Talk:Islamic State

Population, Area Data?

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

Location map of Islamic State

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

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

Alleged Snowden leaks

On the Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi an anonymous user added this interesting diff. It says "On July 15 2014, as part of former US NSA Edward Snowden leaks, it was reported that "the British and American intelligence and the Mossad worked together to create the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)." Since the story was picked up by the International Business Times[2] it may be worth noting on the site, however I don't think it's authentic information. Snowden handed over his files to journalists Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras. I don't think either one of those would submit a story to "The Voice of Bahrain" Gulf Daily News without even being quoted. I could post and article in my self-owned tabloid titled "Snowden Leaks: Wikipedia Edited by Extraterrestrials" and I'm sure it would get some attention, but that doesn't make it reliable or verifiable. Comments? - Technophant (talk) 04:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree entirely which is why I removed it earlier. If there is such a leak, why haven't the major media picked it up? Oh sure, maybe there's a conspiracy to keep it silent, but without much better sources we can't use this. Dougweller (talk) 12:15, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Just a general point here: do you not think that rumours which become widespread, sometimes internationally, and persist although they have been disproved should nevertheless be recorded? Readers could wonder why there is no mention of them and (falsely) accuse Wikipedia of missing "facts", e.g. the idea that ISIS is "too extreme" for even al-Qaeda (said wrongly to be one reason AQ gave for cutting ties with them) and the al-Baghdadi threat, "I'll see you in New York", which still have very wide currency although they are not true and yet Wikipedia is silent on them. Rumours or false stories can always be worded diplomatically so that Wikipedia is not seen to be recording them as fact. I did this twice - in the Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi article - with the "I'll see you in New York" story (which I still see repeated in the media) but was reverted both times. In other words, I think rumours that gain traction should be recorded in Wikipedia, especially since they sometimes become folklore over time. Looks like it is happening already with the ISIS being "too extreme" for al-Qaeda notion. --P123ct1 (talk) 15:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

When the mainstream media report that there is a rumour to this effect we can include it, meanwhile we should not be party to spreading it. Dougweller (talk) 16:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with that, but don't agree that reporting something as a rumour would be being a party to spreading it; that is what I meant about choosing careful wording. Does "The Daily Beast" count as mainstream media? They were the first to report the threat story, I believe, which caught on everywhere. My edit was "'The Daily Beast' reported that ... However, the US Defence Department said ...", giving their plain statement, backed up with a citation, which clearly refuted the DB's story. That seemed fair enough to me and made it clear that Wikipedia was not passing on the story as fact. --P123ct1 (talk) 19:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC) (I ought to make clear that the story and the refutation were not my edits, only the linking of the two in the way I did was. P123ct1)

Actually being to extreme is a cited reason by aq for disafilliating ISIS, but not the primary reason. Al-Qaeda central issued several letters rebuking ISIS for its progress towards building a state, something which al-qaeda central did not want to happen for many years to come. Furthermore there is a long history of Al-Qaeda central rebuking ISI / ISIS for excessively specifically targeting muslim civilians as it thought it would sully the image of the organizaitons efforts in iraq. That being said, the primary reason it was disowned was for overstepping its operational area by expanding into Syria and refusing Al-Qaeda's decsision that Al-Nusra was a seperate operational command from ISIS.XavierGreen (talk) 22:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

@XavierGreen: Where have you seen Al-Qaeda say being too extreme was one reason for disaffiliating them? In all the footnotes to this article, this has not appeared once. It would be useful to have a source for this information added in, as it changes the overall impression that this is merely journalistic inference. (See discussion above at #39) It would be nice to set the record straight. --P123ct1 (talk) 08:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

THANKYOU!!! Al Qaida broke ties with ISIL due to insubordination, it had absolutely nothing to do with them being "to extreme" They follow, to the t, the Quran and Sunnah, which makes them a threat to every "Muslim" dictator and king. YS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.53.148.252 (talk) 17:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Insubordination is the only reason given by al-Qaeda for their expulsion that I have seen in the press. That is why, as you will see, I have put "not in citation" beside the footnote appended to the vague term that implies being extreme was another of AQ's reasons (see para 4 of Lead). I would not want readers to be misled. I am glad to have your support. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC) (I made a mistake: the footnote does say being extreme was a supposed reason, as a later editor indicated, which is why the "not in citation" tag has now gone. I am grateful to the editor for pointing out my mistake. P123ct1)

• Is there any RS discrediting the Gulf Daily News article? If so then this story could be added in a verifiable context. How widespread is is this rumor? - Technophant (talk) 13:27, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I found this personal blog refuting the Snowden leak and http://globalresearch.ca 's somewhat inexplicible reporting and expansion of this material. Of course material on Blogspot, unless it can be confirmed to be written by a reliable author, is not permissible on Wikipedia. However I had the impression that Global Research was a reliable source. Apparently it's more like LiveLeak, just covering picking up on other news channels without doing it's own independent verification.

The Wiki article on globalresearch.ca shows it to be a suspect source - see under "Criticisms" - it is clearly anti-American and anti-Semitic. (@Dougweller: You may want to comment here.) --P123ct1 (talk) 15:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

The July 16 Global Research article is certainly not the first source of this hoax, since it credits the July 15 Gulf Daily News report. However, Gulf Daily News simply revised a story published four days earlier at Som Daily News. Among the details Gulf Daily News judiciously cut out was Som's key clause in its lead: "according to Iranian news agency Farsnews." So not even Som Daily News is the original source. The reference to Iran's semi-official Fars News Agency may be to this story in Arabic published by Fars on July 8. As for Fars being a reliable source, it's useful to recall that in January 2014, Fars also cited Snowden as the source of its classic report "Snowden Documents Proving 'US-Alien-Hitler' Link" that space aliens run the U.S. government. JohnValeron (talk) 18:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

ISIL Leader Closely Cooperating with CIA

Additionally, there's been another story along similar lines put out by FARS News Agency ("Iran's leading independent news agency") titled "Russian Expert: ISIL Leader Closely Cooperating with CIA" quoting Vyacheslav Matuzov (bio). This story is probably worth mentioning, however it must be very clear that it's only Matuzov's opinion and not established fact. I started a thread at WP:RS/N to establish this sources reliability. - Technophant (talk) 14:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Water

IS and water. I keep adding sources to talk; I promise I'll get around to add them to the article soon!! AntiqueReader (talk) 15:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

That's interesting. Water scarcity in an arid region like this is a big deal. Climate change is also making this even worse. :-/ Rightswatcher (talk) 05:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

This section is Mesopotamia#Geography can be used to help understand the water issue further. Rightswatcher (talk) 05:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Goals

Does the article needs a "Goal" section? The two last paragraphs that come under "Ideology and Beliefs" has nothing to do withIdeology and Beliefs and would better go under another section such as "Goals". Mhhossein (talk) 08:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

As a minor note about the "Goals" section. There is a repeated punctuation error with the sections in quotations. The period is supposed to be placed inside the quotation marks, not outside. Epistance (talk) 23:53, 8 Aug 2014 (UTC)

Epistance: WP:MOS says if the quotation is incomplete, i.e. does not start at the beginning of the quoted sentence or does not finish at the end of it, the full stop goes outside the quotation marks, but if the last part of the quotation is a complete sentence, the full stop goes inside the quotation marks. e.g. (1) She said, "ISIS is jihadist group which fights in Syria and Iraq." (2) She said that ISIS is a jihadist group "which fights in Syria and Iraq". (3) She said, "ISIS is a jihadist group". --P123ct1 (talk) 19:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

ISIL Poll

I've started a poll at the talk page for List of sovereign states. You can find the poll here. We're discussing the inclusion of the Islamic State, the Donetsk People's Republic, and the Lugansk People's Republic. [Soffredo] 01:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Is ISIS a terrorist organization?

There has been some dispute among users over whether Wikipedia can call ISIS a terrorist group. The US State Department has issued an official list of terrorist organizations, which formally designates ISIS as a terrorist organization. I have added this as a footnote, replacing the following footnotes, inserted today by someone else as back-up for their "terrorist" edit:- --P123ct1 (talk)

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/06/12/world/meast/who-is-the-isis

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2014/07/25/How-US-Allowed-ISIS-Form-Terrorist-Army

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/483261/Terror-group-Isis-gives-travel-advice-to-extremist-Britons-travelling-to-Iraq-and-Syria

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/july/crenshaw-isis-threat-071014.html

http://www.nbcnews.com/watch/nightly-news/isis-becomes-richest-terror-group-in-the-world-280624707806

http://travel.state.gov/content/passports/english/alertswarnings/iraq-travel-warning.html

https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/iraq

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/24/norway-expects-imminent-concrete-threat-isil-terro/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwldLjWL71o (video showing Obama referring to ISIS as a terrorist organization)

Countries that have officially designated ISIS as a terrorist organization:-

http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm (that US Department of State doc we talk about below) (added by P123ct1)

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/324603/20140627-List_of_Proscribed_organisations_WEBSITE_final.pdf (ISIS officially proscribed by UK government in June 2014)

(added by --P123ct1 (talk) )

http://www.nationalsecurity.gov.au/Listedterroristorganisations/Pages/default.aspx (ditto Australian government) (added by P123ct1)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/07/us-saudi-security-idUSBREA260SM20140307 (ditto Saudi Arabia) (added by P123ct1)

http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/ntnl-scrt/cntr-trrrsm/lstd-ntts/crrnt-lstd-ntts-eng.aspx (ditto Canadian government)

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2013/sc11019.doc.htm (ditto United Nations)

Thanks for the links, but that doesn't mean that Wikipedia can refer to them as terrorists, as who are and are not terrorists is a matter of opinion; there is no worldwide body to designate groups or persons 'terrorists'. Ukraine calls the pro-Russian rebels 'terrorists'; Israel calls Hamas 'terrorists', the UK calls the IRA 'terrorists'; etc. In those cases the people or groups labeled likely do not see themselves as 'terrorists'. We can certainly note who calls who terrorists, but it is probably too loaded a term to use ourselves. 331dot (talk) 10:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The MoS covers it - see WP:TERRORIST: "Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." (my added underlining). So it can say "X considers Y to be terrorists" if widely used in reliable sources. DeCausa (talk) 10:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

So it is not possible to say, "They are generally considered to be a terrorist organization." and give the RS links (which all call them terrorists), it has to be more specific than that? There are several references in the article to ISIS as a terrorist organization, so I suppose they will have to go, too. --P123ct1 (talk) 11:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure the usage in the body of the article is a problem. As far as I can see they are almost all either attributed aor refer to an attack being terrorist in nature, rather than the organisation. The only one I can see is a statement that "By 2014, ISIS was increasingly being viewed as a militia rather than a terrorist organization". That should be ok, I think, because it's not speaking in Wikipedia's voice - and provided the cited source backs up "increasingly viewed" (I haven't checked.) The statement in the lead is different. That says in Wikipedia's voice that they are terrorists. Looking at the original citations, they seem to be all from Western sources (mostly media and governmental). IMHO, the original sources could be maintained but the text should read "...is an unrecognized state and an active jihadist group in Iraq and Syria which has been widely described as a terrorist organization by Western governmental and media sources." Or something like that. That's my take anyway. DeCausa (talk) 11:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

BTW, I was acting on this edit summary:- ."(cur | prev) 18:59, 25 July 2014‎ Dougweller (talk | contribs)‎ . . (203,122 bytes) (-10)‎ . . (when they are officially declared terrorist we can use the word, until then we don't work by any sort of 'definitions') (undo | thank)". I have taken out "rather than a terrorist organization" as it wasn't in the cited source. --P123ct1 (talk) 11:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

You'd have to check with Doug whether he was anticipating they would ever be "officially declared" as terrorists. (I don't what body could even do that - UN Security Council?) Maybe he meant a kind of Greek calends kind of thing. DeCausa (talk) 12:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you P123ct1 and everyone. This is one more reliable and verifiable offical video from the White House that shows President Obama officially referring to ISIL as a "terrorist organization operating in Iraq" (at 0:07). Worldedixor (talk) 15:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I like User:DeCausa's suggestion. Note that the US has not official designated it as terrorist. We do have a good example of an organisation being designated as terrorist, see Al-Qaeda#Designation as terrorist organization. Worldedixor, Obama can't designate something as terrorist through a speech. It isn't on the official list at [3] Dougweller (talk) 16:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

To Dougweller: I strongly disagree with your false statement "It isn't on the official list at [4]". Worldedixor (talk) 17:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Any chance you could be more rude Worldedixor? 'False' implies lying, 'wrong' is what I was - I didn't expect to find it was put on the list in 2004, and I'm surprised that it's taken 10 years to discover that. Dougweller (talk) 21:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you a new Admin? Why are you unnecessarily instigating me? It's time for you to educate yourself with WP:GF and learn how to assume good faith. I don't know who you are to be rude to you. I always make it abundantly clear if and when being rude is ever justified on Wikepedia. Here, I was factual. You made a false statement (educate yourself on the CORRECT definitions of "false") and do NOT assume my intent, just follow WP:GF... I strongly disagreed with what you stated, that's my unalienable right... and I pointed out that your statement was false in an objective manner. It was a fact that your statement was false. It was a fact also that it was I who fixed this major Wikipedia error after 10 years with the help of P123ct1. Cheers. Worldedixor (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

ISIS is on that official US terrorist list - i.e. [5] - at 12/17/2004, some way down the list. --P123ct1 (talk) 17:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks and many apologies, as I said above it never occurred to me it would have been added 10 years ago yet not be in this article. I should have done a software search, not searched by eye. Dougweller (talk) 21:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I was as amazed as you to see it, and that this doc hadn't been unearthed for this article before! I randomly googled and got a big surprise. :) --P123ct1 (talk) 22:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It still wouldn't mean that we give it the unqualified description of "terrorist". That is a source for saying the "US has designated a terrorist organization". But I don't think we should pick out one country's designation in that way. As Doug highlighted above, this is handled at Al-Qaeda by listing the countries and organizations that have so designated it. Then in the lead there is no bare statement that it is a terrorist organization. Instead it says "It has been designated as a terrorist organization by the United Nations Security Council, NATO, the European Union, the United States, Russia, India and various other countries (see below)." DeCausa (talk) 18:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Of course. You have said exactly what I had in mind. Before seeing your comment just now, I had been looking at how Hamas is treated in Wikipedia in this respect and took my cue from that; it has a sentence similar to the one you quote. That is why I am adding to the list of countries (see list above) that have designated them as terrorists, so that they can be put together in a sensible sentence with sensible footnotes, like the one you quote. My comment was simply to point out that ISIS does, in fact, appear on that US State Department list. --P123ct1 (talk) 19:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The only countries I could find that have officially designated ISIS as a terrorist organisation are the US, UK, Australia and Saudi Arabia, the links for which are in the list at the top of this thread. (Can't find anything for the UN or EU.) Can't find anything for the EU. How about this wording (plagiarising DeCausa) or something like it?

"ISIS has been designated as a terrorist organisation by the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Saudi Arabia and the United Nations, (adding footnotes for the four five countries and the UN) and has been widely described as a terrorist group by Western media sources."(adding some of the below as footnotes.)

1. http://edition.cnn.com/2014/06/12/world/meast/who-is-the-isis

2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwldLjWL71o (the video showing Obama referring to ISIS as a terrorist organization)

3. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/11/isis-too-extreme-al-qaida-terror-jihadi

4. http://online.wsj.com/articles/jessica-lewis-the-terrorist-army-marching-on-baghdad-1402614950

5. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/06/12/isis-just-stole-425-million-and-became-the-worlds-richest-terrorist-group/

6 http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/11/iraq-s-terrorists-are-becoming-a-full-blown-army.html

7. http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/mosul-seized-jihadis-loot-429m-citys-central-bank-make-isis-worlds-richest-terror-force-1452190

I don't know which of these would be the most appropriate. Can anyone come up with better ones? --P123ct1 (talk) 21:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

AGREE with you P123ct1, as I said I will no longer contribute to this article but it would be unfair to you if I abandoned you at a time you have put in more effort in due diligence than most and came out with the best all-inclusive wording. So, this will give you what you need from me, and I will go out now to enjoy my dream life in paradise with zero stress and negativity. Worldedixor (talk) 00:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I can't believe this is a serious topic of discussion unless the word "terrorist" has been banned from Wikipedia. This entire thread seems to just stomp all over WP:COMMONSENSE. If terrorist is a term that can't be applied to this organization, then it should be stricken from the English language. This is just too bizarre to waste any more cyber ink on. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I had to STRONGLY AGREE in the best interest of WP. I couldn't have said it any better than you, Ad Orientem. I put "terrorist" in twice, and so did P123ct1. I actually called the FBI to verify and followed to the tee "Wikipedia has many rules. Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule. Even if a contribution "violates" the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution". There's something that just doesn't add up with its repeated and disruptive reversal. I need to do some Google and other searches to get to the bottom as to why it has been repeatedly reversed. Worldedixor (talk) 08:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

(I only put "terrorist" in as part of the qualified sentence beginning, "ISIS has been designated as a terrorist organization by ...", i.e. as an indirect statement. P123 ct1 4/8/14 )

In List of designated terrorist organizations ISIS is listed by 6 countries/organisations including the UK (June 2014 - I just added it in) and UN. Widefox; talk 08:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I have added the two, Canada and the UN, to the list at the top and draft wording. I had already included the UK. I did see Canada, but only with the Al-Qaeda in Iraq listing, but that is ISIS, effectively. I missed the UN. --P123ct1 (talk) 09:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

To editor Worldedixor: I saw that quote from Wikipedia as well. Thanks for spelling it out on this page. --P123ct1 (talk) 09:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome,P123ct1. It is obvious that there are well-meaning editors on here who fathom and adhere to WP:COMMONSENSE, WP:HTBC and many other WP rules. Worldedixor (talk) 09:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The only issue has been how we use the word 'terrorist'. We don't just add words like that (another one is 'criminal') without appropriate sources and attribution. I and others have been trying to find the best way to do it (and there is no deadline). "ISIS has been designated as a terrorist organisation by the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Saudi Arabia and the United Nations and has been widely described as a terrorist group by Western media sources." seems fine, but I'm not sure about the Obama video as that isn't really a media source but a restatement of the US position. Dougweller (talk) 09:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

For the record, the Obama video has been rendered redundant by [the official list] duly provided by P123ct1 days ago. Ergo, the use of the word "terrorist" here is not "without appropriate sources and attribution" especially with the qualifying and well thought out verbiage provided by P123ct1 days ago.

Also, there's something that just doesn't add up when you say "I and others". Why aren't the others "trying" on here? Worldedixor (talk) 09:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller In the list of possible footnotes, I was thinking of using in the list above nos 3, 4, 1 and 7, in that order, as footnotes for the media sources part of the wording. Would that be appropriate? I am not sure about the IBS being an RS, but the article is appropriate. If not the IBS, then the Washington Post? --P123ct1 (talk) 10:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 I think you mean IBT? I'd prefer the Washington Post - and of course any overseas sources we can find. But I agree we don't need and shouldn't have a lot. Dougweller (talk) 10:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller Sorry, I meant IBT. Shall I go ahead and put in that wording and replace the IBT with the Washington Post? At least the edit will be there and editors (not just me, I hope) can go on looking for some overseas sources to add to or replace some of them. By overseas sources do you mean European sources, Middle Eastern one like Aljazeera, Canada? I presume you don't mean US sources. How many do you think in total for the media sources footnotes, four, five? Or do you think there is not proper consensus yet on making this edit? I am new to how consensus on an edit works. I am quite surprised at the lack of interest in this important edit, apart from one or two others. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

You say there is no deadline. True, but events are forcing Wikipedia's hand, with now almost daily accounts of ISIS's atrocities, the wave of horrific videos on YouTube and other media sites, and respected journalists now calling ISIS "pathologically" violent and "psychopathic" (Patrick Cockburn and Stephen Glover). The longer this is left, the less credibility Wikipedia will have in the eyes of its readership, IMHO. --P123ct1 (talk) 11:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

For some reason I thought it was in the article as being designated as a terrorist group by the US. Yes, go ahead and add it now, we can improve the sources later. Maybe 5 sources, and later replace some of them. Dougweller (talk) 12:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

It being your edit, I take that gentle scolding in good part! I will add the rest in. --P123ct1 (talk) 13:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I definitely do not agree with bluntly calling ISIS "terrorist" in the Lead (see recent edit). NPOV is completely lost. The whole point of the main edit was to get the idea firmly across in neutral terms, without the statement losing any of its force. Also, translation of the Arabic in footnote #40 shows "Islamic State", not "The Islamic State" (first words of article). Can't change it yet because of 1RR. --P123ct1 (talk) 20:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I believe you are misconstruing WP:NPOV. No one is expressing a POV. Being terrorists is FACTUAL not a POV. We already have reliable sources that support that they are terrorists and not even one reliable source that supports that they are "not terrorists". Also, I can read and understand Arabic extremely well. "الدولة الاسلامية" is translated correctly as "The Islamic State". "Islamic State" is translated as "دولة اسلامية " which is not what ISIS call themselves and which simply means ANY Islamic state. Hope this clarifies it. Worldedixor (talk) 21:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

(The translation of the second Arabic word, meaning "any" Islamic state, is "Islamic state", not "Islamic State". P123ct1 4/8/14.)

Then all "Islamic State"s in the article will have to be changed to "The Islamic State", if you are correct - and in the al-Baghdadi article as well. I agree with "all over the world", though; "Iraq and Syria" is too narrow now. I think you have forgotten that old saying that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. (Think of the IRA, for example, or the Israeli terrorists led by Menachem Begin in the fight to establish Israel as a nation, or even Nelson Mandela in his early days, although "terrorist" would perhaps be too strong a word in his case.) That is why we have to have NPOV, however distasteful it may be here. The second commenter on this thread made that point, which I agreed with - but not to the extent of pussy-footing around this issue the way Wikipedia has been doing until now. This is all a matter of striking the right balance, and I do think this form of words that Wikipedia has used before, on Al-Qaeda and Hamas, and DeCausa's formulation, strike the right balance. We don't want to go overboard with this. That's my POV! --P123ct1 (talk) 22:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

We also have to remember that Wikipedia is not like a history book (which interprets events, so value judgments come into play - and "terrorist" is a word that carries a judgment) but more like annals (a chronological list of events, barely stated). It sticks in my throat to have to be so neutral about ISIS, but intellectual honesty demands it, given that Wikipedia is an encylopaedia, not a history book. And as Dougweller said, there is nothing wrong with saying, "X said this about Y, that they are/are not terrorists", as NPOV is maintained in putting it like that. --P123ct1 (talk) 23:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I absolutely agree that in many cases, maybe even most, care needs to be taken about assigning the term terrorist. This is clearly an exception though. Even in the Islamic world there is huge revulsion at these people and what they are doing. If you can find any RS sources offering a credible defense or refuting the designation, then by all means that should be noted. But before we start tempering the language of an article based on an alternative POV shouldn't we establish that this POV exists and enjoys some credible acceptance backed by RS sources? There is no shortage of RS sources labeling ISIS a terrorist group. Find a reasonable number of RS sources saying otherwise and we will need to take note of it in the article. But I am disinclined to give weight to a POV that probably does not enjoy any significant acceptance beyond the adherents of the group itself. There are lots of non affiliated sources that have defended HAMAS and the IRA. I have serious doubts that you will find many, if any, defending ISIS. In the absence of those kinds of sources I am forced to return again to the point I made above. On Wikipedia common sense is not expected to bow to guidelines. Just because the European Union or some UN commission has not issued a decree on the subject does not mean that the sun will not rise in the East tomorrow morning, or that the sky is not blue. Until credible non-affiliated RS sources can be found offering a different interpretation of ISIS, this is not an NPOV issue. Indeed pandering to a position that is not supported by said sources would be the real POV fail. For now however the sky is in fact blue, and ISIS is a terrorist organization. Suggesting otherwise strains the limits of credulity and calls into question the integrity of the project. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Some people think Satan is a nice fellow... Other people even worship him. Common sense tell us that Satan is the devil based on many reliable sources. Right?... Some people think Hitler was a saint. Ad Orientem said it best. Let someone find credible and reliable sources that say that ISIS are saints and nice guys and freedom fighters, and we can forget completely their terrorist atrocities on a daily basis and start worshiping them. Worldedixor (talk) 00:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

You both miss the point, with respect. NPOV supports no POV, by definition. One sentence in the Lead, neutrally put - NPOV - is hardly giving weight to the idea that ISIS are not terrorists. An assertion that it does is laughable. You may have missed my last para in the edit conflict, where I said there is nothing to stop Wikipedia recording who said what about whom, whether pro or con, and providing sources for it, as you yourselves say. That is what NPOV entails, and in fact demands. NPOV goes right to the heart of what Wikipedia is about (see my comparison between annals and history books) so to say this is "not an NPOV issue" is plain wrong. Common sense has nothing to do with this, unfortunately. Common sense implies value judgments, fine for history books, but not for encyclopaedias, which are compendiums of knowledge, not collections of historical essays. I don't like it as much as you don't. Believe me, and I repeat, being NPOV about ISIS sticks in my craw as much as it does yours. --P123ct1 (talk) 01:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Please stop implying that you know better than all of us and we are missing the point. Also, no need to doubt my Arabic translation contribution. Assume Good Faith and trust my command of the Arabic language until someone fluent in Arabic tells you otherwise, just as I AGF and trust your basic understanding of the English language. For your education, POV means point of view, meaning someone's opinion or his/her subjective and/or biased point of view of ISIS. Here no one is opining. ISIS being a terrorist organization is no one's subjective point of view,it is a FACT proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they are terrorists, and that has been established by a lot of evidence and many reliable sources. It does not take rocket science to tell that Osama Bin Laden was a terrorist and Mother Theresa was not a terrorist. WP:COMMONSENSE Worldedixor (talk) 06:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I have failed to make you see my point and perhaps that is my fault. I agree that ISIS are terrorists by any normal common-sense standards. But they cannot be talked about that way in Wikipedia, for all the reasons I have given. Simple as that. As for the other point, I sincerely apologise if it looked as if I was not assuming good faith over your command of Arabic. I am just puzzled why there has been debate about what the new name is, "The Islamic State" or "Islamic State", if it is as obvious as you say it is. If you are right, you will have to put Wikipedia right in two articles, not one, and I wish you luck with that. There was a debate in the other article too over the name. You could start with the glaring discrepancy in the Lead, between the first reference to the name and the other references, in the first paragraph and in one of the boxes. --P123ct1 (talk) 09:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Ironically Worldedixor has hit the nail on the head. Osama bin Laden is a terrorist but we do not call him one in the lead. In his article we call Al-Qaeda a "Wahhabi extremist militant organization" and in Al-Qaeda we say it is designated as a terrorist group, we don't use terrorist as an adjective. We should treat this organisation in the same way. Dougweller (talk) 09:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller Have you read the Lead as it stands now? "Terrorist" is clearly there. Worldedixor was the first to put "terrorist" into the Lead, using it as an adjective. I reverted it, taking out "terrorist", giving full reasons. He reverted my edit and has put "terrorist" back in. (See Edit Summaries.) This is getting farcical. I withdraw as I do not want to engage in a childish edit-war. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted him. I thought he'd agreed to stop editing, but I guess he changed his mind. We've made it clear that the organisation is considered terrorist, but as I've shown above, we don't use it as an adjective. Dougweller (talk) 11:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

• Just to point out and clarify, "terrorist" was orignally put in by Worldedixor.[6] P123ct1 reverted it.[7] Worldedixor re-instated it.[8] Dougweller reverted it.[9] Supersaiyen312 (talk) 14:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

NB The "terrorist" referred to by Supersaiyen is where it appeared near the top of the Lead, not in the long sentence about designating ISIS as a terrorist organization, which remains, of course. --P123ct1 (talk)

United Nations designation of ISIS as a terrorist organization

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Caliph Ibrihim under Government secion

In in bottom of the Government section is says "Caliph[1] Ibrahim[6][7]". This looks funny to me. Is there a reason it needs to be this way? Just wondering. Rightswatcher (talk) 17:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Source 1, calls him "Caliph" and Source 6&7 call it Caliph Ibrahim. Mhhossein (talk) 13:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Should the lowercase search term "Isis" lead to a disambiguation page?

It should be noted that on July 27, 2014, Qristopher opened a WP:RFC on this matter. Interested editors may want to weigh in there.

I have changed the heading of this section, because its original heading didn't represent what Qristopher is actually arguing for. A. Parrot (talk) 18:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE THE MAP PLS

There have been like two updates to the map in the last month. So, pls, update it. I'm saving all the copies of the map to my computer when a new update comes out, and I am personally monitoring the situation.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.251.129.134 (talk) 18:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

ISIS YouTube video why publicise it?

Is there a good reason for giving this publicity? Dougweller (talk) 07:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Doug, are you referring to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JABN4e4YwuA because it's been removed "as a violation of YouTube's policy on violence." Until now, we have mentioned videos when they have been covered by secondary sources. I'd prefer not to start using youtube videos as sources. PhilKnight (talk) 08:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Missed its removal but I agree that we shouldn't mention videos (among other things) without good coverage elsewhere. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Just before reading this, I removed the 28 July entry in "2014 events" (which cites this clip) - " 28 July: ISIS releases Eid al-Fitr video showing graphic scenes of mass executions, as well as destruction of Shi'a tombs, battles, and parades."

- when I saw YouTube had taken the video down. --P123ct1 (talk) 14:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Restored the 28 July entry with a new (RS) citation (The Telegraph). --P123ct1 (talk) 17:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Need to change name of article to just Islamic State

[11] and other sources. The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isis) has reportedly declared the areas it occupies in Iraq and Syria as a new Islamic state, removing Iraq and the Levant from its name and ushering in “a new era of international jihad”.

The announcement will see Isis now simply refer to itself as The Islamic State, and the group has called on al-Qa’ida and other related militant Sunni factions operating in the region to immediately pledge their allegiance. Dougweller (talk) 10:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

No, not yet. Not without seeing or hearing the original "verified" Arabic announcement by ISIS. Reuters says [here] "تسجيل لم يتسن التحقق من صحته". Worldedixor (talk) 11:04, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The name change seems to have been a month ago.[12], [13] [14][15][16]. It is mentioned in numerous sources that this was an audio statement posted on line and then translated, eg[17]. Our info box says it called the Islamic State with footnotes, and the statement itself is an External link at the bottom of the article. A name change and a change in the lead would make all this makes sense. Dougweller (talk) 11:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I was searching for the official video referenced by Reuters. I just found it [كسر الحدود], but I did not hear the announcement by Shaikh Abou Mohammad Al Adnani about ISIS changing its name to the Islamic State. All he babbled about was shattering the borders but no name change. There is no deadline to change the title. Feel free to listen yourself and let me know if you could hear it. Worldedixor (talk) 11:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it should be changed to Islamic State, or rather "the Islamic State". Some governments as well as the press are calling ISIS that now. Wikipedia will be viewed as not keeping up with events if it does not change the name. --P123ct1 (talk) 11:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, I see what was wrong. Reuters referenced the wrong video and wasted my time. This is the [Announcement video], and we can base the change of title to "Islamic State" on it assuming there is no other Islamic State in the world, something I doubt. My due diligence work is over. I will no longer participate. Worldedixor (talk) 12:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Sadly it isn't that easy. We have Islamic state as an article, so we need a way to disambiguate it. We can't add {country} obviously. How about {unrecognised state)? Islamic state isn't busy but I did ask the last 2 editors to comment here if they have any suggestions. Dougweller (talk) 12:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes "The Islamic State" (the correct translation linguistically) with {unrecognized state) should uniquely define it. I would also go with "unrecognized terrorist rogue state" but that would be a little too much for the purposes on WP. Just saying that they are terrorists is enough. They are the worst kind of terrorists. Worldedixor (talk) 12:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Once we can come up with a name that doesn't clash, we need to do this properly given the earlier move request which was closed as no consensus. I think we should add terrorist today per the above wording, but this is going to have to wait for the RM and that might take a week if there is disagreement. Dougweller (talk) 12:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I think the simplest thing would be to move this over the redirect Islamic State. As long as both have hatnotes I can't see a problem. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 14:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Some sources using the term "Islamic State". [18] [19].[20] [21] [22] [23]. These are major media sources including the Voice of America. Dougweller (talk) 14:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

There were previous discussions please refer to them. elmasmelih 11:38, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they are why I haven't pressed this more. It can wait. Dougweller (talk) 14:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, there are a discussions about ISIL in the Talk:List of states with limited recognition article. elmasmelih 14:27, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was: procedurally closed. Discussion ongoing in the section above. Jenks24 (talk) 12:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

---

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State of Iraq and Syria – Per WP:COMMONNAME. ISIS is widely used these days. Political analysts and media doesn't use the term ISIL anymore Rameshnta909 (talk) 15:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

This doesn't seem appropriate given the discussion just above and I've asked the editor about it. It's now called the Islamic State. Dougweller (talk) 16:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The term Islamic state is used only by the organisation. Media and political analysts refers to it as isis now. Rameshnta909 (talk) 17:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

ISIS stands for Islamic State of Iraq and Sham. I'm tired of discusing this. 3bdulelah (talk) 18:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Not the english media. Most of them use ISIS and expansion they are giving is Iraq and syria. Rameshnta909 (talk) 20:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment whatever the merits of this are, starting a move request when there is another pending (above) is a procedural issue, so I suggest withdrawing it for now. Widefox; talk 01:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

---

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

"It has at least 4,000 fighters in its ranks"? Is that a mistake?

The reference is hidden behind a paywall so I can't read it. Does this group actually have only 4000 people but somehow conquered most of two nations? I think they'd be rather outnumbered. Dream Focus 10:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

It should read "4,000 fighters in its ranks IN IRAQ" - I have corrected the text. This is what the WSJ reference says. You should be able to read that article on Google; I put that in the footnote some weeks ago. The footnote says, "(subscription required) Accessible via Google". You Google the article's title and it brings up the same article but without the paywall. This applies to several footnotes in the ISIS article. --P123ct1 (talk) 19:55, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

its aricle a lot of confusion what is the clear strength bbc clamied 10,000 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27905849 Amt000 (talk) 03:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Amt000 Reports vary considerably, as the information box clearly indicates. Read the footnotes in the information box for further details. --P123ct1 (talk) 09:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Flag

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

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

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

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

DAESH or DAIISH?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Editor news

Technophant has been away from this page for some time now and perhaps other editors have noticed his absence. He is considering retiring from editing on Wikipedia owing to a topic ban he has had from editing on alternative medicine. He passes on his congratulations to the editors who have been working on the ISIS article for their efforts in improving it and says that working on this page with others been one of the best experiences he has had editing in Wikipedia. I would miss him on the ISIS and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi pages, as he has been a tireless contributor, always helpful to others and found many ways to improve the article. --P123ct1 (talk) 06:41, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Map - hard to understand, doesn't seem to reflect its source

I find the map hard to understand. It also doesn't seem to reflect the source.[24] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 15:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

The map should at least show the borders of Iraq and Syria, preferably all country borders in the region. Readers not familiar with the geography of the region will find it very hard to understand. A few key cities marked on it would not go amiss either. --P123ct1 (talk) 15:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if it's changed recently, but the map does seem to be showing the borders between countries. I will grant you that the presence of major rivers like the Euphrates on the map does make it hard to distinguish, as does the choice of colours. Gazkthul (talk) 06:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

The borders are shown on the map in "2104 events", but not on the map in the Lead, which is the map readers will home in on when starting to read the article. --P123ct1 (talk) 08:40, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the map, see my edit summary. Not only is the latest source quite out of date, the map bears almost no resemblance to it so we are misleading our readers. Dougweller (talk) 15:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

The name Islamic State

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Treat the "Islamic State" as an empire?

Should Wikipedia treat the "Islamic State" as an empire, and not just an organization? Specifically, I think the article should include information on the population, geography, and economy of the territory they control. Readers don't get a sense of how many people are under the control of ISIS at the moment. Every war machine relies on the civilian economy to some extent, so the size of population and economy is important to understand ISIS's power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.169.126.56 (talk) 10:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

No. There is actually no way of being certain about any of this. The population is moving about, they are wrecking economies, and boundaries are changing. Dougweller (talk) 12:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Dougweller. The use of the term Empire could be possible in the future, but as of now ISIS/ISIL doesn't match the criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epistance (talk • contribs) 23:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Population figures

Above I said we shouldn't include them, but I see they've just been added. Besides the fact I don't understand why there is text about an April estimate with a source that doesn't say April, I'm still not convinced that because one source says six million living "under their watch" we should start putting population figures here. I realise others may disagree which is why I haven't reverted. Dougweller (talk) 21:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

And the same paper mentions an exodus of hundreds of thousands.[25] - hard to know how many people are "under its watch" with such population movements. Dougweller (talk) 21:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 8 August 2014

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

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

---

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State – The last completed move request is at[26] and was closed as no consensus. It is now over a month since that move request was raised people are making changes to the article that don't reflect the article title. Many sources still use the current name[27] (although some of those use the new name but mention an old name) but many others use just "Islamic State".[28] We need to come to some sort of decision even if it is to keep the current name. Please note that "The Islamic State" would need clear consensus among those reliable sources that use "Islamic State" and that translation issues do not apply, we go by what the English sources use. Dougweller (talk) 13:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Support

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

Oppose

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

Alternatives

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Threaded discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Times[29], The Telegraph[30], The Guardian[31], The Independent[32], The Economist[33], The Spectator, Financial Times[34], The New York Times, The Washington Post[35], The Wall Street Journal[36], TIME, Al-Ahram (Egypt), Middle East Eye, BBC News[37], CNN, NBC, Aljazeera, Al Arabiya, Reuters, Associated Press and Agence France-Presse

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

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

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

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

Discard anything where 'The' is the first word of a sentence. Although today's Guardian article starts a sentence with just "Islamic State".[38] Then remove any where 'the' isn't the first word and isn't in upper case. It's really not that easy to search. Dougweller (talk) 15:22, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

@Clodhopper Deluxe:Headlines are not written by the journalist who wrote the story. Your first link[39] says "He said the step was taken to defend U.S. personnel in the city of Irbil and protect religious minorities facing what he called a "potential act of genocide" from the Islamic State, the extremist group most recently known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)." So it uses "Islamic State" making it clear it was ISIS. Your link to the Huffington Post[40] also calls it the "Islamic State". So does your Fox News link[41] "Obama announced action against the Islamic State". Dougweller (talk) 20:37, 10 August 201 4 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

Technical help

There is a table of the countries which have declared ISIS as a terror group, this is incomplete. I tried to edit it using the references from the top (Canada, Australia, UN and Saudi) but somehow it deleted everything after the table, even though I was only editing the section! Can somebody help? '''tAD''' (talk) 21:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Please create a list, COUNTRY : REFERENCE/CITATION Twillisjr (talk) 12:21, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Someone has completed the table now. --P123ct1 (talk) 12:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

New Players

According to this article, http://gulfnews.com/news/region/syria/pkk-joins-battle-against-isil-1.1360183, the PKK has been fighting ISIL in Syria since about July 10, and about 1000 PKK fights in Syria - http://www.voanews.com/content/turkish-kurds-want-ankara-to-declare-stance-on-isil/1965256.html. Enemies are becoming friends out of necessity. See http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/forming-the-anti-isil-front.aspx?PageID=238&NID=70169&NewsCatID=466. Legacypac (talk) 01:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:OWN to new editors

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

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

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

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

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

Unrecognised state

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Genocide"

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

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

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

No one has changed the rules - it's ok for two editors to revert you and shows you don't have consensus and need to get agreement here - reverting again would be a bad idea as such actions may be seen as edit warring. We can however use the word in context, ie say that Obama and Archbishop Athanasius Toma Dawod describe it as genocidal, perhaps with a couple of quotes. But note that Patriarch Louis Sako doesn't call it genocide but states there is a risk of genocide. الأناضول - which Google translates as Anatolia is a Turkish News Agency. the article is quoting Salama al-Khafaji. The French Foreign Minister has also referred to it as genocide.[42][43]. But we need to attribute and Obama should not be described as the US. Why not work out some wording here on the talk page so what we can get consensus and avoid edit warring? Dougweller (talk) 06:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Proposed wording for description of actions as genocidal

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

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

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

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

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

Category Islamic states

I've had my revert for the day, but this doesn't belong here. Dougweller (talk) 16:52, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dougweller. I don't see it. Is there another spelling, or has it been removed already? -- Brangifer (talk) 20:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I removed it. [44] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 20:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Suggested split of Al-Hayat Media Center as own article

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

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

The Long War Journal as a reliable source

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

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

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

Competence Matters

Incompetence to read and fathom a well researched and "abundantly clear" reliable source should not be used as an excuse to affix a disruptive "not in citation given" in a 1RR article. It's like saying you cannot add a "well researched, sourced and verifiable content" that says "The Islamic State had advanced to within 30 km of Erbil" with a reliable source whose "title" CLEARLY says "الدولة الإسلامية على بعد 30 كيلومترا من إربيل". This is getting too old already. Worldedixor (talk) 01:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

@Worldedixor, I thought you said you above you were going to stop editing this article? *shrugs* Can you give a "diff" link for the edits you are questioning above? ~Technophant (talk) 01:48, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

No need to start with "I thought you said you above you were going to stop editing this article? *shrugs*" if you want to communicate with me the first time and in good faith. My "well sourced" edits should be commended. I would never tell you not to edit and I have no need for your *shrugs*". I will be removing the disruptive "not in citation given" tomorrow. I just don't want further disruption when a "very clear" reliable source has been provided. Worldedixor (talk) 01:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The reliable source I provided http://ynewsiq.com/index.php?aa=news&id22=7265#.U-iSt5p0z6V clearly states "الدولة الإسلامية على بعد 30 كيلومترا من إربيل" twice in the title as well as the body of the news report. This reliable and verifiable source is completely satisfactory according to WP rules. However, the well sourced content I added is further evidenced by http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/11024844/American-air-strikes-help-Kurdish-forces-reclaim-towns-from-Islamic-State.html albeit the false usage of 30 miles rather than 30 kilometers. I had to wait to remove the disruptive "not in citation given" falsely used on a reliable and verifiable source, and ask that no further disruption is employed as a pretext to slow down my "well sourced" contributions. Worldedixor (talk) 10:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The translation from the Arabic to English in the footnote was incomprehensible. That is why I added the tag. (I should have said "not in citation given, in the English translation".) You have now put in a good second citation in English (The Telegraph) for non-Arabic speakers, so it doesn't matter any more. --P123ct1 (talk) 17:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Good Lord! Please cease and desist making disruptive edits to my edits. It is getting too old in a 1RR article!!!!... WP allows reliable sources in ANY language. This is an article about an Arabic group and non-Arabic reliable sources are not always available or easily found. I do NOT have to spoon-feed you nor listen to your new fabricated rules. You do no WP:OWN the article. There are other competent editors who can "easily" tell that the reliable source I provided WAS indeed comprehensible and 100% CLEAR, and can edit accordingly. WP:AGF and let someone competent read the reliable source rather than be disruptive. Please do not WP:Wikihounding and stay away from my "well sourced" edits.Worldedixor (talk) 17:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Foreign language sources, although permitted, are always "second best" in en.WP. See WP:NOENG: "Citations to non-English sources are allowed. However, because this is the English-language Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, whenever English sources of equal quality and relevance are available." I don't see that P123ct1 can be criticized for wanting an English-language source.DeCausa (talk) 20:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I believe that you are missing the larger picture of things here, but I will WP:AGF that you deserve at this point in time, and will extend to you the genuine benefit of the doubt. So, thank you for asserting your unalienable right to express your opinion. I respect and defend your right. "Citations to non-English sources are allowed." Worldedixor (talk) 20:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

TBH, DeCausa, I wasn't necessarily after an English source, just one that was comprehensible! The Google translations from the Arabic in some Arabic sources can be a bit bizarre sometimes, unfortunately, and quite misleading. I have noticed it before. This was one of them. --P123ct1 (talk) 22:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

1RR restriction redux

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

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

Merging content from persecution articles

I nominated Yazidi persecution by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant to be merged into this article. In comments/votes by others, I learned there is also an article Persecution of Iraqi Christians by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Both of these articles are short and I think that there is a lot of overlap regarding IS/ISIS/ISIL theology and actions carried out against both groups. In the nomination of the former, I said that the subject (Yazidi persecution) could be added to this article in a section called "Persecution of religious minorities" or "Persecution of Shia and non-Muslims" (this section can have subsections like "Yazidis", "Shiites", "Christians", etc). If there is sufficient content on that subject or this article gets too long (already at 52kB "readable prose size"), then it could be split (although it would still need to have a summary on this page).

So, should those pages be merged into this one or combined into one, separate article (eg. Religious persecution by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (following naming of this article...I see the name discussion above))? To keep the discussion of this topic in one place, please make comments at Talk:Yazidi persecution by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Merge to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. AHeneen (talk) 14:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

"2014 events" section

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

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

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

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

Is United Kingdom an opponent?

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

Surveillance[45]. Changing your ref to an url as otherwise it will keep dropping down to the thread at the bottom of the page (which this is at the moment but not for long). I would have thought opponent meant taking action against. Dougweller (talk) 08:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Hilary Clinton hoax/conspiracy theory

Not sure if this should be in the article but at the very least useful for editors to know about and read in a reliable source.[46] Dougweller (talk) 09:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

specific section on massacres?

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

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

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

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

What is the current relationship between IS and Al Qaida?

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

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

Official language

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Country designations of ISIS as a terrorist organization

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

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

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

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

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

UN security council statement

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

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

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

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

I rest my case. What you are "permitting" me to do constitutes edit warring and a violation of the 1RR in 24 hours. They are very strict on this "apparently". However, competence matters, and impatient and baseless "complete" reverts of well known United Nations facts and well sourced content without the absolute minimum of due diligence (it took me 2 seconds) is tedious and disruptive. As for 1RR, this is one example of violations of 1RR in 24 hours. There are others by other editors.

14:13, 14 August 2014‎ P123ct1 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (234,124 bytes) (-362)‎ . . (→‎top: Adjusted punctuation, removed unnecessary wikilinks from countries, and removed UN Security Council (see Talk page for reasons))

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant&diff=621213898&oldid=621204472

19:27, 13 August 2014‎ P123ct1 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (232,152 bytes) (-4)‎ . . (Undid revision 621091737 by Lahaun (talk) There is already a wikilink for him two paragraphs above) (undo | thank)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant&diff=621103288&oldid=621102636

Let us see an unbiased admin address this matter without any further bias and double standards, and WP:OWN. Worldedixor (talk) 19:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Admins don't get involved as Admins in content disputes. I took this to WP:RSN because I could not find the word 'terrorist' in your source. If you want to complain that an editor has broken 1RR then the place to report this is WP:AE. As the Secretary General has called it a terrorist group, we can add that. But not that the Security Council has designated it as a terrorist group without a UN source stating that explicitly. And the lack of good faith and the personal attacks aren't conducive to a collegial environment, which is what we want this to be. Dougweller (talk) 21:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

You have just proven my point. Your recent actions show that you "did" get involved many times in content disputes the latest being today when I reverted a baseless revert. The record also shows flagrant bias, double standards and your and your pals'"selective" enforcement of WP rules. I am abiding by WP rules regardless of your digs and your false insinuations about me. All is documented and organized and can be verified. I don't see you send an "e-mail" like you did before about 1RR. I don't see you remove "personal attacks" against me when I asked you to. Also, it was not "my" source. Another editor found it and it has been used more than once on WP. The reliable source I found "in 2 seconds" confirms that the other editor's source was a reliable UN source. I am NOT adding well sourced content because it is tedious. Worldedixor (talk) 21:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Just picking up on your first point, I think you misunderstood. An admin could either be acting as an admin on the page - in which case they wouldn't be engaged in any content issues - or they could be acting as an editor - in which case they wouldn't be using admin tools or acting with admin authority, But they're not permitted to do both. An admin has no more authority than any other editor in a content dispute. There's no point looking for admins to "adjudicate" on a content dispute, therefore. Dougweller is clearly participating on this page as an experienced editor not as an admin. DeCausa (talk) 22:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you DeCausa for expressing your opinion. I honor your unalienable right to do so. However, it is far more involved than this. I have it all organized, and I reserve all my rights. Worldedixor (talk) 22:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

My revert was a holding action until something could be sorted out. It was to protect Wikipedia's reputation, as I have clearly said before. Is it okay to let Wikpedia persist in stating a fact it knows to be untrue (after the document was found by others on the other page not to support the statement), just because of a pending dispute among editors? Is it okay for Wikipedia to knowingly mislead its readers? As for my 1RR infraction, I had completely forgotten about removing one single wikilink the day before the UN reversion. I am very tired of having my edits and comments interpreted as "personal attacks", and I don't like veiled threats. --P123ct1 (talk) 01:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

"Editors are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction when reverting logged-in users on all pages related to the Syrian Civil War, broadly construed. 'When in doubt, assume it is related, and don't revert". Do not be impatient to revert a well sourced content. Leave my FACTUAL revert in a 1RR article until something could be sorted out not violate 1RR and revert it. The record clearly shows that the biased admin was quick to send an "email" unsolicited to his "pal" when I "inadvertently" did a 1RR in GOOD FAITH and "protecting WP", and did not do anything in your case even though I brought it up with strong and convincing evidence. That reeks of double standards and selective enforcement of WP rules. Also, you are NOT the only one who is concerned about WP. Most importantly, one of your personal attacks (that I expressly asked to be removed and the biased admin ignored my request AND instead added insult to injury in a vindictive manner, something an admin should never do) is your saying "I think he is unbalanced". If that was not a personal attack (that is clearly non-conducive to a collegial environment), what is? RESPECT WP Rules and "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Cease and desist... I am following WP Rules and you are removing the joy of my editing WP. Worldedixor (talk) 01:32, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the comment "I think he is unbalanced was made. But you left out the rest of the sentence, which was " and having more people on him will only make it worse for him and therefore for Wikipedia in the end." In other words, a suggestion that you be left alone. That was followed in another post by ". I didn't mean what I said unkindly at all, it was just how I see it. I seem to have put my foot in it again." All of this was on my talk page. Not on yours. Bringing stuff from my talk page to an article talk age is entirely inappropriate. Use of article talk pages is discussed at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Dougweller (talk) 17:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Name "doesn't matter"

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

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

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

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

Should ISIS redirect to this article?

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

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

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

Citations needed for countries in Lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry, we were talking at cross-purposes. So 24 hours after I added the tags [47](when I first informed the editor), the countries can be removed. --P123ct1 (talk) 19:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Iran

Iraq

Israel

Syria

Lebanon

European Union

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

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

The one that bothers me most is the inflammatory language used about ISIS being violent [48], which I refer to in the next section "Lead and NPOV". It really should not remain in, IMO. --P123ct1 (talk) 06:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Lead and NPOV

This is a recent edit in the Lead [49]: " ISIS is known for its extreme and brutally harsh interpretation of the Islamic faith and sharia law and has a record of horrifying violence" (giving suitable citations) and then it goes on to give detail that I think is inappropriate for the Lead (the list of those ISIS persecute) and would be more suitable somewhere in the main article. That sentence with its intemperate language seems to me to flout NPOV outrageously. What do others think? --P123ct1 (talk) 14:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

A serious discussion

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

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

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

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

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

Live Leak as a reliable source

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

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

Recent large revert

Do people think that [50] was a good revert? I'm willing to use my 1RR to restore it if that's what others want, but obviously if people think that material should not be in the article I don't want to put it back. Dougweller (talk) 09:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion on cn requests

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

for the well-sourced content I added

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

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

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

IMPORTANT UPDATE: I just found out the name of the editor who made the cn request (that I removed) on "very well sourced" content that says.

It was P123ct1 and this can be duly verified at [51].

So, to P123ct1:

1. Please adhere to WP:EQ. I think you should have let me know that it was you who made this edit.

2. Please do not add cn requests on "very well sourced" content that I add when the content "The EU agreed to supply Kurdish forces with arms" is already in the reference and the "reliable source" that I provided 441 clearly says The EU agrees to supply Kurdish forces with arms. This pattern of editing and confrontation is appearing like WP:Wikihounding, and as one good admin already told you "you might be shocked to learn how many edit wars are over tags". I am communicating with you so you don't repeat the same thing again. Worldedixor (talk) 02:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Using YouTube for citations

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

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

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

IMPORTANT: As discussed in "Discussion on cn requests" above, I found out that it was you, P123ct1, who made that edit even though my "reliable source" in that case was completely in English. Worldedixor (talk) 02:50, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

One more sign of WP:EW today by P123ct1 who, out of all the other sections of the article that she could revert, chose to incorrectly revert the correct Mosul Dam content I edited. [52] A good admin spelled it out clearly "Technically, any change to an article or the restoration of material previously deleted is a revert". An unnecessary and incorrect revert to another editor's accurate edit is a revert. Worldedixor (talk) 09:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I request the mediation of a non-involved admin to help put an end to this matter. Worldedixor (talk) 00:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd be interested to see any Admin who would consider changing "Dam" to "dam" a revert, and in any case the editor reverted themself. Dougweller (talk) 10:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, P123ct1 has already admitted the mistake and apologised. No admin action is required here. Yunshui ^雲_水 10:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Worldedixor: As I said at the beginning, it is a matter of degree, not whether or not foreign language sources can be used. I can see now how my wording was unclear. Of course any foreign source can be used, and particularly Arabic ones on this page, but in moderation in the English WP is what I meant - I think DeCausa made that point in an earlier discussion - and preferably with a translation if there isn't a second citation in English, though Google translations aren't that good! I am sorry about the muddle over "Mosul Dam". I honestly didn't realise until you reverted that I could be mistaken. I automatically go through new entries in the timeline and certainly don't single anyone out. When you firmly reverted, I looked it up in WP, found I was wrong, made that change and apologised. Obviously I am not infallible! As for using YouTube for citations, I think it is frowned on by WP:RS, isn't it? --P123ct1 (talk) 16:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, I accept your apology and ask that you do not keep repeating the same pattern as it's certainly not the first time that you make incorrect reverts to my edits. Your saying "frowned upon" is not a decisive term. Where in the rules does is say "in moderation in the English WP is what I meant"? Not to validate your new rules, but the percentage of non-English citations in this article is minimal and used for a very good reason as EXPRESSLY ALLOWED by WP as non-Arabic sources quote the original Arabic sources incorrectly, and the Arabic sources provide more elaborate and timely details of events as they are in the midst of it. For example OBL statements in the past were not accurately reported. More importantly, where, in WP:RS, does it prohibit the use of OFFICIAL Youtube news broadcasts and videos for OFFICIAL News Media channels? Worldedixor (talk) 18:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Stop linking and unlinking edit war over "BBC News"

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

Change of sentence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed edit

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

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

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

Strength = 50,000?!

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

New figures just provided in infobox for number of IS fighters do not match those in the citation given for this. (Footnote #15). --P123ct1 (talk) 23:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Fixed now. --P123ct1 (talk) 08:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Map

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

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

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

Punctuation

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

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

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

Muhammad called for the kinds of actions which are being taken by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. If these religious leaders do not want to be associated with those evil actions, then they should convert to another religion. As long as they continue to claim that the Qur'an is the word of God, then they are effectively backing the actions of the Islamic State. JRSpriggs (talk) 16:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Move

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

Map

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

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

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

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

Flags in infobox

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