Jump to content

Talk:Islamic State

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 72.199.56.229 (talk) at 15:44, 5 February 2015. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Pbneutral

Template:Syrian Civil War sanctions

NOTE 1: This talk page has a history of high levels of activity. Please make reasonable checks to see whether additional content can be added to existing threads and please make new section titles as general as may be practically helpful.

NOTE 2: Please complete citations attached to article content with fields such as Author, Title, URL, Date, Publisher/Work, Agency and Access Date. (See footnotes guide above.) (If you would like to copy the footnotes guide to your userpage, put this template in the Edit Page – {{User:P123ct1/My template}} – and it will display the guide.)


Requested move 26 January 2015

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State of Iraq and Syria – or to ISIS (Islamist rebel group). ISIS is the most common English language reference to the group in reference to the Arabic title "ad-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fī al-‘Irāq wash-Shām". This title is also rendered into English as "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant", "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria", "Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham" or "ISIL" and is also represented as "Da‘ish" or "DAESH", the acronym of the Arabic title but ISIS remains in common usage.

  • Language style note: use of "wanna-be" to describe would-be mujahadeen members, I think is

inapropriately casual in tone, bordering on American slang. "Would-be mujahadeen" would be a better choice of words.

  • Also, the word choice of "everyday" tasks is vague and also a bit too casual. "mundane" would be a better choice than "everyday". Again, this malapropism borders on American slang/usage.
  • "Information directed to women".. Directed "towards women" or "directed at women".

Passive in tone while being less vague. 72.199.56.229 (talk) 15:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC)anonymous (american)english geek[reply]

  • "In addition to banning the sale and use of alcohol—which is customary in Muslim culture—ISIL has banned the sale and use of cigarettes" Which of the 3 things mentioned, is customary in Muslim culture? The sale, the use, or the banning of these things? An unclear sentence.
  • "Saudi practices also followed by the group include the establishment of relgious police.." Saudi practices, or Wahabist practices common in Saudi Arabia?
  • "Before the accused are executed their charges are read toward them and the spectators. They carry out executions in various forms such as stoning to death, crucifixions, beheadings and some are thrown from the top storeys of tall buildings." --Non objective tone. Non objective tone rises and falls throughout the entire article.
  • Too, too, many articles and non-authoritative sources quoted in article. Smacks of hearsay. Leave that sort of thing to YouTube. This lends the article the same overall tone as television journalism, rather than information worthy of an encyclopedia.



Context A wide range of scholars and groups reject the use of the title "Islamic State" on the basis of the religious and political implications of the title. Reference can be made to other groups with Mohammedan based faiths ranging from nations to other rebel groups in conflict with ISIS, and a wide range or representatives in the international community. The group describes itself as "Islamic State". Ban-Ki Moon stated, "As Muslim leaders around the world have said, groups like ISIL – or Da’ish -- have nothing to do with Islam, and they certainly do not represent a state. They should more fittingly be called the "Un-Islamic Non-State" and Muslim leaders sticking to religious angles have described it as the un-Islamic State. With these two extremes of presentations I think that NPOV demands that we don't become a soapbox for either side and that a relevant rendering of "ad-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fī al-‘Irāq wash-Shām" be used. At one extreme I personally think that, in this context, questionable unqualified use of the title "Islamic State" has been made by news groups such as agency Reuters from early times. At the other extreme, notable Arabic news groups make sole use of terms such as ISIL, ISIS and Daesh. Another issue is that we already have an article on Islamic state. GregKaye 11:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am more inclined to think Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham may be our best option for the title. "Syria" does not really 100% equate with "al-Sham", because it is the name of a country and used rarely in the English language to translate the Arabic-language word "al-Sham". So, Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham has an even greater advantage with regards to having a more accurate translation. Khestwol (talk) 12:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Legacypac why did you delete User:KazekageTR's oppose comment?
Edit conflict - I've just restored two comments, good catch. Legacypac (talk) 20:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Legacypac, "What has changed since then?" At that time a number of world leaders were making use of the designation ISIL. From what I have gathered, a number of them have moved to "Daesh". While references to "ad-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fī al-‘Irāq wash-Shām" remain relevant I believe that ISIL is less so. GregKaye 20:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That would support a move toward Daesh more than a move toward ISIS. Legacypac (talk) 21:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Legacypac Perhaps, but as as mentioned in the OP: ISIS is the most common English language reference to the group in reference to the Arabic title "ad-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fī al-‘Irāq wash-Shām". Daesh now comes in a closer third place while ISIL comes in a more distant second. If this RM goes through then it seems to me that the article title will remain a stable representation of the three title presentations. The actual change is hardly more than cosmetic. GregKaye 12:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there are plenty of groups known by their acronyms. ISIS has long been an extremely commonly used designation for the group. GregKaye 18:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose there are enough justifications for that the current name is the best one, please check archives for name change votings, BTW @Khestwol what exactly 'Neutral, but support move to "Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham' means mate it is somehting like 'definetly maybe' :D kazekagetr 18:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A tremendous amount of time and effort has already gone into debating the name for this article. The current name seems reasonable. Once some time passes, and more systematic histories are written of the group, it will be easier to judge whether another name might be better. What we have seems to me good enough for now, and our efforts might be better spent concentrating on the content of the article rather than the title of the article. EastTN (talk) 19:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I agree with EastTN, time could be better spent improving the article. The last admin suggested we take a breather and let the issue rest for a while. This will give time for another modality of RS, that being published books to come to the fro. In light of that, it will be interesting to see what name Jurgen Todenhofer uses in his book, seen as he is the only author, as far as I am aware, to have publicly stated his efforts of writing a book on the group. Mbcap (talk) 19:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Óppose Policy at WP:TITLECHANGES is applicable. The current title has been stable since August 2013 except for changing "in" to "of". There is significant consistency with use of ISIL across WP titles and articles and I can't see any value in moving from ISIL=>ISIS when they are only alternative translations of one word, both widely used in the real world. Big effort to change, no real value. Legacypac (talk) 20:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as the current title is a common enough name, and accurate enough. Moving will make it either less common or less accurate, and no move seems like a net win at this time. Dicklyon (talk) 05:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. "ISIS" is vastly more common than "ISIL," as you can see here. NotUnusual (talk) 13:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – For one thing, I'm really getting tired of these frivolous move proposals. Honestly, can you please just accept what we have, and stop making a mess after each subsequent move proposal fails? Per WP:TITLECHANGES, there is absolutely no reason given for a change. The present title has been here for a long time, and has worked well. It is the best possible translation of the Arabic, and using entirely English titles is preferred per WP:UE (i.e. I strongly oppose using "al-Sham"). Debate about the acronym is pointless. Many sources (such as the BBC) that translate the full name as "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" use "ISIS" as an acronym, so this move proposal won't change anything to that effect. Leave this alone. It is the best possible title. RGloucester — ☎ 19:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to use "ISIS", then open an RfC on the usage of the acronyms in this article. There is no reason that one can't use "ISIS" and "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant", like the BBC does. That has nothing to do with the article title. I'd oppose such a proposal, regardless, as ISIL is simply better. RGloucester — ☎ 19:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Not the common name, nor is it an accurate translation of al-sham. Like the current title, it is used mainly by world leader and relevant stakeholders as opposed to the common name in reliable sources. Mbcap (talk) 01:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Strong Support for The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria - Even though I prefer the Islamic State v Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, per WP:COMMONNAME, The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is much more recognizable than The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria also satisfies WP:NPOV more so then just the Islamic State (Islamist rebel group). Arguments raised by GregKaye in the previous name change discussion illustrated this fact. ISIL is not only the least recognizable of the two, but the main body which uses ISIL, the U.S government is increasingly favoring 'Daesh' over ISIL [1]. The following points to support my contention:

Comment - Changed vote to no opinion. Only the Islamic State group (IS) is a viable and sustainable article name. StanMan87 (talk) 12:49, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1.) By far the majority of English media institutions and influential organisations use the term ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria/Greater Syria/al-Sham) over ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant):

  • The Wall Street Journal:[2]
  • The Guardian:[3]
  • CNN:[4]
  • CNBC:[5]
  • Fox News:[6]
  • International Business Time:[7]
  • Bloomberg:[8]
  • Sydney Morning Herald:[9]
  • The Independent:[10]
  • New Statesman:[11]
  • National Review:[12]
  • The Nation:[13]
  • The New York Times:[14]
  • The Council on Foreign Relations:[15]
  • The Atlantic:[16]
  • Al-Arabiya:[17]

Note that many of these publications may use Islamic State in conjunction with the term ISIS.

Many former editions of articles from The Economist publication used ISIS before switching to just the Islamic State:[18]. Reuters, as well as others use the term Islamic State while also using the term ISIS:[19]

2.) Google statistics and trends: Show that ISIS is much more prevalent than ISIL [20]

3.) Google search results: Islamic State of Iraq and Syria 32,000,000 results [21] Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant 2,260,000 results [22]

For Google news search results, The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria also merits higher with 4,470,000 results [23] in contrast to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant with 50,200 results [24].

I don't know why this article was ever changed from the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant in the first place. Levant isn't an accurate translation for the Arab word Shām. Sham refers to an ancient greater Syria, and is used by groups like ISIS or al-Qaeda to refer to what is now modern day Syria much like the ancient term Khorasan which is used to define what is now modern day Afghanistan. For example, Abu Mohammad al-Adnani was born in Syria and yet is referred to as Abu Mohammad al-Adnani al-Shami. Also note that most of the facts I used above I copied from some of GregKaye's previous comments, so it is more his research. StanMan87 (talk) 07:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

StanMan87 -- You have raised some good points. I may need to reconsider. I also prefer Islamic State, nevertheless a progression towards a more policy congruent name would be worthwhile. I am going to do some searches myself and consider those already in your post before making any further comments. Mbcap (talk) 07:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mbcap You have been consistently reminded of the concept of not stating opinion as fact. Reviews of previous RM discussions, despite repetitions reveal that a range of policy issues are addressed. The reasons we have discussions is to jointly develop policy based decisions based on a range of policy issues. The current discussion relates to a RM for Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State of Iraq and Syria 11:41, 30 January 2015 GregKaye 11:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
GregKaye, I stated that "I prefer" which I thought would have implied that it is merely an opinion. I made the comment to concur with StanMan87's preference and that is all it was. His post gave me a new perspective on the current move and also the way policy is applied, which has compelled me to reconsider, despite my initial opposition. Please consider that this is a learning curve for me. Mbcap (talk) 14:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mbcap You expressed a preference for what you then (stating opinion as fact) presented as being "a more policy congruent name". Please do not assert unsubstantiated claims. I appreciate that you "made the comment to concur with StanMan87's preference" but, while he quoted one area of policy (in application amongst a variety of names that are all clearly recognisable), as you know, other important policy issues have also been discussed. I prefer what I regard to be these disruptive unreferenced and I think partisan assertions to stop. As you know I have tried at my utmost to explain this to you on a personal basis. Also of note is that the current RM is related to a move to the title Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. Points made in favour of the title Islamic State (islamist rebel group) were I think repeated to a level of disruptive rhetoric in the previous discussion and now, in a topic relating to a different move, the same arguments are I think being pushed irrelevantly yet again. GregKaye 08:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Greg Please concentrate on the current RM, rather than requesting I stop the alleged partisan assertions. It also does not aid to induce a collaborative spirit here, if one was to label others work as disruptive rhetoric. Please concentrate on the RM at hand and appreciate the points raised previously were a related, appropriate and a passing mention of a previous RM, and that is all it was. Mbcap (talk) 17:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mbcap Do likewise and we will get on just fine. Please get the point here. Ambiguous claims such as regarding "a more policy congruent name" need substantiation for fear of otherwise fitting the description of "empty air". GregKaye 18:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is not appropriate for yourself to rehash old issues which have now resolved, in light of your empty air reference. Islamic State is the most policy congruent name and in the future, all related pages will be named as such. I made a passing reference to that. In the meantime I alluded to the fact that it would be no harm to consider a more policy congruent name if it is supported by policy, until the aforementioned action is undertaken. However, in light of RGloucester's comments below, I will be still opposing so that we can rename the page and all related pages to the obviously policy based "Islamic State (group)". I am trying to exert utmost effort to maintain focus on the current RM but you will not let the stick drop so I ask you to drop it please. Mbcap (talk) 18:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mbcap You consistently neglect to ping the editors that you reply to. The use of the designation "Islamic State" has been viewed to be in violation of WP:NATURAL as well as with WP:NPOV, WP:SOAPBOX in its connection to the naming of a prisoner of war burning group that claims authority over the very faith of the man that it burned. Clearly there are strong policy arguments against the use of Islamic State and, despite the fact you are fully aware of these issues, you persist in dogmatic and I think partisan assertions regarding your personal interpretations of policy. Your arguments have recently been made at great and repetitive length and have been found wanting. It is not appropriate for you, in a proposed article title move discussion to a different title issue to make clearly unsubstantiated claims regarding the supposed superiority of arguments that had failed in the last discussion despite their extensive repetition. Please get this point. Your claim asserting some supposedly "most policy congruent name" flies in the face of the result of recent discussion and seems to me utterly devoid of substance. GregKaye 12:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Greg: I made a passing reference to Islamic State which I explained but you continue to discuss the issue. If we can get the issues down which are; 1)I neglect to ping editors that I reply to, 2)According to you there are clear policy arguments against the name, 3)I allegedly persist in dogmatic and partisan assertion regarding my so called personal interpretations of policy, 4)My arguments allegedly as of late have been repetitive and has left you wanting, 5)I should not discuss unrelated titles in a RM, 6)Previous arguments relating to "Islamic State" allegedly failed in the last discussion (please see NW admins closing statement), 7)I should get the point, 8)My statement about most policy congruent name seems to you as utterly devoid of substance. Is there anything else you want to throw into this basket? I want to discuss this RM so let me make it clear that I have read your post but I do not wish to discuss these things in the current RM. Please concentrate your efforts on the current RM. Mbcap (talk) 13:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mbcap There has been a relatively succinctly presented RM which is mostly self explanatory and a considerable content dealing with your basket. 1) If you are replying to dialogue content not at the end of the thread it helps, 2) and according to a number of editors in the RM, 3) assertions are best left out if not substantiated, 4) there has been repetition yet a number of editors have been unconvinced, 5) This discussion is for a RM to The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, 6) I am well aware of NW's comments, 7) please, points made are not new, 8) claims need substantiation, If there is no substantiation it is just claim and opinion. Don't you think that is enough. There is not much effort to be made in the RM. It is just a proposal to which editors are welcome to make fair and substantiated comment. GregKaye 18:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Greg you need not have replied to the previous points as all I did was mostly sum up your points from your previous post. I guess we shall add another to the basket; a) claims need substantiation. Got it, anything else you would like to elucidate or is that all. Mbcap (talk) 19:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mbcap Thank you for your response. The last thing I want to do is add issues. GregKaye 07:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing Admin The Supporters seem to be split between the two different proposed titles. Editrs should also consider that this proposed change runs counter to the names of maybe a dozen related articles which all use Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant or ISIL in their titles. Those titles were debated by a lot more editors then have commented on this, the 10th formal move request in a few months here. I would think that a lot of editors are tiring on commenting on these move requests. Legacypac (talk) 05:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is rather clear cut which option is being supported. The title: Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. The acronym ISIS will used throughout the article and many of those articles related, to replace ISIL. I will personally comb through every single article that mentions ISIL and revert it to ISIS if the change goes ahead. It should never have been changed to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant in the first place based on WP:COMMONNAME. StanMan87 (talk) 07:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
StanMan87 Nothing is clear cut here. At this point there are five opposes and four supports (five if you count my nomination). The original decision to move was based on the existence of more references to Islamic State of Iraq and Levant than references to Islamic State of Iraq and Syria but this did not take into account the prevalent use of ISIS over ISIL. At this point, what is clear cut? However I would to the arguments that, as far as disambiguations go, "... of Iraq and Syria" is more readily understandable than "... of Iraq and the Levant". I would advise careful combing so as not to remove change direct quotes to "ISIL" or footnote references. Legacypac a common practice with non complicated RMs in which decisions are not clear cut can be for them to be relisted. GregKaye 09:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No StanMan87, you will need to run each and every other article title through an RM before changing it - and that will likely result in some changing and others not and a real mess. Also consider that the UN and all 60 countries in the coalition against ISIL plus Iran and others all use ISIL or Daish to refer to this group - in fact I have not seen any country use ISIS officially. Many media orgs use ISIL too. We already determined the big 4 news services are not united around the term ISIS (above). And it is not clear to me which of the proposed names some editors are supporting when they say ISIS - do they mean ISIS or ISIS spelled out. Legacypac (talk) 09:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Legacypac can you cite this? It is acknowledged that there are arguments on both sides of this RM but, if it goes through, then I would think that there would be a clear precedent to change other article, category, template and other content to match. GregKaye 08:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This RM has a low # of editors and no clear consensus, so it would make a poor precedent for a site wide change. All controversial title changes should be run through an RM. Legacypac (talk) 15:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – All arguments about the acronym "ISIS" than "ISIL" being more common have no bearing on whether the title of this article should be "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria", which is a completely incorrect translation and a rather kibosh. As I provided above, the BBC consistently used the long form "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant", but used the acronym "ISIS". Sources that use "ISIS" do not necessarily support the use of "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria". Many sources refer to the group as "Islamic State" with the acronym "ISIS" as well. If people want to name this article "ISIS", that's a separate proposal. Regardless, it is obvious that "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" is not common, and is also a completely incorrect translation. If people want to use ISIS in the body of the article, no name change is necessary. Originally, the body did use ISIS, even with the title as it is now. However, an RfC on the matter supported changing over to ISIL, which is why we use that now. People can start a new RfC if they want. There is no argument for moving to "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" at this point in the game. Zero. WP:TITLECHANGES applies. Such a move would only result in myriad more move requests to "IS", "ISIS", "Islamic State", &c. Moving this article from one controversial title to another is not a solution to this problem, especially when the proposed title is an INCORRECT translation of a name NO LONGER USED by the group itself. RGloucester — ☎ 23:05, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not a typo. BBC used that as their main style until they switched over to "Islamic State", at which point they changed over many of their old articles. You can see that the Financial Times does the same thing, and continues to use the long form of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant with the acronym "Isis". The Independent does this as well. British press, on the whole, prefer "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant". Some use Isil, and some use Isis. Some have changed to using "Islamic State" with "Isis" or "Isil". Regardless, it is clear that the acronym is not determined by the long form name. RGloucester — ☎ 03:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'Levant' is just as much as incorrect as 'Syria' is. 'Levant' was only adopted becuase it is the closest thing that we can refer to Shām as, an Arabic word. It's a half-ass and lazy solution to a common linguistic problem. If you want to go for 'correctness' RGloucester , then that leaves you two options: Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham which is the most accurate and best translation that there is for this group but as you said, the term is no longer used anymore and you stated yourself you are not a fan of using the Arab word Shām in the title as it's the English Wikipedia. Then why is it we refer to Al-Qaeda as Al-Qaeda and not The Base? Because it is more common and more widely known? Because there official name is Al-Qaeda? As per WP:COMMONNAME, it is the most acceptable choice. Just like the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria is more recognizable than Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, as shown above. So then that leaves the Islamic State, the official and current name of the group which was voted with 5 in support (Including myself) and 4 against, including yourself. This name was also proven to be just as common as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant if not much more so by Mbcap and John Smith the Gamer. But you voted against the proposal. So now I am perplexed RGloucester . You obviously do not want 'correctness' as you are opposed to both of the names I have listed. Yet, at the same time you favor the name that is less recognized (as shown above, and in the previous change of name discussion), less common and therefore against WP:COMMONNAME. As for WP:TITLECHANGES, this policy was cited many times when I sought to change to the Islamic State (islamist rebel group). Allow me to quote: If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed. How long has this article been stable for? How many copious change of name requests have been initiated? How many previous names has this article been known by? This article is not stable at all.

A re-cap for you:
Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) ++Commonality|Recognition vs. -Accuracy.
Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) +Accuracy| vs. -Commonality|Recognition.
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) +-Commonality|Recognition vs. +-Accuracy
Islamic State (IS) +Commonality|Recognition vs. ++Accuracy StanMan87 (talk) 03:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. We don't speak foreign tongues here. There is nothing accurate about mixing a foreign language with English. "Levant" is the most accurate term, the term that is most recognisable, and the term with the most historical gravitas. "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" is not more common. In the British and Irish press, it is almost never used: The Daily Telegraph, the Financial Times, the Daily Mail, the the Irish Independent, The Scotsman, The Guardian, the Daily Mirror. Sure, plenty of these use "ISIS", but they all use the long form "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant". I might be able to understand a move to "ISIS", but not at all to "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria", as it is a crap translation and not frequently used. I personally think there should be no change. It seems to be that you're just out to change the title, with no particular care for what title you get to. Sorry, read WP:TITLECHANGES. Please stop making a mess for no reason. This title is fine, it is common, it is an adequate disambiguation. Any title for this article will be controversial, and there is no reason to move this article to the worst of the available options, i.e. the defunct, incorrect, and uncommon "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria". RGloucester — ☎ 03:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Any title for this article will be controversial" Then based on what you have just typed, you should have been fine with the proposal to change it to the Islamic State (islamist rebel group) which was shown to be the current, correct and very much common alternative in that discussion. You are very inconsistent with your reasoning to oppose, oppose and oppose. StanMan87 (talk) 03:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, because I like consistency and stability. If none of the proposed titles are perfect, and all are controversial, the stable title that has been here for ages is the one that should stay, per WP:TITLECHANGES. Regardless, I strongly oppose the word "rebel" on WP:LABEL grounds. RGloucester — ☎ 04:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd just like to add that soon if not now the terms ISIL, ISIS and Daesh (acronymization of Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham) will become largely irrelevant as this group continues to spread outside its tradtional sphere of influence in Iraq and Syria to places like Algeria, the Sinai in Egypt, Libya and now along the Afghan-Pakistan border. Whether in violation of WP:NPOV or not, the term Islamic State (IS) will soon become the most and only viable alternative. Please keep this in mind. StanMan87 (talk) 03:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, there really are absolutely no grounds to move this to the proposed title, as it will only result in a succession of moves to nowhere. Of course, we know that your proposed title ("Islamic State") has been rejected numerous times, and will continue to be rejected without adequate disambiguation and attention to neutral point of view. RGloucester — ☎ 03:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Attention to NPOV? As per WP:TITLECHANGES, "discussing the appropriate title of an article, remember that the choice of title is not dependent on whether a name is "right" in a moral or political sense." I guess this overrides the neutral point of view/ethical/moral consideration. But I no longer care to waste my time anymore. I have argued my case. Soon I will stop editing Wikipedia in 1-2 months time after I see to some articles that need urgent attending to. You, I assume are in Wikipedia for the long term. This article will be your problem and issue, not mine. This article has been stuck in the past for 8 months. The group has a new name which is common and recognizable. These name changes are the consequence of that. There will be many others who will opt to change the article name, and perhaps better argue the case than I have tried to do. And as I said, all other alternatives will become irrelevant if the Islamic State remains and expands. So this article seems to be in a bit of a dilemma. StanMan87 (talk) 03:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note NPOV doesn't come into it due to povtitle. Aside from POVTITLE, consider that no admin would make a change that violated NPOV, as even consensus doesn't override NPOV. POVTITLE doesn't violate POV. The article makes it very clear that few consider IS Islamic or a State. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 04:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was not referring to "Islamic State". I was referring to the use of the word "rebel" in Mr Stan's proposal, which is an unacceptable word per the MOS section value-laden labelling. "Rebel" is commentary, as would "terrorist" or "islamist" be. Maybe one could use "organisation" or "group", but certainly one cannot tack commentary onto it. Whilst POVTITLE does exist, it only applies when a singular non-neutral common name overrides all alternatives, which is not the case here. It does not apply to parenthetical disambiguation, either. RGloucester — ☎ 04:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure "Rebel" is a contentious label, but (group) does work for me, and is shorter. However, I was not talking about parenthetical disambiguation. I was more trying to stop another "We can't call them IS as that's POV" discussion. I should have been more clear, but I wasn't very awake when I posted that. Most of the discussions we've had here on NPOV have been about limiting IS's influence on this article. Also, another single purpose account has edited this article again and reinserted material in a manner almost identical to an account that was permanently blocked under WP:DUCK. 1John Smith the Gamer (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Restore the Moratorium on Page Moves - with an expiry of April 30, 2015

The moratorium on page moves was quite successful for moving the article forward. How do editors feel about reimposing it - with the current proposed move discussion being the last one allowed. Legacypac (talk) 21:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would be fine with that. EastTN (talk) 21:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose such an action; if this move is the last one allowed. Otherwise I am happy with a moratorium if the current move request can be snowed, as it has no merit. Mbcap (talk) 21:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC) [reply]

I have no preference either way. Mbcap (talk) 22:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC) [reply]

  • I would prefer something nearer half that length, I feel 3 months from now is too long. I'm also not sure how this should effect the above requested move. I see no policy reason why it should be moved to ISIL, ISIS, Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham. These changes, in my opinion, would also be less significant than to Islamic State, which the closing administrator had the following to be said about:
"As this discussion has been had several times, I would suggest disengaging for a while (at the end of the day, the title of the article is not worth this much time spent on it--there are more important things in the article that I can already see needing change), observing where the state of the world is in a few months, and marshalling the arguments for changing the title into a more unified and coherent request for comment and move."
This is why I support the idea of a Moratorium on Page moves. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 00:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
John, I suggested 3 months for that was the length of the initial Moratorium imposed by User:PBS. I don't anticipate a major shift in the situation over the next 3 months but if something unexpected happened we can always revisit the Moratorium itself first. As I've proposed this, the current move request would play out however it plays out. Legacypac (talk) 00:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. If the logic behind constant calls for a name change can't be meet with simple reference to previous discussion then perhaps there's something worth talking about. GraniteSand (talk) 00:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am both uneasy in regard to moves that close down or otherwise curtail discussion and about discussions such as the Islamic State (islamist rebel group) RM in which the same content is added time and again by the same editors on repeat. I find both sides, some manifestations of restriction and all manifestations of pushing to be disruptive. Wikipedia is supported by a very wide range of competent editors who can address issues as they are raised. RM discussions run for a minimum of seven days and I cannot fail to notice that the proposal for the moratorium was raised within 10 hours of the RM being proposed. I presented an option for a move without pushing while presenting arguments on both sides. I think that it would have been a sign of respect to let the discussion progress a little before pushing for further restriction on dialogue. GregKaye 08:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The current RM can run its course if this proposal is accepted. I proposed this soon after the latest RM started specifically to give everyone at least 7 days to hash out the name, while also giving editors the opportunity to discuss the wisdom of entertaining additional RMs in the next thread. Legacypac (talk) 08:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to ask those editors involved in the map for ISIL. Going through the various related articles, the maps on the other pages are outdated in relation to the one on this article. Is there any possible way to synchronise the update to the map here, with all those across related articles? Or do they have to be done individually? Mbcap (talk) 01:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Syrian and Iraq can be updated with minimal effort once the combined one is made, they are derived works. I only updated the combined one in the most recent update because of a graphical problem that would be more apparent on the country maps (Basically a whole bunch of stuff moved one pixel (on my screenshots, IK it's SVG format) and that caused white areas to appear everywhere). This also made so many differences on the maps that I wasn't sure I hadn't missed anything. I planned to update the other two with the next update when I'd fixed the colouring, but I accidentally saved the map in such a way that updating it was no longer easy. So as opposed to the <15 mins it takes to update normally, I've spent a couple hours redoing the entire colouring. I've redone the Iraq half, but the Syria one may take a while, because it's much more intricate. I'm not sure how much time I'm going to have enough time to fix it before the weekend. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 02:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Take as much time as you need, there is no rush. Just to clarify so we are talking about the same thing. There is an updated map right now on this page, dated 22 January 2015. I have seen the same updated map on another related page here[[25]]. However the maps on these 2 pages are still the old ones here;[[26]], [[27]]. My question was, is their a way to update them through an automatic process or does it have to be done manually. But I guess, there is a problem with this at the moment, if I have understood you correctly. On a side note, could I ask, where are the data for these maps derived from? Mbcap (talk) 02:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, no I don't make that map. I thought you meant these: Syria, Iraq. They are not automatically updated. The Syria and Iraq maps are done by putting greyed out maps of the other country and copying. I assume you know that if you click on an image you can see file information. From there if you look at file history you can see the users who made the map. I thought I saw somewhere a discussion on not using that map any more a while ago, but I don't remember where. Clearly that has not been adopted across the wiki. At any rate, I doubt I can be much use in updating that map, I'm not good with .svg files. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 03:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explaining. If I replaced that map with the one on this page, would that be objectionable? Sorry to bother you with this but how would I replace them? Is it a simple job of copy pasting the code from this page onto there. Mbcap (talk) 03:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To change a picture, find it in the source code, change the link to the image you want, changing relevant information (caption etc). I don't really care if the map is used on the portal or not. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 09:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As for how the maps are derived (working backwards):

I use this template and take screenshots to make a map. This template runs this module which runs the Syria and Iraq modules. Those modules are regularly updated by editors. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged military aids by the US

Khestwol -- I see you reverted another editor's edit who stated the reasons for doing so in the edit summary. Though I cannot weigh in on the validity of the information contained therin, it is correct that this section has nothing to do with the structure of the ISIL military, therefore its inclusion seems unwarranted. What are your thoughts? Mbcap (talk) 09:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the subsection needs to stay and not be deleted, because it is well sourced, and is important for the section and for the article. Maybe, it can be reworded, to represent the refs more accurately though. Khestwol (talk) 09:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rand Paul does not voice official US policy, he was voicing an interesting view, which he very poorly articulated. It looks like 4 sources were supplied, but actually its only 2 used 2 times. One source is PressTV, an Iranian Govt controlled source not noted for its accuracy in reporting on American political issues, but even the Iranian spin does not closely what is in this Wikipedia article which is that the US was accused of supporting ISIL. Paul was trying to say that the US supported allies of ISIL against Assuad and therefore the US is on the same side as ISIL in Syria but against them in Iraq. The article here spins that as the US supporting ISIL. It can be said this is a domestic US political discussion and little to do with ISIL. In a multi-sided war it is not always true that the friend of my friend is friend or the enemy of my enemy is my friend. I still think the short section is best just removed. Legacypac (talk) 19:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes looking at the section again, it does need to be sourced better, I agree. However, the article already has the sections "Allegations of Turkish support" and "Allegations of Saudi Arabia's support", so I think it does need one about the alleged American support as well. Khestwol (talk) 11:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
However, just like the sections "Allegations of Turkish support" and "Allegations of Saudi Arabia's support", perhaps it would make more sense to move this allegation section also to "Supporters". Khestwol (talk) 12:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Those sections are not much better. Turkey... maybe there is some truth to it, but the Saudis are not supporting a group that wants to over throw them. Legacypac (talk) 12:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion these are all notable allegations and must be mentioned. United States, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, but also Jordan and Qatar etc. have all been claimed to support ISIL. (In the case of the United States, the claims came from Rand Paul and Iran). Khestwol (talk) 12:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Khestwol It is not strictly correct that "US, Saudi, Turkey, but also Jordan and Qatar etc have all calimed to support ISIL". As far as I am aware, there have been no governmental acknowledgement of that nature. Whilst it may be true of the middle eastern contries, it is not so crystal clear regarding the support being sanctioned by the ruling apparatus of those countries. For example the gulf countries and Saudi do support ISIL but that is only support provided by wealthy citizens who are sympathetic to the ISIL cause. It is not the case that those states are supporting them but rather their domiciled subjects who choose to do so. For the US, it is neither their citizens nor the government providing any aid to ISIL. What happened was, if the sources are correct, is that the US in an effort to preserve their strategic interests aided those groups that were amenable to having a shared aim in the region. Those groups were helped but then all of that was just taken as "war booty" by the ISIL group when they took over or overran them. Therefore, it is slightly difficult to see how US is providing military aid to ISIL. Then again I could be wrong so please do let me know if you still think it needs to stay in. Mbcap (talk) 17:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe his comment was meant to read "US, Saudi, Turkey, but also Jordan and Qatar etc have all calimed to support been claimed to be supporting ISIL". John Smith the Gamer (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Should this be left in do you think? If it is an unqualified elaboration of those countries which have been claimed to have provided support then maybe it does belong in this section. Mbcap (talk) 19:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have no preference. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 15:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for criticism of the name

At present, several of the sources attached to the sentence In June 2014 the group renamed itself the Islamic State (IS) but the new name has been widely criticized and condemned, with the UN, various governments, and mainstream Muslim groups refusing to use it. actually don't seem to discuss the name issue specifically, but just happen to use the name "ISIL" instead of "Islamic State". (This one stands out.) While I have no doubt in my mind that sources exist for this criticism (I'm not a fan of the name myself), a news article here and there (especially if it comes from within a week of the group unilaterally changing its name) that happens not to use the name "Islamic State" is not really a source for this claim. Could better ones be located? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hijiri88: which source you are talking about? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Every source that, whether or not it discusses the controversy surrounding the name, comes from within a month of the change (there's no reason to believe such early speculations are accurate representations of current practice) and every source that doesn't specifically address the controversy but just happens to refer to them as either ISIS or ISIL. I ask because, until checking Wikipedia, I wasn't aware of this controversy (sure it's offensive to mainstream Muslims when extremists try to impose terminology that implies they are the "true" representatives of Islam, but I also don't think such factors play a big role in how western media work). My main source of info on this group is the Japanese-language NHK news summary that gets beamed into my office at lunch every day, and they exclusively use the phrase Isuramu-koku (イスラム国, "the Islamic State"). After that I also read a bit of the English-language paper The Japan Times, which seem to also use the "Islamic State" wording more often. (Admittedly both of these sources' coverage is concentrated largely in the last few weeks with the WP:RECENT ≥Yukawa/Goto hostage incident.) My main "Western" source of news is The Young Turks: they use "ISIS" exclusively because (I forget when they said this but I think it was Ben Mankiewicz) it's "cooler" than ISIL and (presumably) IS. No reference to the the IS name being anti-Muslim despite most of the main host's family being Muslim. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicts involving ISIL

Is it me, or is the "Participant in.." section of the infobox becoming increasingly irritating (visually)? What if the group involves itself in further conflicts, will we keep listing them all here? I propose moving those to the sidebar template. Thoughts? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 22:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As long as they have participated, they will be listed under that parameter. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. We are now dealing with Template:Infobox country and this was obviously an invented 'parameter'. This could have been accurate when we had Template:Infobox war faction, which included a | battles = parameter. I'm not saying that we can't be creative to improve Wikipedia, but that simply isn't the case here. The list is becoming too long and it shouldn't be the first thing our readers come across when opening the article. These should be moved to the sidebar where they would appear less confusing. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 12:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think that there are advantages in having the "Participants in ..." content in close proximity to the File:Syria and Iraq 2014-onward War map.png. However other solutions may also work. GregKaye 14:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So if insurgents from Nigeria, Somalia, Philippines, etc also declared their allegiance to ISIL, we will list all the relevant conflicts here? Sorry, but that seems a bit ridiculous. I strongly suggest we at least decide on a certain casualties threshold for this section. In my opinion, conflicts which generated below 10,000 deaths since ISIL got significantly involved should be removed. These include Libya, Sinai, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We should be using Infobox:Geopolitical Organization. Legacypac (talk) 13:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2015

Please add to Allegations of outside influence - Iran


Ali Shirazi representative of Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Hosseini Khamenei during an interview published by the Defa Press news agency on January 25, 2015 was quoted as saying "The Houthi group is a similar copy to Lebanon's Hezbollah, and this group will come into action against enemies of Islam," "The Islamic republic directly supports the Houthis in Yemen, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the popular forces in Syria and Iraq," he said, adding that "officials in the country have reiterated this many times."

Last year Ali Akbar Velayati senior advisor to Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Hosseini Khamenei said Iran supported the "rightful struggles" of the Houthi movement in Yemen, and "considers this movement as part of the successful Islamic Awakening movements".[1][2]

Iran attempted to smuggle arms to Houthi separatists in Yemen[3][4]

References

  1. ^ https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/middle-east/16635-iranian-official-likens-yemens-houthis-to-hezbollah-in-lebanon
  2. ^ http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2015/01/26/Yemen-s-Houthis-similar-to-Lebanon-s-Hezbollah-Iran-official.html
  3. ^ http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/crt/2013/224826.htm
  4. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/15/world/middleeast/aiding-yemen-rebels-iran-seeks-wider-mideast-role.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

DrSalted (talk) 01:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, could you elaborate on what ANY of the above has to do withe so-called Islamic State? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. -- Sam Sing! 09:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish intervention against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

Would someone kindly take part in the discussion here regarding whether the existence of Turkish intervention against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant as a stand-alone article or its title are accurate or not. Regards. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is more notable is what Turkey has NOT done to intervene. Legacypac (talk) 12:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islamic_State&oldid=645762100"