Talk:Islamic State

New name

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

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree with Midrashah, Panam2014 and Worldedixor. The name of the article should be The Islamic State, as this is how the official Arabic name of the group translates into English, and it should be called the Islamic State in the article. Am I right, Worldedixor, that the Arabic language makes no distinction between "the" and "The"? (See my question here to a user on this page, [1].) --P123ct1 (talk) 19:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unofficial vote:

Supporters of "The Islamic State"

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

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

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

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

Supporters of "Islamic State" (Capital)

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

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

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

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

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

Would editors please read the previous discussions on the Talk page about what this article should be called? The same points are being repeated over and over again. Dougweller has referred more than once to WP:COMMONNAME - that the name should be the one most commonly used in by reliable sources - there was a long discussion about this on another thread, please refer to it.[2]. If we have to abide by WP:COMMONNAME, we should concentrate on finding out what that is. Another look at reliable sources and current usage is the only line of inquiry we should pursue now. --P123ct1 (talk) 13:42, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

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

I think it is, but others have disagreed. I will note that "Islamic State" is used in the media at times with no preceding "the" -- thus Reuters[3] "It was the Syrian army's last foothold in an area otherwise controlled by Islamic State, which has seized large areas of Syria and Iraq." Dougweller (talk) 15:48, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support "Islamic State" (Capital), and let all redirects point to the disambiguation page. Reason: "On 29 June 2014, ISIS was renamed the Islamic State (IS)." [4] [5] -- Brangifer (talk) 23:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support "Islamic State", and there are ways of disambiguating, as Dougweller has said before. I don't think there is any point in discussing what the media call other groups, it really is irrelevant, we should concentrate on what the media call this particular group now! I did a straw poll some time ago, and it is clear the media are now calling the group "the Islamic State" (sometimes along with "ISIS/ISIL" and never "The Islamic State" except at the beginning of sentences) or "Islamic State", as in Dougweller's example above. I think there was even a Guardian article that started the sentence with "Islamic State". So as long as it can be established that it complies with WP:COMMONNAME, i.e. current media usage, I vote for "Islamic State". This was what I found earlier this month (see discussion at [6]):

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

The Times[7], The Telegraph[8], The Guardian[9], The Independent[10], The Economist[11], The Spectator, Financial Times[12], The New York Times, The Washington Post[13], The Wall Street Journal[14], TIME, Al-Ahram (Egypt), Middle East Eye, BBC News[15], CNN, NBC, Aljazeera, Al Arabiya, Reuters, Associated Press and Agence France-Presse

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

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

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

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

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

Supporters of "Islamic state" (non-capital)

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

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

Supporters of "Islamic State insurgency"

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

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

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

Others

Islamic State (IS)

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

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

Conclusions

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Debunking 'Islamic State'

The Grand Mufti of Egypt, Shawki Allam, previously said the extremists violate all Islamic principles and laws and described the group as a danger to Islam as a whole. Now, the Dar el-Ifta he oversees will suggest foreign media drop using "Islamic State" in favor of the "al-Qaida Separatists in Iraq and Syria," or the acronym "QSIS," said Ibrahim Negm, an adviser to the mufti. [16]

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

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

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

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

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

Are there any Islamic authorities saying anything about Islamic State/..'s claim to being a Jihadist organization? At the moment the group is described as Sunni, Jihadist. Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

You raise a valid point, but the source is not accusing the members of IS of being apostates. Apostasy (kufrul) has a specific definition meaning in Islam which IS combatants as a whole clearly do not meet. Rather, the source, along with what appears to be a broad scholarly consensus, claims that the organization can't be considered Islamic. By analogy, the USA is not an Islamic State either, but that doesn't mean American Muslims are apostates or blasphemers.136.159.160.242 (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

"Islamic" nature

I believe we need to add a section on the controversy revolving the "Islamic" nature of ISIS. On the one hand, many leading muslims/islam experts say that the actions of ISIS contradict Islam. On the other hand, there are indications that some or many ISIS members do not have a good understanding of Islam, or don't practice their faith regularly: [17]. Morgengave (talk) 12:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Rfc: Russian TV as a reliable source

Re [18], this "non-scientific" poll was originated on Facebook, the propagated on a bunch of non-reliable, newly created websites and non-official Youtube channels. Does the simple fact that RT published it make it "well sourced content"? Worldedixor (talk) 21:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Loads of discussion at RSN in the past about this source, eg [19], [20] and [21] all concluding no consensus. The key thing is I think who else has reported on this? If we can't find any reports on it in the usual media, then we shouldn't use it. Dougweller (talk) 10:22, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

I guess based on all these arguments, Fox News and CNN aren't reliable sources either. They have about as much credibility as RT. RT being Russian isn't sufficient to disqualify it as a reliable source any more than CNN being American qualifies it as a RS. RT is a major multinational news agency; deal with it. 119.18.0.66 (talk) 08:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Ideology and beliefs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, its very clear that their Ideology is Kharijtes from all perspectives, and they are considered to be Kharijtes by the vast majority [22], [23] . Also, its completely vague who is considering them as Sunni with no supportive resources. Therefore, unless there is something telling the opposite, I strongly believe the phrase Sunni Muslim shouldn’t be there as per Wikipedia procedures and guidelines. Ahmad2099 (talk) 19:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I strongly oppose putting Kharijite as their ideology. Khawarij is being used as a general pejorative term by their opponents, basically saying that IS are extremists and outside the Muslim community. 1) The Kharijites revolted against and killed Ali, while the Islamic State considers Ali to have been one of the Rightly Guided Caliphs.[24] 2) IS base many of their actions on those taken in wartime by Abu Bakr ,[25] who was Caliph before the Kharijites even existed. 3) Islamic State follow the same ideology/methodology as Al Qaeda, AQAP, AQIM, Al Shabab and other Jihadist groups. If the first are Kharajite, then all the other ones would have to be also. 4) They follow the Sunni Hanbali school of jurisprudence, and come out of the tradition of Sunni scholars such as Ibn Taymiyyah and Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab.[26][27] 5) Abu Mohammad al-Adnani, the official spokesman of the Islamic State, has explicitly denied the group are Kharajites: "I swear by Allah we aren’t Kharijites."[28] Gazkthul (talk) 02:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

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

It's hard to find an objective reliable source, but I found one that supports Gazkthul's arguments "And so it was that after the Battle of Siffin, the Khawarij became yet another political group to oppose the Islamic state" [29] Worldedixor (talk) 03:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

[30], [31], [32]. However, I think these are not sufficient to adding Kharejite in the infobox.--Seyyed(t-c) 08:41, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Ideology and beliefs (2)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• @P123ct1 and Jason from nyc: The section "Ideology and beliefs" should discuss ideology and beliefs only, not the discussion on ISIS's origination! So, the following should go to another section:

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

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

Map is misleading

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

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

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

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

The statement that the "map includes uninhabited areas" is facile; nearly any map of anywhere in the world above the city level includes uninhabited areas of some kind, depending on the reader's interpretation of "uninhabited". I had no idea what the note meant to communicate until I read this talk page discussion. I recommend either re-wording the note or removing it outright. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 07:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed that it's ambiguous and unhelpful. The easiest fix might be to include the locations of cities so the sparseness of al-Anbar province will be more obvious. I'd also suggest replacing "uninhabited" with "uninhabitable". 136.159.160.242 (talk) 16:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Timeline and History sections

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

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

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

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

No... where did I say those were President Obama's words? I am not quite sure you understood the premise of my argument, but, assuming good faith, and to help you understand, I will give you an analogy: the "critical historical crossroad" of what became World War I was one assassination [33]. Worldedixor (talk) 23:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

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

I iterate that I am not quite sure you understood the premise of my argument. My choice of words are not used in the article, they were used only on the Talk page. I was giving a logical cause-effect reasoning, and I gave a logical historical analogy. In any case, the upcoming "direct action" by the US against the Islamic State in Syria is already weighed/underway. [34] Worldedixor (talk) 16:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

I completely disagree with your first opinion and subjective assertions, but that's the beauty of WP. As for your question, feel free to read [35]. Worldedixor (talk) 18:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

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

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

Proposed split into new article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Establishment Date

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anyone interested can read a lengthy translation and analysis of this document from the Combating Terrorism Center [36]

2. "since ISIL was operating with the rebels in 2013, that date isn't used, as they were working with other members of the opposition". This sounds like WP:OR to me. All sources [37] agree that on 9 April 2014, Abu Bakr al Baghdadi released an audio message announcing the formal expansion into Syria as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

3. All the source says is "On Friday, al-Qaida militants raised their flag over government buildings .....and declared an independent Islamic state" No quotes or attribution. No details of what this state is called. A more detailed source [38] gives context: At Friday prayers, held outdoors and attended by thousands of people, a masked ISIS fighter took the podium and addressed the crowd, declaring the establishment of an “Islamic emirate” in Fallujah. There is nothing unique or unprecedented about this announcement, back in 2013 it regarded the Syrian towns it exercised exclusive control over as emirates [39]. An 'emirate', as used by ISIS, refers to towns and cities that are run by an emir. Gazkthul (talk) 10:53, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

First, who posted the last comment? Secondly, just to correct a slip, the date of the audio message referred to in 2. above and in the source quoted is 2013, not 2104. In that message, posted by al-Baghdad on 8 April 2013 (date given by [40]), al-Baghdadi announced the group's adoption of a new name, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, so incontrovertible proof. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Nobody told me that emirate means towns or cities, nor did I make such a claim. ISIS divides it's territory into provincial wilayah [41], with further subdivisions of emirates. When they took over the Syrian town of Azaz for example, they assigned an Emir to run it [42]. This is quite common for Jihadist groups, when al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula captured the Yemeni town of Jaar, they (re)named it the Emirate of Waqar [43]. I can't read Arabic to confirm for myself, but are you able to translate the following image that has been painted on ISIS controlled territory in Aleppo? [44] Gazkthul (talk) 23:49, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In a background piece on the group from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, the author writes: excitement surged online over the prospect of an Islamic state following ISI’s announcement of its own establishment. Since the announcement, all major online jihadist forums list the number of days since the Islamic state was formed (2,813 days, as of June 26, 2014) [45] Jihadists date the State back thousands of days, not a few months. Gazkthul (talk) 00:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

ISIL shows up in google search, ISIS doesn't

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

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

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

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

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

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

Great article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggest splitting older history sections to own pages

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

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

• Support this is actual name not given name. It's more encyclopedic and accurate to use this name. ~Technophant (talk) 14:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
• SupportAgree with Technophant.ChamithN (talk) 08:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn or al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia. I also suggest the split of Islamic state of Iraq section. 3bdulelah (talk) 14:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad revisions

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

Levant region

File:Levant (orthographic projection).png

From Wikipedia:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New RS by Alastair Crooke

A possible RS by an expert:

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

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

Bernard Haykel, a scholar at Princeton, makes a similar point [46]. I have added both references to the article and add their theory of Wahhabist influence. Jason from nyc (talk) 03:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Al-Qaeda in Iraq

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

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

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

Timeline: entry for 29 August

The timeline entry for 29 August reads:

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

The Fox News report in the citation reads:

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

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

What you don't seem to understand is that I never attributed those quotes to Cameron, I simply quoted what the WP:RS Fox News and what the media worldwide are calling as the "butchery" of the Islamic State atrocities. Read this [47] in justification of my logical argument. What I find amusing is that I make one entry once in a while, and, ¡Dios mío bendito!, of all the millions of articles on Wikipedia, and the thousands of entries in this and the other Syrian War articles, you and your "email pals" seem to "appear" to "dissect" and oppose my lonesome, well sourced entry. Ah well... Since I have no time nor energy for edit-wars, I do what I can, but after I see your relentless "opposition", I just let it be and almost never revert twice your reverts. No big deal. :) Worldedixor (talk) 20:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You're right!... There is no POV here. Isn't a FACT that the Islamic state are butchering people? Also, this article and other world media articles, (this is another example [48]), have summed up what the PM had said in his press conference [49] expressly as "Islamic State's butchery". Having said that, if their is a "real" consensus (as consensus is clearly defined in policy, which has nothing to do with numbers), then the entry should be changed following logical consensus. Worldedixor (talk) 22:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

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

That would change my quoting Fox News to your quoting the PM, which is fine but my quote is not a violation of policy, is it? More importantly, isn't a FACT that the Islamic state are butchering people? Still, if you want to seek legitimate consensus and change the article, I am fine with that. BUT first, please can you clarify, as per policy, as to whether or not you and P123ct1 have ever had email interaction in relation to this article or me? Worldedixor (talk) 22:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@Worldedixor, yes quoting the PM not Fox. Members of IS are not kill people then "dress their flesh, sell their meat" as a butcher does! If this is put in then it could be confused that this is actually is what happening. ~Technophant (talk) 22:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with what you said, but butchery has more than one meaning; butchery also means "the savage killing of large numbers of people". Ergo, the worldwide use in WP:RS news media. Still, at this juncture, legitimate consensus is what counts, but I can see you have already changed it, so I'll just let it be, and won't revert it to avoid an edit war. Worldedixor (talk) 22:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I missed all that. Actually, Worldedixor, I looked into this today and your edit is technically not in violation of WP policy, though I would have to look at Technophant's further WP wording on this more carefully. Was uncomfortable about Cameron's quoted words being mixed in with Fox News' quoted words in the same sentence, but I had thought of this: '"Fox News reported that in the aftermath of the "Islamic State's butchery", the UK had raised its terror level to "severe" and committed to fight radical Islam "at home and abroad".' That would cover it, I think, but I see Technophant has already changed it. I certainly don't want to edit-war either. --P123ct1 (talk) 23:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Not just technically, it was simply not in violation. I still have a reasonable question. Please can you clarify, as per policy, as to whether or not you and Technophant have ever had email interaction in relation to this article or me? If this is not a violation of policy, what's stopping me (or anyone) from soliciting other editors (or admins) to roll in and influence the editorial process in a topic or discussion? Worldedixor (talk) 23:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia encourages and depends on cooperative editing to improve articles, and most editors who work together are not a tag team. Assume good faith, and keep in mind that in almost all cases it is better to address other editors' reasoning than it is to accuse them of being on a team. ~Technophant (talk) 23:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Please stop your accusations. The record clearly shows that I have addressed other editors' reasoning, volunteered my well sourced and well researched knowledge, and, faced with opposition and your unilateral revert of my contribution (that was not in violation of policy), shown flexibility to avoid an edit war. Also, let me be clear that I am not accusing anyone, and I am WP:AGF. This is why I am not assuming anything nor accusing anyone, and I have made no subpoenas. I am asking a reasonable question, and since you both are responding, I ask for a responsive answer, if you care to respond: Please can you clarify, as per policy, as to whether or not you and P123ct1 have ever had email interaction in relation to this article or me? Worldedixor (talk) 23:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure if you think about it you'll realise that article talk pages are not the appropriate place to discuss email between editors. @P123ct1:The Guardian is not considered pretty left-wing. It's liberal, that's for sure, but not left-wing. Dougweller (talk) 08:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@Dougweller: Sorry. That was always my impression and I had done a quick check on the internet before I made that post and it seemed to confirm it. Not that I think its political leanings would influence its reporting on the Iraq crisis, it is a solid RS. I may have been misled - as people always say, you can't trust everything you read on the internet. --P123ct1 (talk) 09:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

A check on RS:N here shows that "The Guardian is a "use with caution" source in my book. It is very biased in its international and political reporting and I have often noticed erroneous facts and figures, often skewed to reflect their bias." and that it is more considered liberal than left-wing. ~Technophant (talk) 11:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Um, that was a quote from one editor unhappy with an opinion piece. At least one other editor disputed that. Any conservative or right winger is going to see a liberal paper as biased, that seems obvious. It's normally considered an RS and is certainly better than Fox, the Daily Mail, and many other sources. Ane even the best sources sometimes need to be treated with caution. Dougweller (talk) 15:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Among the "Opponents" in the infobox, Ba'ath Party Loyalists[29] appear. This needs to be reconciled with the later-cited [50] as well as [51]. I suppose that the rather obscure citation in the infobox may refer to a Ba'ath minority, and should be deleted. And should Ba'ath Party Loyalists conversely appear among "Allies"? And is this alliance significant enough that it should be addressed in a separate paragraph or section? Layzeeboi (talk) 07:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

Status of countries as "allies"

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

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

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

Successor or name change?

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

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

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

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

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

Hillary Clinton

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk page too long

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

Map concerning to the capture of region around Amerli

I've consulted a source concerning to the capture of the region surrounding Amerli: [52], but it displays several flags, some of which I don't have a clue about which do they belong. I recognize the Kurds, the Turkmens and the Iraqi flags, but others I have no idea. Someone could help about this, and update the map? (if it's considered to be a reliable source, of course) Mondolkiri1 (talk) 15:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

2nd American journalist dead/murdered/beheaded

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amnesty report on ethnic cleansing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Red-linking

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

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

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

Revision deleted material

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

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

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

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

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

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

disinfo

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

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

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

Equipment

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

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

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

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

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

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

New US-ally: Qassem Soleimani

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

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

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

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

Change the name of the “Analysis” section

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

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

Turkey: Both an ally and an opponent??

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

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

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

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

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

New wilayah

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

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

Concern about a source

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A bit late to the party, but we shouldn't be using Press TV or Kevin Barrett at all. See for instance [53] - neoconservative Zionists behind 9/11!. Dougweller (talk) 16:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

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

New section:Legacy/Influence/External support?

ISIS has clearly sent waves across the world, either positive or negative. Is it not right to have Legacy/Influence/External support sections, under which we can describe the support that it received among youth Muslims in UK, Europe,India and in Islamic countries. Also, we can describe pamphlet distribution supporting ISIS in UK[54] and Pakistan [55]. - Vatsan34 (talk) 14:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

New section: Strategy and tactics?

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

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

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

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

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

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

QSIS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Move request - 6 September 2014

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved There is a rought consensus against the move, both numerically and with the weight of arguments. The most relevant arguments seem to be WP:RECENTISM and WP:COMMONNAME. (non-admin closure) Kingsindian ♝♚ 14:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Comment: CNN just published an article on this very topic, Ray Sanchez, "ISIS, ISIL or the Islamic State?", CNN (September 9, 2014). bd2412 T 01:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Not their common name, by which they are referred to in English. (Or in Arabic, as most call them DIIS, the equivalent of ISIL/S.) "Islamic State" isn't even that much of an official name, given the level of organisation they have. We should keep on referring to them primarily by ISIL in the article. Maybe this can be brought up again a little later though. —innotata 05:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support. There are a lot of non-wikipedia-guideline-based opposes above. But, lacking grounding in wikipedia guidelines and policies, and as this is not a !vote, they should not be weighed as those !votes grounded in policy are. The entity was formerly of course named by the name that the article currently bears. But that has now been changed. Whenever a corporation changes its name, in accord with our policies we make the change in the wp article title. The same should be done here. This would be a no-brainer I expect if looked at with a non-POV attitude. Epeefleche (talk) 18:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Islamic State is both the official name and the name most mainstream media uses.Chessrat (talk) 17:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I got as far as reading the first link you supply. That link itself refers to the group as Islamic State. No doubt, so readers will know what it is referring to. It doesn't like that that is the name the group calls itself by -- but it reflects it, so that we will know what the link is talking about. (And, of course, "Islamic" is in the alternate name as well). This is about communication to readers as to what we are talking about. Let's not turn it into POV-pushing, as to what name we would have preferred the group or the RSs would have chosen to refer to the group. Epeefleche (talk) 19:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Epeefleche you seem to have disregarded the view of Muslim communities. How about the broader Arabic view. Note: ar:الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام has a lead that machine translates to: "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant , known for short as Daash , which calls itself now an Islamic state only ..." Please don't disregard the POV of the people that this issue actually affects. The context is of a Western media has, I think wrongly, pandered to a nonsensical name. Islamic State of what? This groups leadership have opted for slippery ambiguity in name choice and many editors here fairly reject its use. Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. We aren't a news aggregator, so the terminology the news people use is of secondary importance: wait until the secondary sources, such as academic journals and books, start using "Islamic state" or "Islamic State" to refer primarily to this organisation. The term "Islamic state" is consistently used in reference to the Rightly Guided Caliphs, and the concept has existed for almost 1400 years. Will the ISIS/L have any significance even in a few years, let alone in a millennium? We don't know, so we need to wait before making judgements of the sort. Nyttend (talk) 12:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

---

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.

Establishing standardized naming in wikilinks

• Commment There's clearly no census to rename however there's another related problem - how to should this article be referred to from other articles? Should it be Islamic State of Iraq and Levant (ISIL/ISIS) or some other variant? From what I understand we can establish by consensus (like on al-Qaeda) how this group should be wlinked on this talk page as an authoritative guide for other editors.~Technophant (talk) 23:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I would suggest ISIL as the least ambiguous option. ISIS sounds too much like the Egyptian goddess. bd2412 T 19:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The use of ISIL is on the rise, partly because of it's use by the Whitehouse's user of it. It's also the most commonly used acronym by military analysts and some international news agencies. However, the term ISIS is still quite popular, and to avoid confusion using ISIL/ISIS seems to me to be the best option.~Technophant (talk) 01:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Regional Map

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

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

'House of blood'

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

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

Proposing updated language for "Ideology and belief" section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anyone else have thoughts or concerns about this draft before I implement? Suomichris (talk) 18:52, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Training of ISIS

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

"Daash", "'Daʿesh" or "Daesh", coverage in Arabic media and reflected content in the article

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

I am curious about the following extreme results:

• "Daash" / "Daʿesh" / "Daesh" as "داعش" gets "About 45,700,000 results"

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

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

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

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

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

Dāʿesh is currently mentioned twice; Daash does not appear; Daʿesh is mentioned once in the article and once in references; Daesh is mentioned once in the article and once in notes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Worldedixor, you seem to talk a lot of cents and with value greater than you let on. I am guessing that Daʿesh is better than Daʿesh. Good enough as a compromise between accuracy and standard journalistic output? Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:45, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Why thank you, Gregkaye. Worldedixor (talk) 19:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Propose the consistent use of Daʿesh in article

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

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

Yes, I agree with Gregkaye and Suomichris as a good compromise between accuracy and standard journalistic output. Worldedixor (talk) 19:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

@Suomichris: @Worldedixor: and others, I just looked back at some archived pages of this talk page and found: "DĀʻiSh". I know Worldedixor prefers the use of "e". How applicable is a regular presentation such as DAʻeSh or DAʿeSh (DAʻiSh or DAʿiSh) or similar in comparison to Daʿesh? I also wondered about a format such as XXʻXXx or XXʿXXx.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The "i" can be mispronounced by many. I see no justification for a capital A in the middle of the word. Perhaps DAʿESH because its an acronym, but we would be given three Latin capital letters to one Arabic letter (ش). I think 'Daʿesh is the best compromise. Hope this helps. Worldedixor (talk) 12:17, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Another argument for a capitalisation of DAʿESH is a commonality with ISIL and ISIS. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Israel

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

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

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

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

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

P123ct1 Done.--Thnidu (talk)¿

To Thnidu: Do you understand the legal definition of an unauthorized organization in Israeli law? Before rushing to revert another editor's contribution in a few hours and without consensus, remember WP:ROWN. It may be a good habit to take a couple of seconds to verify what you are reverting, keeping WP:ROWN in mind. I can read more than English, and in a couple of seconds, I was able to verify that even the Israeli mfa and mod official sites designate the Islamic State as terrorists [56] [57]. Although I can revert your revert, I will give you the courtesy to do a search yourself and revert your own revert, and hopefully learn a good lesson in the process . Hope this helps. Have a good day, mate. Worldedixor (talk) 00:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Worldedixor and Hariboneagle927:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tangential discussion, WP:NOTAFORUM

@Worldedixor:, how about this - please get consensus before adding potentially controversial material. If you get reverted don't revert back (potential edit warring), follow WP:BRD and take it to the talk page, BE CIVIL, and stop giving overly dramatic arguments as to why you are right and other editors are wrong.~Technophant (talk) 23:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC) How about this? Get your facts straight before you use something as a pretext to instigate me. Do you even know who added this content? Do you know who was reverted? Worldedixor (talk) 23:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC) No. The original diff wasn't included when this section was started. I took the liberty of adding it above. What I do see is misuse of the Talk page. Please take a look at WP:TALK. Worldedixor used yellow above to address me. Is that like flashing a yellow card? Too much in my opinion. Participating in this project is a privilege, not a right, and this privilege can be removed by community discussion.~Technophant (talk) 01:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC) Yes, misuse by you!... You were NOT involved in this matter, and I did not invite you... Just when I have said all I needed to say with verifiable facts, and moved on, you come back and throw smoke screens to cover your initial attack on me WP:PA when you did not even know who added this content, or cared enough to find out before you attack me!... You continue to use anything as a pretext to hound me even though I have repeatedly ignored all your incivility, personal attacks, removed all your comments from my talk page, and moved on away from you. My stating verifiable facts is not a violation of policy. Why are you attacking me for my highlight? Is using "highlight" not permitted per policy? If so, what rule prohibits it? I will then gladly remove it? If no, it stays and you lose your pretext to attack me. Also, isn't your "taking the liberty" to change a Talk page comment after other comments have been made a policy violation? Answer me and STOP instigating me... Finally, don't get involved in something that I have not initiated against you... MOVE ON as you were told by one or more admins... and do NOT "gang up" on me at every opportunity you can...Worldedixor (talk) 01:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Israel (2)

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

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

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

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

To: JRSpriggs (talk): I have already shared my informed arguments and translated a source from Arabic into English, and yes, your reliable source from the Israeli mfa is indeed good enough. I believe that what the other editor did, acting unilaterally, is incorrect and inconsistent with policy on many levels. I now recuse myself from this discussion to avoid WP:EW. Other informed editors, like you, can now deal with this "very obvious" matter.Worldedixor (talk) 19:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The document from the Israeli Ministry of Justice which Hariboneagle gave does not equate "unlawful" with "terrorist" at all. Read the heading of that document properly. --P123ct1 (talk) 19:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

There was no consensus as far as I could tell, therefore it was a simple revert, and a revert is always "unilateral" when no consensus is involved, ABC. I cannot spell out more plainly my reasoning for reverting than I have done. If there was consensus, can someone enlighten me how, please? There was certainly no consensus from me, as I made plain in the earlier diiscussion. --P123ct1 (talk) 19:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

(This is brought forward from the section "Use of bold text on talk pages" below) First, if one person disagrees with a proposed edit, there is no consensus, and I did not agree. Secondly, the document here that Hariboneagle and Worldedixor say proves that the Israeli law definition of unlawful organizations includes terrorist organizations does not do that. It says this in the heading,

"Certification of Designations of Organisations as Unlawful Associations Pursuant to Israel’s Defence (Emergency) Regulations (State of Emergency) (1945) and as Terrorist Organisations Pursuant to Israel’s Defence of Terrorism Ordinance (5708-1948)" -

(meaning, if you look at the whole document, "This is a list of organisations we regard as unlawful organisations and terrorist organizations")

and this in section 2,

"I submit this Certification to certify that certain organizations have been designated as Unlawful Associations by the Minister of Justice of the State of Israel under Israel’s Defense (Emergency) Regulations (State of Emergency) 1945 and/or as Terrorist Organisations."

(The highlighting there is mine.) It then goes on to list, separately, a number of unlawful organisations, and a number of terrorist organisations. That document it is simply a list of the organisations that the Israeli government has designated, in that particular certification, as unlawful organisations and as terrorist organisations, as even a cursory glance through it will show. It does not equate "unlawful" with "terrorist", or to put it in the way the two editors put it, the adjective "unlawful" there does not include "terrorist", they are treated as two quite separate things. --P123ct1 (talk) 23:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The Justice Minister of Israel, Livni, was expected to make a statement today. I think this news article is it: Livni calls for diplomacy with 'moderates' to help counter Islamic State.~Technophant (talk) 23:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

PS I should have added, if the other editors disagree with my revert, of course we can discuss it together and try to reach consensus. As has happened before when I have reverted, I was uncomfortable about stating something in the article that I thought wasn't accurate. Better to have it out than in, until we can agree on it. (If it had been the other way round, i.e. if I had seen a statement in the article that I thought looked dodgy, I would have added a "citation needed" tag, which doesn't look half so drastic as a straight revert!) --P123ct1 (talk) 00:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

US State Department - Anti ISIS Twitter, Videos etc.

It seems that the US Department of State has set up a Twitter account [59] and YouTube channel [60] with which they are apparently trying to dissuade foreign ISIS recruits. I believe that the reception so far has been mixed. [61], [62], [63], [64].

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

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

Conspiracy Theories

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

I am not interested, don't have the time, nor am I competent enough in speculative, often fabricated, conspiracy theories, but you may want to join this discussion [65]. Hope this helps. Worldedixor (talk) 22:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@92.40.250.79: When this infomation came out we had an extensive discussion on it. You can view this discussion at Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant/Archive_4#Alleged_Snowden_leaks.~Technophant (talk) 23:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Your extensive discussions don't amount to proof for or against the claims. And if there IS any significant proof, it should either be on the page or the page should take an impartial view not making such claims either way. And Worldedixor, if you're not competent or speculative enough, you should surely just not contribute towards this section? 92.40.250.73 (talk) 11:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! You have stated the NPOV principle perfectly. --P123ct1 (talk) 12:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

There are dozens of reports [1, 2, 3, 4, &c.] indicating that the U.S. have funded ISIS/ISIL, and even regional leaders like Assad have stated so [5]. Why is all of this labeled as “conspiracy theories,” and not, as objectivity suggests, presented as a possible scenario leading up to additional, critical questions? Or, put differently, why doesn’t the article thoroughly refute these accounts? (On the other hand, if the editors here have proof that everything, without exception, what these sources and people say is false, then perhaps respective Wikipedia articles should be adjusted and supported with evidence first?) —j9t (talk) 14:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Well you see they call it a "conspiracy theory" because it is a theory about a group of people having secretly done something illegal and wrong... which is a valid name for this. Unfortunately people somehow automatically confuse "conspiracy" with "wrong" or "paranoid", so the true meaning is lost. Even police detectives can be conspiracy theorists... if there are a group of criminals planning a crime and the detective investigates it, they're theorising about the "conspiracy" to commit a crime. If they arrest them before the crime as happened (which isn't always the case as they can charge longer sentences by letting the crime happen and then arresting instead of just arresting them for the alleged planning of one) then they'll even say "we're arresting you for conspiracy to commit... blah, blah...". The claims against ISIS itself is a conspiracy theory, no matter whether it's right or wrong or whether it's the "official story" or not. What should remain open for speculation is whether the theory is of a conspiracy of ISIS itself or a government conspiracy. I'm sure we'll never truly know the "valid" evidence which indisputably proves either side of the story, but yes, the NPOV principle should be followed and all sides of the story should be considered just as plausible and presented for the reader to make up their own mind. 92.40.250.93 (talk) 14:13, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

al-Shams

An uniformed editor Ericl (talk) seems to think erroneously that al-Shams in Arabic means the Levant [66] which is wrong. His misinformation made this page [67] look odd in an encyclopedia. I am incompetent in correcting the name, and I recognize my limitations. So, before I ask for admin help, does anyone know how to change al-Shams which is wrong to al-Sham which is correct? Worldedixor (talk) 04:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

a simple spelling mistake. However, I was right and informed. al-Sham is indeed a an antique term for the Levant, which is is also an antique term in itself. ISIS is is an acronym for Islamic State in Iraq and al Sham, after all....Ericl (talk) 12:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Excellent!... Then please fix your spelling mistake on this page [68] and replace al-Shams which is wrong with al-Sham which is correct. Thanks. Worldedixor (talk) 18:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Details based on new AP and CNN refs

In Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Name and name changes, after this sentence

On 14 May 2014, the United States Department of State announced its decision to use "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" (ISIL) as the group's primary name.

Add the following,

A month later, The Associated Press said it "believed ['ISIL'] is the most accurate translation of the group's name and reflects its aspirations to rule over a broad swath of the Middle East"; CNN has noted that "part of the confusion stems from the fact that al-Sham has many meanings in Arabic."

Cite these two references as sources:

• Kent, Tom (June 17, 2014). "Is it ISIL or ISIS in Iraq?". Associated Press. Retrieved 2014-09-11.
• Sanchez, Ray (September 9, 2014). "ISIS, ISIL or the Islamic State?". CNN. Retrieved 2014-09-11.

—72.244.200.230 (talk) 15:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The second sentence appears to have been removed, and the first already has a reference. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 05:12, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Page name

I have no opinion on whether the name of the page should be Islamic State, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or anything else but I do find it odd that the page name does not match the initial use in the lead. --Khajidha (talk) 15:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I could not agree more. This has largely arisen because of long discussions on the Talk page about what the title of the article should now be which never result in a decision. Also inconsistent is the use of both IS and ISIS to describe the group in the Lead (and throughout the article). I have raised this and the inconsistency between the article's name and the infobox titles more than once, but it has always been ignored. This sort of thing injures Wikipedia's reputation as an encyclopaedia, in my opinion. --P123ct1 (talk) 16:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

official website ?

Due to censorship , it is difficult to find official website and other official digital material( made by ISIS ). Some official sources should be listed ( with date , when they was valid ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4118:16:1:0:0:0:16 (talk) 16:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not aware of an official English website, nor have I heard of official Arabic website. The group uses various Twitter accounts to put out media releases. The links go to "notepad" type sites with multiple links to media sharing sites where the media is hosted. There's a jihadology website that collects these announcements from different groups. You can search the 'net for it.23:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

ISIS's media organization is the al-Furquan Institute for Media Production. We don't have any more details than this. --P123ct1 (talk)

Presumably due to US Government pressure, the IS presence on social media is constantly being banned, reestablished and banned again. You can find a lot of their video material on archive.org if you know what to look for, and the website mentioned in the above website also reproduces their releases for academic purposes. Gazkthul (talk) 23:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

2001:4118:16:1:0:0:0:16: The al-Furqan Media Institute produces DVDs, CDs and other material. See the section"Propaganda and social media" in this article on it and other outlets that would be useful to you. In saying we don't have any more details, I meant we have no website address for them. You could ask one of the editors Technophant who knows more about the al-Furqan Institute. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Probably they use TOR hidden server as official website.

Use of bold text on talk pages

WP:SHOUT says "Avoid excessive emphasis: CAPITAL LETTERS are considered shouting and are virtually never appropriate. Bolding may be used to highlight key words or phrases (most usually to highlight "oppose" or "support" summaries of an editor's view), but should be used judiciously, as it may appear the equivalent of the writer raising his voice." Now I do see a bit of using it to highlight key words that may be considered appropriate, I think it's being overdone - I don't recall seeing it this much on other talk pages. And it actually makes the talk page harder to read, IMHO of course. Dougweller (talk) 16:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion (ref: IMHO). What does policy say about making changes to talk page comments and/or adding comments after other editors have responded to that comment in these diffs [69] and [70]? If this is permitted, I would like to know. Also, are reviewers exempt from following policy like other editors, or are their policy violations conveniently overlooked? Worldedixor (talk) 19:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The Talk page is not the place to raise such matters. This page is for editors to discuss edits, not be distracted from their work by an editor raising WP policy on other matters. --P123ct1 (talk) 21:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Why are you policing my every move WP:Hound? Is your name Dougweller (talk)? He had the right to raise WP policy on the talk page and so did I. What policy provision prohibits us from doing so as you claim? The distraction comes when an editor engages in WP:EW and unilaterally does a 3RR on a well sourced content (this was not a simple first revert, this was a disputed revert), without consensus, albeit not within 24 hours. We already have a reliable source that proves that Israeli law definition for unlawful organizations includes terrorist organizations[71], and we have a reliable source that the Israeli Minister of defense designated the IS an unlawful organization [72]. 1+1 = 2. I recused myself and did not do a 4RR to revert your 3RR simply to avoid WP:EW. I am not the problem here. Worldedixor (talk) 21:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Please see "Israel (2)" for why I don't think that document (107) can be used. --P123ct1 (talk) 22:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I completely disagree with your "thinking" without your adhering 100% to policy, and, before I respond, I will allow you to respond to: "Why are you policing my every move WP:Hound? Is your name Dougweller (talk)?" Worldedixor (talk) 22:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

By "such matters" I was referring to what was subsequently raised by another editor, which was unrelated to admin Dougweller's guidance. --P123ct1 (talk) 01:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• To all editors: A Request for Comment/User has been started at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Worldedixor regarding this user.~Technophant (talk) 02:57, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

ISIS Is Attacking Women, And Nobody Is Talking About It - HuffPost headline

See [73]. Dougweller (talk) 16:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done Added to "Human rights abuse" section. --P123ct1 (talk) 18:52, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

New edit in "Analysis"

This para has appeared in the "Analysis" section:

While officials fear ISIS may either inspire attacks in the United States by sympathizers or those returning after joining ISIS, American intelligence agencies find there is no immediate threat or specific plots. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel sees an “imminent threat to every interest we have.” Daniel Benjamin, former top counterterrorism adviser, derides such alarmist talk as a “farce” that panics the public.

Are prognostications acceptable in an encylopaedia? Wikipedia should not act like a foreign correspondent or political commentator in this war; that is not what an encyclopaedia is about. The same could be said about Frank Gardner's opinion about the future of ISIS in the section "Territorial claims - Governance". As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia's job is to record events in this war, and various opinions about those events, not look into an unknown future. --P123ct1 (talk) 11:46, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL is the applicable policy. Probably the bit that says "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses. Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view." Dougweller (talk) 12:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I am very surprised, but thanks for that! (I had better not be so cocksure in future, as WP guidance is full of surprises!) --P123ct1 (talk) 15:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually I re-wrote that paragraph to properly reflect the New York Times article. When I did so I was going to put my doubts on the "edit line" about whether it should be in the article at all since this is an encyclopedia not a newspaper. I was divided but thought that at least it should reflect the debate as expressed in the New York Times news article. I'm glad you brought it up and glad to see Dougweller's review of the rules. Jason from nyc (talk) 17:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Be careful. I have been told that WP does not have rules, it only has guidance and policies. So there is plenty of room for manoeuvre - sorry, interpretation. (The WP:FIVEPILLARS excepted.) --P123ct1 (talk) 22:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

1RR Question

Technophant: I am unclear as to why you reverted my edit here. [74]. What is Gaz? and can you elaborate? Worldedixor (talk) 21:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm referring to Gazkthul and the conversation below from his talk page which I've copied below:~Technophant (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I still don't understand. Please, can you clarify in one concise and comprehensive response, after reading these RS [75] and [76] ?Worldedixor (talk) 21:47, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I think we should use "later commonly known as Al-Qaeda in Iraq" instead of ""later known as Al-Qaeda in Iraq" because the group did not refer to itself by this, it was just commonly used in western media.~Technophant (talk) 08:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Good point on what they called themselves. However, I am fully aware that not only western media, but globally in Arabic and other world media, by and large, also referred to them as "Tanzim al-Qaeda in Iraq". These are two of many Arabic and world WP:RS[77] where "وانبثقت الدولة الاسلامية في الأصل من تنظيم القاعدة في العراق" translates to "The Islamic State originally emerged from al-Qaeda in Iraq organization" and [78]. Feel free to verify and let's resolve this discussion based on logical agreement and reliable sources provided here and above. Worldedixor (talk) 09:26, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Why not just "commonly known as Al-Qaeda in Iraq"? That covers the West, the Arabic world and everywhere else, and shows it isn't an official name, and it doesn't contradict the description in "Name and name changes". The citation in a footnote in para 2 of "Name and name changes", an article from the Combating Terrorism Center by Dr Michael Knight, a Middle East specialist from WINEP, so a RS, says this:

There has never been an organization with the name “al-Qa`ida in Iraq.” This name, however, has referred to the fighters in al-Tawhid wa-al-Jihad, Tanzim al-Qa`ida fi Bilad al-Rafidayn, Majlis Shura al-Mujahidin, Hilf al-Muttaybin, the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) and now finally the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). During the first Falluja battle, these fighters fought under the name al-Tawhid wa-al-Jihad, under the command of Abu Mus`ab al-Zarqawi. Al-Zarqawi then declared his bay`a (oath) to Usama bin Ladin, and Bin Ladin accepted it in October 2004. At that point, the organization’s name was changed to Tanzim al-Qa`ida fi Bilad al-Rafidayn. This article refers to all these fighters as AQI.

That would back up "commonly known as Al-Qaeda in Iraq". --P123ct1 (talk) 12:36, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

In para 2 of "Name and name changes", Tanẓīm Qāʻidat al-Jihād fī Bilād al-Rāfidayn is translated as "The Organization of Jihad's Base in the Country of the Two Rivers". If "Qa'idat" means "al-Qaeda" (translated there as "the Base", which I understand is what "al-Qaeda" means) and the "Country of the Two Rivers" means Iraq (through which the Tigris and Euphrates run), then it is clear why the group was commonly known as "Al-Qaeda in Iraq", and why the subsequent groups (Mujahideen Shura Council and the ISI) were also known as "Al-Qaeda in Iraq", given the close connections of all three with al-Qaeda at that time. -P123ct1 (talk) 12:57, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, I agree especially, that I could not find one flag or picture or video for just "تنظيم القاعدة في العراق". So, after due diligence, that settles it. Now, even though the flow of the article is not smooth, it is more accurate. This discussion is resolved and commonly stays. Worldedixor (talk) 16:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done Have changed it to "commonly known as". That was my sentence (or rather my adjustment of Gazkthul's) and I know it doesn't flow very well, but at least it eliminated the contradiction between the Lead and the "Name and name changes" section. (See #Successor or name change?, #Jamāʻat al-Tawḥīd wa-al-Jihād and #Edit to para 2 of the Lead above.) --P123ct1 (talk) 17:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Jamāʻat al-Tawḥīd wa-al-Jihād

The Lead in ISIS says that ISIS is the successor to Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn, but in "Name and name changes", ISIS is described as originating as Jamāʻat al-Tawḥīd wa-al-Jihād. Should Jamāʻat al-Tawḥīd wa-al-Jihād not be mentioned in the Lead as well, for the avoidance of doubt? --P123ct1 (talk) 14:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm of two minds, ultimately Tawhid wal Jihad did come first, but it was very different to what the Islamic State is, I think that being in the Names and History sections might be sufficient. Gazkthul (talk) 08:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually i've just noticed it says currently ISIS is the successor to Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn—more commonly known as Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI)—formed by Abu Musab Al Zarqawi in 1999 that is totally wrong. Qaeda in Iraq was formed in 2004, Tawhid wal Jihad was formed in 1999, so it's the worst of both worlds at the moment! Gazkthul (talk) 08:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I just thought the general reader would be confused to see "ISIS is the successor to Tanzim" and then read in the names section that ISIS began as Jamat, which became Tanzim. I noticed that 1999 change, but can't do anything about this as I know nothing about the group's background and history beyond what is in this article. My ignorance is probably quite useful, as I can read the article as a general reader would, and so see the fuzzy areas clearly! It's why I've been picking your brains on so many points, as you are clearly very knowledgeable about these groups in the Middle East generally - all in the interests of making the article clearer for the uniformed Wikipedia reader. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:34, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Gazkthul has some good points. The article are contradicts itself about this, and this needs to be viewed and discussed by a wider audience. I think this discussion should be moved the ISIL talk page.~Technophant (talk) 12:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2014

The name should be changed from "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" to Islamic State (Caliphate) on account of the fact that this group does not call itself the Islamic State of "Iraq and the Levant," just "The Islamic State". The word "Caliphate" prevents confusion between this specific terrorist organization from the concept of a nation being run on Islamic values. 2605:6000:9D83:D800:BDDF:BF51:FE6:56A5 (talk) 02:56, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

This has been discussed at great length. See discussions above, especially #Removal of 'Islamic' as anything actual and only as reference to the users, #New name, #POV, #Debunking 'Islamic State', #Revert of "Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi named as its caliph". --Thnidu (talk) 04:12, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Questioning semi-protected status

This article has been semi-protected for a while so that IP users are unable to edit it. I would like to propose changing it to having wp:pending revision protection instead. The downside would be that pending revisions could stack up and need to be approved by users have have the pending changes reviewer flag (which isn't hard to get). ~Technophant (talk) 04:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll try to answer. If I understood this correctly, I don't believe it's necessary for this article. We have not had many IP edits or vandalism, and most editors have strictly adhered to 1RR per 24 hours that's working well for the article. Hope this helps. Worldedixor (talk) 05:36, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

New ideas from IP users would be welcome obviously, but they can already suggest edits on the Talk page, can't they? However, it would certainly be more democratic to make it easier for IP users to edit the article. Was the pending revisions stacking up ever a problem? --P123ct1 (talk) 10:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

It has been at Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi however the editing activity there has died down. I don't think pending revisions was ever tried here. I asked for semi-protected indef. a while ago and got it. Being that reverting IP edits are except from 1R I would be willing to allow a trial of PR to see how it works.~Technophant (talk) 07:48, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree Pending revisions was here for a quite a while. I remember being annoyed that the "pending revision" tab kept obscuring one of the edit tabs! If reverting an IP edit is excluded from the 1RR restriction, I definitely think it should be tried out. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• Update The request was denied due the high edit rate in this article. Log here.~Technophant (talk) 19:05, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Fresh new debate on consensus for the new title for the article

The article obviously needs a new title. It still carries the old and outdated title, so lets reach a consensus on that and change it already. I don't mind Islamic State (capital)...? --Midrashah (talk) 08:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I was very clear that the name should be The Islamic State and the Islamic State in the middle of the sentence as it is what the group call itself. However, this [79] presents valid arguments as to why we should not use the Islamic State. I apologize for the confusion, but I feel I needed to bring all good arguments into the discussion. As of now, I am no longer supporting the Islamic State. Worldedixor (talk) 07:26, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

That article is a brilliant commentary on the name problem that is troubling not only WP editors but the media in the West generally. Well done Worldedixor for tracking it down. Given that WP:COMMONNAME is the relevant guidance here - that the name should be the one commonly used by RS sources and the media and generally - I think everyone should read that article before commenting on what title they think this article should now have. -P123ct1 (talk) 09:44, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

For me the most important issue here is the urgent need to remove the old title. I dont mind it to be "The Islamic State" or "Islamic State", as long as we update it already. Lets get some consensus around here and move it to a new title --Midrashah (talk) 19:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit to para 2 of the Lead

I have grasped the nettle and attempted to solve (a) the contradiction described in #Successor or name change? and #Jamāʻat al-Tawḥīd wa-al-Jihād above and (b) the inconsistency between the "IS" and "ISIS" references in the Lead (i.e. before it referred to the group as both IS and ISIS without proper linking). It may not be the best wording, so if editors can think of a better way, or think I have made any mistakes, please change it or discuss here. The overall description of the group's history in para 2 now matches the description in the "Name and name changes" section. For comparison with later versions, this was my version:

"The Islamic State, still widely known as ISIS or ISIL, originated as Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad in 1999. This group was the forerunner of Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn—later commonly known as al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI)—a group formed by Abu Musab Al Zarqawi in 2004 which took part in the Iraqi insurgency against American-led forces and their Iraqi allies following the 2003 invasion of Iraq."

I leave it to others to judge whether subsequent versions are better. --P123ct1 (talk) 17:43, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Removal of flags in infobox

Once again an editor has removed the flags, but according to WP:MOS, they are acceptable when the subject is military conflict - see 2.1.2. The Syrian Civil War article contains a large number. Should the flags be restored? --P123ct1 (talk) 17:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

• The subject is Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:22, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Who are heavily involved in military conflict in Iraq and Syria. --P123ct1 (talk) 17:11, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 Can you please include diffs when discussing edits? It makes evaluating and dealing with the issues so much easier.~Technophant (talk) 00:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I assumed everyone would know what was meant by "the flags". --P123ct1 (talk) 11:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

2013 Islamic State kidnapping of British aid worker

Draft:2013 Islamic State kidnapping of British aid worker is created and ready to go however User talk:G S Palmer is wanting community consensus approval for this article to be included. I emailed the functionaries 2 days ago for their approval in publishing this draft but have not received a reply. I started a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#2013 Islamic State kidnapping of British aid worker.~Technophant (talk) 21:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

This guy is now dead. Name is no longer withheld. JhonsJoe (talk) 00:21, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

JhonsJoe There's an odd situation playing out in the Village pump link above where I was not allowed to create the article with his name, instead I was allowed to post his information (with redirect) at 2014 ISIL beheading incidents. I requested a split.~Technophant (talk) 03:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Israel (3)

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

I have contacted the WP:RSN about this. There is some extra information in para 5 of this article here, which says that the Israeli government intends to include a list of groups that it designates as "terrorist organizations" in a Bill currently being drawn up for legislation. --P123ct1 (talk) 11:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

FYI, the link to the RSN discussion is Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant_.E2.80.93_Israel.~Technophant (talk) 04:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I forgot to put that link here. --P123ct1 (talk) 08:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Still no response from the RSN. --P123ct1 (talk) 18:38, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Still no useful answer from the RSN, I'm afraid. --P123ct1 (talk) 18:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC).

Lead proposals: Edit opener and move content from second and third paragraphs to later in article.

Its long-winded but could the opener read:
The Islamic State (IS; Arabic: الدولة الإسلامية ad-Dawlah l-ʾIslāmiyyah) is a Sunni jihadist group, previously self-described: as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL /ˈaɪsəl/; Arabic: الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام also translated: Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, ISIS /ˈaɪsɪs/, with Arabic acronym: داعش Daʿesh); as Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn and as Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad.

Can remaining content from the second paragraph be moved to history?

Can content from the third paragraph be moved, perhaps to a new section on something like "growth" or early growth?

It just seems that the lead is currently unwieldy.

The opener currently reads:
The Islamic State (IS; Arabic: الدولة الإسلامية ad-Dawlah l-ʾIslāmiyyah), previously self-described as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL /ˈaɪsəl/; Arabic: الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام also translated: Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, ISIS /ˈaɪsɪs/, with Arabic acronym: داعش Daʿesh) ad-Dawlah l-ʾIslāmiyyah fīl-ʿIrāq wash-Shām). The group is also known by the Arabic acronym DAʿESH (Arabic: داعش Dāʿish). These names continue to be used colloquially.}} is a Sunni jihadist group in the Middle East.

I suggest cutting reference to "Middle East" on the basis that most readers will be able to work that out.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The Lead is not excessively long for an article of this size. The Lead is meant to summarise an article and the summary paragraph in the Lead on the history of the group is appropriate. You say "most readers" will be able to work out that the group is in the Middle East. (a) Wikipedia is for "all" readers and (b) any reputable encyclopaedia would include that information. The form the Lead takes has come after much discussion among editors and some careful decisions. The Talk pages will show that. --P123ct1 (talk) 15:44, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

My suggested opening sentence would provide all readers with a succinct and early indication of history. The clearing of text from the lead would also facilitate more immediate access to the TOC with all its links to the the article's history based contents. A move of the history paragraph to an appropriate section of text would avoid needless repetition and would hopefully facilitate a full presentation of content in a centralised location. I believe that this current proposal is new. Gregkaye ✍♪ 03:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I do not support any of those suggestions. The first sentence in particular is quite confusing. Who put in "previously self-described as"? Why not just "formerly"? Nearly all groups/institutions/organisations etc are "self-described". A Lead as I said is the summary of an article, so there is bound to be some repetition. P123ct1 (talk) 07:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• "Formerly" is incomplete. Opposition exists to an acknowledgement of "Islamic State" not least in a fatwa issued by imams and scholars based in the UK [80]. Another form of wording may suit but there should be an acknowledgement that terms such as the "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" and the associated "DAʿESH" remain current both in the Arabic world and elsewhere. I proposed and used "previously self-described as" as text above

The use of current wording is not the topic of the thread and is not a valid reason to reject proposed change. The proposed first sentence is as complicated as the history of the organisation. It is quite representative. Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

It is the vexed question that has troubled editors in this and the al-Baghdadi article: is it POV or NPOV to call the IS a caliphate and al-Baghdadi the caliph, when the legitimacy of these changes is so widely questioned in the Muslim world? I believe Wikipedia should not make judgments on events, but simply record them as facts. I can see there is another point of view, though, that doing so looks like endorsement.

Can someone explain - in simple language, please - why "previously calling itself" and " previously self-described as" is suitable wording? I miss the subtleties. I joke. I think the idea behind it could be better expressed. --P123ct1 (talk) 18:09, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The history of this group is quite complex and to have it distilled into one paragraph in the Lead is a good idea, especially as three sections of the history, on Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad, Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn and the Mujahideen Shura Council, have now been moved and have articles of their own. Best to look at the article globally before making suggestions for changes. --P123ct1 (talk) 20:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

ISIS to ISIL

Someone has altered many - but not all - instances of "ISIS" to "ISIL" throughout the article, and has even altered quotations from citations, changing "ISIS" to "ISIL". Who did this? Such a large change should be brought to the Talk page for discussion and agreement first. The article is now a sad mess because of this. This article is getting from 60,000 to 160,000 hits a day at the moment. What impression is Wikipedia giving here? --P123ct1 (talk) 16:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I went through with this diff using wikiEd search and replace function change most of the instances of ISIL to ISIS. Changing this term inside references can cause big problems with broken urls. Can somebody please search through the revision history and come up with list of diffs where ISIS was changed so that the can be scrutinized for any inadvertent changes in citations?~Technophant (talk) 20:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for making those changes. Did you find out who had done this? --P123ct1 (talk) 21:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

One of the diff that changed ISIS to ISIL is here. I may have accidently changed some quotes from ISIL to ISIS which is a technical violation of our quotation principles. I agree it's a mess. The only thing I can think of is to print out all of revisions in color and compare them side to side. Or, or we copy the latest version into a sandbox, then revert to the last known good version, compare changes, then manually put back in the newer edits.~Technophant (talk) 00:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

At the moment the lettering "ISIL"/"isil" appears 34 times on the page.

The lettering "ISIS"/"isis" appears 277 times in the page (with a just a small fraction of this count applying within words like crisis")

This is grossly misrepresentative not least in terms of article title and translated text. This title is based on the previous Arabic name of ISIL/"ISIS" (الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام‎). I'd appreciate the guidance of editors with better knowledge of Arabic than me. With the help of Google translate, it seems that a translation of "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" is correct.[81] Google translate indicates 5 possible translations for "the Levant" (بلاد الشام, الشام, المشرق العربي, المشرق, الشرق الأدنى) and 4 possible translations for Syria (سوريا, سورية, السورية, السوري). That's two confirmations that "the Levant" is more accurate. Despite this it seemed that the term ISIS is being unfairly and inaccurately pushed. This includes a misrepresentative addition of a hatnote with links to disambiguation pages. This went against both alphabetical ordering and priority to presented a link to the Isis (disambiguation) page as "ISIS (disambiguation)" before the added link to Isil.[82]

This current situation is ridiculous. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. If "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" is accurate then this should be used.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 03:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

This has been discussed many times before. The current consensus is that ISIS is the preferred abbreviation in keeping with WP:COMMONNAME. Gazkthul (talk) 04:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

If the editor feels strongly about this, he should start a separate discussion and attempt to persuade other editors that he is right. This page works by consensus. I am concerned about the potential changes to the footnotes. There are about 15 footnotes with "ISIL". Each needs to be gone through, since there could now be broken links and readers will not be able to read the citations. The responsible editor needs to check his changes that Technophant may have missed and restore the original versions of footnotes and quotations, to save the article. --P123ct1 (talk) 06:13, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

@Gazkthul: Scanning through the archives I have not seen where this specific issue has been addressed except for an early discussion at Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/Archive_2#Name (ISIS/ISIL vs. "Islamic State") in the Lead and Body. I would be grateful to hear of discussions that I have missed. Obviously searches on all relevant terms: "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant", "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria", "Islamic State of Iraq and al Shams", "ISIS" and "ISIL" will all have relevance but it is worth noting that WP:Use commonly recognizable names refers to WP:Article titles. My argument would be that "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" is the most clearly relevant, used and accurate translation of the Arabic text and that MOS:ABBR most logically applies. Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:09, 15 September 2014 UTC

Split of Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn

As it was decided above there's a consensus to split the content of Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn to it's own article. I've already copied the text here, set a Main template, and changed most of the redirects, and started to re-establish an infobox. What needs to be done is:

1. Create a summary of the content in this article.
2. Look through the various revisions of Al-Qaeda in Iraq to find useful text to reuse.
3. Rewrite new lead.
4. Fact check.
5. Review all redirects to see that they go to the proper place.

Thanks for all your help. Keep up the good work!.~Technophant (talk) 20:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Lead

My changes to the Lead have been reverted and this was my version. (Please note punctuation clean-up.)

"The Islamic State (IS) (Arabic: الدولة الإسلامية‎ ad-Dawlah l-ʾIslāmiyyah), formerly the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) (/ˈaɪsəl/) (Arabic: الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام‎) alternately translated as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) (/ˈaɪsɪs/) and also known by the Arabic acronym Daʿesh (داعش),[a] is an unrecognized state and a Sunni jihadist group active in Iraq and Syria in the Middle East."

This is a plain statement of fact and is adequate, IMO.

I removed "Global war on terrorism" from the second infobox, as "Participants in the Global War on Terrorism" suggests to me fighters against terrorism. (This has also been reverted.) From Wikipedia:

The War on Terror (WOT), also known as the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) is a term which has been applied to an international military campaign that started after the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States.

This resulted in an international military campaign to eliminate al-Qaeda and other militant organizations. The United States and many other NATO and non-NATO nations such as Pakistan participated in the conflict.[sic]

--P123ct1 (talk) 19:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

"Terrorist" in the Lead

Please will the editor who reverted and restored "terrorist" to the Lead here look at the long Talk page discussion on using the word "terrorist" in the article. Wikipedia cannot call ISIS a terrorist group directly as it flouts the WP:NPOV rule. I removed it with explanation in the edit summary but it has nonetheless been restored.

Gregkaye, are you aware that you have made three reverts within 24 hours? This breaks the 1RR restriction this page is under. Please read the warning at the top of the Edit page. I notice that your ISIL changes and footnotes have still not been checked either. --P123ct1 (talk) 21:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1, your link to the long Talk page discussion was very enlightening and I noticed that it was considerably lengthened by your numerous edits. Here are a couple of consecutive quotes along the way.

“ 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 put in "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.]

ISIL have a number of defining characteristics and towards the top of the list are Sunni, Jihadist and Terrorist. Murderers and Thieves also fit. The group has driven people from their homes and killed innocents. It really makes me wonder: Who are you trying to protect? Gregkaye ✍♪ 03:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

We strive to maintain a WP:NPOV. Murderers, Thieves and Terrorists aren't neutral terminology. The page already mentions that the group is a designated terrorist organization by various countries. Gazkthul (talk) 05:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

What really needs to be protected most is the Wikipedia:Five pillars on which this project was founded.~Technophant (talk) 04:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Hmm.. the original title of that discussion was ISIS is officially a terrorist organization. I wonder what the need for changing the heading was. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 05:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye NPOV is an overriding principle in Wikipedia. In that extended discussion I was trying to get that simple point across, which was extremely difficult. I still don't think I succeeded, despite my numerous attempts. Who changed the heading? That is unacceptable. --P123ct1 (talk) 07:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

@Supersaiyen312: Hmm indeed.

As far as associations of topics and concepts are concerned:

• ("Islamic State of Iraq and al Sham" OR "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" OR "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria") and Sunni gets "About 496,000 results"
• ("Islamic State of Iraq and al Sham" OR "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" OR "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria") and Jihadist gets "About 535,000 results"
• ("Islamic State of Iraq and al Sham" OR "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" OR "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria") and terrorist gets "About 816,000 results"

Terrorist is a relevant terminology.

ISIL/ISIS don't present themselves as neutral. Please read wikt:terror. Put yourself in the shoes of a non-Muslim in ISIL influenced areas. Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

You need to get your head round WP:NPOV and WP:FIVEPILLARS, which govern what editors do. I would read them if I were you and you would understand why you are meeting opposition. I agree, it is very distasteful to have to keep to NPOV here. --P123ct1 (talk) 07:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

While Gregkaye may be arguing his POV and you are right that notable institutions label ISIS as a terrorist group, I'd like to reconsider this as part of the leading paragraph. Is terrorism, a tactic, a defining characteristic or is it further description? Unlike al Qaeda, ISIS commands a conventional army and has established a de facto state. Like Libya under Gadaffi (sp?) it uses terror and even rules by terror (as did many totalitarian states). I'd argue that the essentials of ISIS are in the lead without reducing it to a terrorist group. I'd put that description in a subsequent paragraph in the lead section but not the lead paragraph. We're not denying this is widely accepted but we're not making it a defining attribute of a more complicated movement and functioning state. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

ISIS's caliphate ambitions make them much more than terrorists now and I agree that the terrorism aspect is over-emphasized in the Lead. I think all characteristics should be described in the Lead - terrorist, caliphate, army, rulers by terror, persecutors of minorities, perpetrators of genocide, human rights abusers, at least four of which are already there - giving them all equal weight. There used to be a sentence or two about the persecution of minorities and human rights abuse in the Lead; perhaps that should come back in précis form. As the Lead can't be much longer than it already is for an article of this size, a reworking of the Lead would have to be done very carefully, and never losing sight of NPOV, of course. I think is important for the history para to stay, for reasons I gave earlier. As for the interesting question whether terrorism is a characteristic or a tactic, that is for another section, I think, perhaps called "Strategy and tactics", as I suggested here. --P123ct1 (talk) 18:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

@Gregkaye: I honestly do not care about this argument. The heading was changed by User:Teoporta right here. I'm done, leave me out of this. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 21:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Another hostage

There is another hostage that is an American woman who can NOT be named due to privacy. On August 26, 2014, it was widely reported that ISIS demanded 6.6 million dollars in ransom for her.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/isis-demands-66m-ransom-26-year-american-woman/story?id=25127682

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/26/isis-ransom_n_5715461.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bkAfHTFl1s - "kidnapped a year ago while doing humanitarian aid work inside Syria" ISIS threatened execution of the woman unless they paid the ransom, or released a certain high profile prisoner. She was working at a hospital in the Syrian city of Aleppo. They demanded Aafia Siddiqui releaesed. The Sadiqqui family condemned the demands

one more ref:

http://abc13.com/news/isis-demands-$66m-ransom-for-26-year-old-american-woman/281509/MeropeRiddle (talk) 03:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

MeropeRiddle Thanks for bringing this up. I've emailed Oversight member User:Callanecc regarding this.~Technophant (talk) 04:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

MeropeRiddle Callanecc is part of WP:AUSC and was unable to help. I emailed the functionaries again regarding this issue.~Technophant (talk) 18:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

As an aside, no article at all mentions the person's name, and I found no evidence of any publication what so ever releasing it. MeropeRiddle (talk) 18:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Redirected from...

I saw the acronym DAISH in another site and wanted to know what it stood for, so I came to Wikipedia.

All I get is a redirect. Usually, the reason for the redirect can be found somewhere in the article, but not this time.

If it deserves a redirect, it deserves an explanation, no?

--Mfwills (talk) 10:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Mfwills, DAʿESH or Daʿesh is described in the lead and at one further point in the article. It is a commonly used acronym of the Arabic translated as "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant". Western media (and perhaps others) presents the term in a wide variety of ways. We may need to add the content to give people to search on. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done as: [83]. Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

French distinction between the organisation and the state itself

What do you think about the distinction between the organisation and the state itself in the french version ? --Axeo (talk) 11:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89tat_islamique_(organisation) https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89tat_islamique_(%C3%89tat)

I actually quite like both pages, they've done some good work Gazkthul (talk) 13:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The French division makes sense. When I first read our article I was looking for an article on Islamic state (government). I found it confusing to read our article and keep track of whether it was taking about the movement or state. I find the French article [84] necessary. We have a brief section in our article called Governance that I wrote. I would have put it into Islamic state (state) if it had existed. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Have you looked at Islamic_stateMeropeRiddle (talk) 15:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

It is at that interesting neither fish nor fowl stage at the moment: an insurgent movement and a state/caliphate, neither being completely one or the other. Hence the vacillations between calling it the Islamic State and ISIS/ISIL The media put their finger on it when they call it the 'so-called' Islamic State, which unfortunately Wikipedia can't do! It is this hybrid character that is at the bottom of the name confusion everywhere. It is so French of the French to split it into two, but you really can't do that, IMO, it is too intertwined. The best way to describe them at the moment is as embryo empire-builders. That is certainly the way they see themselves. Isn't that how Ghengis Khan started, as a tribal war-leader? --P123ct1 (talk) 19:40, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Have just realised, that comment was a bit tangential and borderline WP:NOTFORUM, but I defend it as being helpful, I hope, in seeing how to treat the group in this article. Another growing difficulty I foresee is when to stop calling them a group and start calling them an organisation, if not a state. It didn't matter so much before, both could be used, but the more they establish themselves in their own territory, the more awkward it will become to keep calling them a group. I noticed this yesterday when copy-editing a new paragraph added which accurately called them an organisation, whereas the rest of the section, again accurately in the context, called them a group. They are growing like Topsy at the moment, but I trust we will keep up with it, not worry too much about definitions and muddle along satisfactorily. --P123ct1 (talk) 20:26, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Your discussion is helpful. But even short lived states with no or limited recognition get a Wikipedia entry. Look at Hungarian Soviet Republic. It has historical significance. I don't know what historians will eventually call the self-proclaimed Islamic State established across Iraqi-Syrian boundaries but this episode will have historical significance. It is a de facto state and even if it folds it will have regional (or greater) influence. The two are already being distinguished as a number of articles talk about the governance and functioning of the state. Government decrees (theirs or ours) should not define an encyclopedia. Scholars should. And journalists are the first draft of history. I think critical mass is gathering for a separate article on the state in and of itself. Let's keep this option open and not just declare it settled (as others, not you, tend to do.) Jason from nyc (talk) 12:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The point about the Hungarian Soviet Republic is, as you say, although it was short-lived "it has historical importance" but that importance is qua state. Time has given this perspective. With Islamic State this is not yet clear. It has importance, but we can't yet say whether it is as a state, a militia, a terrorist organisation etc Only time will tell. DeCausa (talk) 12:30, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

That is what makes this page so interesting to work on. The "Islamic State" cannot be defined and may go in any direction. In trying to cover everything it does in this article Wikipedia is helping to record history in the making, though of course it is up to historians to make sense of it, not Wikipedia. The shape of the article will shift a lot I would imagine in the coming months and years to reflect what happens - who would have thought early this year that the PR and propaganda or human rights abuses sections would become so important, for example - and there is nothing wrong with that, and there may well come a time to split it into two parts, but not yet, I think, only when enough comes through about how they are running their "caliphate" and the need to split it becomes clearer. This is all the more reason not to change the name of the article yet, as well.. --P123ct1 (talk) 14:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Swapping around content in "Name and name changes"

I was wondering whether this section might start with the Index of names and then continue with a second subsection with a title such as "History of name changes" with content currently between the Name and name changes and Index of names titles.

In this case a title Index of names may become superfluous.
The current strap line reads: "These names are discussed above; links are to sections of this page."
Perhaps this could read: "Links within the following list of names direct to relevant sections of this page."

The result would be a presentation of a summary of names used followed by detail on the history of their use.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Also suggest change in section title to "Names and name changes". Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• What about this?

"Name and name changes"

1.1 Index of names

Links are to 1.2.

(the list)

1.2 History of name changes

The 1.1 and 1.2 would only appear in the TOC, of course. --P123ct1 (talk) 12:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• TY, also possible?:

"Name and name changes" (or)

"Names and name changes"

1.1 Index of names

Links are to "History of name usage" below.

(the list)

1.2 History of name usage

of course
Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Or:

Names

1.1 Index of names

Links are to names in "History of names"

(the list)

1.2 History of names

That keeps it simple. --P123ct1 (talk) 13:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Simple and strong! Great work. Gregkaye ✍♪ 18:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Why, thank you, kind Sir! --P123ct1 (talk) 21:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, before this was written up I was thinking the same thing. After section Name and Name Changes a short introduction saying that the group has had several names over many years, the index of names (in either alpha order, or preferably chronological order, then the detailed list of names.~Technophant (talk) 02:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done, as at: Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Names. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

References in the text: ISIS or ISIL?

I have changed my mind and think Gregkaye is probably right. As this article is called "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant", surely for the sake of consistency, the references in the text should be to "ISIL" and not "ISIS"? The references to "Islamic State"/"IS" in the text could remain, as this is one of the group's common names now. "ISIS" may have been decided upon as it was once considered to be its WP:COMMONNAME, but things have arguably changed since then, with the adoption of the new name "Islamic State". To my eyes now, "ISIS" clashes too much with the title of the article. There is already a clash between the article's title and the infobox headings. Surely there is no need to add to it by calling the group "ISIS" in the text? If "ISIS" was changed to "ISIL", it would reduce the inconsistencies in the article from three (title, IS in infoboxes, ISIS) to two (title and IS in infoboxes). --P123ct1 (talk) 12:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Obama and Cameron both say ISIL, and it has the advantage, unlike Isis (disambiguation), of not meaning anything else. Rothorpe (talk) 12:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• I agree basically on the basis that the “Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant” is good translation while the “Islamic State of Iraq and Syria” is not.

Also:

• "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" gets “About 985,000 results”
• "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" gets “About 734,000 results”

However, and at risk of disruptively editting against myself,:

• "Islamic State" AND ISIL gets “About 7,740,000 results”
• "Islamic State" AND ISIS gets “About 51,100,000 results” (most of these ISIS references will certainly apply to, well, ISIS)

None-the-less, I think that the arguments of related to reference to accurate translation and consistent use carry. WP:Use commonly recognizable names relates to article titles and this article already has one of those.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we need look beyond the inconsistency factor, which has plagued the article ever since the "Islamic State" and caliphate were announced. --P123ct1 (talk) 13:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

@P123ct1: @Rothorpe: if its OK I'll get on and attempt the edits to ISIL. With both an article and an edit page open and, by use of a bit of systematic cross referencing, I should be alright :) Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Don't rush, Gregkaye. This is such a big change that it needs more than the agreement of two editors. I'm not sure when this was discussed before (where the consensus was for "ISIS"), but I am absolutely confident that more than couple of editors were involved. You may be reverted again if you do it now. --P123ct1 (talk) 17:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

This obsession with consistency is one of the downsides of Wikipedia. I'm all for variety myself. What's wrong with 19 September here and September 19 there? Yes, I know... Instead there should be a rule that forbids (sorry, a guideline against) unnecessary changes. Rothorpe (talk) 19:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:CIVILI wouldn't think much of an encyclopaedia that wasn't consistent. --P123ct1 (talk) 20:50, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll plead guilty to playfulness, not incivility. The fact is that there are four names in common use: Islamic State, IS, ISIS and ISIL. History may choose one of them, but for now there's no point in trying to put the article into a straitjacket. And quotations must be verbatim. Allow them all? Favour the shortest? Rothorpe (talk) 03:50, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I can't see how changing ISIS to ISIL would be putting the article into a straitjacket! Of course quotes must be vertbatim. Your point? --P123ct1 (talk) 06:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

My point is that when I switched on my televison today the CNN caption said: ISIS... Rothorpe (talk) 12:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I vote leave ISIS and ISIL as valid ways used by RS to refer to this organization. Many reject calling them the Islamic State because I understand that this is roughly the muslim equivalent to getting Catholics to call a pretender the Pope, or if I renamed myself the King of England and expected everyone to call me that. This group changes their name far to frequently to expect the world to pick a name.Legacypac (talk) 18:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Request to split some of this article up

This article is getting too big. Can we please break some of it off? Media and Propaganda could stand as a completely separate article. Thoughts? MeropeRiddle (talk) 15:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

In Arabic wiki we have a separate article for the former Islamic state of Iraq. 3bdulelah (talk) 18:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

It is the same length as the Wiki article on al-Qaeda and ISIS is arguably the more important group now. --P123ct1 (talk) 20:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

At this point I am just requesting that the propaganda section be separate.MeropeRiddle (talk) 22:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

There is already an article being developed on the al-Furqan Institute. I don't know how much of the "Media and propaganda" section could be transferred to that, leaving a brief resume in this article. Technophant? --P123ct1 (talk) 23:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your answer? I'm saying it would be beneficial if this section was pulled out and stood alone so that other related content can grow from the media article as opposed to being redirected to this entire gigantic ISIL one. The talk page is getting really long. Then there could be a talk page that was just propaganda and media centric. Al-I'tisam Media Company, al-Hayat Media Center, also al-Furqan Institute... they could all have their own article and be linked to a main IS/ISIS/ISIL Propaganda and Media article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MeropeRiddle (talk • contribs) 01:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I think there ought to be a substantial section on media and propaganda in this article, since PR plays a very big part in this group's success. It is what has given them such a high profile internationally and so it deserves more than a brief mention. Gazkthul has just removed quite a lot of the history section to other articles after leaving a condensed resume, and there will be split proposal for the long ISI subsection, that most of it should be moved to an article of its own. I am not sure of the value of having a such a long timeline. The 2014 timeline has been moved over into its own article now, and I am not clear why it is being duplicated in this one. --P123ct1 (talk) 08:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State (Organisation) – Although I am loath to bring this subject up again, it has been 2 months [85] since the last requested move was closed with no consensus reached. I am renewing this discussion as the title Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant is being used less and less in favor of Islamic State, which the group formally named themselves on 29 June 2014.[86]

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

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

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

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

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

BBC: Turkey mulls 'buffer zone' against Islamic State

Al Jazeera: The genesis of the Islamic State group

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New York Times: Reconsidering What to Call an Extremist Group

Based on the above, I argue that the balance of English-language reliable sources has shifted in favour of Islamic State and propose we follow this lead. I have added organisation in parenthesis to distinguish from Islamic state. It may be useful in future to split parts of the article into Islamic State (State) similar to the French wiki model. [87][88] I am not suggesting a change to our use of ISIS/ISIL as many of the above sources continue to use these abbreviations rather than the more accurate IS. Gazkthul (talk) 23:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Oppose It is still too early to decide on a name change, especially as there is growing pressure to split the article into two (see discussion at #94 here), one of which would have to be called "the Islamic state/State". --P123ct1 (talk) 15:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

This article here is a very good commentary on the name problem that is troubling not only WP editors but Western media generally. It is not very long. It isn't mentioned there, but apparently even the BBC are dithering about what to call this group now! --P123ct1 (talk) 08:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Stats for the month

• "Islamic State" gets "About 1,060,000 results"

"Islamic State" gets "About 12,200,000 results" in news

• "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" gets "About 41,500 results"

"Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" gets "About 16,200 results" in news

• "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" gets "About 128,000 results"

"Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" gets "About 17,200 results"

Results retrieved via "cut and paste" from beneath Google's unhelpfully positioned drop down menu.

Never-the less my !vote is

• Oppose, as NPOV nonsense. For instance, a government such as the British government has the option to declare themselves as "Government". This particular institution is described as the UK government but, even if it were to declare authority, for example, over all peoples descended from Germanic tribes such a reference would still be unhelpful in an encyclopaedia. While the term "Islamic State" is not in as wide usage as the term "government" I personally think that there are NPOV issues in regard to ISIL/ISIS describing themselves in this way. I also think that "organisation" fails. There are many more issues involved than just that. I think it is fine for the article to present the group as claiming the name "Islamic State" and this is exactly what the article does.
  

Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Just to put you in the picture, Gregkaye, in nearly every discussion there has been on this, editors have been reminded about WP:COMMONNAME (which Gazkthul has quoted above), which means using the name most commonly used by WP:RS reliable sources, regardless of other considerations. I am not saying this is right or wrong, just passing it on. --P123ct1 (talk) 11:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Very true but with the name space Islamic state occupied the choice is between Islamic State (Organisation) (with Organisation in parenthesis) and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

WP:Use commonly recognizable names states: "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used" and, as well as mentioning WP:RS issues also mentions that "such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural". The numbers clearly support "Islamic State" but I am not convinced that "(Organisation)" provides a significantly more natural description than Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

My argument is that the use of the words "Islamic State" naturally lead to the question, "of what?"

But then again I've just thought of somewhat similar situations regarding the names United States and the United Kingdom. I believe that, in the first case, the main reason why the "of America" has fallen out of currency is that the people of the United States only constitute about a third of the population of the Americas. In the second case reference is made, at least for the rest of today, to a specifically United Kingdom and with reference to a specific monarch.

"Islamic State" uses an Islamic terminology that is otherwise used to describe all things Islamic and applies it to a smaller subsection of Islamic people. The only parallel examples of this that I can think of is the application of Semitic terminology to the Jewish subsection of Semitic peoples within Anti-Semitic terminologies and the use of American terminologies to citizens of the United States. I have long disputed the validity, helpfulness and descriptive application of this type of linguistic approach. Such terminologies don't necessarily belong to individual groups and certainly not without good justification. (This is POV). Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Choosing the most appropriate name has proved very tricky for all sorts of reasons and there has never been real consensus. Have you tried looking at those links of earlier discussions! Good to get your view registered. --P123ct1 (talk) 14:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

TY. I've only really taken a serious look at Move request - 6 September 2014, currently on this page above. A lot of issues are mentioned with WP:Use commonly recognizable names definitely being an influential topic.

Another problem though is that an Islamic state is a type of government and thus a type of organisation. We aren't given much if any differentiation. Islamic State (Iraq and Levant) may still be questionable (at least according to arguments presented) but offers one alternate differentiation. (edited with additions) Gregkaye ✍♪ 00:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose A recent article by Adam Taylor[89] summarized things nicely for me in that he showed that the name has extremely fragmented use. "From the start, exactly what to call the extremist Islamist group that has taken over much of Syria and Iraq has been problematic. At first, many called it the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). However, due to differences over how the name should be translated from the Arabic, some (including the U.S. government) referred to them as ISIL (the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant). To make matters more complicated, the group later announced that it should simply be called the "Islamic State" – a reference to the idea that the group was breaking down state borders to form a new caliphate. A number of media groups, including The Post, the Associated Press and, eventually, the New York Times, adopted this name, while others stuck with ISIS and ISIL." There has also bene a notable amount of media coverage on the simply fact that there are multiple names floating around.[90][91] This only becoming more complicated as the term "Daesh", which is prominent in Arabic is getting increased use in English.[92]. I also find the search method for concluding Islamic State as the highest hit count extremely problematic as all the contested titles contain those words--Labattblueboy (talk) 13:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

That's why I included a survey of the English Language media sources that have switched to the use of Islamic State to argue that it fits the criteria of WP:COMMONNAME. Gazkthul (talk) 00:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose – There is already an ongoing discussion above, and this ought be closed speedily. Regardless, I do not think it is worthwhile to change the name now per WP:TITLECHANGES, as this is simply a mire of too many names and too many disambiguation problems. RGloucester — ☎ 13:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - The article's title should not be "Islamic State" at all because it holds pejorative connotations against muslims and legitimate Islamic states. Possible names include Al-Baghdadi Caliphate Movement or some other more representative title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.217.255.4 (talk) 08:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - Often the media uses "the so called Islamic State" with good reason. They claim power over all muslims worldwide. They are neither Islamic (according to most religious and government leaders - Rouhani just hammered this point in a UN speech for example) or a State (no state will recognize them, fail Montevideo test). Calling your organization something crazy does not rename the organization. For example I can't start "The Catholic Church" and expect anyone to call my creation "The Catholic Church" Legacypac (talk) 18:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments

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

Summary of material from split articles

I have summarized the material 9.1 & 9.2 under the history section, as these sections were split off into separate articles Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad and Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn. In the case of the later, there was 12 paragraphs of info that could be found verbatim on the split page. I was pretty drastic with the cuts, but I believe I captured all the key points. Feel free to add back portions considered important, just remember that all the removed info is available on the new pages. Gazkthul (talk) 01:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I have changed the heading of this section from "Origins" to "As Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad, Al-Qaeda in Iraq and Mujahideen Shura Council" so that they show up in the TOC, as readers having read about these three groups in the Lead may wonder where they are dealt with in the article. Also, if they see nothing on them in the TOC, they will click on the names in the Lead and be taken to the full articles on them, not realizing they are dealt with in this article. --P123ct1 (talk) 11:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Curiosity on the map

The article contains a map of areas controlled by ISIL. But the map here contains a very curious occurrence of a small strip on the western border of the area near Jordan where the colour is that of the central government or what's left of it. The triangular strip also appears in this coloured map. What are the basis for this small triangular strip on the Iraqi Jordanian border remaining as central government-controlled territory? Are there some military presence there by the government to justify it? werldwayd (talk) 21:47, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

It's the area between two border posts that are not controlled by the Islamic State. Keep in mind that huge swathes of that pink coloured IS area in the map are actually unpopulated desert. Gazkthul (talk) 01:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

To Nahnah4: What are you talking about? What is "GAN/FAN"? JRSpriggs (talk) 04:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

@JRSpriggs: Good article nomination and Featured article nomination. DEW. Adrenaline (Nahnah4) 05:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Adrenaline: Can you give reasons? --P123ct1 (talk) 07:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I doubt that this article is stable enough to allow it to be considered for a good article. JRSpriggs (talk) 08:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

JRSpriggs I don't think it ever will be either, given that events are moving so fast and new developments are springing up all the time. --P123ct1 (talk) 19:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Section title simplification: "Ideology" and "Propaganda" or "Propaganda and media"

Following edits of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Names (as discussed at: Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Swapping around content in "Name and name changes") I got to wondering about possible simplifications of other Sections/Section titles:

Propose changing Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Ideology and beliefs to "Ideology" (add: not supported yet below)

Propose perhaps changing Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Propaganda and social media to either "Propaganda" or "Propaganda and media" (add, also suggested: Public relations and propaganda)   with the addition of possible sub-sections such as "Use of social media" and "Media releases" or "Releases"

The result would be:

1 Names

1.1 Index of names

1.2 History of names

2 Ideology (and belief added back)

3 Goals

4 Territorial claims

4.1 Governance

5 Analysis

6 Propaganda             or: Propaganda and media   or Public relations and propaganda

6.1 Use of social media

6.2 Media releases       or: Releases   (or similar)

7 Finances

8 Equipment

9 History

9.1 As Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad, Al-Qaeda in Iraq and Mujahideen Shura Council (1999-2005)

9.2 ...

Its basically a suggested move towards single word or simplified titles.

Query: What's the best title usage at 4: "Territorial claims" or "Territorial claim"? (as in contextualised use: "The group's territorial claims are ..." VS "The group's territorial claim extends to ...")

Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I think "Territorial claims" plural is better, as the more territory the IS seizes, that can be added in. Ideology is not the same as beliefs, so I think both need to stay. "Public relations and propaganda" might be better, as their media-based PR is a key factor in their success (in recruitment and spreading fear to weaken the opposition. Have you looked their videos on YouTube? The 50 spiked heads in Raqqa? It is a perfect piece of propaganda to inspire fear in the enemy). Again, these are quite big changes, and you will need consensus first. The name and name changes section was always a bit of a mess and I don't think editors will mind the changes there. --P123ct1 (talk) 19:18, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

This is just something that I thought might clean up the article a bit but its no biggie. I've seen a few videos but haven't found a main channel. I just had another look at https://www.youtube.com/channels?q=islamic+state . Is there a particularly informative channel here? Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Sequence of article sections

At the present the article reads (With TOC numbers and several subsections removed):
Current order

Names ..

Ideology and beliefs

Goals

Territorial claims

Governance

Analysis

Propaganda and social media

Finances

Equipment

History ...

Human rights abuses ...

Timeline of events ...

Notable members

Designation as a terrorist organization

Conspiracy theories

I'd like to suggest:
Suggestion No. 1

Names ...

Ideology and beliefs

Goals (made into sub-heading of "Ideology...")

Territorial claims (made into sub-heading of "Ideology...")

Propaganda and social media

Finance (shortened to the singular "finance" to match "equipment")

Equipment (Should "Equipment" be a sub-heading of "Finance"? Should both be sub-headings of "Assets"/"Material assets"?)

History ...

Timeline of events ... (moved up to follow "History")

Human rights abuses ...

Designation as a terrorist organization (moved up to follow "Human rights abuses". Remove "a"?)

Analysis (moved down to precede "Notable members")

Governance (moved down to precede "Notable members")

Notable members (made into sub-heading of "Governance")

Conspiracy theories

- I've added these - breaks to indicate what I regarded to be changes in content types. Others may differ in views of categorisation but I thought they might be useful regarding considerations of the ordering of content. Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree, the present ordering is problematical; the sections seem to have been thrown in higgledy-piggledy as the article grew. I would suggest this ordering, though only tentatively:

Suggestion No. 2

1. Names
2. Analysis
3. Goals (with Conspiracies as a subsection?)
4. Territorial claims
5. Ideology and beliefs
6. Human rights abuses
7. PR & propaganda
8. Finances
9. Equipment
10. Designation as a terrorist organization
11. History
12. Notable members
13. Timeline of events ...

Logically "History" should follow "Names", but it is such a big section that it is probably best left at the end, although that might change if the long subsection on the ISI was given its own article like the.other groups in that section. The pre-2014 timeline would be best written up as a much briefer historical narrative for this article, I think, then split off and added to the 2014 timeline perhaps. I can't understand why the 2014 timeline is still in this article when it now has its own article. Why not just have a link to it for the interested reader? --P123ct1 (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• I definitely agree with the beneficial shifting duplicate info, timeline or otherwise.

I agree that it makes sense to keep the sections: "Goals", "Ideology and belief" and "territorial claims" together as they seem to cover motivations/why? type topics.

Google searches on terms related to "terrorist" and "human rights" and terms associated with "Islamic State" tend to get high results. I was wondering whether the "Designation as a terrorist organization" section might follow the motivations groupings or whether it fits best as an intro to History...? Otherwise I agree that having "Designation as a terrorist organization" precede "History" works well.

I also agree in a theoretical advantage of history following names. Most options with "History" will constitute an improvement. At the moment it follows "Equipment" which, to me, seems to make no coherent sense.

There are a few topics that I regard as Who?/What? subjects: "Governance", "Notable members", "Finance", "Equipment" and "Analysis". I think that these may go well together. In this order? I agree that the idea of "Conspiracy theories" following "Analysis" makes good sense. It seems to give a flow from fact to a short section on fiction, or at least into questionable "shades of grey".

Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, "Names" first, as the group has had a bewildering number of names and it would be good to give a run-down right at the start. Then"History" (once it is pared down), then "Analysis" as that sets the scene for how the group now stands and what they are now. (I don't think merging "Names" with "History" would be a good idea, as it would make all that information at once fairly indigestible for the reader, I think.) Then "Goals" with "Conspiracies" as a subsection, then "Territorial claims" with "Governance" as a subsection because that is how they run the territories they claim/seize and this section will expand as they conquer new territory. Still can't think which is the best place for "Designation as a terrorist organization". "Notable members" perhaps straight after "History", since many of them are either dead or no longer in power, so part of history, and some of the names will be fresh in the heads of readers after reading "History". The "History" section will be much shorter if Gazkthul has consensus to do what he did with the other early groups, i.e. condenses the ISI history and gives the group its own article. (That isn't confusing and gives readers the option to read a short history on these groups in the article, or a longer history in the linked articles.)

The history of this group in all its different manifestations is quite confusing at first read, so I don't think it does any harm to have a little bit of repetition, although perhaps the history parts in "Names" could be cut down/condensed. Having "Names" right at the beginning with the inevitable mention of history will break readers in! I said earlier I thought this section was messy, but I know I found this section very useful to get my bearings on this group's different incarnations and their sequence in time.

What to do with the timelines is quite problematical. Perhaps that could be dealt with last, when the new shape of the article is clearer. Assuming other editors agree with these suggestions! --P123ct1 (talk) 20:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

So following my last para, perhaps this? (Underlined headings just show basic structure of article)

Suggestion No. 3

History

1. Names (with most of the history part removed and added to "History")
2. History (giving links to main articles for the groups)
3. Notable members
4. Designation as a terrorist organization

Not history - more about (a) what the group is now, as an entity (b) its motivations (c) consequential action

1. Analysis (as the group stands now)
2. Ideology and beliefs (keep together with goals as closely linked)
3. Goals (with Conspiracies as a subsection)
4. Territorial claims (with Governance as a subsection - how the group runs the territories it captures)
5. Human rights abuses (follows on naturally from Governance - treatment of population in those territories)

The rest

1. PR & propaganda
2. Finances
3. Foreign fighters (new section just started - see below)
4. Equipment
5. Timeline of events

Any comments? --P123ct1 (talk) 09:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 I'm glad there's a discussion about reordering the article. I like your first suggestion on for a new order. The whole topic of Foreign fighters has received a lot of attention and could be its own section or even article (in time).~Technophant (talk) 18:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Technophant: Which suggestion do you mean? I made two lists. Obviously I think the second list is better and gave reasons for it in the long paragraph just before it. Foreign fighters have hardly been mentioned in this article and perhaps there should be more on them as you say, especially with reports like this coming through. --P123ct1 (talk) 19:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the second list is much less problematic. It is important to include information on foreign fighters, especially if there is knowledge on them. The intentional withholding of that information would seem wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjayy138 (talk • contribs) 05:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I have started a section on "Foreign fighters", after "Propaganda and social media" and transferred there some text from "Analysis". --P123ct1 (talk) 06:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye: I have given these lists headings in bold, so there is no confusion in discussion. What do you think of the second list I made (Suggestion No. 3) for reordering the sections? Is there anything you would like to change apart from removing "History" completely? The paragraph before it explains why I chose this order. --P123ct1 (talk) 14:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Late reply to P123ct1. Sorry m8, just seen it - and as far as I can see it is a vast improvement on existing sequence. I hope its OK to interpret "Suggestion No. 3" as a proposal, in which case:

Support, even if editors have further preferences from this suggestion, which seems to me to be extremely robust, it can be scrutinised in later discussion should further changes seem advantageous. Its a complex topic and this flow seems to present it with considerable coherence. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• I have a suggestion. Let's take a look at a similar article, Al-Shabaab_(militant_group) and take a look at what works there and what we can learn from how it's organized:

TOC of Al-Shabaab

1 Name 2 Organization and leadership 2.1 Leaders 2.2 Foreigners 3 Terrorist designation 4 History and activities 4.1 Opposition 4.2 Timeline 4.2.1 2006 ... 4.2.9 2014 5 Defections 6 Strategy 6.1 Media 6.1.1 Twitter account 6.2 Drought 6.3 Operation Linda Nchi 7 Merger with Al-Qaeda 8 Internal rift 9 Collaboration with AQIM and Boko Haram 10 Split with Hizbul Islam 11 Bounties 12 Support allegations 12.1 Eritrea 12.2 Somaliland

I'm not quite seeing a strongly preferred order. Can I see a new list proposal based on the strategy of Suggestion #3 with proper subheadings indented?~Technophant (talk) 16:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

A huge difference is that Al-Shabaab doesn't have such a long and complex history as the Islamic State has, and that article has nothing about ideology and beliefs which are a major driving force for this group, who are religious fundamentalists of the worst kind. Al-Shabaab is not a movement or insurgent group like this group either, but more a straightforward terrorist group. I am not so sure for these reasons that the TOC there is very helpful. Do others have a different view? --P123ct1 (talk) 19:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Al-Shabab is an insurgent group and for a few years they were ruling vast swathes of Somalia (including it's capital Mogadishu) where they implemented a form of Government quite similar to what we are seeing in Syria and Iraq now. Not that that makes the Table of Contents the best model. Gazkthul (talk) 22:39, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't realize there were those parallels. --P123ct1 (talk) 12:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Sequence of article sections (2)

There has already been some discussion about reordering the sections, and I know consensus has not been reached, but I have changed the sequence, following the last proposal I made in the discussion above (Suggestion No. 3), to give editors something to think about and work on. The reasons for this ordering I gave in the long paragraph just before Suggestion No. 3 in the last discussion. --P123ct1 (talk) 09:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd move "Analysis" down further. This section has notable assessments and reasoned implications by authorities rather than the straight reporting of facts. It's clear that authorities disagree on some analyses. We are not stating the analysis with Wikipedia's voice but giving the readers well-cited conclusions of major organizations and important figures. I'd move this down before or after "Human Rights Abuses." I'd include "Conspiracy theories" as a subsection of Analysis as it is highly questionable analyses. Otherwise, the improvements look good as does all the work by the main editors of the article. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the title "Analysis" is misleading, making it look like WP's, so perhaps the section should be renamed, and I agree that "Conspiracies" should be one of its subsections. --P123ct1 (talk)

Gregkaye: TY for your support. I've already done the reordering! (See my comment above.) It is only meant as a draft structure for others to improve on. I really think the 2014 duplicate timeline should be eliminated leaving readers a link to the main timeline article, although the length has already been reduced quite a lot, now that the ISI subsection has been condensed. --P123ct1 (talk) 12:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

One reason I went ahead is that (a) the discussion had stalled somewhat and (b) it was becoming quite cumbersome discussing sequence on the Talk page; I thought it might be easier to discuss once a new structure was in place. Hope this hasn't offended. I am not going to argue that what I did is ideal. --P123ct1 (talk) 12:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Its a really great improvement. I have just changed notable members into a level 3 heading as part of history and placed in date information on the announcement of Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi's leadership. All others are dated as dead but perhaps the section can still counts as living history!? Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, great improvement! I was able to read the whole article all the way through for the first time. The timeline section has been incorporated into History and while it shouldn't be deleted I propose that the entire timeline be moved to the existing timeline article.~Technophant (talk) 19:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree I think the whole timeline should be moved to the existing timeline article, but without leaving anything behind in this article, except a link to the timeline article. I wouldn't know the best place to put that link, though. The last part of the "History" section isn't really a timeline, it just mentions some main events in 2014. The "2014 events" timeline is much more detailed. --P123ct1 (talk) 22:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Split section to Islamic State of Iraq

This article is still quite long and the As Islamic State of Iraq (2006–2013) section goes into quite a bit of depth. I suggest a split into an Islamic State of Iraq page. A summary section should be created, which describes how it was formed, the decline in it's fortunes around 2007, and how it's resurgence began under Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi around 2010-2011. Gazkthul (talk) 23:17, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I have created a new Islamic State of Iraq article with the contents from this one, feel free to edit and clean it up. I am not sure how to bring over old Talk page entries so if anyone can do that it would be good. I've created a summary for the Islamic State of Iraq (2006–2013) section, feel free to add any important points if I've missed them. Gazkthul (talk) 01:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support --P123ct1 (talk) 01:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment, According to page information the article has a "Page length (in bytes)" - "211,583". In comparison to Wikipedia's LongPages this is not excessively long.

Stats: The article contains 150,627 characters; The section History contains: 25,741 characters; The subsection "As Islamic State of Iraq (2006–2013)" contains 15,493 characters.

Alternative options:

• Leave as is,
• Split off the entire history section

Islamic State of Iraq was just another in a succession of names used by the same group. See: Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Names. The creation of an additional article title may be confusing.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 06:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The length of the ISI subsection unbalances the history section. If that was reduced like the others were, readers would have the choice of a brief history in this article or a fuller history in the separate articles. This article needs at least something about the history of the group! --P123ct1 (talk) 06:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

This article has unnecessary repetitions of information in sections: History of names and History. One option would be to:

• Promote subsection "Index of names" to be the first section of the article replacing "Names"
• Develop subsection "History of names" with relevant history content and rename as: "History" at section level.
• Move entire section "History" to a new article space.

In this case links from "Index of names" could connect to more complete sections of information regarding the history of the group at the time when any particular name was used. At editor's discretion names "Index of names" could contain more information on any significance on the meaning or significance of any particular name. An option would be enabled to potentially merge articles on historic uses of the groups name into the separate article on group history.

Alternatively maybe we can have separate articles for all name changers so as to create articles including: Cheryl Tweedy/Cheryl Cole/Cheryl (singer) & Cheryl Fernandez-Versini Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree there is duplication. The article must have a section on the group's history. I think the article would be damaged by having too many separate linked offshoot articles. I am beginning to feel like the Irishman who when asked the way to somewhere said, "Well, I wouldn't start from here." To be a good article the whole thing would need to be recast, IMO. At the moment it is a palimpsest. --P123ct1 (talk) 09:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Do editors agree with Gazkthul's suggestion, creating a new article for the ISI and leaving a short resume in this article, as he did for the other groups? --P123ct1 (talk) 20:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't object but would prefer alternatives. If a full set of articles are created for each naming in the groups then the resultant articles can be treated like episodes in drama. This approach might help the development of chronological links between time period articles. Gregkaye ✍♪ 22:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

What alternatives? It doesn't make sense for this article not to have a history of the groups ISIS/IS have grown from. That history section will be very short once the ISI is reduced in size. --P123ct1 (talk) 13:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Support, my other suggestion was to "Move entire section "History" to a new article space" but, as that hasn't been taken up, something else needs to be done.

• Support the split as proposed.~Technophant (talk) 18:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

About Baghdadi, the founder of ISIS

"In the same spirit, his greatest coup so far was to free around 500 of his most loyal supporters during a spectacular jail break last July at Baghdad’s Abu Ghraib prison, supposedly the most-heavily guarded facility in the country.", written here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/10891700/Iraq-crisis-the-jihadist-behind-the-takeover-of-Mosul-and-how-America-let-him-go.html So this man was a former prisoner who came back after founding ISIS and freed his former inmates? I think this is relevant to the article as a motive that drives this man named Baghdadi. He seems to be on a revenge mission. --217.82.158.50 (talk) 23:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The jailbreak is mentioned in the article, as the Breaking the Walls campaign that Baghdadi launched in 2012. Gazkthul (talk) 23:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Alternative name

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

Panam2014: This is being discussed. Please add to earlier Talk page #98 "Requested move". --P123ct1 (talk) 07:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

It is a bad idea to call this Islamic States (Middle-East) since Middle-East carries geographic connotations and so is not via media and offends muslims and other groups due to legitimating the terrorist group's propaganda. Suggesting the Al-baghdadi's terrorist movement is a state, Islamic, an organisation etc is not good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.217.255.4 (talk) 08:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Panam2014, I'd suggest that the least problematic alternate/compromise name might be Islamic State (Iraq and Levant). It still leaves me a little cold as I think it panders to the groups unjustified claim of authority over Islam and yet a question remains as to the extent to we should ignore the equivalent panderings of the English media and their undeniable preference for "Islamic State". There are arguments both ways.

I don't see names like Islamic State (organisation) and Islamic State (militant group) as being very helpful as they give no certain differentiation from other Islamic States that have gone before  add: or, indeed, that may come in the future. / See: Islamic State (disambiguation). Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

What about Islamic State (formerly Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant)? Couldn't be any clearer than that. --P123ct1 (talk) 13:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The biggest issue is that of "Islamic State". It's an odd one as its possible to feel ethically wrong either when supporting or opposing the title.

Beyond these issues, Islamic State (formerly Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) certainly scores high on as a specific reference to the group but, for me, "formerly" presents an issue of the relegation of "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" as a formerly used name. Two associated options might be: Islamic State (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) or Islamic State (previously calling itself the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant). The first title just presents two names without explanation while the second option, while making use of the same non-dismissive link as is currently used in the article, has 13 words.

I think that the most applicable part of the guidelines from Category:Wikipedia naming conventions is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (political parties). This focusses on either location or formation date. A group history of rebrandings and leadership changes may add further difficulties of the date option. For me any suitable reference to "Iraq" and "Levant" will also give a reasonable representation of the last Arabic name in the groups complex history and I also think that these words have significance in relation to WP:UCRN. That's as far as I have got. Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I still cannot see what is wrong with "formerly" the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The group chose to change its name on 29 June this year from that to "Islamic State". It is a fact, full stop. Doesn't an encyclopaedia record facts? P123ct1 (talk) 16:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The group chose to change its name from the Arabic (الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام‎) name that it adopted in 2013 to a shortened Arabic name that they prefer now. Arabic and other language medias continue make significant use of of references to the 2013 name. wikt:formerly presents a meaning that is wholly in the past and, in this case, it is inaccurately used. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Islamic State (formerly known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant)? --P123ct1 (talk) 16:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Recent statement

I realize we're limited by WP:OR her, and besides, I'm not competent for this kind of OR even if I were allowed, but this recent statement looks like something of a goldmine for trying to riddle out what this group's thinking is: [93] (found via [94]) This is mostly covered in the media for phrases like "Mule of the Jews" (Obama) but seems to give a sense of their actual ideology.

The words left the translator chose to render untranslated seem to indicate concepts we need to cover:

• walā’ and barā’: After exhorting violence against Westerners (or spitting in their face if all else fails), the author(s) say that if you won't "You are in a dangerous condition because the religion cannot be established without walā’ and barā’." Just a few non-reliable sources seem to use this phrase on the web, and it seems to be some kind of religious duty to love and hate different people(?) for Allah?

• nusayriyyah (alawites) and rāfidah (shiites): I'm not clear if the parenthesized terms are absolutely synonymous, or what the effect of not translating them is supposed to be apart from confusing. (The document says that America ignored the atrocities of these groups while making much more out of those of ISIS)

• safavid: ("Iraq-safavid army") Not sure this is related, but there is the statement that "The only things that make blood illegal and legal to spill are Islam and a covenant (peace treaty, dhimma, etc.). Blood becomes legal to spill through disbelief. So whoever is a Muslim, his blood and wealth are sanctified." They say that "Furthermore, what did the sons of the Sunnis get out of joining that army other than apostasy from the religion of Allah, the destruction of their homes, and having their heads cut off?" So I'm getting the sense that they regard death as the punishment for apostasy, which alas doesn't seem out of the ordinary in itself, but then also decide that any Sunni Muslim who joined the Iraq Army is automatically an apostate, which will take some more explaining.

If anyone can find serious RSes for this, not just media outlets playing keep-away and getting some quick laughs, we really need them for the article. Wnt (talk) 13:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Wnt, I've taken the liberty of linking those terms to the relevant wiki articles. Al Wala' Wal Bara' is basically dividing everything into good and bad. The two terms are somewhat antiquated and derogatory names for Alawites and Shiites, and it is quite common for Jihadists to believe that Muslims who serve in the Army or Government of their enemies have committed apostasy and deserve death. Gazkthul (talk) 23:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution. On a related note I found out what is meant by Rome in Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#cite_note-ISWDabiq-174. It says "“Rome” (generally interpreted to mean the West) ". The reference to "Rome" is no longer in the article however. ~Technophant (talk) 18:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

There's a documentary made last month by Vice here that shows what daily life is like in Raqqa, how IS is implimenting Sharia law, and how they are using propoganda. It's a rare find that the group allowed "exclusive" access to a film crew and allowed this documentary to get made at all. I think it may be a candidate for being a EL.~Technophant (talk) 02:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I have just watched this documentary and it should definitely go into the EL. Although it is almost propaganda, it is very revealing of what living in the new caliphate is like. --P123ct1 (talk) 17:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

ISIS

Should ISIS redirect here? See Talk:ISIS. Red Slash 03:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• The page had been put under protection. I added a "help template" to try to initiate the change. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• I think User:Widefox makes a good point at Talk:ISIS that I view to be worth echoing here. My summary We should remain aware of the actual use of ISIS in relation to "Islamic State/...". At a point that this organisation is no longer WP:PRIMARY for ISIS (disambiguation) then we should look again at changing the redirect back. Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

hatnote

@Hbdragon88: ISIS hatnote was there already when I first looked. Don't have a strong opinion on whether it should be (and haven't read policy) but if exists at all then it should be properly marked up/annotated for users like the Wikipedia app. --Jeremyb (talk) 05:31, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Problems with this Article

Dear All,

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

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

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

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

131.217.255.4: Thank you for your comment. There is a proposal to reduce the size of the "History" section here and this will probably happen soon. I also have questioned why the 2014 timeline should be duplicated in this article, now that it has been transferred to a new article of its own here. --P123ct1 (talk) 11:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

To 131.217.255.4: If you want to participate in editing this article (which is semi-protected), you should choose a user-id and password and register. After four days of editing, you will be allowed to edit semi-protected articles. I disagree with your desire to whitewash Islam by trying to claim that the actions of ISIL are contrary to the will of Muhammad as conveyed in the Qu'ran. JRSpriggs (talk) 11:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

131.217.255.4 I was particularly interested in what you said at: 2) "The group is not a "jihadist group"..." I am not sure of the extent to which the actions of the group can be justified under any interpretation of Jihad. See: http://www.justislam.co.uk/product.php?products_id=2 for one article on "What Jihad IS NOT!" Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The article reflects descriptions by reliable sources. These sources describe claims and counter-claims; and we have both in the article. We don't do original research to single our sources that accord with our findings. I appreciate your point of view but we must defer to reliable sources. Jason from nyc (talk) 23:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The idea of including the last 30 days of the 2014 timeline was my idea and is discussed above (#Timeline and History sections). The idea is to have about 30 days of the most recents events viewable here, however the information is actually in the timeline article, and clicking the edit tab opens an editing window for that article. I think the entire timeline (2003-2014) or just older timeline (2003-2013) should be also on split page as well with a link to it from this page. A proposal to reorder the sections is above (#Sequence of article sections) and there's another proposal to allow Ip users to edit the article with pending revisions (#Questioning semi-protected status) which can be closed and requested. As far as bias, I think there needs to be more information about the soft power campaign and local governance. I found an article here, which along with the Vice documentary gives a rare (albeit biased) view into what everyday life is like in occupied territory. ~Technophant (talk) 00:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that more info on governance would be desirable. I have put some in the Governance section and I see some is in the Guidelines for civilians section. I suggest moving the latter into the former. We use The Atlantic article in both sections. The sources have more details on governance. Jason from nyc (talk) 01:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done --P123ct1 (talk) 17:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Jihadist or similar in lead!?

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

Gregkaye: Once again, Wikipedia should not judge these things. That is for historians and commentators, whose views can be reported in the right place ("Ideology and beliefs"). Wikipedia must adhere to NPOV, especially in the Lead. The subject you raise has been discussed on the Talk page more than once, for example here. The Lead should not be cluttered up with footnotes; editors have been trying to cut down on their number (see Talk page discussion #27). Footnotes are for the section where their jihadism is described, in the "Ideology and beliefs" section. --P123ct1 (talk) 23:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye:I think you are reading too much into the term Jihadist, reliable sources use it to describe Islamic State (as well many other organisations from al-Qaeda to the Taliban) therefore we do to. What is or isn't Islamically legitimate is not Wikipedia's place to decide. Gazkthul (talk) 02:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

A google of ISIS jihadist gives 9.3 million hits. A google of ISIS insurgent gives 484,000 hits. Jihadist is used in a broad range of publications including The Guardian, CNN, the BBC, and the New York Times. From the context it is clearly used in the martial sense and not in a general sense of striving. Incidentally al-Qaeda jihadist gives 2 million and al-Qaeda insurgent gives 7 million while Boko Haram gives 3 million hits for both combinations. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The lead should summarize the article. We use jihadist more often than insurgent. It is more specific than insurgent. And given the successful establishment of governance in eastern Syria and the possible establishment of rule over Western Iraq, ISIS has gone beyond the insurgent stage in some areas. The word jihadist better summarizes the article. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Insurgent is beginning to look outdated; events have moved on so fast since June. I agree that the Lead should use the term jihadist as that is how they are commonly described. Whether they can legitimately call themselves jihadists could be discussed in "Ideology and beliefs" - see my new outline for this section here. --P123ct1 (talk) 15:44, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

In comparison the article on al-Qaeda states later in the lead that: "It operates as ... a radical Wahhabi Muslim movement calling for a strict interpretation of sharia law and jihad". If substantiated then it is certainly warranted to document any of Islamic State/..'s claims of being a jihadist group, its advocacies of jihad or anything that it actually does. Its also fair to report on interpretations of various outlets of it as being an jihadist group. However, when interpretations of Jihad vary, I don't think it right to directly label them as being jihadist. I don't believe the killing of innocents as being legitimately in tune with Islamic law or jihad and, if anything, we should quote experts on these matters. I agree with other editors that the word insurgent is outdated but think that value references to topics like Jihad need to be qualified. Several wordings can be used including "Sunni group" or "group predominantly composed of Sunni Muslims". Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

To Gregkaye: The problem is the definition of "innocents". People who you, I, and most others consider innocent are not considered innocent by strict Muslims because those innocents have rejected Allah as understood by the strict Muslims. JRSpriggs (talk) 13:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye, with all due respect, I believe your objection to stating that ISIS is jihadist is because the converse doesn't hold. The converse would state that jihad must be what ISIS does and as you point out it is a much broader concept; even in the sense of "lessor jihad" most interpreters object to ISIS behavior. This problem is true for every categorization of ISIS. ISIS is Salafi (but not all Salafists are like ISIS). ISIS is Sunni (but the converse is obviously false). ISIS is Wahhabi influenced but so are others who reject ISIS. ISIS longs for a caliphate but so do others who reject self-appointed upstarts. You can put ISIS in many categories that they would share with others who reject and repudiate the path ISIS has taken. The sources overwhelmingly categorize ISIS as jihadist and I believe we must too. Obviously further qualification is absolutely required as we have an obligation to provide a full description. Jason from nyc (talk) 00:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

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

3. By murdering prisoners of war, journalists and civilians, including mosque imams who refused to endorse their campaign, and by enslaving the women and children of their opponents, ISIS has violated international agreements such as the Geneva Conventions and conventions on slavery that everyone, including Muslims, have signed up to. God says in the Qur’an, “Believers, fulfil your covenants!” (5:1)

4. The IS persecution and massacres of Shia Muslims, Christians and Yazidis is abhorrent and opposed to Islamic teachings and the Islamic tolerance displayed by great empires such as the Mughals and Ottomans.

5. Based on all of the above: IS is a heretical, extremist organisation and it is religiously prohibited (haram) to support or join it; furthermore, it is an obligation on British Muslims to actively oppose its poisonous ideology, especially when this is promoted within Britain.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is just the nature of categorization. It’s epistemologically necessary that different concretes subsumed in a general category will be different. Saying that French are Europeans doesn’t mean that French are Greek or Estonians. The fact that all French are Europeans doesn’t mean that all Europeans are French. That's the converse. When stating the Europeans is the genus of French that doesn’t imply that this is the only way to embody that genus. This is just the nature of categorization. Sources overwhelmingly use “jihadist” as the genus for ISIS without implying that the term applies to others in the same way. We should follow the sources as Wikipedia is supposed to reflect the sources. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Instead of "Sunni insurgents" one could say "jihadist extremists." This gives a differentia of extremists to distinguish ISIS jihadists from others. This would be an improvement even if the word "extremist" is vague. By the way I get five times more google hits of ISIS with jihadist than I get with ISIS and extremists. It's clear that jihadist is the descriptor of choice of reliable sources with other qualifiers depending on source. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

"Core Coalition military action against ISIS" in Syria

ALL, If it not already created in some form, I would like to propose a new article about the US-led "Core Coalition" that launched action against ISIS last night. The article would cover who is in the core coalition, and some details about the bombings. There are reliable sources out there that say action against ISIS in Syria could last 3 years. Obama gave a speech on the core coalition on Sep 10, and there was a significant debate leading-up to the bombings as to whether it is legal under international law. Support? Oppose? Comments? What does anyone think? Peace, MPS (talk) 16:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

2014_military_intervention_against_ISIS covers this topic pretty well, and 2014_American_intervention_in_Syria (which needs a new name badly) goes into more detail. Legacypac (talk) 06:22, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Bosnia and Herzegovina

This country is not a member of NATO. It should not be listed in the information box with the other NATO countries. --82.118.123.6 (talk) 17:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Footnotes

Are all editors aware that footnotes appended to edits need to be converted from bare URLs to the standard Wikipedia format, using the cite templates on the edit page? Other cite methods can be used (though bare URLs are inadvisable for the reason below), but it is customary to follow the method generally being used in the article in question, which here is the WP cite template method.

Please note that bare URL footnotes – i.e. footnotes that contain only the website http address – are susceptible to link-rot, which means that if the website moves to a new domain, the link will be broken and readers will be unable to read the citation.

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

These bare URL footnotes have appeared in the last week or so. http://www.aina.org/news/20140810150643.htm
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syria-conflict-president-assad-finally-turns-on-isis-as-government-steps-up-campaign-against-militant-strongholds-9679480.html
http://www.ntvmsnbc.com/id/25506321/
http://www.aksam.com.tr/guncel/istanbulda-isid-operasyonu/haber-294981
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/08/un-accuses-islamic-state-group-war-crimes-2014827153541710630.html
--P123ct1 (talk) 19:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Two more added since then:

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

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

• Another: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/09/17/france-is-ditching-the-islamic-state-name-and-replacing-it-with-a-label-the-group-hates/

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

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

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

Bulgaria

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

According to your citation, Bulgaria may not be actively fighting ISIS, but as a member of NATO it is supporting the efforts of countries that are. --P123ct1 (talk) 13:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

shipping arms and noted as such now. Legacypac (talk) 20:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Names section

Gregkaye: In "Names", the translations into Arabic are in very tiny print; can you make them a little larger? Just thinking of the readers. Also, I notice there are two different versions of the name al-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fī al-ʻIrāq wa-al-Shām in the section (spelling is different). --P123ct1 (talk) 17:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Sure thing. The text for the 2013 name was imported from an edit of the page from earlier this Summer. Gregkaye ✍♪ 19:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The text imported from the edit earlier this summer is: al-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fī al-ʻIrāq wa-al-Shām

The text from the article content on Daʿesh is: al-Dawla al-Islamiya fi Iraq wa ash-Sham

The imported text has the advantage of using diacritics in a similar way to other Arabic transliterations used.

P123ct1 has pointed out the discrepancy. Can anyone help bring resolution? @Suomichris:? @Worldedixor:?

The Arabic from the lead of the current page is: الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام‎ and this is the same text as used in June

Gregkaye ✍♪ 20:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Wahhabism

Jason from nyc: Thanks for the extra information on the group's Wahabbism, which I understand is a tricky subject. Do you think it could be added to the infobox under beliefs? You said, "While ISIS is widely denounced by a broad range of Islamic clerics, it took political pressure before Saudi clerics issued a formal condemnation." Is this linked to the part about Wahabbism or is this a more general point? Also, could you perhaps expand on "it took political pressure", as it is unclear what that entailed and who it came from. I know it will be in the citations, but perhaps it deserves a brief mention in the text. Thanks for expanding this section of the article, btw. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Beliefs

Let me answer your first concern about categorization of beliefs.

Both articles are unequivocal about the ideological basis rooted in Wahhabism. The Times article, relying heavily on Princeton’s Bernard Haykel, says al-Baghdadi’s “ruthless creed … has clear roots in the 18th-century Arabian Peninsula. It was there that the Saud clan formed an alliance with the puritanical scholar Muhammed ibn Abd al-Wahhab. And as they conquered the warring tribes of the desert, his austere interpretation of Islam became the foundation of the Saudi state. … the sea thought has now been revived by … al-Baghdadi … a kind of untamed Wahhabism.” Haykel says “Wahhabism is the closest religious cognate.” “… the leaders of the Islamic State, … are open and clear about their almost exclusive commitment to the Wahhabi movement of Sunni Islam.” ISIS uses textbooks and plasters Wahhabi quotes on official vehicles.

The Times connects the ideology to the violence. “Wahhabi tradition embraced the killing of those deemed unbelievers as essential to purifying the community of the faithful. … Violence is part of their ideology … and end in itself.” The Times does mention additions to the Wahhabi tradition: “Baghdadi, grafted two elements onto his Wahhabi foundations borrowed from … the Muslim Brotherhood … the call to political action against foreign domination of the Arab world …Baghdadi also borrowed the idea of a restored caliphate.”

The Crooke article talks about the evolution of Wahhab’s thought in Saudi Arabia, which was derived from Taymiyyah. After the review of the original Wahhabi principles, Crooke says “there is nothing here that separates Wahhabism from ISIS.” But he goes on to say that ISIS rejects Saudi authority. Apparently under the House of Saud “Wahhabism was forcefully changed from a movement of revolutionary jihad … to a movement of conservative social, political, theological, and religious da'wa … justifying the institution that upholds loyalty to the royal Saudi family and the King's absolute power.”

Cooke says “ISIS is deeply Wahhabist” but “ultra radical in a different way” from the Saudi state. It “looks to the actions of the first two Caliphs … and … denies the Saudis' claim of authority to rule … a return to the true origins of the Saudi-Wahhab project.” Part II of Crooke’s article (another citation [95]) quote Faud Ibrahim saying of al-Baghdadi, his “language replicates exactly Abd-al Wahhab's formulation. And, not surprisingly, the latter's writings and Wahhabi commentaries on his works are widely distributed in the areas under ISIS' control and are made the subject of study sessions.”

I left out all the ways the articles say that ISIS is Wahhabist, the history of Wahhabism, American support for Wahhabism, etc. Both sources are adamant that ISIS is Wahhabist and even more Wahhabist than modern day Saudi Arabia. So, yes, from these two article we can say that ISIS is Wahhabist and put it into the info box. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Politics

Your second concern is about the political pressure.

There is a question about the Islamic opposition to ISIS: theological or political? In the case of Saudi Arabia it is not clear that this can be separated. Crooke notes that the Saudi leadership is running scared. A Saudi opinion poll says “92 percent of the target group believes that 'IS conforms to the values of Islam and Islamic law.” “With 3,000-4,000 Saudi fighters” in ISIS there is a need to “look inward to explain ISIS' rise.” If “Saudi Arabia is engulfed by the ISIS fervor … [it] will deconstruct… this is the nature of the time bomb tossed into the Middle East.” ISIS holds “up a mirror to Saudi society that seems to reflect back to them an image of 'purity' lost and early beliefs and certainties displaced by shows of wealth and indulgence.” This is a “intra-Saudi rift.”

An AP article [96] notes that condemnation of ISIS by “Saudi Arabia's highest body of religious scholars.” “The clerics are appointed by the government and are seen as guardians of the kingdom's ultraconservative Wahhabi school of Islam.” “The edict highlights the historically close relationship between the Wahhabi establishment in Saudi Arabia and the kingdom's rulers …” “The Saudi king earlier this year called on scholars to speak out more aggressively against terrorism. Shortly afterward, the head of the council and grand mufti of Saudi Arabia, Sheik Abdul-Aziz Al-Sheik, described the Islamic State and al-Qaida as Islam's top enemies.”

The New York Times article says “… Saudi clerics lagged long after other Muslim scholars in formally denouncing the Islamic State … there is a certain mutedness in the Saudi religious establishment, which indicates it is not a slam dunk to condemn ISIS … at one point even the king publicly urged them to speak out more clearly … Finally, on Aug. 19, Sheikh Abdul Aziz al-Sheikh” condemned ISIS. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. I never expected such a full answer! Wahhabism should be included in the infobox after all, then - it has always been chased out before - using those sources as citations? I can see now why the Saudi government are so ambivalent about ISIS. --P123ct1 (talk) 15:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Wahabism is a pejorative and highly loaded term, largely used by Westerners and Shia Muslims, which is one reason why it has been removed from the infobox both on this article and other Jihadist groups. There are also millions of 'Wahhabis' who do not support the Islamic State and do not carry out violence. Gazkthul (talk) 22:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The term is widely used in a descriptive sense. Both scholarly discourse and journalistic practice use the term routinely. That some adherents object is true but that doesn't prohibit usage by an encyclopedia, especially one that reflects the sources as they are. Adherents don't have veto power over reliable sources. Jason from nyc (talk) 00:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

It has been widely used but it has become less frequent (I will need time to look for sources) in more recent times, particularly from academics and analysts. The term Salafist Jihadist is my preference because the Salafist portion of the name (which is not contentious or pejorative in the way Wahhabi is) captures their belief system, while the Jihadist portion distinguishes those that support active violent Jihad around the world, in contrast to the majority of Salafists/Wahhabis who don't. For example, the followers of Salafist cleric Rabee Al-Madkhali, are almost fanatically opposed to Osama bin Ladin, al-Qaeda, and other militant groups. Wahhabism is a very imprecise term, which fails to explain the many different mutually hostile trends within this movement. Gazkthul (talk) 00:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The term isn't my preference either but it is used by the sources. The above sources specifically argue that ISIS' thought goes back to al-Wahhab and the early practice of those initially influenced by his thought. These sources and others continue to use the term descriptively. If there has been a change of usage, it hasn't yet been adopted by all reliable sources. It's not clear that the above sources intend to use Wahhabist identically to Salafist Jihadist. For us to conclude they do would be a synthesis and hence original research. It's clear that as recently a decade ago major scholars used Wahhabist purely in a descriptive manner. For example, John Esposito does in this synopsis [97]. Esposito heads the Prince Alwaleed Center for Muslim–Christian Understanding at Georgetown funded by a $20 million grant from the Saudi billionaire. I doubt this is a hostile source. In any case, our article on Wahabbism has more on this evolving term. Jason from nyc (talk) 02:39, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

BoogaLouie: Your addition on Wahhabism has been inserted too early in the section. There is a later reference to Wahhabism. The two need to be blended in. --P123ct1 (talk) 21:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Capitalization of Al-Qaeda in Al-Qaeda in Iraq

I started a discussion on how to format names with al-Qaeda in the title at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Terrorism#Acronyms of groups with al-Qaeda in name.~Technophant (talk) 17:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Second information box in Lead

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

A better question is why we need what looks like half the planet listed in the infobox under opponents. Do we really need police forces listed there, and if so shouldn't the police forces of dozens of other countries be listed too? Gazkthul (talk) 09:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. It has got completely out of hand. I was trying not to say it in my question. --P123ct1 (talk) 09:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I was going to add my goldfish, until Legacypac saved the infobox by rationalising it. --P123ct1 (talk) 21:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The question occurred in the middle of the cleanup. Philippines, Malaysia and Bosnia, complete with subentity police forces, were all in the Opponents list based on articles that said basically that these countries don't like what ISIL is doing. There were small inconsequential militias and political parties in Iraq too. Additional Improvements that I could use help with:

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

Recent beheading in Oklahoma

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

Quran sura 47.1 (translated to English) says "So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates. That (shall be so); and if Allah had pleased He would certainly have exacted what is due from them, but that He may try some of you by means of others; and (as for) those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will by no means allow their deeds to perish.". This is not in the same category as Matt 5:38-39 "Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.". JRSpriggs (talk) 08:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

JRSpriggs, this comment is uncivil and off-topic. I've seen enough quality posts from you to know you aren't just a troll, so please remove it. 136.159.160.242 (talk) 17:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

While the guy is obviously a Jihadist terrorist, his connection to ISIS has not been established, and until it is, he shouldn't be discussed per this TP and article.16:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

To 136.159.160.242: My understanding is that incivility has to do with comments directed at the character of another person who is party to this discussion, not to do with religion. And the nature of Islam as a religion is certainly relevant to this article or at least to the question, often discussed on this talk page, of whether ISIL is actually Islamic. JRSpriggs (talk) 21:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

ISIS in Afghanistan

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

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

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

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

The Turkish citation that was provided is this. Can someone explain what this document is and what it says? --P123ct1 (talk) 18:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1, it is the official gazette of the parliament. it says that 'the assets of the organizations and persons which got decided to freeze/confiscate.' at top and 'A- Persons who has connections with Al-Qaeda', 'B- Organizations which has connections with Al-Qaeda', 'C- Persons who has connections with Taliban', 'C- Organizations which has connections with Taliban'. kazekagetr 17:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I suspected something like that, after seeing the list of names. So it is to do with the Taliban and al-Qaeda. How can the editor who found this have thought it was a suitable citation, then, and what happened to the English citation? --P123ct1 (talk) 18:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources is clear - a citation in Turkish is fine. An English citation is not needed, please put the info back in the infobox - ask for a translation if needed, do not just delete citations because you do not personally understand the language they are written in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.190.195.225 (talk) 07:48, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

In the en.Wikipedia, citations in a foreign language are acceptable if there is a translation. Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources says: "When quoting a non-English source (whether in the main text, in a footnote, or on the talk page), a translation into English should always accompany the quote. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians". The interpretation of the Turkish citation provided here by a user shows that it cannot be used to back up the designation by Turkey of ISIS as a terrorist organisation. Did you not read it? --P123ct1 (talk) 09:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Index of names

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

• The question here is whether the additional distinction between translation and transliteration is sufficiently useful to warrant the use of the extra title words. A lot of the names are the self-same names just repeated in different forms. However, cutting the two trans.. words would make things just that little bit more concise.

Understandability is definitely an issue in all things here but, without doing a survey, I would hope that way more than 50% of the readership would understand the difference. Most people will realise that Islamic State/.. are not primarily an English speaking group, they'll see text like "Tanẓīm Qāʻidat ..." and most will understand that translation is going on. Hopefully people will read transliteration and realise that something different is going on from translation. The question though is how the wikt:index is best served. Its all good. I should have said either option is good. Gregkaye ✍♪ 20:53, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

They will see there is translation going on, obviously, but I think they would be muddled by too much talk about transliteration as well. I myself find the index of names a little confusing to follow now, tbh.--P123ct1 (talk) 21:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Good guys vs. bad guys narrative

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

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

Well spotted. Have eliminated the cause and effect POV by splitting the sentence. --P123ct1 (talk) 09:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Disagree - the statement is factual and I don't see anything "inferred" except what's obvious. There's very little that can be done about total neutrality when dealing with a terrorist state in an encyclopedia, no different from Nazi Germany. The facts are clear that this is a battle of good vs. evil, no matter how we phrase it via Wiki, or how 'flawed' the good guys may be (as in, less than perfect).HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Whatever the truth is, it can always be stated in a neutral way, and that is what WP has to do. WP:NPOV --P123ct1 (talk) 18:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Infobox

The pro ISIS see themselves only as a state , the organizations of June as against only . Also , on May Not Be not 2 to the liver. Either the fact Western POV is written with the organization infobox Army Either on anything and met on Give The Two views . Mixing Two EST impure IT . UN No compromise . --Panam2014 (talk) 22:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Pardon? --P123ct1 (talk) 22:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I gave that one to a linguist at the university and she couldn't figure it out, either. Please restate your argument, Panam.HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Ideology and beliefs (3)

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

So far editors' discussions on ideology and beliefs are in "Ideology and beliefs" and "Ideology and beliefs (2)" earlier in the Talk page, this one on Wahhabism here, this one on jihadism here, and this one here which also mentions jihadism. Can we try and keep all discussions on this subject in one place, please, and not have them scattered about, as that makes them difficult to follow properly. --P123ct1 (talk) 14:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The are two separate issues. The reaction of the Muslim world should obviously be in the article including the ideology section. Wiki allows and even demands attributed opinion. Disinterested commentary and study is preferred when reporting this opinion as it is a secondary source that has singled out this opinion as significant. We should be careful about stating assessments in Wikipedia’s voice and particularly careful about taking the side of one denomination, current, variant, or practice. I see a previous suggestion that criticisms of the ISIS ideology should be in a sub-section. I’m neutral on that. But the criticism is growing. The recent inclusion of the important open letter goes beyond name-calling and cites principles. It was signed by 126 Islamic scholars worldwide (with the conspicuous absence of Saudi Arabia.) This helps our criticism sub-section. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

@P123ct1: I'm in agreement on having subsections. But this issue is, as you said, very contested and we should not let every sentence be introduced here. Other parts of this article depend on the news mainly and some how we're going to have a different section here. I strongly recommend to include the main ideas and criticisms which are backed by several groups. Ideas by merely a single clerk usually does not qualify to be here (exceptions may exist regarding very famous political and religious characters). Ideas and criticisms would better have a rational reasoning if they are going to be stated as a fact, or they should be stated just as an expression by an individual. I'm willing to cooperate in enhancing this section, as I made this section before to enhance the quality of the article. Mhhossein (talk) 10:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

There do not necessarily have to be "subsections" dealing with each aspect, but I think it is important that the controversies should be dealt with separately, as far as possible, otherwise there would be a danger of the whole section getting into a muddle again, the way it is now. --P123ct1 (talk) 15:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

@P123ct1: according to Wikipedia:UNDUE such views should not be presented. this is in accordance to what I said before. For presenting different views we should not pay to minority views. To support my claim, I'd like to use these sentences from Wikipedia:Reliable sources and undue weight:

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

So, we'd better be careful about this issue. Mhhossein (talk) 11:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't know the extent to which differing views are minority views; it is up to more knowledgeable editors to decide that and keep description of controversies in proportion. It could mean the section is very short! My main concern was that whatever is said, it should be put down methodically in the way I outlined. --P123ct1 (talk) 12:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

If a minority of experts express detailed analysis that doesn't contradict the vast majority of reliable sources but further elaborates the topic, that shouldn't be considered "undue." Experts are a minority. Most writers on the subject (and most of our sources) are not experts. They are secondary sources as they should be and they often don't provide the depth that an encyclopedia requires. Undue has to do with a minority that goes against the majority of reliable sources. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Make your own opinion

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

• 217.82.151.75, And your opinion? Why make a single contribution from an IP address to present this? If you have any respect for other conceptions of order please consider WP:SOAPBOX.

My opinion - murder, as at p6, "rounded up for slaughter". I also think this thread should be deleted.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

link to this article should be added

Definitions of terrorism - should be added as the article maintains that several different bodies have designated ISIL as terrorist and this clarifies that and why some do not call them terrorists.

"So-called Islamic State"

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

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

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

I think there has to be a limit to how much this article (as opposed to the media) qualifies its descriptions, "so-called Islamic State", "caliph" and "caliphate" used in inverted commas, "jihadist" now being questioned, "which previously called itself the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" - the list is increasing daily. --P123ct1 (talk) 11:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 we can neither speak in Wikipedia's voice to directly describe a "so-called Islamic State" nor can we directly declare them to be jihadist. Both situations require value judgements. As I mentioned in Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Jihadist or similar in lead!? "If substantiated then it is certainly warranted to document any of Islamic State/..'s claims of being a jihadist group, its advocacies of jihad or anything that it actually does. Its also fair to report on interpretations of various outlets of it as being an jihadist group. However, when interpretations of Jihad vary, I don't think it right to directly label them as being jihadist."

Related reasoning to this is presented in content by Muslim scholars presented below. The earlier form of the lead presented the group, in Wikipedia's voice, as being jihadist and, two sentences later, quotes the UN and media in calling them a terrorist group. Many readers may well have stopped there and this unqualified flow of information was unacceptable.

See Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Jihadist or similar in lead!? for jihad related discussion.

I have mentioned the media coverage describing: "So-called Islamic State" and have queried: "where and how it may be possible to quote sources".

Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Here are some references:

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

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

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

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

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

"notinmyname"

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

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

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

"Non-Islamic Non-State"

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

Are you saying there should be a section in the article where criticisms like this can be dealt with? I can see an argument for it. There perhaps should be a new section dealing with the questions now being raised everywhere about the legitimacy and actions of the new caliphate. I thought you were suggesting the article should start using "so-called" Islamic State! --P123ct1 (talk) 11:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

On the use of "jihadist", I agree with earlier comments, fine to use in the Lead as it is a common term for groups of this sort. Objections can be dealt with elsewhere in the article, as I said. --P123ct1 (talk) 12:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I was hoping just to ask the question regarding inclusion. (Wariness by a number of editors to the use of "Islamic State" is, to some extent, validated by recent criticisms and disputes over the use of the short form of the name. I also predict that there may be criticisms of associations between the organisation and jihad. Certainly, if a cite-worthy content is found then I agree that associations between the group and jihad might be criticised under "Ideology and belief" so on this point I agree). Can we please leave Jihad related discussion for the section on Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Jihadist or similar in lead!? or other new section? Its not the topic of this thread.

Current criticism and/or disputes relate specifically to the use of the name "Islamic State". I think that this could fit following Index of names and History of names perhaps under "Disputes regarding use of names". Other suggestions welcomed. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking that as well, that it could be covered in a subsection of the "Names" section. However, it would seem a bit odd to have all that precede the history of the group and the rest, as this controversy over the name is comparatively recent. Perhaps as I said there should be a section dealing with all of the recent and growing criticism of the IS and this name controversy could be a subsection of that. --P123ct1 (talk) 13:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC).

I agree about the specific focus of the sub-topic. 'Objections to "Islamic State"' or similar in names? A section following History perhaps in conjunction with 'Designation as a terrorist group'? Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

No, important as the topic is, I don't think it should be given as much prominence as that. There are more important things about the group, evidenced by the new sections sequence, I think.--P123ct1 (talk) 16:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Moon's comments reflect my view that ISIL is not islamic and not a state. Mind you they are more islamic than any Christian and more a state than most rebel groups, but dressing up like Santa and giving gifts does not make you Santa. The use of caliph is particularly inappropriate - I would expect some evidence and generally acceptance of decent from the prophet before that title gets applied. I think we need to emphasize the "so called" type qualifiers and the critics and stick to acronyms to give balance to ISIL claims.Legacypac (talk) 17:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

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

I think it would be a good idea not refer to them in the article (except in the Lead) as "Islamic State" but simply as "IS". That would be a good way of dealing with the problem of WP seeming to endorse the establishment of the caliphate and an Islamic state. Perhaps the words caliphate and caliph (except in the Lead) should always have quote marks around them in the text, for the same reason. --P123ct1 (talk) 18:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I like that solution, with the modification to use ISIL as that fits with the article title.Legacypac (talk) 18:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree it is time to move to ISIL in the article. --P123ct1 (talk) 20:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2014

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

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

NB the last para there is a quote from the article.

Translations/transliterations

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

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

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

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

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

• al-Dawlah ("the State")
• al-Dawlat al-Islāmīyah ("the Islamic State")
• AQI : Al-Qaeda in Iraq
• Daʿesh, Daesh, Daish etc. (Arabic equivalent of ISIL / ISIS)
• ISI : Islamic State of Iraq
• ISIL : Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
• ISIS : Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham
• Islamic State
• JTJ : Arabic acronym (The Organization of Monotheism and Jihad)
• Mujahideen Shura Council
• QSIS : Al-Qaeda Separatists in Iraq and Syria

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

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

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

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

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

How about (no transliteration):

• al-Dawlah ("the State")
• al-Dawlat al-Islāmīyah ("the Islamic State")
• AQI : Al-Qaeda in Iraq
• Daʿesh, Daesh, Daish etc. (Arabic equivalent of ISIL / ISIS)
• IS : Islamic State
• ISI : Islamic State of Iraq
• ISIL : Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
• ISIS : Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham
• JTJ (The Organization of Monotheism and Jihad, Arabic acronym)
• Mujahideen Shura Council
• QSIS : Al-Qaeda Separatists in Iraq and Syria

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

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

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

This could give (trans 1):

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

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

Alternatively (trans 2):

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

or (trans 3):

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

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

Some adjustments to that-:

• al-Dawlah  ("the State") (but the Arabic name in italics - couldn't do the code)
• al-Dawlat al-Islāmīyah  ("the Islamic State") (ditto)
• AQI : Al-Qaeda in Iraq : Tanẓīm Qāʻidat al-Jihād fī Bilād al-Rāfidayn
• Daʿesh, Daesh, Daish etc : acronyms formed from the Arabic name for "Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham"
• IS : Islamic State : al-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah
• ISI : Islamic State of Iraq : Dawlah al-'Iraq al-Islāmīyah (I think you had a typo)
• ISIL : Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant : al-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fī al-ʻIrāq wa-al-Shām
• ISIS : Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham : al-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fī al-ʻIrāq wa-al-Shām
• JTJ : Jamāʻat al-Tawḥīd wa-al-Jihād (no English translation, as there's none here for Tanzim)
• Mujahideen Shura Council
• QSIS : Al-Qaeda Separatists in Iraq and Syria

Have kept italics for Arabic names, as they are in italics in "History of names". Not very happy about my Daesh line. We can't say those are acronyms of al-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fī al-ʻIrāq wa-al-Shām, can we? They will be acronyms formed from different transliterations of the name, as I understand it, thus accounting for the variations. As I said, am not sure about this linguistic point. I think all the Daesh variants need to go in, as per my comment. But possibly best to put the rest in "History of names" as there are so many of them. Otherwise, how does that look? Do you agree with those adjustments? --P123ct1 (talk) 13:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Daʿesh / Dāʻish

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

@Johanna-Hypatia: has unilaterally changed presentation of Daʿesh to Dāʻish in lead[98] which, in itself, may be no problem. I wondering whether this is just a pronunciation issue and would appreciate comment. See also: Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#"Daash", "'Daʿesh" or "Daesh", coverage in Arabic media and reflected content in the article. Consistency between lead and the index could be beneficial and, in a context where many names are used, the issue of accuracy also has relevance.

Suggested entries into the index of names are:

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

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

I don't mind which it is, Gregkaye, as long as there is consistency between the Lead and the "History of names" section. I think all variants should be included, for the reason I gave earlier. Readers will see many different spellings in the media and wonder why. A brief word of explanation in this section would help them. Your first suggestion there including the transliteration is better, the second I don't think is clear enough. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Support - especially instead of "Islamic State" which is a very problematic name. Legacypac (talk) 20:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - I don't believe that this abbreviation is more common than ISIS, and there would be a disconnect with the use of ISIS on many other articles that would need to be changed also. Gazkthul (talk) 02:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Digging through UN Security Council documents like the al-Qaida Sanctions list, I found the UN is using "ISIL" consistently and long after the group shortened the ir name. A recent example: [99]Legacypac (talk) 03:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Support, the accurate translation of the 2013 name is the same as the article title Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. We should use ISIL with consistency to both accurate translation and article title used.

incidentally the parallel article ar:الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام gives a machine code translation that reads: "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant , known for short as Daash , which calls itself now an Islamic state only .." Gregkaye ✍♪ 06:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

An editor has changed some instances of "ISIS" to "ISIL" without the consensus from other editors needed for this change. I have reverted the changes until a decision is made on which acronym to use in the article. --P123ct1 (talk) 07:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I was the editor who you reverted manually. I'm not upset, just confused as your edit seems to go against what you were advocating, which is consistency. Watching CNN tonight they had ISIS in the graphics over commentators and generals saying ISIL consistently. Strange situation. Legacypac (talk) 09:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

You miss the point. The consensus view of editors as a whole is what counts, not the view of an individual editor. Consensus has not been reached yet. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the action to revert at this stage was optional but I certainly give it support. We have a discussion regarding best use of terminology between ISIS (with more usage in media) and ISIL (according to better English translation and consistency with article title). It is a topic that has been previously raised with this and the last instance being at P123ct1's initiation. It can also be helpful in a talk page discussion to give notification that an action has been { {done}}. Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Neutral Weak Oppose Either is respectable. As I understand it, "Syria" in ISIS is greater Syria and not the current nation-state that was created by Western division. Thus, Levant, the L in ISIL might be better to capture the wider aims of ISIL. However, they've only captured territory in Syria and Iraq, so ISIS is respectable as well. Both are used by sources. My "weakness" stems from a preference for waiting until one emerges as dominant in the sources. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Jason from nyc. I think that, if we could rewrite recent word usage, the 2013 name may have been better rendered as the Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria. This would have given the acronym ISIGS and which would arguably have been a more understandable terminology. The groups name went from reference to Iraq to reference to Iraq and greater Syria/the Levant and now, without giving any public declaration of actual territorial ambition, they have dropped geographical reference altogether. As reference to the 2013 name we are left with a choice between ISIS and ISIL. Arabic sources prefer Da'esh as a clear anagram of the 2013 name. ISIL is the most accurate parallel. Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Let me remove my opposition. It's a judgment call and those who support it here have done hard work kicking this article into shape. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support – Can we please have some sort of consistency here? We're using "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" as the title of this article, at present. Until that changes, we should use the accompanying abbreviation, which is "ISIL". Discussions about the article title can be had elsewhere. Right now, at the title that this is at, it makes sense to use ISIL. RGloucester — ☎ 16:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia's reputation

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

I changed the infobox so the English name matched the article title. I did not feel comfortable changing the arabic as I can't read it. Hoped someone would fix the arabic quickly. RS use both ISIL and ISIS which we explain in the first couple lines. If you want consistency, let's let the infobox match the title. I don't see this as a reputation issue since CNN use actively using both ISIS and ISIL at the same moment (verbal vs graphics). Legacypac (talk) 09:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Another problem is that "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" clashes with "Caliphate" in the infobox. He is "caliph" of the Islamic State, not ISIS! --P123ct1 (talk) 13:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Have you ever looked at the Talk pages to see what other editors have said about this? This subject has been discussed many, many times since the Islamic State was proclaimed. --P123ct1 (talk) 09:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I have. This subject is dynamic and, unfortunately, prone to the predations of a small group of interested editors. GraniteSand (talk) 09:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia actually does use the name Islamic State quite a bit. Legacypac (talk) 09:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

And the article should be so appropriately titled, as per our policies. Yes? GraniteSand (talk) 09:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Which it is - many RS currently refer to these guys as spelled out or acronym ISIL or ISIS including the UN Security Council. See previous discussions. Legacypac (talk) 09:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Au, contraire. Trending reliable sources cite this group as the "Islamic State" as already demonstrated in this thread. As a current subject prone to both WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RS there is no sustainable reason not to adjust accordingly. There is no organization in the world called either ISIS or ISIL. GraniteSand (talk) 09:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the trending you claim. I haven't seen much change in the last few weeks. ISIS, and to a lesser extent ISIL, seems to be used in the RS just as much as before. DeCausa (talk) 09:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Previous entries here have demonstrated that drift but more importantly, without getting into Google metrics, the AP has settled on Islamic State group and organizations such as the Guardian and the Economist have made note of the politicking in refusing to use IS as well as acknowledging it's correctness. These results with a couple minutes on Google. GraniteSand (talk) 10:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

This has all been discussed before. As has the irrelevance of whether or not there is "politicking". We simply reflect usage for good or ill, we don't WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. DeCausa (talk) 10:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

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

The sources tend to use Islamic State for the de facto state created by the group called ISIS/ISIL. The French wikipedia has two articles and if we need to do that at some point I'd argue for Islamic State for the nation. That's assuming this becomes the commonly used name. East Germany became the commonly used name for the German Democratic Republic. The self-proclaimed official name may or may not become the commonly used name. Let's wait. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

aL-Qaeda joining ISIL?

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

Map of ISIS controlled areas (again)

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

I quite agree, and excuse the gramophone record, but could the country boundaries not be marked in as well? The maps in the media always show them. Essential information, I would have thought. --P123ct1 (talk) 11:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Here's 2 typical examples: from the BBC and from the New York Times. DeCausa (talk) 11:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)