, and the concept has existed for almost 1400 years. Will the ISIS/L have any significance even in a few years, let alone in a millennium? We don't know, so we need to wait before making judgements of the sort. Nyttend (talk) 12:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.
The use of ISIL is on the rise, partly because of it's use by the Whitehouse's user of it. It's also the most commonly used acronym by military analysts and some international news agencies. However, the term ISIS is still quite popular, and to avoid confusion using ISIL/ISIS seems to me to be the best option.~Technophant (talk) 01:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Daash", "'Daʿesh" 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" / "Daʿesh" / "Daesh" OR "Islamic State". "Daash" / "Daʿesh" / "Daesh" got a lot of coverage.


I am curious about the following extreme results:

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

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

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

Dāʿesh is currently mentioned twice; Daash does not appear; Daʿesh 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 Dāʿesh)...

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, DaashDaʿish)...

I do not think that "formerly" is sufficient. There is significant use of "Daash", "Daʿesh" 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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", "Daʿesh" 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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 "Daʿesh" (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)[reply]

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 Daʿesh/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 Daʿesh then?
I just did a search on "Islamic State" AND Dāʿesh which merely got "About 3,480 results".
with similar results for "Islamic State" AND Da3esh getting "About 3,180 results".
The search on Daʿesh 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  Daʿesh)...
Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Dāʿesh 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Worldedixor, you seem to talk a lot of cents and with value greater than you let on. I am guessing that Daʿesh is better than Daʿesh. Good enough as a compromise between accuracy and standard journalistic output? Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:45, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why thank you, Gregkaye. Worldedixor (talk) 19:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose the consistent use of Daʿesh in article

Can we use a consistent spelling? Daʿesh? Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would be my vote, yes, as it conforms to the MOS. Suomichris (talk) 18:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree with Gregkaye and Suomichris as a good compromise between accuracy and standard journalistic output. Worldedixor (talk) 19:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Suomichris: @Worldedixor: and others, I just looked back at some archived pages of this talk page and found: "DĀʻiSh". I know Worldedixor prefers the use of "e". How applicable is a regular presentation such as DAʻeSh or DAʿeSh (DAʻiSh or DAʿiSh) or similar in comparison to Daʿesh? I also wondered about a format such as XXʻXXx or XXʿXXx.
Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The "i" can be mispronounced by many. I see no justification for a capital A in the middle of the word. Perhaps DAʿESH because its an acronym, but we would be given three Latin capital letters to one Arabic letter (ش). I think 'Daʿesh is the best compromise. Hope this helps. Worldedixor (talk) 12:17, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another argument for a capitalisation of DAʿESH is a commonality with ISIL and ISIS. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I predicted, this decision didn't last long. It has just been changed again! --P123ct1 (talk) 11:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Israel (3)

To the editors involved with this: I haven't forgotten the unresolved problem over sources for the contentious edit. (See #Israel and #Israel (2).) I have been advised to take it to WP:RSN to try and get it resolved. Once I get an answer I will report back. --P123ct1 (talk) 08:27, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have contacted the WP:RSN about this. There is some extra information in para 5 of this article here, which says that the Israeli government intends to include a list of groups that it designates as "terrorist organizations" in a Bill currently being drawn up for legislation. --P123ct1 (talk) 11:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, the link to the RSN discussion is Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant_.E2.80.93_Israel.~Technophant (talk) 04:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I forgot to put that link here. --P123ct1 (talk) 08:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Still no response from the RSN. --P123ct1 (talk) 18:38, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Still no useful answer from the RSN, I'm afraid. --P123ct1 (talk) 18:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Requested move 17 September 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: No consensus for the move, I think that Labattblueboy's arguments are the most persuasive, followed by P123ct1's. The the other opposes are not base on the Article Title policy. -- PBS (talk) 19:12, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As closing administrator, I suggest that new requested move for this article not be made for at least three months from the date of this close as it may be clearer in the new year what if anything is the common name, because enough time has been spent discussing the naming issue in the last month in which there has been no consensus to move, while consensus can change, it is unlikely to in the short term. -- PBS (talk) 19:12, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From some of the other comments it is clear that this is considered to be a non-NPOV issue as well, so I suggest that if this is to be raised in future that the editor raising it has a look at Macedonia naming dispute, then search of "requested move" on Talk:Republic of Macedonia and read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia), it will help such an editor to phrase such issues based on guidelines and precedence. -- PBS (talk) 19:12, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, "Stats for the month" are useless as they are constructed in the way there were below. For a start, raw counting of Google hits is not acceptable measure -- it is usage in reliable sources that mattet (see use commonly recognised names). Also a technical point, (assume that the [] pair represent the box in a Google search): Searches can be done on an unique string of words for example ["Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant"] (and only articles that contain that sting of words in that exact order will be returned), but search for ["Islamic State"] will return all or the previous hits as well as many more because it is a subset of the first search, so it is necessary to qualify the search by excluding Levant using a minus sign ["Islamic State" -Levant] and because "Islamic State" will also throw up traditional usage of the phrase, it is necessary to screen for that as well eg ["Islamic State" -Levant Syria] PBS (talk) 19:12, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State (Organisation) – Although I am loath to bring this subject up again, it has been 2 months [20] since the last requested move was closed with no consensus reached. I am renewing this discussion as the title Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant is being used less and less in favor of Islamic State, which the group formally named themselves on 29 June 2014.[21]

Contentious article names should follow Wikipedia:COMMONNAME. Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article. If the name of a person, group, object, or other article topic changes, then more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change than in those before the change

I have surveyed what terminology English Language WP:RS are using and have found that Islamic State has become increasingly common:

The Telegraph Five reasons why Islamic State will be hard to destroy

The Guardian We do not know where Islamic State hostages are being held, UK admits

The Independent Islamic State: Is prospect growing of US being drawn into another ground war in Iraq?

BBC: Turkey mulls 'buffer zone' against Islamic State

Al Jazeera: The genesis of the Islamic State group

Time: Diplomacy Is the Way To Beat the ‘Islamic State’

AFP Hagel: Islamic State 'beyond anything we've seen'

Reuters: Qatar regulates charities after Western concern over Islamic State funding

Washington Post: Iraqi commanders expect widening U.S. airstrikes against Islamic State positions

Wall Street Journal: Life Inside the Islamic State Home Base of Raqqa, Syria

Recently some of the most prominent holdovers have also officially adopted the name Islamic State:

Associated Press: Now we say ‘the Islamic State group’ instead of ISIL

New York Times: Reconsidering What to Call an Extremist Group

Based on the above, I argue that the balance of English-language reliable sources has shifted in favour of Islamic State and propose we follow this lead. I have added organisation in parenthesis to distinguish from Islamic state. It may be useful in future to split parts of the article into Islamic State (State) similar to the French wiki model. [22][23] I am not suggesting a change to our use of ISIS/ISIL as many of the above sources continue to use these abbreviations rather than the more accurate IS. Gazkthul (talk) 23:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


  • 'This topic has been discussed four times... since the Islamic State was declared at the end of June. As the same points tend to get repeated in these discussions, perhaps it would be an idea for editors to have a look at them before responding so that they are not gone over too much again. --P123ct1 (talk) 00:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support/Oppose: Who supports the proposition that the name should be changed from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant to the Islamic State (organization)?

Support: The name "Islamic State" seems to be gaining favour in the media, although ISIS and ISIL are still being used. Perhaps some statistics could found showing the name usage now. (This was done in earlier discussions and media name usage will probably have changed again since the last time this topic was discussed.) --P123ct1 (talk) 08:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose It is still too early to decide on a name change, especially as there is growing pressure to split the article into two (see discussion at #94 here), one of which would have to be called "the Islamic state/State". --P123ct1 (talk) 15:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article here is a very good commentary on the name problem that is troubling not only WP editors but Western media generally. It is not very long. It isn't mentioned there, but apparently even the BBC are dithering about what to call this group now! --P123ct1 (talk) 08:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stats for the month

"Islamic State" gets "About 12,200,000 results" in news
"Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" gets "About 16,200 results" in news
"Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" gets "About 17,200 results"
Results retrieved via "cut and paste" from beneath Google's unhelpfully positioned drop down menu.
Never-the less my !vote is
  • Oppose, as NPOV nonsense. For instance, a government such as the British government has the option to declare themselves as "Government". This particular institution is described as the UK government but, even if it were to declare authority, for example, over all peoples descended from Germanic tribes such a reference would still be unhelpful in an encyclopaedia. While the term "Islamic State" is not in as wide usage as the term "government" I personally think that there are NPOV issues in regard to ISIL/ISIS describing themselves in this way. I also think that "organisation" fails. There are many more issues involved than just that. I think it is fine for the article to present the group as claiming the name "Islamic State" and this is exactly what the article does.
Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just to put you in the picture, Gregkaye, in nearly every discussion there has been on this, editors have been reminded about WP:COMMONNAME (which Gazkthul has quoted above), which means using the name most commonly used by WP:RS reliable sources, regardless of other considerations. I am not saying this is right or wrong, just passing it on. --P123ct1 (talk) 11:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Very true but with the name space Islamic state occupied the choice is between Islamic State (Organisation) (with Organisation in parenthesis) and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.
WP:Use commonly recognizable names states: "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used" and, as well as mentioning WP:RS issues also mentions that "such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural". The numbers clearly support "Islamic State" but I am not convinced that "(Organisation)" provides a significantly more natural description than Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.
My argument is that the use of the words "Islamic State" naturally lead to the question, "of what?"
But then again I've just thought of somewhat similar situations regarding the names United States and the United Kingdom. I believe that, in the first case, the main reason why the "of America" has fallen out of currency is that the people of the United States only constitute about a third of the population of the Americas. In the second case reference is made, at least for the rest of today, to a specifically United Kingdom and with reference to a specific monarch.
"Islamic State" uses an Islamic terminology that is otherwise used to describe all things Islamic and applies it to a smaller subsection of Islamic people. The only parallel examples of this that I can think of is the application of Semitic terminology to the Jewish subsection of Semitic peoples within Anti-Semitic terminologies and the use of American terminologies to citizens of the United States. I have long disputed the validity, helpfulness and descriptive application of this type of linguistic approach. Such terminologies don't necessarily belong to individual groups and certainly not without good justification. (This is POV). Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Choosing the most appropriate name has proved very tricky for all sorts of reasons and there has never been real consensus. Have you tried looking at those links of earlier discussions! Good to get your view registered. --P123ct1 (talk) 14:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
TY. I've only really taken a serious look at Move request - 6 September 2014, currently on this page above. A lot of issues are mentioned with WP:Use commonly recognizable names definitely being an influential topic.
Another problem though is that an Islamic state is a type of government and thus a type of organisation. We aren't given much if any differentiation. Islamic State (Iraq and Levant) may still be questionable (at least according to arguments presented) but offers one alternate differentiation. (edited with additions) Gregkaye ✍♪ 00:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A recent article by Adam Taylor[24] summarized things nicely for me in that he showed that the name has extremely fragmented use. "From the start, exactly what to call the extremist Islamist group that has taken over much of Syria and Iraq has been problematic. At first, many called it the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). However, due to differences over how the name should be translated from the Arabic, some (including the U.S. government) referred to them as ISIL (the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant). To make matters more complicated, the group later announced that it should simply be called the "Islamic State" – a reference to the idea that the group was breaking down state borders to form a new caliphate. A number of media groups, including The Post, the Associated Press and, eventually, the New York Times, adopted this name, while others stuck with ISIS and ISIL." There has also bene a notable amount of media coverage on the simply fact that there are multiple names floating around.[25][26] This only becoming more complicated as the term "Daesh", which is prominent in Arabic is getting increased use in English.[27]. I also find the search method for concluding Islamic State as the highest hit count extremely problematic as all the contested titles contain those words--Labattblueboy (talk) 13:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I included a survey of the English Language media sources that have switched to the use of Islamic State to argue that it fits the criteria of WP:COMMONNAME. Gazkthul (talk) 00:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – There is already an ongoing discussion above, and this ought be closed speedily. Regardless, I do not think it is worthwhile to change the name now per WP:TITLECHANGES, as this is simply a mire of too many names and too many disambiguation problems. RGloucester — ☎ 13:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The article's title should not be "Islamic State" at all because it holds pejorative connotations against muslims and legitimate Islamic states. Possible names include Al-Baghdadi Caliphate Movement or some other more representative title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.217.255.4 (talk) 08:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Often the media uses "the so called Islamic State" with good reason. They claim power over all muslims worldwide. They are neither Islamic (according to most religious and government leaders - Rouhani just hammered this point in a UN speech for example) or a State (no state will recognize them, fail Montevideo test). Calling your organization something crazy does not rename the organization. For example I can't start "The Catholic Church" and expect anyone to call my creation "The Catholic Church" Legacypac (talk) 18:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Comment This source (used in the article) listing the UK proscribed terrorist organisations says "The UK does not recognise ISIL’s claims of a ‘restored’ Caliphate or a new Islamic State." I wonder if this has something to do the opposition to the name? If you do a search for the term "islamic state" in that document there's 17 other groups that in one way or other described as trying to establish an Islamic state.~Technophant (talk) 01:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.

I know what I'm gonna say is insensitive, but just listen.

Hello. I think that a GAN/FAN should be placed. What do you guys think? DEW. Adrenaline (Nahnah4) 04:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To Nahnah4: What are you talking about? What is "GAN/FAN"? JRSpriggs (talk) 04:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@JRSpriggs: Good article nomination and Featured article nomination. DEW. Adrenaline (Nahnah4) 05:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Adrenaline: Can you give reasons? --P123ct1 (talk) 07:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that this article is stable enough to allow it to be considered for a good article. JRSpriggs (talk) 08:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
JRSpriggs I don't think it ever will be either, given that events are moving so fast and new developments are springing up all the time. --P123ct1 (talk) 19:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Nahnah4 JRSpriggs User:P123ct1 I think with recent changes (historical articles split off and all recent changes to be put in Timeline) it should be upgraded to B-class, and possibly looked at for being GAN/FAN.~Technophant (talk) 19:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative name

Hi We could name the article Islamic State (Middle East). The name of the arabic page is not important. --Panam2014 (talk) 23:39, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Panam2014: This is being discussed. Please add to earlier Talk page #98 "Requested move". --P123ct1 (talk) 07:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is a bad idea to call this Islamic States (Middle-East) since Middle-East carries geographic connotations and so is not via media and offends muslims and other groups due to legitimating the terrorist group's propaganda. Suggesting the Al-baghdadi's terrorist movement is a state, Islamic, an organisation etc is not good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.217.255.4 (talk) 08:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Panam2014, I'd suggest that the least problematic alternate/compromise name might be Islamic State (Iraq and Levant). It still leaves me a little cold as I think it panders to the groups unjustified claim of authority over Islam and yet a question remains as to the extent to we should ignore the equivalent panderings of the English media and their undeniable preference for "Islamic State". There are arguments both ways.
I don't see names like Islamic State (organisation) and Islamic State (militant group) as being very helpful as they give no certain differentiation from other Islamic States that have gone before  add: or, indeed, that may come in the future. / See: Islamic State (disambiguation). Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What about Islamic State (formerly Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant)? Couldn't be any clearer than that. --P123ct1 (talk) 13:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The biggest issue is that of "Islamic State". It's an odd one as its possible to feel ethically wrong either when supporting or opposing the title.
Beyond these issues, Islamic State (formerly Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) certainly scores high on as a specific reference to the group but, for me, "formerly" presents an issue of the relegation of "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" as a formerly used name. Two associated options might be: Islamic State (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) or Islamic State (previously calling itself the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant). The first title just presents two names without explanation while the second option, while making use of the same non-dismissive link as is currently used in the article, has 13 words.
I think that the most applicable part of the guidelines from Category:Wikipedia naming conventions is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (political parties). This focusses on either location or formation date. A group history of rebrandings and leadership changes may add further difficulties of the date option. For me any suitable reference to "Iraq" and "Levant" will also give a reasonable representation of the last Arabic name in the groups complex history and I also think that these words have significance in relation to WP:UCRN. That's as far as I have got. Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I still cannot see what is wrong with "formerly" the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The group chose to change its name on 29 June this year from that to "Islamic State". It is a fact, full stop. Doesn't an encyclopaedia record facts? P123ct1 (talk) 16:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The group chose to change its name from the Arabic (الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام‎) name that it adopted in 2013 to a shortened Arabic name that they prefer now. Arabic and other language medias continue make significant use of of references to the 2013 name. wikt:formerly presents a meaning that is wholly in the past and, in this case, it is inaccurately used. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Islamic State (formerly known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant)? --P123ct1 (talk) 16:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ISIL itself could be another possible title and, I know that we have just been discussing the within article use of ISIL/ISIS, but in reference to an article title WP:UCRN becomes applicable.
ISIS is also up for consideration.
The use of this type of title could gets around moral objections related to "Islamic State of what?" type issues. Other moral issues might include consideration of the poor woman in the States who pleaded with media outlets not to use her name in this connection but Google stats also coldly weighs into the encyclopaedic argument.
Acronym title formats work for the likes of the BBC, HIV/AIDS, IBM, NATO, and a wide range of others. Perhaps it can work here too.

  • "Islamic State" gets "About 4,570,000 results"
  • ISIL gets "About 28,000,000 results" with results including those of the likes of Intersil Corp.
  • ISIS gets "About 227,000,000 results" note that this will include a number of references to ancient Egyptian religion and a significant number of other organisations and people etc. as partly referenced at Isis (disambiguation). There is also a potential issue here in that "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" is less accurate than "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" but the article currently makes reference to "Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham"

Curiously:

  • ISIS got "About 62,900,000 results" with dates "1 Apr 2013 - 'Today'"

while

  • ISIS got "About 1,380,000 results" with dates "Before 1 Apr 2013".

Its still a lot of hits. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with this Article

Dear All,

I have noticed some problems with this articles and think fixing them is important given the possible traffic this article may get as military action in Iraq and Syria escalates.

1) The time of events and history sections are confusing. These should be one section. 2) The group is not a "jihadist group". Jihad is a religious duty for muslims and this group is engaged in persecuting and murdering muslims as well as various non-muslim religious minorities. 3) The article is bias and furthers ISIS propaganda. Re-terming the article in terms of a movement is more appropriate. The group has labelled itself "Islamic State" to attempt to assert political and religious authority over all muslims. Wikipedia has no interest in supporting this assertion and doing so is biased and not via media. 4) The article is becoming far too long. There is a lot of interest on this at the moment and so a lot of editors, but there is too much content for this topic. It is not in the reader's interest for there to be a billion pages.

That is about it. Please try to address as may be the case. I cannot, since the article is "locked".

Regards, 131.217.255.4 (talk) 08:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

131.217.255.4: Thank you for your comment. There is a proposal to reduce the size of the "History" section here and this will probably happen soon. I also have questioned why the 2014 timeline should be duplicated in this article, now that it has been transferred to a new article of its own here. --P123ct1 (talk) 11:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To 131.217.255.4: If you want to participate in editing this article (which is semi-protected), you should choose a user-id and password and register. After four days of editing, you will be allowed to edit semi-protected articles. I disagree with your desire to whitewash Islam by trying to claim that the actions of ISIL are contrary to the will of Muhammad as conveyed in the Qu'ran. JRSpriggs (talk) 11:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
131.217.255.4 I was particularly interested in what you said at: 2) "The group is not a "jihadist group"..." I am not sure of the extent to which the actions of the group can be justified under any interpretation of Jihad. See: http://www.justislam.co.uk/product.php?products_id=2 for one article on "What Jihad IS NOT!" Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article reflects descriptions by reliable sources. These sources describe claims and counter-claims; and we have both in the article. We don't do original research to single our sources that accord with our findings. I appreciate your point of view but we must defer to reliable sources. Jason from nyc (talk) 23:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The idea of including the last 30 days of the 2014 timeline was my idea and is discussed above (#Timeline and History sections). The idea is to have about 30 days of the most recents events viewable here, however the information is actually in the timeline article, and clicking the edit tab opens an editing window for that article. I think the entire timeline (2003-2014) or just older timeline (2003-2013) should be also on split page as well with a link to it from this page. A proposal to reorder the sections is above (#Sequence of article sections) and there's another proposal to allow Ip users to edit the article with pending revisions (#Questioning semi-protected status) which can be closed and requested. As far as bias, I think there needs to be more information about the soft power campaign and local governance. I found an article here, which along with the Vice documentary gives a rare (albeit biased) view into what everyday life is like in occupied territory. ~Technophant (talk) 00:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that more info on governance would be desirable. I have put some in the Governance section and I see some is in the Guidelines for civilians section. I suggest moving the latter into the former. We use The Atlantic article in both sections. The sources have more details on governance. Jason from nyc (talk) 01:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --P123ct1 (talk) 17:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jihadist or similar in lead!?

In light of criticisms of Islamic authorities in regard to the groups activities I have swapped Sunni Jihadist for Sunni Insurgent in the lead. I certainly don't think it is fair just to declare them jihadist without citation and without statements regarding who says what. In what Islamically legitimate ways are the group "struggling" and should this label be placed on the groups scholars, the groups leadership, all the groups members? How do some of the groups more controversial actions fit in with the concept of Jihad?
Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gregkaye: Once again, Wikipedia should not judge these things. That is for historians and commentators, whose views can be reported in the right place ("Ideology and beliefs"). Wikipedia must adhere to NPOV, especially in the Lead. The subject you raise has been discussed on the Talk page more than once, for example here. The Lead should not be cluttered up with footnotes; editors have been trying to cut down on their number (see Talk page discussion #27). Footnotes are for the section where their jihadism is described, in the "Ideology and beliefs" section. --P123ct1 (talk) 23:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gregkaye:I think you are reading too much into the term Jihadist, reliable sources use it to describe Islamic State (as well many other organisations from al-Qaeda to the Taliban) therefore we do to. What is or isn't Islamically legitimate is not Wikipedia's place to decide. Gazkthul (talk) 02:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A google of ISIS jihadist gives 9.3 million hits. A google of ISIS insurgent gives 484,000 hits. Jihadist is used in a broad range of publications including The Guardian, CNN, the BBC, and the New York Times. From the context it is clearly used in the martial sense and not in a general sense of striving. Incidentally al-Qaeda jihadist gives 2 million and al-Qaeda insurgent gives 7 million while Boko Haram gives 3 million hits for both combinations. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The lead should summarize the article. We use jihadist more often than insurgent. It is more specific than insurgent. And given the successful establishment of governance in eastern Syria and the possible establishment of rule over Western Iraq, ISIS has gone beyond the insurgent stage in some areas. The word jihadist better summarizes the article. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Insurgent is beginning to look outdated; events have moved on so fast since June. I agree that the Lead should use the term jihadist as that is how they are commonly described. Whether they can legitimately call themselves jihadists could be discussed in "Ideology and beliefs" - see my new outline for this section here. --P123ct1 (talk) 15:44, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In comparison the article on al-Qaeda states later in the lead that: "It operates as ... a radical Wahhabi Muslim movement calling for a strict interpretation of sharia law and jihad". If substantiated then it is certainly warranted to document any of Islamic State/..'s claims of being a jihadist group, its advocacies of jihad or anything that it actually does. Its also fair to report on interpretations of various outlets of it as being an jihadist group. However, when interpretations of Jihad vary, I don't think it right to directly label them as being jihadist. I don't believe the killing of innocents as being legitimately in tune with Islamic law or jihad and, if anything, we should quote experts on these matters. I agree with other editors that the word insurgent is outdated but think that value references to topics like Jihad need to be qualified. Several wordings can be used including "Sunni group" or "group predominantly composed of Sunni Muslims". Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To Gregkaye: The problem is the definition of "innocents". People who you, I, and most others consider innocent are not considered innocent by strict Muslims because those innocents have rejected Allah as understood by the strict Muslims. JRSpriggs (talk) 13:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gregkaye, with all due respect, I believe your objection to stating that ISIS is jihadist is because the converse doesn't hold. The converse would state that jihad must be what ISIS does and as you point out it is a much broader concept; even in the sense of "lessor jihad" most interpreters object to ISIS behavior. This problem is true for every categorization of ISIS. ISIS is Salafi (but not all Salafists are like ISIS). ISIS is Sunni (but the converse is obviously false). ISIS is Wahhabi influenced but so are others who reject ISIS. ISIS longs for a caliphate but so do others who reject self-appointed upstarts. You can put ISIS in many categories that they would share with others who reject and repudiate the path ISIS has taken. The sources overwhelmingly categorize ISIS as jihadist and I believe we must too. Obviously further qualification is absolutely required as we have an obligation to provide a full description. Jason from nyc (talk) 00:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@JRSpriggs: I would like to see evidence that the imams and other muslims beheaded by ISIL were any less "strictly Muslim" than the murderers that killed them. Should we also call them Jihadist? Declaring ISIL to be Jihadist prior to a discussion on the topic is taking sides. There are many Muslims that fit the literal description of Jihad that would not kill journalists and civilians etc. In fact notable opposition exists.

3. By murdering prisoners of war, journalists and civilians, including mosque imams who refused to endorse their campaign, and by enslaving the women and children of their opponents, ISIS has violated international agreements such as the Geneva Conventions and conventions on slavery that everyone, including Muslims, have signed up to. God says in the Qur’an, “Believers, fulfil your covenants!” (5:1)
4. The IS persecution and massacres of Shia Muslims, Christians and Yazidis is abhorrent and opposed to Islamic teachings and the Islamic tolerance displayed by great empires such as the Mughals and Ottomans.
5. Based on all of the above: IS is a heretical, extremist organisation and it is religiously prohibited (haram) to support or join it; furthermore, it is an obligation on British Muslims to actively oppose its poisonous ideology, especially when this is promoted within Britain.
from: http://www.aobm.org/fatwa-on-the-so-called-islamic-state-formerly-islamic-state-in-iraq-syria/

The article's first paragraph described the group as "Jihadist" with the problem that the second paragraph then went on to presents descriptions of the group as being "a terrorist group" "designated as a foreign terrorist organization" that the "United Nations and Amnesty International have accused the group of grave human rights abuses".

Yes Jason from nyc, the point is that Jihad does represent a wider concept. The lead as it stood failed to represent it.

Readers would be forgiven in thinking, oh, so that's what Jihad is. The text of the lead was unacceptable in context that it is very possible for a reader to read just a portion of an article. We would be giving an inaccurate/incomplete view of the broad concept of Jihad.

"islamic state" "jihadist" gets "About 2,560,000 results"
"islamic state" "extremist" gets "About 2,890,000 results"

Claims of the group as being Jihadist or comments on references made in the media (and perhaps in other places) to the group as being Jihadist might well be placed with the groups declaration as being a caliphate as also mentioned in the lead.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 05:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is just the nature of categorization. It’s epistemologically necessary that different concretes subsumed in a general category will be different. Saying that French are Europeans doesn’t mean that French are Greek or Estonians. The fact that all French are Europeans doesn’t mean that all Europeans are French. That's the converse. When stating the Europeans is the genus of French that doesn’t imply that this is the only way to embody that genus. This is just the nature of categorization. Sources overwhelmingly use “jihadist” as the genus for ISIS without implying that the term applies to others in the same way. We should follow the sources as Wikipedia is supposed to reflect the sources. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of "Sunni insurgents" one could say "jihadist extremists." This gives a differentia of extremists to distinguish ISIS jihadists from others. This would be an improvement even if the word "extremist" is vague. By the way I get five times more google hits of ISIS with jihadist than I get with ISIS and extremists. It's clear that jihadist is the descriptor of choice of reliable sources with other qualifiers depending on source. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done "jihadist extremist..." as per suggestion. This may concur with western sources but may follow a path of error.
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Lesser_vs_Greater_Jihad
"The two forms of Jihad in Islam are sometimes explained by apologists as follows:
  • Lesser outer jihad (al-jihad al-asghar); a military struggle, i.e. a holy war
  • Greater inner jihad (al-jihad al-akbar); the struggle of personal self-improvement against the self's base desires"
Militant claims of jihad have a theological context
Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think the distinction in "jihadist extremists" will mean much to readers. To most people all these al-Qaeda-related groups are seen simply as "jihadists", their extremism being taken for granted. "Jihadist extremists" will probably look like a baffling tautology to them. The Lead is really not the place for hair-splitting of this kind. --P123ct1 (talk) 19:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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? Other cite methods can be used (though bare URLs are inadvisable for the reason below), but it is customary to follow the method generally being used in the article in question, which here is the WP cite template method.

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. http://www.aina.org/news/20140810150643.htm
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
http://www.ntvmsnbc.com/id/25506321/
http://www.aksam.com.tr/guncel/istanbulda-isid-operasyonu/haber-294981
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/08/un-accuses-islamic-state-group-war-crimes-2014827153541710630.html
--P123ct1 (talk) 19:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two more added since then:

http://time.com/3273185/isis-us-nato/
http://www.smh.com.au/world/islamic-state-says-vladimir-putins-throne-is-under-threat-and-will-fall-when-we-come-to-you-20140904-10c4hq.html#ixzz3CIY8T9SZ DEAD LINK ALREADY

Remember these links could go dead at any time. (See headnote above). --P123ct1 (talk) 14:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These added in the last week:
2. http://magharebia.com/en_GB/articles/awi/features/2014/07/31/feature-01
3. http://allafrica.com/stories/201407090299.html
4. http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/tr/originals/2014/02/isis-gaza-salafist-jihadist-qaeda-hamas.html
5. http://www.sipa.gov.ba/en/Bosnia in coalition against the Islamic State
6. http://www.sta.si/en/vest.php?s=a&id=2052615
7. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10585391/Syrias-Assad-accused-of-boosting-al-Qaeda-with-secret-oil-deals.html
8. http://edition.cnn.com/2014/09/08/world/meast/iraq-town-suicide-bomb-attacks/
9. http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2013/10/20131010-1-1.pdf. Missing or empty |title= (help)

These are all vulnerable to link-rot and may become unusable. --P123ct1 (talk) 07:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A big thank you to all editors who helped to get rid of this backlog of bare URLs by converting them!
--P123ct1 (talk) 19:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgaria

Please edit it, Bulgaria is not part of the opponents. Read more here: http://dariknews.bg/view_article.php?article_id=1330218 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.174.154.159 (talk) 11:32, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to your citation, Bulgaria may not be actively fighting ISIS, but as a member of NATO it is supporting the efforts of countries that are. --P123ct1 (talk) 13:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
shipping arms and noted as such now. Legacypac (talk) 20:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Second information box in Lead

Why are Malaysia and the Philippines in the second paragraph of the Lead and not in the second information box? How do they differ from Bosnia and Herzegovina which is in the information box? --P123ct1 (talk) 07:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A better question is why we need what looks like half the planet listed in the infobox under opponents. Do we really need police forces listed there, and if so shouldn't the police forces of dozens of other countries be listed too? Gazkthul (talk) 09:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. It has got completely out of hand. I was trying not to say it in my question. --P123ct1 (talk) 09:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to add my goldfish, until Legacypac saved the infobox by rationalising it. --P123ct1 (talk) 21:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The question occurred in the middle of the cleanup. Philippines, Malaysia and Bosnia, complete with subentity police forces, were all in the Opponents list based on articles that said basically that these countries don't like what ISIL is doing. There were small inconsequential militias and political parties in Iraq too. Additional Improvements that I could use help with:

1. I'm still concerned about some of the Syrian opposition and some others listed. Bringing together 10 guys with guns should not get you on the list with USA, Canada, UK, Iran etc. Can others take a look at this with a view of shortening the list? 2.I'd like to make the NATO weapons suppliers into a collapsible list but can't figure out how. 3.Turkey is a bit of an issue. RS say not in US Cololition, but has had border classes with ISIL, and is in NATO. Hopefully this resolves itself shortly. Legacypac (talk) 00:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recent beheading in Oklahoma

Just in the news a recently terminated worker at a food distribution plant who has been described as a recent convert to Islam beheaded a co-worker and stabbed another. It's too early to say if this person is responding to Abu Mohammad al-Adnani's call to "kill a disbelieving American or European". Discussion is at Talk:2014 ISIL beheading incidents#Recent beheading in Oklahoma ~Technophant (talk) 16:31, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quran sura 47.1 (translated to English) says "So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates. That (shall be so); and if Allah had pleased He would certainly have exacted what is due from them, but that He may try some of you by means of others; and (as for) those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will by no means allow their deeds to perish.". This is not in the same category as Matt 5:38-39 "Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.". JRSpriggs (talk) 08:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
JRSpriggs, this comment is uncivil and off-topic. I've seen enough quality posts from you to know you aren't just a troll, so please remove it. 136.159.160.242 (talk) 17:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While the guy is obviously a Jihadist terrorist, his connection to ISIS has not been established, and until it is, he shouldn't be discussed per this TP and article.16:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
To 136.159.160.242: My understanding is that incivility has to do with comments directed at the character of another person who is party to this discussion, not to do with religion. And the nature of Islam as a religion is certainly relevant to this article or at least to the question, often discussed on this talk page, of whether ISIL is actually Islamic. JRSpriggs (talk) 21:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ISIS in Afghanistan

According to NBC News http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/isis-allied-militants-behead-15-during-afghanistan-offensive-official-n212166 A group waving the ISIS flag involved in battle, beheadings. Given that ISIS is not a state but a volunteer movement, does this equate to the beginning of ISIS operations in Afghanistan? Legacypac (talk) 18:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but we should wait for more information to come out before making any additions. Gazkthul (talk) 02:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey's designation of ISIS as a terrorist organization, section 3

I have removed Turkey from the section 3 infobox. There was a citation in English appended which someone has removed and replaced with a Turkish document with no translation. Until a citation can be found, in English, to support the designation or listing by Turkey of ISIS as a terrorist organation, the country must remain out of this infobox.

The Turkish citation that was provided is this. Can someone explain what this document is and what it says? --P123ct1 (talk) 18:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P123ct1, it is the official gazette of the parliament. it says that 'the assets of the organizations and persons which got decided to freeze/confiscate.' at top and 'A- Persons who has connections with Al-Qaeda', 'B- Organizations which has connections with Al-Qaeda', 'C- Persons who has connections with Taliban', 'C- Organizations which has connections with Taliban'. kazekagetr 17:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I suspected something like that, after seeing the list of names. So it is to do with the Taliban and al-Qaeda. How can the editor who found this have thought it was a suitable citation, then, and what happened to the English citation? --P123ct1 (talk) 18:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources is clear - a citation in Turkish is fine. An English citation is not needed, please put the info back in the infobox - ask for a translation if needed, do not just delete citations because you do not personally understand the language they are written in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.190.195.225 (talk) 07:48, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the en.Wikipedia, citations in a foreign language are acceptable if there is a translation. Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources says: "When quoting a non-English source (whether in the main text, in a footnote, or on the talk page), a translation into English should always accompany the quote. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians". The interpretation of the Turkish citation provided here by a user shows that it cannot be used to back up the designation by Turkey of ISIS as a terrorist organisation. Did you not read it? --P123ct1 (talk) 09:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

•Please read this article: Turkey recognized ISIS as a terrorist organization just six months after the organization became publicly known, which is much earlier than many Western countries. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 12:00, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That is very like the other Daily Sabah article that was removed when the Turkish citation was put in. Where has that one gone? --P123ct1 (talk) 17:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Index of names

I doubt if the average Wikipedia reader will know the difference between a translation and a transliteration. This article is for the general reader, not the specialist. I think the index should be restored to the version before the current one, which was clear enough. --P123ct1 (talk) 20:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • The question here is whether the additional distinction between translation and transliteration is sufficiently useful to warrant the use of the extra title words. A lot of the names are the self-same names just repeated in different forms. However, cutting the two trans.. words would make things just that little bit more concise.
Understandability is definitely an issue in all things here but, without doing a survey, I would hope that way more than 50% of the readership would understand the difference. Most people will realise that Islamic State/.. are not primarily an English speaking group, they'll see text like "Tanẓīm Qāʻidat ..." and most will understand that translation is going on. Hopefully people will read transliteration and realise that something different is going on from translation. The question though is how the wikt:index is best served. Its all good. I should have said either option is good. Gregkaye ✍♪ 20:53, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They will see there is translation going on, obviously, but I think they would be muddled by too much talk about transliteration as well. I myself find the index of names a little confusing to follow now, tbh.--P123ct1 (talk) 21:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good guys vs. bad guys narrative

"In August 2014, after the group captured Kurdish-controlled territory[192] and massacred Yazidis,[193] the US launched a humanitarian mission to help the Yazidis and an aerial bombing campaign against ISIS.[194]"

This is a classical example of good guys vs. bad guys narrative, which Wikipedia should not be. --Mladifilozof (talk) 21:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted. Have eliminated the cause and effect POV by splitting the sentence. --P123ct1 (talk) 09:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree - the statement is factual and I don't see anything "inferred" except what's obvious. There's very little that can be done about total neutrality when dealing with a terrorist state in an encyclopedia, no different from Nazi Germany. The facts are clear that this is a battle of good vs. evil, no matter how we phrase it via Wiki, or how 'flawed' the good guys may be (as in, less than perfect).HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the truth is, it can always be stated in a neutral way, and that is what WP has to do. WP:NPOV --P123ct1 (talk) 18:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ideology and beliefs (3)

@Mhhossein and Jason from nyc: et al: Going by the comments on the Talk page recently, this section is becoming very controversial, as I suspected it would. The nature of the group’s ideology and belief system is being as hotly contested among editors as it is in the Muslim world! As there is so much controversy about it in the Muslim world, I think it needs to be covered quite as much as what is agreed upon, and should therefore be kept in the same section. It is probably best divided into subsections dealing with different aspects of the controversy, backed up with citations. The first subsection could state what is generally agreed about their ideology and beliefs and the last could have general statements from the Muslim world criticising their beliefs, such as the long letter with all the signatories recently published, now at the end of the section. The main thing is to keep to a structure, as the section is already becoming muddled without one, with some new edits being thrown in piecemeal throwing out what order there was. I haven’t kept up with this, but categories so far could be (a) are they really jihadists? (b) are they Wahhabists, and if so what kind of Wahhabists? (c) are they Kharijites? Are there others people can think of? --P123ct1 (talk) 14:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So far editors' discussions on ideology and beliefs are in "Ideology and beliefs" and "Ideology and beliefs (2)" earlier in the Talk page, this one on Wahhabism here, this one on jihadism here, and this one here which also mentions jihadism. Can we try and keep all discussions on this subject in one place, please, and not have them scattered about, as that makes them difficult to follow properly. --P123ct1 (talk) 14:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The are two separate issues. The reaction of the Muslim world should obviously be in the article including the ideology section. Wiki allows and even demands attributed opinion. Disinterested commentary and study is preferred when reporting this opinion as it is a secondary source that has singled out this opinion as significant. We should be careful about stating assessments in Wikipedia’s voice and particularly careful about taking the side of one denomination, current, variant, or practice. I see a previous suggestion that criticisms of the ISIS ideology should be in a sub-section. I’m neutral on that. But the criticism is growing. The recent inclusion of the important open letter goes beyond name-calling and cites principles. It was signed by 126 Islamic scholars worldwide (with the conspicuous absence of Saudi Arabia.) This helps our criticism sub-section. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@P123ct1: I'm in agreement on having subsections. But this issue is, as you said, very contested and we should not let every sentence be introduced here. Other parts of this article depend on the news mainly and some how we're going to have a different section here. I strongly recommend to include the main ideas and criticisms which are backed by several groups. Ideas by merely a single clerk usually does not qualify to be here (exceptions may exist regarding very famous political and religious characters). Ideas and criticisms would better have a rational reasoning if they are going to be stated as a fact, or they should be stated just as an expression by an individual. I'm willing to cooperate in enhancing this section, as I made this section before to enhance the quality of the article. Mhhossein (talk) 10:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I meant by "It is probably best divided into subsections dealing with different aspects of the controversy, backed up with citations". Meaning: Aspect X (jihadism, or Wahhabism, etc) described neutrally, backed up with "A said this (about it)", "B said this (about it)" (more if necessary), with citations to back up their statements. For example, "It is said they are not true jihadists. A and B say this about it (with citations)." Each subsection should not, must not, be long. We don't want an essay on the topic. This section would be dealing with opinions rather than facts, obviously. As there are so many opinions, I think they need to be covered - the controversy out there is notable, IMO. It could almost be seen as a "controversies" section:- "Ideology and beliefs": (1) outline of generally agreed characteristics, not disputed by Muslims and others (2) controversies among Muslims and others over what their beliefs really are (3) general Muslim criticism of their ideology/beliefs, for example the letter with all the signatories I mentioned earlier. The sentence in the ISIS article

Other critics of ISIS's brand of Sunni Islam include Salafists who previously publicly supported jihadist groups such as al-Qaeda, for example the Saudi government official Saleh Al-Fawzan, known for extremist views, who claims that ISIS is a creation of "Zionists, Crusaders and Safavids", and the Jordanian-Palestinian writer Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi who was released from prison in Jordan in June 2014.

would not add much to a section of the sort I have outlined, as it is really just a mention of two names that have criticized them. --P123ct1 (talk) 12:51, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There do not necessarily have to be "subsections" dealing with each aspect, but I think it is important that the controversies should be dealt with separately, as far as possible, otherwise there would be a danger of the whole section getting into a muddle again, the way it is now. --P123ct1 (talk) 15:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@P123ct1: according to Wikipedia:UNDUE such views should not be presented. this is in accordance to what I said before. For presenting different views we should not pay to minority views. To support my claim, I'd like to use these sentences from Wikipedia:Reliable sources and undue weight:

We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties.1

So, we'd better be careful about this issue. Mhhossein (talk) 11:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't know the extent to which differing views are minority views; it is up to more knowledgeable editors to decide that and keep description of controversies in proportion. It could mean the section is very short! My main concern was that whatever is said, it should be put down methodically in the way I outlined. --P123ct1 (talk) 12:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If a minority of experts express detailed analysis that doesn't contradict the vast majority of reliable sources but further elaborates the topic, that shouldn't be considered "undue." Experts are a minority. Most writers on the subject (and most of our sources) are not experts. They are secondary sources as they should be and they often don't provide the depth that an encyclopedia requires. Undue has to do with a minority that goes against the majority of reliable sources. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jason from nyc: Being secondary is not enough, the sources should also be reliable with it's specific definition. By the way, I believe that who made this group is not a matter to be discussed here. It is not related to the "Ideology and Beliefs". Mhhossein (talk) 07:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Make your own opinion

https://azelin.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/islamic-state-of-iraq-and-al-shc481m-e2809cislamic-state-report-422.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.82.151.75 (talk) 23:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion - murder, as at p6, "rounded up for slaughter". I also think this thread should be deleted.
Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

link to this article should be added

Definitions of terrorism - should be added as the article maintains that several different bodies have designated ISIL as terrorist and this clarifies that and why some do not call them terrorists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.190.195.225 (talk • contribs) 07:27, 28 September 2014

"So-called Islamic State"

This phrasing is used as has been noted by @P123ct1: in Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#French distinction between the organisation and the state itself "The media put their finger on it when they call it the 'so-called' Islamic State, which unfortunately Wikipedia can't do!" and by @Legacypac: in Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Requested move (amended link) "Often the media uses "the so called Islamic State" with good reason. They claim power over all muslims worldwide".

"So called Islamic State" gets "About 234,000 results"

While we can't speak in Wikipedia's voice on these issues I am wondering where and how it may be possible to quote sources. Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think there has to be a limit to how much this article (as opposed to the media) qualifies its descriptions, "so-called Islamic State", "caliph" and "caliphate" used in inverted commas, "jihadist" now being questioned, "which previously called itself the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" - the list is increasing daily. --P123ct1 (talk) 11:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P123ct1 we can neither speak in Wikipedia's voice to directly describe a "so-called Islamic State" nor can we directly declare them to be jihadist. Both situations require value judgements. As I mentioned in Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Jihadist or similar in lead!? "If substantiated then it is certainly warranted to document any of Islamic State/..'s claims of being a jihadist group, its advocacies of jihad or anything that it actually does. Its also fair to report on interpretations of various outlets of it as being an jihadist group. However, when interpretations of Jihad vary, I don't think it right to directly label them as being jihadist."
Related reasoning to this is presented in content by Muslim scholars presented below. The earlier form of the lead presented the group, in Wikipedia's voice, as being jihadist and, two sentences later, quotes the UN and media in calling them a terrorist group. Many readers may well have stopped there and this unqualified flow of information was unacceptable.
See Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Jihadist or similar in lead!? for jihad related discussion.
I have mentioned the media coverage describing: "So-called Islamic State" and have queried: "where and how it may be possible to quote sources".
Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment the article makes no mention of "So called Islamic State" despite use being propagated by Imans.

Here are some references:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/13/term-islamic-state-slur-faith-david-cameron

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/multimedia/archive/01091/Fatwa_on_ISIS_1091394a.pdf

http://www.aobm.org/fatwa-on-the-so-called-islamic-state-formerly-islamic-state-in-iraq-syria/

http://www.mcb.org.uk/leading-islamic-centres-condemn-so-called-islamic-state/

Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"notinmyname"

This is a recent campaign that seems to have rapidly gained significant prominence.

"notinmyname" gets "About 888,000 results" (This search up to 29/08/14 got "About 105,000 results")

http://www.activechangefoundation.org/portfolio-item/notinmyname/

"Non-Islamic Non-State"

"Non-Islamic Non-State" This is from a reported comment by Ban Ki-moon: http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/09/economist-explains-19

Are you saying there should be a section in the article where criticisms like this can be dealt with? I can see an argument for it. There perhaps should be a new section dealing with the questions now being raised everywhere about the legitimacy and actions of the new caliphate. I thought you were suggesting the article should start using "so-called" Islamic State! --P123ct1 (talk) 11:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On the use of "jihadist", I agree with earlier comments, fine to use in the Lead as it is a common term for groups of this sort. Objections can be dealt with elsewhere in the article, as I said. --P123ct1 (talk) 12:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping just to ask the question regarding inclusion. (Wariness by a number of editors to the use of "Islamic State" is, to some extent, validated by recent criticisms and disputes over the use of the short form of the name. I also predict that there may be criticisms of associations between the organisation and jihad. Certainly, if a cite-worthy content is found then I agree that associations between the group and jihad might be criticised under "Ideology and belief" so on this point I agree). Can we please leave Jihad related discussion for the section on Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Jihadist or similar in lead!? or other new section? Its not the topic of this thread.
Current criticism and/or disputes relate specifically to the use of the name "Islamic State". I think that this could fit following Index of names and History of names perhaps under "Disputes regarding use of names". Other suggestions welcomed. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking that as well, that it could be covered in a subsection of the "Names" section. However, it would seem a bit odd to have all that precede the history of the group and the rest, as this controversy over the name is comparatively recent. Perhaps as I said there should be a section dealing with all of the recent and growing criticism of the IS and this name controversy could be a subsection of that. --P123ct1 (talk) 13:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]
I agree about the specific focus of the sub-topic. 'Objections to "Islamic State"' or similar in names? A section following History perhaps in conjunction with 'Designation as a terrorist group'? Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, important as the topic is, I don't think it should be given as much prominence as that. There are more important things about the group, evidenced by the new sections sequence, I think.--P123ct1 (talk) 16:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Moon's comments reflect my view that ISIL is not islamic and not a state. Mind you they are more islamic than any Christian and more a state than most rebel groups, but dressing up like Santa and giving gifts does not make you Santa. The use of caliph is particularly inappropriate - I would expect some evidence and generally acceptance of decent from the prophet before that title gets applied. I think we need to emphasize the "so called" type qualifiers and the critics and stick to acronyms to give balance to ISIL claims.Legacypac (talk) 17:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A good thesis on the use of various words for political purposes http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/what-if-islamic-state-didnt-exist-2101625642 Legacypac (talk) 17:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be a good idea not refer to them in the article (except in the Lead) as "Islamic State" but simply as "IS". That would be a good way of dealing with the problem of WP seeming to endorse the establishment of the caliphate and an Islamic state. Perhaps the words caliphate and caliph (except in the Lead) should always have quote marks around them in the text, for the same reason. --P123ct1 (talk) 18:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I like that solution, with the modification to use ISIL as that fits with the article title.Legacypac (talk) 18:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it is time to move to ISIL in the article. --P123ct1 (talk) 20:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BACK TO THE TOPIC : ))
I'm still wondering about the possible placement of a criticisms section. Looking at the TOC I was wondering if this section might go well next to "Propaganda and social media". At present the order of sections goes:

7 Territorial claims
8 Governance
9 Human rights abuses ...
10 Propaganda and social media
11 Finances
12 Foreign fighters
13 Equipment
14 Timeline of events

There may be a number of ways to sequence this. Place Criticism after 10? Title? subtitles? Gregkaye ✍♪ 19:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Once a criticisms section is started, it will be easier to see where to put it and whether even a criticisms section will need to be broken up. I foresee that some of it would be better in "Ideology and beliefs", for example. --P123ct1 (talk) 06:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2014

Under foreign fighter, It should also be mentioned that a lot of young ISIS/ISIL terrorist are from Germany and that ISIS/ISIL receives big social media support from ISIS in Germany according to http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/09/22/German-Children-Leave-to-Join-Jihad and http://www.vice.com/read/german-jihadi-internet-meme-campaign. I think the mention of Germany in connection with ISIS terrorist is important because according to http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/04/europe-jihadist-isis-syria-qaeda-terror-france-germany.html there is even a German ISIS brigade as well as a lot of identefied Germans like Philip Bergner that joined and fight for ISIS.

There are many foreign fighters in ISIS's ranks. In June 2014, The Economist reported that "ISIS may have up to 6,000 fighters in Iraq and 3,000–5,000 in Syria, including perhaps 3,000 foreigners; nearly a thousand are reported to hail from Chechnya and perhaps 500 or so more from France, Britain and elsewhere in Europe".[312] Chechen leader Abu Omar al-Shishani, for example, was made commander of the northern sector of ISIS in Syria in 2013.[313][314] According to The New York Times, in September 2014 there were more than 2,000 Europeans and 100 Americans among ISIS's foreign fighters.[315] Foreign recruits are treated with less respect than Arab-speaking Muslims by ISIS commanders, and if they lack otherwise useful skills they are placed in suicide units. 31.17.102.221 (talk) 14:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NB the last para there is a quote from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by P123ct1 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 29 September 2014

Translations/transliterations

Can I ask about these in the "Index of names", Gregkaye? I am not clear about the difference made there between translation and transliteration, except in the case of Da'esh, where clearly there is transliteration involved. Surely JTJ is just an acronym, not a translation or transliteration, and QSIS just another acronym. Mujahideen Shura Council is in the translation half, but there is nothing beside it. And clearly all English spellings of the Arabic names in both halves of the index are based on transliterations (which can vary a lot, as in the two versions of the ISIS name I pointed out earlier). Also, "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" isn't a real translation of the Tanzim name, it is approximate, in that Iraq is not directly mentioned in that Arabic name, though "two rivers" does refer to Iraq. I said something about this on the Talk page here. Worldedixor didn't dispute it and he speaks Arabic as you know. Also, I am not clear why "al-Dawlah" and "the State" are in the transliteration half, as "the State" is just a translation.

Do you not think the original version is perhaps a bit clearer? This was the earlier version:

  • al-Dawlah ("the State")
  • al-Dawlat al-Islāmīyah ("the Islamic State")
  • AQI : Al-Qaeda in Iraq : Tanẓīm Qāʻidat al-Jihād fī Bilād al-Rāfidayn
  • Daʿesh / Da'ish / Daesh (داعش) : al-Dawla al-Islamiya fi Iraq wa ash-Sham
  • ISI : Islamic State of Iraq : Dawlat al-ʻIraq al-Islāmīyah
  • ISIL : Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
  • ISIS : Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham
  • Islamic State
  • JTJ : Jamāʻat al-Tawḥīd wa-al-Jihād : The Organization of Monotheism and Jihad
  • Mujahideen Shura Council
  • QSIS : Al-Qaeda Separatists in Iraq and Syria

Can you think of a way of adding anything about transliteration to that skeleton list? ()bviously the Dae'sh variants need to be added in there.) That list does have the big advantage of being alphabetical, no bad thing when there are so many names to confuse the poor reader, and the useful links to the next subsection (which I believe you put in) explain the translations there. What do you think? --P123ct1 (talk) 14:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@P123ct1: Thanks for sticking with this and I think you are right. I also think that transliteration should either go one way or the other, either more to complete the job (as tried) or less to remove transliteration from all places where possible. How about:

My intention with the transliteration had been to demonstrate the shared reference of ISIL, ISIS (al-Sham), ISIS (Syria) and Daʿesh but its no biggie.

(Talk page ref: AQI: Tanẓīm Qāʻidat al-Jihād fī Bilād al-Rāfidayn IS: al-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah ISI: Dawlat al-'Iraq al-Islāmīyah ISIL ISIS ISIS DAʿESH al-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fī al-ʻIrāq wa-al-Shām Islamic State al-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah Mujahideen Shura Council JTJ: Jamāʻat al-Tawḥīd wa-al-Jihād: Organization of Monotheism and Jihad)

Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think "IS-Islamic State-then its transliterated name" (however did IS get missed off both versions?!) and the same for AQI, ISI and JTJ (as they appear in the first version) should go in that index - and also all the Da'esh variants, as readers may have seen them in the media and wondered why there were so many versions of this name. I certainly did, before I saw that part of the latest index. It could be explained briefly in "History of names" that those variants are acronyms of the different transliterations of the Arabic name for ISIL/ISIS, as that isn't explained anywhere yet. (But is that correct? I didn't follow in detail the earlier discussions on the acronym.) Do you agree with this? It would be nice to sort this out once and for all now, I think. Other editors? --P123ct1 (talk) 22:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I personally approve of any of the suggestions here and view further discussion as being a matter of tweaking. My previous edit was to consistently add transliteration to the index but am happy for this to be withdrawn. All that remains are considerations of possible tweaks.

How about (no transliteration):


The transliteration "al-Dawlat al-Islāmīyah" for Islamic State is already presented as a prominently positioned index entry.

My suggestion now is that all further transliteration be reserved for the content section as in history of names. Another possible addition to the index could be (from ####) date information if that is appropriate. Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite right, Gregkaye, I missed it. "Nobody's perfect!" I still think the other transliterations should go beside the acronyms in the index, though. It would be helpful for readers to see them in a row instantly, easier to grasp the information that way, I think. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This could give (trans 1):

  • al-Dawlah  ("the State")
  • al-Dawlat al-Islāmīyah  ("the Islamic State")
  • AQI : Al-Qaeda in Iraq  (Tanẓīm Qāʻidat al-Jihād fī Bilād al-Rāfidayn)
  • Daʿesh, Daesh, Daish,... : al-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fī al-ʻIrāq wa-al-Shām
  • IS : Islamic State  (al-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah)
  • ISI : Islamic State of Iraq  (Dawlat al-'Iraq al-Islāmīyah)
  • ISIL : Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant  (al-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fī al-ʻIrāq wa-al-Shām)
  • ISIS : Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham  (al-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fī al-ʻIrāq wa-al-Shām)
  • JTJ : Jamāʻat al-Tawḥīd wa-al-Jihād  (The Organization of Monotheism and Jihad)
  • Mujahideen Shura Council
  • QSIS : Al-Qaeda Separatists in Iraq and Syria

I've used brackets to consistently indicate change of language and added a non-breaking space before the bracket but would be happy for any consistent version to be used Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively (trans 2):

  • al-Dawlah  "the State"
  • al-Dawlat al-Islāmīyah  "the Islamic State"
  • AQI : Al-Qaeda in Iraq  Tanẓīm Qāʻidat al-Jihād fī Bilād al-Rāfidayn
  • Daʿesh, Daesh, Daish,... : al-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fī al-ʻIrāq wa-al-Shām
  • IS : Islamic State  al-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah
  • ISI : Islamic State of Iraq  Dawlat al-'Iraq al-Islāmīyah
  • ISIL : Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant  al-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fī al-ʻIrāq wa-al-Shām
  • ISIS : Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham  al-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fī al-ʻIrāq wa-al-Shām
  • JTJ : Jamāʻat al-Tawḥīd wa-al-Jihād  The Organization of Monotheism and Jihad
  • Mujahideen Shura Council
  • QSIS : Al-Qaeda Separatists in Iraq and Syria

or (trans 3):

  • al-Dawlah  "the State"
  • al-Dawlat al-Islāmīyah  "the Islamic State"
  • AQI : Al-Qaeda in Iraq  Tanẓīm Qāʻidat al-Jihād fī Bilād al-Rāfidayn
  • Daʿesh, Daesh, Daish,... : al-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fī al-ʻIrāq wa-al-Shām
  • IS : Islamic State  al-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah
  • ISI : Islamic State of Iraq  Dawlat al-'Iraq al-Islāmīyah
  • ISIL : Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant  al-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fī al-ʻIrāq wa-al-Shām
  • ISIS : Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham  al-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fī al-ʻIrāq wa-al-Shām
  • JTJ : Jamāʻat al-Tawḥīd wa-al-Jihād  The Organization of Monotheism and Jihad
  • Mujahideen Shura Council
  • QSIS : Al-Qaeda Separatists in Iraq and Syria

I am happy with any option. I have a slight preference for "no-transliteration" followed by "trans 1" but that's a very marginal difference from 2 and 3. The italics of trans 2 can also be reversed.
Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some adjustments to that-:
  • al-Dawlah  ("the State") (but the Arabic name in italics - couldn't do the code)
  • al-Dawlat al-Islāmīyah  ("the Islamic State") (ditto)
  • AQI : Al-Qaeda in Iraq : Tanẓīm Qāʻidat al-Jihād fī Bilād al-Rāfidayn
  • Daʿesh, Daesh, Daish etc : acronyms formed from the Arabic name for "Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham"
  • IS : Islamic State : al-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah
  • ISI : Islamic State of Iraq : Dawlaht al-'Iraq al-Islāmīyah '(I think you had a typo)
  • ISIL : Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant : al-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fī al-ʻIrāq wa-al-Shām
  • ISIS : Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham : al-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fī al-ʻIrāq wa-al-Shām
  • JTJ : Jamāʻat al-Tawḥīd wa-al-Jihād (no English translation, as there's none here for Tanzim)
  • Mujahideen Shura Council
  • QSIS : Al-Qaeda Separatists in Iraq and Syria
Have kept italics for Arabic names, as they are in italics in "History of names". Not very happy about my Daesh line. We can't say those are acronyms of al-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fī al-ʻIrāq wa-al-Shām, can we? They will be acronyms formed from different transliterations of the name, as I understand it, thus accounting for the variations. As I said, am not sure about this linguistic point. I think all the Daesh variants need to go in, as per my comment. But possibly best to put the rest in "History of names" as there are so many of them. Otherwise, how does that look? Do you agree with those adjustments? --P123ct1 (talk) 13:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daʿesh / Dāʻish

The predominantly used versions of Daʿesh are in sequence: DAISH/Daish, DAASH/Daash, DAESH/Daesh, DA'ASH/Da'ash, DAAS/Daas, DA'ISH/Da'ish, DĀ'ASH/Dā'ash, DAIISH/Daiish. "Daʿesh" is discussed above as being the most accurate rendition. DAISH/Daish seems to be the most used in English. DAASH/Daash is the second most used and also happens to be the Google translation of the Arabic acronym (داعش).

@Johanna-Hypatia: has unilaterally changed presentation of Daʿesh to Dāʻish in lead[28] which, in itself, may be no problem. I wondering whether this is just a pronunciation issue and would appreciate comment. See also: Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#"Daash", "'Daʿesh" or "Daesh", coverage in Arabic media and reflected content in the article. Consistency between lead and the index could be beneficial and, in a context where many names are used, the issue of accuracy also has relevance.

Suggested entries into the index of names are:

  • Daʿesh / Da'ish / Daesh (داعش) : al-Dawla al-Islamiya fi Iraq wa ash-Sham
  • Daʿesh, Daesh, Daish etc. (Arabic equivalent of ISIL / ISIS)

should Daʿesh be changed to Daʻash?
In History of names: should Da'ash be similarly changed to Daʻash?
Comments and further suggestions welcome
Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind which it is, Gregkaye, as long as there is consistency between the Lead and the "History of names" section. I think all variants should be included, for the reason I gave earlier. Readers will see many different spellings in the media and wonder why. A brief word of explanation in this section would help them. Your first suggestion there including the transliteration is better, the second I don't think is clear enough. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Phew :)  Done mostly as last suggestion. The only changes are to the Daesh line and nothing there is precious. Am still hoping that someone with better Arabic than me can look at the Daish in the lead and the initial Daesh in the index and pick a consistent form. I think the final usage of italics works well. Gregkaye ✍♪ 18:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great job! I think that layout should work for readers now. :D --P123ct1 (talk) 20:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move from "ISIS" to "ISIL" in the article text

The previous consensus (reached earlier this year, I believe) was to use "ISIS" in the text, on the grounds that "ISIS" then was the group's common name. I have noticed more use of "ISIL" recently, but cannot quantify it. Who supports a change from "ISIS" to "ISIL"? It would be more consistent with the article's title, if nothing else. Earlier discussion of this is here and here. --P123ct1 (talk) 20:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support - --P123ct1 (talk) 09:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - especially instead of "Islamic State" which is a very problematic name. Legacypac (talk) 20:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't believe that this abbreviation is more common than ISIS, and there would be a disconnect with the use of ISIS on many other articles that would need to be changed also. Gazkthul (talk) 02:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Digging through UN Security Council documents like the al-Qaida Sanctions list, I found the UN is using "ISIL" consistently and long after the group shortened the ir name. A recent example: [29]Legacypac (talk) 03:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, the accurate translation of the 2013 name is the same as the article title Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. We should use ISIL with consistency to both accurate translation and article title used.
incidentally the parallel article ar:الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام gives a machine code translation that reads: "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant , known for short as Daash , which calls itself now an Islamic state only .." Gregkaye ✍♪ 06:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has changed some instances of "ISIS" to "ISIL" without the consensus from other editors needed for this change. I have reverted the changes until a decision is made on which acronym to use in the article. --P123ct1 (talk) 07:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was the editor who you reverted manually. I'm not upset, just confused as your edit seems to go against what you were advocating, which is consistency. Watching CNN tonight they had ISIS in the graphics over commentators and generals saying ISIL consistently. Strange situation. Legacypac (talk) 09:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You miss the point. The consensus view of editors as a whole is what counts, not the view of an individual editor. Consensus has not been reached yet. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the action to revert at this stage was optional but I certainly give it support. We have a discussion regarding best use of terminology between ISIS (with more usage in media) and ISIL (according to better English translation and consistency with article title). It is a topic that has been previously raised with this and the last instance being at P123ct1's initiation. It can also be helpful in a talk page discussion to give notification that an action has been { {done}}. Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Weak Oppose Either is respectable. As I understand it, "Syria" in ISIS is greater Syria and not the current nation-state that was created by Western division. Thus, Levant, the L in ISIL might be better to capture the wider aims of ISIL. However, they've only captured territory in Syria and Iraq, so ISIS is respectable as well. Both are used by sources. My "weakness" stems from a preference for waiting until one emerges as dominant in the sources. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jason from nyc. I think that, if we could rewrite recent word usage, the 2013 name may have been better rendered as the Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria. This would have given the acronym ISIGS and which would arguably have been a more understandable terminology. The groups name went from reference to Iraq to reference to Iraq and greater Syria/the Levant and now, without giving any public declaration of actual territorial ambition, they have dropped geographical reference altogether. As reference to the 2013 name we are left with a choice between ISIS and ISIL. Arabic sources prefer Da'esh as a clear anagram of the 2013 name. ISIL is the most accurate parallel. Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let me remove my opposition. It's a judgment call and those who support it here have done hard work kicking this article into shape. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Can we please have some sort of consistency here? We're using "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" as the title of this article, at present. Until that changes, we should use the accompanying abbreviation, which is "ISIL". Discussions about the article title can be had elsewhere. Right now, at the title that this is at, it makes sense to use ISIL. RGloucester — ☎ 16:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the views of any opposers should be underestimated. There may be an argument that ISIS still is the group's WP:COMMONNAME, or at least more common than ISIL, which under that guidance would mean that ISIS has to stay. --P123ct1 (talk) 18:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:UCRN is a section title within WP:AT and applies to article titles. For the time being we have one of those. Another part of WP:AT is WP:CRITERIA where the issue of consistency gets mentioned. Again this is an article title issue. Certainly when we look at other encyclopaedias like Britannica that make consistent use of single renderings but reference to WP:RELIABLE relates to the content of sources and not to their methodologies. I don't know of any guideline that directly applies to this situation and think that Jason from nyc got it right. It's a judgement call. Gregkaye ✍♪ 19:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is a "judgemental call". However, this is an article title concern. There have numerous proposal about moving this article to numerous titles, including the full-length version of ISIS. All of these have failed so far, and given this, it makes sense to be consistent. If we're going to make a judgement call between ISIS and ISIL, which are both used fairly commonly, it only makes senses to use the one that matches the title of our article. RGloucester — ☎ 20:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Quite a few editors have weighed in on now in this thread. And all previous attempts to move the article name to ISIS have failed. I am not opposed to ISIS as an alternate name used in the article just think we need to get off protecting ISIS from being standardized to mostly ISIL. So do we have consensus yet? Legacypac (talk) 21:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What we have is a proposal (dated: 20:13, 29 September 2014) with three supports and one oppose and this can be viewed in a context of a Wikipedia editing force that has seen the creation of 22,657,167 named accounts. In context ...few editors have weighed providing, at best, a limited view of "wikt:consensus". Its 5 editor contributions over 2 days and any S to L changes made at this stage would certainly be WP:BOLD. I'd suggest waiting a little longer and even then changes would be made at risk as WP:consensus can change. Also the view of P123ct1, as proposer of the issue, is important here. Gregkaye ✍♪ 06:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the names, so far it is five for and one against the move from ISIS to ISIL. I sense lukewarm interest from other editors. But as Gregkaye says probably best to wait a little longer to guage consensus. Whatever consensus is reached it should be recorded here, so that if objections are raised by other editors if the vote goes to ISIL, they can be pointed to a clear decision by editors who participated in the "vote". --P123ct1 (talk) 09:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
5:1 sounds more like consensus. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gregkaye has already started changing "ISIS" to "ISIL". In the absence of further "votes" or comments since the last count of 5:1, I think it is it is safe to assume there is now CONSENSUS to move from "ISIS" to "ISIL" in the text of the article.

Please be careful about global changes. (a) Quotations must obviously not be altered. (b) If "ISIS" in footnote wikitext is accidentally changed to "ISIL", it could break the links and then readers won't be able to call up the citations. --P123ct1 (talk) 20:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's reputation

The recent change in the Lead infobox titles is incomplete. The new titles "Islamic State" to "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" are now inconsistent with the Arabic name and transliteration beneath which remain as "Islamic State". Of the many instances of "ISIS" in the text, some but not all have been changed to "ISIL", so the text of the article is now inconsistent (exactly the same thing happened a week or so ago and had to be straightened out). What kind of impression does this leave with readers? Inconsistencies and inaccuracies of this kind damage Wikipedia's already doubtful reputation for accuracy and reliability. --P123ct1 (talk) 09:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the infobox so the English name matched the article title. I did not feel comfortable changing the arabic as I can't read it. Hoped someone would fix the arabic quickly. RS use both ISIL and ISIS which we explain in the first couple lines. If you want consistency, let's let the infobox match the title. I don't see this as a reputation issue since CNN use actively using both ISIS and ISIL at the same moment (verbal vs graphics). Legacypac (talk) 09:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The CNN isn't WP. No good following the standards of others. Another problem is that "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" clashes with "Caliphate" in the infobox. He is "caliph" of the Islamic State, not ISIS! --P123ct1 (talk) 13:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P123ct1 I agree with the linguistic inconsistency here yet the both titles, "Caliph" and "Islamic State", are called into question. A Caliph is quite literally meant to be a successor of Mohammed. Arab and Muslim communities reject the groups self-declared title "Islamic State". Members of "Islamic State" can claim "we belong to a Caliph". This does not mean that other people cannot still correctly state that "ISIL, ISIS, or Da'esh etc. claim to be a Caliph". Both are linguistically correct. However, I guess similar issues were considered in Arabic Wikipedia. The Arabic article has a lead that says: "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant , known for short as Daash , which calls itself now an Islamic state only" and still have an infobox that presents "Islamic State". Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It gets worse. The Lead now has two infoboxes contradicting each other, one headed "Islamic State" and the other "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" and the Arabic title "Islamic State" still remains in the "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" infobox. Just minor details of no importance to editors, of course. Readers just have to shake the kaleidoscope and take pot luck with the results. --P123ct1 (talk) 08:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How much longer are we going to avoid calling the Islamic State the Islamic State?

All of the awkward politicking of Western politicos aside, how much longer are we going to avoid calling the Islamic State the Islamic State? As already demonstrated, the mainstream Western media has taken to acknowledging IS as the Islamic State or the "so-called Islamic State". There is, as of now, no organization anywhere in the world calling itself either ISIS or ISIL. No such entity exists. Both monikers are sustained by people in the West who don't want to entangle themselves with the burden of fighting such an inconveniently declared entity. In light of its common name, and inconvenient factuality, it's long past time we make the move, even if it's with a qualifier such as (terrorist group), (insurgent group), or the such. If a band is called "The Greatest Band in the World" or a political party is called the "True Patriot Party" we identify them as such according to COMMONNAME and the facts. Why not here? GraniteSand (talk) 09:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever looked at the Talk pages to see what other editors have said about this? This subject has been discussed many, many times since the Islamic State was proclaimed. --P123ct1 (talk) 09:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have. This subject is dynamic and, unfortunately, prone to the predations of a small group of interested editors. GraniteSand (talk) 09:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia actually does use the name Islamic State quite a bit. Legacypac (talk) 09:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And the article should be so appropriately titled, as per our policies. Yes? GraniteSand (talk) 09:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which it is - many RS currently refer to these guys as spelled out or acronym ISIL or ISIS including the UN Security Council. See previous discussions. Legacypac (talk) 09:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Au, contraire. Trending reliable sources cite this group as the "Islamic State" as already demonstrated in this thread. As a current subject prone to both WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RS there is no sustainable reason not to adjust accordingly. There is no organization in the world called either ISIS or ISIL. GraniteSand (talk) 09:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the trending you claim. I haven't seen much change in the last few weeks. ISIS, and to a lesser extent ISIL, seems to be used in the RS just as much as before. DeCausa (talk) 09:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Previous entries here have demonstrated that drift but more importantly, without getting into Google metrics, the AP has settled on Islamic State group and organizations such as the Guardian and the Economist have made note of the politicking in refusing to use IS as well as acknowledging it's correctness. These results with a couple minutes on Google. GraniteSand (talk) 10:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This has all been discussed before. As has the irrelevance of whether or not there is "politicking". We simply reflect usage for good or ill, we don't WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. DeCausa (talk) 10:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm saying the previously used information is perishable and the conclusions are now wrong. The intent of political sources is not without consideration in regards to weight and neutrality, as defined by non-political sources. We have policies in place for this and the policies suggest we should change the title. We are a dynamic and tertiary resource. GraniteSand (talk) 10:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sources tend to use Islamic State for the de facto state created by the group called ISIS/ISIL. The French wikipedia has two articles and if we need to do that at some point I'd argue for Islamic State for the nation. That's assuming this becomes the commonly used name. East Germany became the commonly used name for the German Democratic Republic. The self-proclaimed official name may or may not become the commonly used name. Let's wait. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.activechangefoundation.org/portfolio-item/notinmyname/ - an Islamic voice on the matter Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of "Islamic voices" who have something to on the matter, including the group in question. Crowd sourced political/ideological statements have no weight as reliable sources. GraniteSand (talk) 22:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources now using the group's official name, "Islamic State", include the Economist, as well as The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, The Associated Press, and The Guardian. GraniteSand (talk) 22:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those RSs have been quoted unnumerable times in previous Talk page discussions on the group's common name. It was agreed they all use "Islamic State", but in conjunction with "ISIS". Much Talk page discussion now is mere repetition of past discussions. --P123ct1 (talk) 11:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

aL-Qaeda joining ISIL?

There are some news reports suggesting this, but things appear very fluid. Already I'm seeing al-Qaeda deopped from the opponants and added to the supporters, which does not seem justified just yet. Legacypac (talk) 10:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You mean al-Qaeda franchises are supporters, surely? I thought al-Qaeda proper was still very much an opponent. --P123ct1 (talk) 21:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Map of ISIS controlled areas (again)

Further to this thread earlier, I wasn't sure what was finally stopping the change to reflect uninhabited areas. I raise it again now because with the bombing campaign, maps of the ISIS areas have been widespread in the media. They are almost always in the spider web style and not showing the large uninhabited areas as coloured in. This gives a very different impression and we seem to be an outlier with our map. Given that the map needs to reflect RS isn't there anything that can be done? DeCausa (talk) 10:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Could the country boundaries be marked in as well? The maps in the media always show them. Essential information, I would have thought. --P123ct1 (talk) 11:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here's 2 typical examples: from the BBC and from the New York Times. DeCausa (talk) 11:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This has been discussed before, but here is my thoughts. Is it fair to show empty desert 100% surrounded by ISIL controlled roads and towns as controlled by the Govt when there are likely no Govt troops there? Cause that is exactly what the spider web maps suggest. No other map I've ever seen outside of ISIL maps follows this spider web design. Legacypac (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But "outside of ISIL maps" is exactly the point. I'm not saying which is better; the point is if the RS are representing ISIL maps this way then we should be reflecting that. Presenting a non-typical map is WP:UNDUE. (And I'm aware this was discussed before, I linked to the last discussion. But that was inconclusive.) DeCausa (talk) 19:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just searched "map of isil controlled areas" with Google as an image search. Try it - my count of the first 30 results is 25 block style maps outweighing 5 spiderweb style maps. Other searches and counting further down the page would likely yield similar results. Legacypac (talk) 21:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do it without all the blogs etc and include ISIS and Islamic state. Almost all the high quality RS in recent weeks are using spider web style. DeCausa (talk) 21:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did a image search without knowing what the quantifiable answer would be - and got a clear one. I just tried with ISIS and IS got the same general results. Lots of big name RS using block maps - BBC, Fox, DailyMail, ABC.net.au and so on. Can you quantify your statement more concretely? Legacypac (talk) 22:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The so called spider web maps you cite merely connect the various cities together with lines. They do not reflect the fact that ISIS controls and operates in the various desert areas we have coloured in on the map. They actually have controlled many of these areas prior to their major offensive against fallujah in December of 2013 for example see here [[30]]XavierGreen (talk) 02:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the style of map is a POV issue. Traditionally states have their territory marked by the territory they have formal control whether or not they occupy it. For example Canada or Australia would look very different if the spider type maps were used. So I suspect that the use of spider maps originate from the US military/convert/diplomatic sources. The issue of what reliable sources to use has in this conversation spanned maps up to a year old (which are ancient history). I suggest that the survey is restricted to maps in reliable sources over the last 3 months (to roll over as the months progress). The spider maps are more useful if one wishes to understand what is going on the ground (as in Syria the more detailed maps seem to intertwine the different powers in the country), but their use is unusual for showing who controls what in such conflicts. -- PBS (talk) 12:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revamping and reduction of timeline

I renamed Timeline of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant events in 2014 -> Timeline of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant events and included all entries from the renaming in April 2013 to the present. I also moved the other timeline entries before this to Islamic State of Iraq#Timeline. This clears up clutter in the main article. There may an entry or two that isn't copied that could be applied to previous groups removed in this diff. The latest (~30 days) of events from the timeline are still transcluded into this article. If they weren't users would be putting them in this article and the main timeline article would not be maintained.

I also mentioned above that this article should be moved from C to B class and considered for Good Article or even Feature Article nomination. There's been a lot of hard work, and even some innovations on how to present so much information. I would also like to propose reusing and revamping the Leadership table now in at Islamic_State_of_Iraq#Leadership to help keep track of the known leadership of ISIL. Most leaders have their own articles which is good.~Technophant (talk) 22:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice idea - I cleaned the list up by sorting all the dead/capture from the likely living. Only problem with a table is we know only maybe 2 active names and little about them... Legacypac (talk) 22:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good work, Technophant. Gazkthul (talk) 22:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank goodness. Thanks to Gazkthul and Technophant the article is now down to a reasonable size. --P123ct1 (talk) 12:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes (2)

Would editors please not leave bare URL footnotes when they make edits.

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.

The last long backlog has only just been cleared by editors, but the number is starting to go up again. --P123ct1 (talk) 08:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The war faction infobox is out of hand

There are two infoboxes at the start of the article, the first based on {{Infobox country}} and the second based on {{Infobox war faction}}

These pose several problems in their current form. I think the first 2 problems are very serious.

  1. The war faction infobox has grown enormous in scope, covering at least 4 conflicts, and listing military and political opponents and allies all across the globe. It no longer summarizes useful information for the reader. It has instead become several lists with nothing but offsite references to explain it. A reader can no longer navigate it. How do they know whether an ally or opponent is political or military? How do they know whether an alliance existed in the current conflict, or in one of several previous conflicts? Some of the entries are not even mentioned in the body of the article.
  2. They span many screenfuls down the right-hand size of the page. On mobile devices, they dominate the top of the article. Tablet and smartphone users have to scroll dozens of pages to get to the table of contents and the body of the article. Mobile readers may never have the patience to find the best work of this article's editors.
  3. Editors are confronted with many pages of template code before they can find prose they can read or edit. This is a bad experience for new editors. Even though the page is semi-protected, we should still welcome potential new editors with something that is easy to edit.

I thing that the war faction template was originally designed to be useful to summarize a faction in a single conflict, rather than extend to the entire history of a political and military organization.

I suggest that we start working to fix it. Should we make a first step? Lets delete the second infobox, and work its contents into list sections in the article. (Some of these should eventually become prose sections, and perhaps even lists in themselves. Perhaps as a later step we can add a few more highlights to the main infobox, even if it means customizing the template for this article.)

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds generally sound to me. The first template is a perhaps edited version of one of the templates found at: {{Infobox country}} and maybe there are extra categories there that can absorb some other information.

One difficulty for computer/ large screen users, is that there is a long lead and lengthening TOC while the first infobox is comparatively short. One of my earlier suggestions was for the content of the third and fourth paragraphs of the lead to be distributed into later text. This would give readers more immediate access to the TOC which would also have benefits for small screen users.

Alternatively, not all of the second box need be deleted. Sections are: active -dates; Ideology ...; Leaders ...; Headquarters .. ; Area of operation; Strength ...; part of al-Queda; Originated as ...; Allies ...; Opponents ...; Battles and wars ...;

Sections that I think would be worth moving include the last three (big sections). Other sections like Leaders are duplications of main article content. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to check that information transfers well.

Iraq based opponents

 Iraq

Iraq Sunni Iraqi Insurgents

  • [[General Military Council for Iraqi Revolutionaries[32][33]

Kurdistan Region Iraqi Kurdistan

It does and columns can be easily applied :) Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It must be borne in mind that the Lead to any article should be a summary of the article, which this Lead now is. If anything is removed from it, it will no longer be a summary. The Lead is of reasonable length for an article of this size. The problem here is the ridiculously long second infobox, not the Lead, and it is the second infobox that needs dealing with, not the Lead. Reshaping the article to suit the needs of mobile phone users is crazy. The best solution is obviously to give the second infobox information its own section, as suggested, perhaps as lists complete with its flags, or is there some WP policy/guidance that prevents it? Or look at the Syrian Civil War article to see how the same problem is dealt with there. --P123ct1 (talk) 13:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The TOC is collapsible, btw. --P123ct1 (talk)

 Done! at least to a point that gave me satisfaction :)
the TOC now reads:

11 Finances
12 Equipment
13 Support

13.1 Foreign fighters
13.2 Allies

14 Opposition

14.1 Front line opposition forces
14.2 Multinational coalition (US lead) opposition

Actions taken were: to move Equipment above Foreign fighters to link with Finances; to add title Support; to move Allies from infobox; to add title Opposition (used to be opponents but I wanted to counterpoint support); To change to title front line opposition forces from whatever it was and add Iraq, Syria and Lebanon listings here (Perhaps the Kurdish forces could be moved up to here); to move multinational yader yader title changing to opposition from opponents and inserting listings from infobox; placing lists in two column format. That's all folks. Feel free to edit away. :)

The infoboxes now neatly (just as I planned honest) reach down to just about the same depth in the page as the end of the TOC. (I still favour more editing out from both lead and infoboxes but not to the point of being that bothered). Gregkaye ✍♪ 19:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gregkaye After all your hard work I am now wondering about the wisdom of having the allies/opponents in a section so far away from the first page! I notice there is a lot of white space on the first page, in the TOC (s.2.2.1 could be two lines) and between the first infobox and the TOC. Could a single or double column with the allies/opponents be fitted in there? If you look at the first page of the Syrian Civil War article you will see the sort of thing I mean. If the only way would be by removing some of the Lead, please forget it, for as I said above I am very against that! --P123ct1 (talk) 11:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P123ct1 Wow, the Syrian.. page looks good. I really don't have an opinion on positioning and it wasn't that much work, just a few shifts about (but thanks also for your copy-editing). Split column infoboxes would be one option. The option of moving the info to a higher position also sounds great to me. Perhaps, as a section composed of names, it could even follow directly on from the names section - or perhaps follow History or Designation as a terrorist organization. I think the next three headings go well as a unit (Analysis, Ideology and beliefs and Goals) and they are followed by 7 Territorial claims, 8 Governance, 9 Human rights abuses. I'm not fussed on where to place the new insert so don't necessarily wait for my opinion.

Section headings of the moved content might read:

Allies and opposition
Allies
Opposition: based in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon
Opposition: multinational coalition (US-led)

That last section currently reads "Multinational coalition (US-led) opposition" but I wanted to get "opposition" either consistently at the beginning or end of the header.

The sub-heads represent the three double columned lists with the last list being the longest.

This "Opposition: multinational coalition (US-led)" section has further sub titles:

Military operations in or over Iraq and/or Syria, Supplying weapons to ground forces, Other State Opponents, Other Non-State Opponents, Iranian Kurdish fighters[335]

I think the section on Foreign fighters is best left as following the sections on Finance and Equipment as this typically deals with smaller scale gains rather than organisational support.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gregkaye So there is no way the information could be put in a double/single column beside the other infobox as suggested, then? That would be preferable. --P123ct1 (talk) 15:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I thought perhaps after names but I've got no strong opinion. Suggestions welcome from all. Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it looks good as it currently stands. Gazkthul (talk) 23:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
TY. An advantage of current configuration is a connection between of section "Foreign fighters" and "Allies" which was my original motivation. However, P123ct1 is right to note that information has moved from the top of the article virtually to the bottom. The question relates to reader priorities, either to know how things got to the current situation or to know how that situation currently stands. Gregkaye ✍♪ 02:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the section up to come after "Designation as a terrorist organization" as a more appropriate place for it. --P123ct1 (talk) 11:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Salafi jihadism and/or jihadism

The articles "Infobox war faction" (the second infobox) presents the group's ideology as Salafist jihadism while the recently agreed wording of the main lead reads jihadist extremist. I'm just wondering if there is a consistency issue here and whether we should use one or the other. I'm not particularly bothered which is used but saw the anomaly and thought I'd raise it.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:03, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

United Nations designation of ISIS/ISIL as a terrorist organization - section 3

The United Nations has recently been added to the information box in section 3 as an organisation which has designated ISIL/ISIS as a terrorist organization. In August this year there was long discussion on the Talk page and elsewhere about whether editors could use the same sanctions list document now cited here to support the UN's inclusion in that infobox. The Talk page discussion is zurose arch 4 here and here, and after taking the question to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard WP:RSN here, where the opinion was that that sanctions list document could not be used to support a such a designation by the UN (see discussion there) editors decided that this document was not sufficient back-up. It is a sanctions list, and unlike the other formal country designation lists cited for other countries in that box. We could not find a statement of any kind by the UN, official or otherwise, saying it had designated it as a terrorist organisation - an editor on the RSN didn't believe the UN kept a designation list - the nearest to it was a handful of UN statements where it refers to them as a terrorist organisation, which it not the same thing. Hence the reason why the wording about the UN in the Lead appears as it does. Anyone who wishes to respond to this please look first at the discussion on the RSN. --P123ct1 (talk) 16:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That was a short discussion in which no one seems to have looked at where the cited UN Security Council list came from. [1] says the list came from this UNSC Resolution http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/1267(1999) which says "Recalling the relevant international counter-terrorism conventions and in particular the obligations of parties to those conventions to extradite or prosecute terrorists, Strongly condemning the continuing use of Afghan territory, especially areas controlled by the Taliban, for the sheltering and training of terrorists and planning of terrorist acts, and reaffirming its conviction that the

suppression of international terrorism is essential for the maintenance of international peace and security, Deploring the fact that the Taliban continues to provide safe haven to Usama bin Laden and to allow him and others associated with him to operate a network of terrorist training camps from Taliban-controlled territory and to use Afghanistan as a base from which to sponsor international terrorist operations," and so on...

and many related resolutions including 2083 (2012) which says in part:
"Reaffirming that terrorism in all its forms and manifestations constitutes one of

the most serious threats to peace and security and that any acts of terrorism are criminal and unjustifiable regardless of their motivations, whenever and by whomsoever committed, and reiterating its unequivocal condemnation of Al-Qaida and other individuals, groups, undertakings and entities associated with it, for ongoing and multiple criminal terrorist acts aimed at causing the deaths of innocent civilians and other victims, destruction of property and greatly undermining stability, Reaffirming that terrorism cannot and should not be associated with any religion, nationality or civilization..."

I could go on, but we need to look at the clear Security Council Resolutions calling these people terrorists and authorizes the maintenance of the list referenced. It can't be any more clear that the UN Security Council has designated everyone and every organization on the list as terrorists. Legacypac (talk) 01:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just reworded the page to make it more clear.
Note
  1. ^ http://www.un.org/sc/committees/1267/
Legacypac (talk) 01:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Legacypac The discussion on the RSN was lengthy. Only one of your links there works. Can you fix so we can see what those docs are? --P123ct1 (talk) 06:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The editors who participated in the RSN failed to do any meaningful research, and hardly trump the UN Security Council. Let me make this really clear. Read http://www.un.org/sc/committees/1267/ where you will find all the data in supplied links. UN Security Council designated Bin Laden and associates as terrorists in RESOLUTION 1267 (1999) and established a Committee consisting of all Security Council members (point 6 in Resolution 1267 (1999)). In accordance with that resolution and subsequent resolutions, the committee created a list now called the "Al-Qaeda Sanctions list". It is a very detailed document. AL-QAIDA IN IRAQ got added to the sanctions list, and is now called ISIL on the sanctions list. If you read all the Security Council Resolutions linked in the first paragraph of the http://www.un.org/sc/committees/1267/ you will see the evolution. Each resolution is very clear that the listed people and orgs are terrorists. For example 1526 (under which AL-QAIDA IN IRAQ got added) says "participated in the financing, planning, facilitating and preparation or perpetration of terrorist acts or in supporting terrorist acts" "Reiterating its condemnation of the Al-Qaida network and other associated terrorist groups for ongoing and multiple criminal terrorist acts..." For some reason the UN site does not support linking to specific resolutions, I'll fix the article link. Legacypac (talk) 15:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

we need another sister EL

Wikinews:Category:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
199.119.232.212 (talk) 16:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

English language reliable sources using"Islamic State" since declaration of name change

The trend since the official name change has moved toward "Islamic State", the official name of the subject of the article. Here is a preliminary listing of English language reliable media sources who are using Islamic State. Feel free to add to the list as it inevitably grows. The dynamic nature of the subject, along with abiding by WP:COMMONNAME, WP:RS and WP:NPOV, is making the continued use of the outdated ISIS or ISIL increasingly untenable. GraniteSand (talk) 23:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the examples listed below are discussing the name, so cannot be used as examples of current usage. Samples need to be taken from regular RS reports on the activities of ISIS. I would imagine that most sources are still using "Islamic State" and "ISIS/ISIL" interchangeably. The Guardian article listed there, a regular report, not discussing name usage, has 29 instances of "ISIS" and 6 of "Islamic State". For as long as RS sources use both, "Islamic State" and "ISIS/ISIL", it won't be possible to say "Islamic State" is now the common name. Twitter and blogs, which appear in that list, are considered questionable sources by WP:RS. "Islamic State" is certainly not NPOV PC for some, which is exactly why there is all this reluctance to use plain "Islamic State" in the media and this article. --P123ct1 (talk) 07:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Without going against WP:NOTAFORUM, I still can't understand how calling them Islamic State (their name) gives them "legitimacy" and isn't NPOV, while calling them Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (their old name) doesn't. Gazkthul (talk) 08:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It can be looked at both ways. Calling them "Islamic State" in the article can be seen as NPOV because all that does is reflect what the group have renamed themselves as, i.e. a fact, and WP records facts. It can equally be seen as POV, because merely using the name in the article [my later additions] looks like endorsement of the highly-disputed legitimacy of the caliphate/Islamic State. The opposing viewpoints obviously account for why editors disagree so much over this, but as you say these are asides since this thread is about RS practice and this article reflecting it. --P123ct1 (talk) 09:47, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@P123ct1 This paragraph is perplexing. That's exactly why they are reliable sources for common usage. These reliable sources are discussing the proper naming conventions of the subject of the article since its change and are agreeing upon "Islamic State". In an instance where the common name is not easily discerned because of the common interoperability then we establish there is no established common name and use what reliable sources tell us is the correct name, which the below sources assert is "Islamic State". Additionally, your use of "political correctness' as a litmus for usage here is extremely concerning and suggests that you are either wholly unfamiliar with our policies and mission or are editing here with an agenda not aligned with our mission. In fact it's reflective of much of the unnecessary and obstructive obfuscation surrounding this issue. GraniteSand (talk) 23:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You fail to grasp the simple point I was making about NPOV/POV (and being PC). It was a statement, not a view. Perhaps I was not clear enough. Also, I did not like to say it when I commented on your examples, but I, too, thought they were biased. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Even amongst these specific links:
BBC: "'ISIS' seems to be the most ubiquitous name"
The Economist - article title: The many names of ISIS (also known as IS, ISIL, SIC and Da'ish)
The Guardian - article title: US to directly arm Kurdish peshmerga forces in bid to thwart Isis offensive
Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:20, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've read them. I fail to see where you're taking that, though. GraniteSand (talk) 22:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have? You are quoting select references that clearly use references like ISIS; that can demonstrate the use of ISIS and not "Islamic State" in the title and that can state: 'ISIS' seems to be the most ubiquitous name. You know that RS use a variety of names yet you still present the single option, 'English language reliable sources using "Islamic State"'. Gregkaye ✍♪ 02:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First result in a search for Islamic State this AM is http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/01/islamic-state-language-isis - titled "Why there’s no such thing as Islamic State". Many other articles using the term similarly qualify the use. Counting results for "Islamic State" will include all results for spelled out ISIS/ISIL etc so don't assume that a count of search results = common name.Legacypac (talk) 15:58, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, search results are inherently misleading and practically worthless in this context. We must assemble reliable sources speaking on the subject since the name change and determine common usage among those reliable sources. The list above demonstrates such sources doing just that. GraniteSand (talk) 22:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ISIL/ISIS/"Islamic State"

"Islamic State" is the morally corrupt name of a morally corrupt group. It has all the ambiguity of stating "Government" or similar while suggesting a large yet specific sphere of influence.

  • ISIL gets "About 28,000,000 results" with results including those of the likes of Intersil Corp.
  • ISIS gets "About 227,000,000 results" note that this will include a number of references to ancient Egyptian religion and a significant number of other organisations and people etc. as partly referenced at Isis (disambiguation). There is also a potential issue here in that "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" is less accurate than "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" but the article currently makes reference to "Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham"

Curiously:

  • ISIS got "About 62,100,000 results" with dates "1 Apr 2013 - 'Today'"

while

  • ISIS got "About 1,380,000 results" with dates "Before 1 Apr 2013".

Its still a lot of hits.

while

  • "Islamic State" got "About 3,460,000 results" with dates "Before 1 Apr 2013".

Another repeatedly mentioned problem with the the groups self-designated title is that there is already a Wikipedia article on Islamic state. I have mentioned a potential but personally unfavoured use of Islamic State (Iraq and Levant) which also has the advantages of avoiding the arrogant ambiguity of the self-edited title. Islamic State (group) provides zero disambiguation from other Islamic States that have either come before or which may appear in the future. That title may have use in the context of a news outlet dealing solely with current events but it has no place in an encyclopaedia.

Acronym title formats work for in connection to articles such as: BBC, HIV/AIDS, IBM, NATO, and a wide range of others. The format can work here. Arabic and Muslim communities reject the use of "Islamic State". WP:COMMONNAME indicates that: Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gregkaye Is this a new Talk section or a continuation of GraniteSand's that he opened? Probably best to avoid subsections in Talk discussions, I think. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The GraniteSand's thread is disjointed by use of the Sources subheading and I did what I thought best to preserve chronological continuity. I'll move: ISIL/ISIS/"Islamic State" to a level 2 heading.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregkaye (talk • contribs) 10:44, 2 October 2014
Yes, I guessed that is why you had done it! To continue, most of those statistics lump all sources together and it is only the RS sources that we are interested in when looking for the group's WP:COMMONNAME. Global stastistics of that kind won't help especially as ISIS and ISIL refer to other entities as well. Even statistics for "Islamic State" in an individual RS source are no good without a comparison with its use of "ISIS/ISIL". Can you find any more breakdowns for RSs of the kind you found for the NYT? An assessment of the group's common name has been attempted innumerable times on this Talk page in the last few months and each time failed miserably. A proper breakdown of individual RS sources would be needed to come to a sensible conclusion. So far in discussions it has been random sampling, anecdotal evidence and impressions none of which are satisfactory. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
GraniteSand, you were aware of the prevalence of the use of the names ISIL and ISIS as per information presented at Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#Alternative_name and this awareness is demonstrated by your 1 October edit of your thread at: Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#How_much_longer_are_we_going_to_avoid_calling_the_Islamic_State_the_Islamic_State.3F. Never-the-less you still presented a single option title as at: Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#English language reliable sources using"Islamic State" since declaration of name change. Are these not examples against WP:NPOV? Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what you're asking me. GraniteSand (talk) 23:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
GraniteSand, I made a statement. You are also well aware of previous statements statements made regarding the prevalence of the use of ISIL/ISIS. You also quoted a range of articles several of which did not even mention Islamic State in their titles some of which even made statements such as: 'ISIS' seems to be the most ubiquitous name. You know that RS use a variety of names and of the prevalence of the use of acronym based titles and yet you still presented the one sided: English language reliable sources using"Islamic State".
Its not good. Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP has a word for editors with an agenda. --P123ct1 (talk) 14:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Gregkaye Wow, where to begin? We don't treat search engine results as a reliable source when extrapolating facts, especially when attempting to gauge the notability or veracity of subject or terms, across the project. Even if we did, your metrics are wrong. You're using search parameters more than a year outside the Islamic State's name change. Additionally terminology searched provide inherently unreliable results as ISIS and ISIL both contain "Islamic State" and many articles talking about the proper or preferred use of "Islamic State" include the former terms for context. These search results are categorically worthless.
Your objections to the title change based on existing articles is a technical issue easily fixed by disambiguation pages and is not an excuse to make a move otherwise compliant with policy. Your push for an acronym title is misguided and your corresponding search results for the NYT are as erroneous as the previous search results, for much the same reason. You'll notice that the overwhelming preponderance of sources using "ISIS" use so as a shorthand, only after identifying the group as it's full former name, in the lede. This is not true of your examples.
To reiterate the policy on Wikipedia article titles: "If the name of a person, group, object, or other article topic changes, then more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change than in those before the change." The subject has changed its name and the way in which we determine usage is by compiling reliable sources who have spoken on the subject since the name change. We don't use loose search results or complain about perceived moral slights, which brings me to my last point. You're leading objection to the use of "Islamic State" as being morally corrupt raises concerns about your paradigm in editing this article. Your angry and unsolicited characterization of the subject of the article as also being morally corrupt, while probably correct, also raises concerns about your state. Both suggest that, in this space, you may be driven more by animosity than a desire to build an article based our core policies. Combined with antagonistic declarations on your user page characterizing religion in general as being an inevitable contributor to insecurity, grief, and insanity leaves me in doubt that you can edit here fairly and without bias. You may want to consider recusing yourself, or even just taking a break, from editing here. GraniteSand (talk) 22:52, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Gregkaye has made a number of major, useful and objective edits to this page - more than most have in the past week. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A good reason not to use Islamic State

According to this BBC article quoting a woman in Mosul "They will cut your tongue out even if you call them Isis - you have to say Islamic State." Legacypac (talk) 20:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow your logic. Could you expand on that? GraniteSand (talk) 22:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Isis" in their minds means the pagan goddess. Nonsensical - but what do you expect from a bunch of mentally defective terrorists? HammerFilmFan (talk) 00:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Pagan? That's POV. The Egyptian religion had a great belief in such concepts as "truth," "justice," and "order" Belief systems held that people would be judged according to the weighing of their souls. Modern religions typically say that people are judged according to adherence to a specific creed. For most people this means that, if you are born into the wrong family, you're screwed. The Egyptian belief may be considered to be relatively fair in comparison. Gregkaye ✍♪ 18:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]
One way of looking at this is that using "Islamic State" for ISIL bows to the desires of the terrorists. In examining COMMONNAME we need to look at what RS call it - and not just the news media headlines. (I continue to update this list)
UN - consistently uses ISIL in Security Council documents.
US - Govt and Obama consistently using ISIL. Extreme proof: http://www.defense.gov/home/features/2014/0814_iraq/
Canada is using "The so-called Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant’s (ISIL)" or just ISIL.http://www.international.gc.ca/media/aff/news-communiques/2014/09/15a.aspx?lang=eng
AU PM Tony Abbott said at the UN Security council "To use this term [Islamic State] is to dignify a death cult; a death cult that, in declaring itself a caliphate, has declared war on the world," he told the Security Council. Perhaps the realisation is now dawning for all peoples, all cultures and all faiths that it can never be right to kill in the name of God. Countries do need to work together to defeat it because about 80 countries have citizens fighting with ISIL and every country is a potential target."
UK PM Cameron uses the term ISiL https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4HDt9PUkeI
France using Daesh
EU The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has adopted a resolution to combat the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, or ISIL, to establish peace and stability in conflict regions. http://www.aa.com.tr/en/news/398838--pace-calls-for-governments-to-stand-up-against-isil
Russia Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has called for the involvement of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the campaign against the Takfiri ISIL terrorists operating inside Syria and neighboring Iraq. “Iran of course should be part of the efforts to fight ISIL, because Iran is a strong opponent of this group,” Lavrov said http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/09/28/380328/russia-urges-iran-role-against-isil/
Gulf/Arab states usually use Daesh from everything I've read.
That covers the major part of the English speaking world and a few other key players. Legacypac (talk) 01:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that any news organisation that has reporters in front-line regions of Iran, Iraq or Syria can necessarily be considered a reliable source. Sources continue to use a variety of references to the group but remember, this is a group that have been known for killing reporters and for killing people that make reference to Daesh and now ISIS as well. Gregkaye ✍♪ 03:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would it not be a good idea to keep all discussion on this topic under one heading, instead of having it scattered about in different sections? It would make the discussion much easier to follow. --P123ct1 (talk) 07:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Force for Good

I think Wikipedia could be a useful vehicle here, and maybe list some of the various international muslim communities that have condemned ISIS. For example, in the UK there is "not in my name" campaign by British Muslims. Perhaps this information could be placed near the top, so its prominent. This wouldn't be manipulative or untruthful, but it would be useful for people to have this information spelt out to them clearly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.43.249 (talk) 01:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encylopaedia, not an arm of the media or an information service. But a section dealing with criticisms of the Islamic State has already been proposed and this could go into that. --P123ct1 (talk) 07:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC) (See next section --P123ct1 (talk))[reply]
If I add this will it be considered breach of the 1RR? I don't f'ing understand how that procedure works. Could someone else add it in my name please. Thanks. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 12:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To Why should I have a User Name?: If it has been at least 24 hours since you last edited the article, then you should feel free to edit it again. Even if your edit is construed as a reversion of someone else's edit, that would not be a violation of 1RR which limits you to one reversion per 24 hour period per affected article (i.e. articles on the Syrian civil war). JRSpriggs (talk) 13:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why should I have a User Name? On an earlier Talk page I drew up this guidance on what a revert is, as I think most of us have been baffled about this rule at some stage. Dougweller, the admin on this page, seems to have approved that list. --P123ct1 (talk) 14:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New section: "Criticism of the Islamic State"

I have opened a new section called "Criticism of the Islamic State", as it seemed time for one after all the recent outspoken criticisms from various governments and the Muslim world. I have moved into it some text from other parts of the article. Please feel free to change the title or move it to a different position in the TOC, as I don't think either are ideal but couldn't think of better alternatives. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has already removed the subsections I put in, "From the Muslim community" and "From the non-Muslim world", on the grounds that this is divisive - which is fine - but it seemed only logical to me to have the criticisms under those separate headings. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I felt free not to divide the world between 'us' and 'others'. Thank you. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 11:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a better way to handle the information in that section in an orderly way? Any ideas are welcome. --P123ct1 (talk) 11:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The edits to restore any doubt about the applicability of the name "Islamic State" are not constructive. Calling an organization "Islamic State" is incredibly inappropriate: 1. Very offensive to the vast majority of Muslims world wide 2. Not the name used by any known State actor (see list above) 3. Is like naming an organization "The Government" or "Republic" or "Kingdom" with no geographical or ethnic context. It is totally illogical. 4. Many people feel that the organization is neither Islamic or a State and definately not both. 5. The vast majority of media sources qualify the term - and so should we. 6. Multiple move requests to "Islamic State" for the article have failed, yet people keep changing the text. Legacypac (talk) 12:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Putting this important information that no nation recognizes the name they want to use deep down in the article is not NPOV, it is hiding the facts. It belongs in the Lead where I inserted it before, perhaps with more detail in a section of the article. Legacypac (talk) 13:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did voice misgivings about the position of the new section, partly for that reason. I think a sentence or two in the Lead about the name dispute and dispute over the legitimacy of the Islamic State/caliphate (which is really what the name dispute is about) and more detail on it in "Criticism of the Islamic State" placed more prominently in the TOC - though how that can be done without upsetting the flow of the article I can't see at the moment. Perhaps worked into the "Names" section, which is right at the beginning? The most important thing is that whatever is said about this must be said neutrally, or it will flout WP:NPOV, one of the WP:FIVEPILLARS which are the foundation on which WP is built. --P123ct1 (talk) 13:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I put a new sentence, the last in the lead, to cover it, immediately after the sentence about the group renaming itself. It is factual, not POV, and fits with the fact they picked a new name. Their chosen name is a declaration of war on the rest of the muslim world, not some trivial thing Wikipedia should just swallow without presenting that 99% of the world rejects it.Legacypac (talk) 13:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WD P123ct1 and Legacypac for work on this. Digression: I view the content with referral to governmental and religious sources to have a far higher moral standing than the actions of groups such as reuters that for some inexplicable reason seem to have chosen to use the term "Islamic State" in virtual exclusion to all others. I find it incomprehensible, an example of "RS" POV? Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps they took the view, "This is what they call themselves now. We should as well, and not get into the politics of it." Seems reasonable. --P123ct1 (talk) 16:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No I think the media is shortening a long name they don't understand to save ink. That and pure laziness. And like another editor suggested, maybe protect their reporters from being separated from their heads. If this group called itself "The Catholic Church" and the leader the "Pope" would Wikipedia use those name? Legacypac (talk) 16:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Legacypac I agree with you, it should not be trivialised. My overriding concern is WP:NPOV, and if it makes it look as if I minimise some things, that is unintentional. We had a very similar discussion about using the word "terrorist" in the Lead some time ago. It is not what is said, it is how it is said that counts. --P123ct1 (talk) 14:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Slovenia is not supplying weapons

Please remove Slovenia from list of countries providing weapons. Slovenia is not helping by military means. It was listed on the list of countries in coalition against IS without even being informed.

Sources: http://www.sta.si/en/vest.php?s=a&id=2054912 http://www.noodls.com/view/907F12D3539A0A4E278BE6F2EE86B49EBCD99185?9269xxx1411980751 http://www.24ur.com/novice/slovenija/pahor-zgladil-nesporazum-glede-uvrstitve-slovenije-na-seznam-koalicije-drzav-proti-is.html http://www.siol.net/novice/slovenija/2014/09/mzz.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.103.141.64 (talk) 11:43, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted the flag and bad ref. Thanks for the heads up. Legacypac (talk) 14:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Territory seized and controlled by ISIL

A tricky technical point has arisen. How is land seized and controlled by an unrecognised state described? The Islamic State is described as an "unrecognized state" in the Lead. How should the land it claims for its new caliphate be described? Is the correct description "occupied territory"? --P123ct1 (talk) 16:16, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. The term "unrecognized state" is actually linked to Lists_of_active_separatist_movements and ISIL is on the List_of_active_rebel_groups#Groups_which_control_territory so "controlled" and "occupied" or "occupied territories" seems reasonable. ISIL is the largest rebel army controlling the largest geographic area and population, and the only one spanning two countries in the world right now (Eastern Ukraine being a possible exception). Perhaps we should change "unrecognized state" to something better - I've almost done that already but fear a revert war. ISIL is (correctly) not on the List_of_states_with_limited_recognition but the term unrecognized state suggests that they should be. I can't come up with a better term other than terrorist organization Legacypac (talk) 16:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Legacypac So far the article has "ISIL-controlled territory". Probably safest to keep to that, I think, for consistency if nothing else. There was some discussion about "unrecognised state" edit some time back, which I don't remember, so probably best not to edit it without putting it to the Talk page first. I have no view on what it should be. It is already called a "terrorist organisation" in the Lead, of course. Btw, I was going to add a sentence before yours at the end of the Lead and run it into yours this way: "There has been much debate worldwide about the legitimacy of these moves, and no government and very few Muslims will acknowledge the name "Islamic State" owing to its far-reaching political and religious authority implications." I wanted to get in that there is this debate about the legitimacy of what ISIL has done. Is that okay by you? --P123ct1 (talk) 17:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like that change because unlike many things that are debated, all parties (except ISIL, a handful of terror groups that have pledged to them, and some media organizations) reject the name. I don't think your addition says anything more than what is there now, just with more words. I remain open to discussion though. Legacypac (talk) 18:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation

I heard English/American speakers (for example Obama and several analysts) pronounce the IS/ISIL/ISIS acronym as 'eye sa' or 'eye saw', why is that? Bever (talk) 16:25, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've not heard that yet (but I am a native english speaker and it might sound different to your ears). World leaders are saying ISIL almost exclusively pronounced 'eye sole' or pronounced out 'eye es eye el'. But you gotta see this clip from Fallon for the correct pronunciation. Legacypac (talk) 17:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copy of letter sent to British Broadsheets and Reuters

Title: independent.co.uk comes first in integrity league table of UK broadsheets in the context of a brazen lack of neutrality by Reuters

The league table compared one weeks worth of usage of the terms "ISIL" and "ISIS" in comparison to usage of the "Islamic State" terminology rejected by Muslims, Arabs and the international community.

The calculations used followed the formula: #uses of ISIL + #uses of ISIS : #uses of "Islamic State" for the period: "26 Sep 2014 - 3 Oct 2014"

Summary of results:

1st independent.co.uk - gets score - 24 2nd thesundaytimes.co.uk - gets score - 4.3 3rd theguardian.com - gets score - 2.5 4th thetimes.co.uk - gets score - 2.3 5th ft.com - gets score - 2.2 6th telegraph.co.uk - gets score - 1.2

reuters.com - gets score - 0.07

The calculations did not consider the various uses of Daʿesh

Source: telegraph.co.uk - gets score - 1.2:1 for 2,520 uses of ISIL + 352 uses of ISIS : 2,370 uses of "Islamic State" 2,520 + 352 / 2,370 = 1.211814345991561

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site%3Areuters.com+%22Islamic+State%22&espv=2&biw=853&bih=455&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A26%2F09%2F2014%2Ccd_max%3A03%2F10%2F2014&tbm=#tbs=cdr:1%2Ccd_min:26%2F09%2F2014%2Ccd_max:03%2F10%2F2014&q=site%3Atelegraph.co.uk%2F+%22ISIL%22 for search: site:telegraph.co.uk/ "ISIL" gets "About 2,520 results" from "26 Sep 2014 - 3 Oct 2014"

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site%3Areuters.com+%22Islamic+State%22&espv=2&biw=853&bih=455&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A26%2F09%2F2014%2Ccd_max%3A03%2F10%2F2014&tbm=#tbs=cdr:1%2Ccd_min:26%2F09%2F2014%2Ccd_max:03%2F10%2F2014&q=site%3Atelegraph.co.uk%2F+%22ISIS%22 for search: site:telegraph.co.uk/ "ISIS" gets "About 352 results" from "26 Sep 2014 - 3 Oct 2014"

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site%3Areuters.com+%22Islamic+State%22&espv=2&biw=853&bih=455&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A26%2F09%2F2014%2Ccd_max%3A03%2F10%2F2014&tbm=#tbs=cdr:1%2Ccd_min:26%2F09%2F2014%2Ccd_max:03%2F10%2F2014&q=site%3Atelegraph.co.uk%2F+%22Islamic+State%22 for search: site:telegraph.co.uk/ "Islamic State" gets "About 2,370 results" from "26 Sep 2014 - 3 Oct 2014"


Source: ft.com - gets score - 2.2:1 for 6 uses of ISIL + 3,090 uses of ISIS : 1,390 uses of "Islamic State" 6 + 3,090 / 1,390 = 2.227338129496403

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site%3Areuters.com+%22Islamic+State%22&espv=2&biw=853&bih=455&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A26%2F09%2F2014%2Ccd_max%3A03%2F10%2F2014&tbm=#tbs=cdr:1%2Ccd_min:26%2F09%2F2014%2Ccd_max:03%2F10%2F2014&q=site%3Aft.com+%22ISIL%22 for search: site:ft.com "ISIL" gets "6 results" from "26 Sep 2014 - 3 Oct 2014"

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site%3Areuters.com+%22Islamic+State%22&espv=2&biw=853&bih=455&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A26%2F09%2F2014%2Ccd_max%3A03%2F10%2F2014&tbm=#tbs=cdr:1%2Ccd_min:26%2F09%2F2014%2Ccd_max:03%2F10%2F2014&q=site%3Aft.com+%22ISIS%22 for search: site:ft.com "ISIS" gets "About 3,090 results" from "26 Sep 2014 - 3 Oct 2014"

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site%3Areuters.com+%22Islamic+State%22&espv=2&biw=853&bih=455&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A26%2F09%2F2014%2Ccd_max%3A03%2F10%2F2014&tbm=#tbs=cdr:1%2Ccd_min:26%2F09%2F2014%2Ccd_max:03%2F10%2F2014&q=site%3Aft.com+%22Islamic+State%22 for search: site:ft.com "Islamic State" gets "About 1,390 results" from "26 Sep 2014 - 3 Oct 2014"


Source: thesundaytimes.co.uk - gets score - 4.3:1 for 0 uses of ISIL + 39 uses of ISIS : 9 uses of "Islamic State" 0 + 39 / 9 = 4.333333333333333

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site%3Areuters.com+%22Islamic+State%22&espv=2&biw=853&bih=455&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A26%2F09%2F2014%2Ccd_max%3A03%2F10%2F2014&tbm=#tbs=cdr:1%2Ccd_min:26%2F09%2F2014%2Ccd_max:03%2F10%2F2014&q=site%3Athesundaytimes.co.uk+%22ISIL%22 for search: site:thesundaytimes.co.uk "ISIL" gets "0 results" from "26 Sep 2014 - 3 Oct 2014"

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site%3Areuters.com+%22Islamic+State%22&espv=2&biw=853&bih=455&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A26%2F09%2F2014%2Ccd_max%3A03%2F10%2F2014&tbm=#tbs=cdr:1%2Ccd_min:26%2F09%2F2014%2Ccd_max:03%2F10%2F2014&q=site%3Athesundaytimes.co.uk+%22ISIS%22 for search: site:thesundaytimes.co.uk "ISIS" gets "About 39 results" from "26 Sep 2014 - 3 Oct 2014"

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site%3Areuters.com+%22Islamic+State%22&espv=2&biw=853&bih=455&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A26%2F09%2F2014%2Ccd_max%3A03%2F10%2F2014&tbm=#tbs=cdr:1%2Ccd_min:26%2F09%2F2014%2Ccd_max:03%2F10%2F2014&q=site%3Athesundaytimes.co.uk+%22Islamic+State%22 for search: site:thesundaytimes.co.uk "Islamic State" gets "9 results" from "26 Sep 2014 - 3 Oct 2014"


Source: theguardian.com - gets score - 2.5:1 for 205 uses of ISIL + 6,400 uses of ISIS : 2,630 uses of "Islamic State" 205 + 6,400 / 2,630 = 2.511406844106464

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site%3Areuters.com+%22Islamic+State%22&espv=2&biw=853&bih=455&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A26%2F09%2F2014%2Ccd_max%3A03%2F10%2F2014&tbm=#tbs=cdr:1%2Ccd_min:26%2F09%2F2014%2Ccd_max:03%2F10%2F2014&q=site%3Atheguardian.com+%22ISIL%22 for search: site:theguardian.com "ISIL" gets "About 205 results" from "26 Sep 2014 - 3 Oct 2014"

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site%3Areuters.com+%22Islamic+State%22&espv=2&biw=853&bih=455&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A26%2F09%2F2014%2Ccd_max%3A03%2F10%2F2014&tbm=#tbs=cdr:1%2Ccd_min:26%2F09%2F2014%2Ccd_max:03%2F10%2F2014&q=site%3Atheguardian.com+%22ISIS%22 for search: site:theguardian.com "ISIS" gets "About 6,400 results" from "26 Sep 2014 - 3 Oct 2014"

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site%3Areuters.com+%22Islamic+State%22&espv=2&biw=853&bih=455&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A26%2F09%2F2014%2Ccd_max%3A03%2F10%2F2014&tbm=#tbs=cdr:1%2Ccd_min:26%2F09%2F2014%2Ccd_max:03%2F10%2F2014&q=site%3Athesundaytimes.co.uk+%22Islamic+State%22 for search: site:theguardian.com "Islamic State" gets "About 2,630 results" from "26 Sep 2014 - 3 Oct 2014"


Source: independent.co.uk - gets score - 24:1 for 49 uses of ISIL + 3,610 uses of ISIS : 151 uses of "Islamic State" 49 + 3,610 / 151 = 24.2317880794702

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site%3Areuters.com+%22Islamic+State%22&espv=2&biw=853&bih=455&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A26%2F09%2F2014%2Ccd_max%3A03%2F10%2F2014&tbm=#tbs=cdr:1%2Ccd_min:26%2F09%2F2014%2Ccd_max:03%2F10%2F2014&q=site%3Aindependent.co.uk+%22ISIL%22 for search: site:independent.co.uk "ISIL" gets "About 49 results" from "26 Sep 2014 - 3 Oct 2014"

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site%3Areuters.com+%22Islamic+State%22&espv=2&biw=853&bih=455&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A26%2F09%2F2014%2Ccd_max%3A03%2F10%2F2014&tbm=#tbs=cdr:1%2Ccd_min:26%2F09%2F2014%2Ccd_max:03%2F10%2F2014&q=site%3Aindependent.co.uk+%22ISIS%22 for search: site:independent.co.uk "ISIS" gets "About 3,610 results" from "26 Sep 2014 - 3 Oct 2014"

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site%3Areuters.com+%22Islamic+State%22&espv=2&biw=853&bih=455&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A26%2F09%2F2014%2Ccd_max%3A03%2F10%2F2014&tbm=#tbs=cdr:1%2Ccd_min:26%2F09%2F2014%2Ccd_max:03%2F10%2F2014&q=site%3Aindependent.co.uk+%22Islamic+State%22 for search: site:independent.co.uk "Islamic State" gets "About 151 results" from "26 Sep 2014 - 3 Oct 2014"


Source: thetimes.co.uk - gets score - 2.3:1 for 4 uses of ISIL + 436 uses of ISIS : 187 uses of "Islamic State" 4 + 436 / 187 = 2.352941176470588

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site%3Areuters.com+%22Islamic+State%22&espv=2&biw=853&bih=455&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A26%2F09%2F2014%2Ccd_max%3A03%2F10%2F2014&tbm=#tbs=cdr:1%2Ccd_min:26%2F09%2F2014%2Ccd_max:03%2F10%2F2014&q=site%3Athetimes.co.uk+%22ISIL%22 for search: site:thetimes.co.uk "ISIL" gets "4 results" from "26 Sep 2014 - 3 Oct 2014"

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site%3Areuters.com+%22Islamic+State%22&espv=2&biw=853&bih=455&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A26%2F09%2F2014%2Ccd_max%3A03%2F10%2F2014&tbm=#tbs=cdr:1%2Ccd_min:26%2F09%2F2014%2Ccd_max:03%2F10%2F2014&q=site%3Athetimes.co.uk+%22ISIS%22 for search: site:thetimes.co.uk "ISIS" gets "About 436 results" from "26 Sep 2014 - 3 Oct 2014"

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site%3Areuters.com+%22Islamic+State%22&espv=2&biw=853&bih=455&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A26%2F09%2F2014%2Ccd_max%3A03%2F10%2F2014&tbm=#tbs=cdr:1%2Ccd_min:26%2F09%2F2014%2Ccd_max:03%2F10%2F2014&q=site%3Athetimes.co.uk+%22Islamic+State%22 for search: site:thetimes.co.uk "Islamic State" gets "About 187 results" from "26 Sep 2014 - 3 Oct 2014"


Source: reuters.com - gets score - 0.07:1 for 335 uses of ISIL + 1,490 uses of ISIS : 24,900 uses of "Islamic State" 335 + 1,490 / 24,900 = 0.0732931726907631

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site%3Areuters.com+%22Islamic+State%22&espv=2&biw=853&bih=455&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A26%2F09%2F2014%2Ccd_max%3A03%2F10%2F2014&tbm=#tbs=cdr:1%2Ccd_min:26%2F09%2F2014%2Ccd_max:03%2F10%2F2014&q=site%3Areuters.com+%22ISIL%22 for search: site:reuters.com "ISIL" gets "About 335 results" from "26 Sep 2014 - 3 Oct 2014"

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site%3Areuters.com+%22Islamic+State%22&espv=2&biw=853&bih=455&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A26%2F09%2F2014%2Ccd_max%3A03%2F10%2F2014&tbm=#tbs=cdr:1%2Ccd_min:26%2F09%2F2014%2Ccd_max:03%2F10%2F2014&q=site%3Areuters.com+%22ISIS%22 for search: site:reuters.com "ISIS" gets "About 1,490 results" from "26 Sep 2014 - 3 Oct 2014"

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site%3Areuters.com+%22Islamic+State%22&espv=2&biw=853&bih=455&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A26%2F09%2F2014%2Ccd_max%3A03%2F10%2F2014&tbm=#tbs=cdr:1%2Ccd_min:26%2F09%2F2014%2Ccd_max:03%2F10%2F2014&q=site%3Areuters.com+%22Islamic+State%22 for search: site:reuters.com "Islamic State" gets "About 24,900 results" from "26 Sep 2014 - 3 Oct 2014"

Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:18, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WD, Gregkaye. Those are exactly the kind of intra-RS results that I thought would be more helpful than random surveys by editors, to guage name usage. Who did this survey? You say "Copy of a letter", but I see no letter. The results are quite revealing, aren't they? Is it possible to do this for some American RSs? --P123ct1 (talk) 18:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive edits

User:Atifabbasi8 has first brought a money unit from an unreliable source and without sources invented two 'official languages' and later when I removed the so-called official languages has come back to revert that and passing by to remove a citation needed tag without any explanation. Therefore they have made use of not reliable sources, addition without sources, removal of a tag without explanation and a violation of the 1RR rule. Which admin is going to warn them and who is going to revert their disruptive edits? Thanks. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 18:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islamic_State&oldid=628238510"