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 24.163.57.88 (talk) at 11:28, 16 June 2015 (→‎Lebanon in the map?). 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 14 May 2015

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 17:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

– WP:CONSISTENCY with the main article Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant -- we have discussed the naming of the main article many many many times, so all subarticles should be consistent with the titling of the main article due to the extensive existing discussions, instead of trying to use a title that was rejected for the main article -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Support

Oppose

  • OPPOSE, because the full name is less common in usage in sources as compared to the more common acronyms "ISIL" and "ISIS". Per WP:ACRONYMTITLE. "Acronyms should be used in a page name if the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject (e.g. NASA; in contrast, consensus has rejected moving Central Intelligence Agency to its acronym, in view of arguments that the full name is used in professional and academic publications)." Per NASA. Khestwol (talk) 05:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the current titles have high recognisability and are more readable than the proposed titles. There are some instances in which an additional "the" is warranted. This isn't one of them. We wouldn't propose a move such as List of U.S. Highways in Georgia → List of United States Highways in Georgia or John Kelly (U.S. politician) → John Kelly (United States politician) and that's with a country that is a state. Request speedy closure. GregKaye 06:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Current titles are easier to read and in fact whenever we talk about these subjects in real, we mostly refer the organization as "ISIL". OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose ISIS is still in use and ISIL is occasionally used, whereas the only full names being frequently used are Islamic State and Da'ish. Don't use an obscure name that lengthens titles, even if it would be slightly better for consistency. Banak (talk) 11:21, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose All per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:COMMONSENSE. Almost no one will be searching for these articles using the newly proposed titles. Also, as others have pointed out above, the proposed new titles are cumbersome and excessively long. If there are concerns for someone actually doing a search using one of these titles, this can be resolved with a redirect. Bottom line; if it aint broke, don't fix it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:24, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since the articles are at titles invented by Wikipedians as descriptive titles, no one will be searching for them by the exact format used anyways, since they are titles created to describe their content. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 14:54, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 65.94.43.89 Google trends demonstrates that searches are made in the sequence: 1st, "Isis" (way ahead of the rest) so, just so we can see other results in perspective the trend results without "Isis" are repeated here. "Isil" comes a strong second, then "Islamic State" then "Daesh". Anyone searching on "Isis" or "Isil" will find our main article at the top of their search lists and anyone searching on "Islamic State" (from which our title is disambiguated) or on "Daesh" will similarly find our main article high up in listings.
On various rationales relating to representation we have not opted to present "Islamic State" but to disambiguate to the historic name "Islamic State of Iraq ant the Levant". This works with the main title but in other titles there is a difficulty that the Islamic State ..." beginning of the phrase can get lost following the preceding words. An "... ISI..." content is a lot more accommodating on the eye and is, with the use of several terms, is still very searchable. GregKaye 18:16, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

See also WP:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_11#ISIL_categories for related discussion on category names. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment curiously Britannica use: "Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) (militant organization)" and so use both titles contents in their titling. GregKaye 17:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter Wherever they're at, the redirects will work. All these terms should be essentially synonymous by now, to the general English public and especially to anyone discussing renaming. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:55, May 28, 2015 (UTC)

Counterproposal

– Per comments above. Per WP:RECOGNIZABLE, the proposed title "ISIL" has high recognizability. Even the article ISIL itself mostly uses "ISIL" rather than "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant". Per WP:CONSISTENCY, because many articles are already using "ISIL" in their titles. Per WP:CONCISE, "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" has 36 characters (including spaces), but "ISIL" has only 4 characters (i.e. I, S, I, and L). Per WP:COMMONNAME. "ISIL" is about 30 times as common as "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant". Google Search (-wikipedia) for "ISIL" gets about 22,300,000 results for "ISIL", but only about 755,000 results for "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant". (Note that our other options, i.e. "ISIS" and "Islamic State", refer to many other things besides ISIL, so their Google Search will get many results which are not about ISIL but other things. "ISIS" and "Islamic State" have been rejected on this talk page multiple times, so I am not including them here.) Per WP:ACRONYMTITLE. "Acronyms should be used in a page name if the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject (e.g. NASA; in contrast, consensus has rejected moving Central Intelligence Agency to its acronym, in view of arguments that the full name is used in professional and academic publications)." For "ISIL", both the conditions at ACRONYMTITLE's guideline, i.e. the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation, and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject, are easily fulfilled, because the full name "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" is not so commonly used. Per NASA, which is located at "NASA", not "National Aeronautics and Space Administration". Also, in Arabic Wikipedia, the article on ISIL is located at ar:داعش. Its title is using the native Arabic acronym داعش (DA'ISH) for ISIL, not the full Arabic name. Khestwol (talk) 07:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Survey (counterproposal)

Comment, in the comments on 65.94.43.89's proposal above, users have so far favored to use the acronym "ISIL" in the proposed titles, not the full name. So, what is their opinion regarding using the acronym "ISIL" in this title too, not the full name? Ping all the !voters there 65.94.43.89, GregKaye, OccultZone, Banak, Ad Orientem. Khestwol (talk) 21:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Stupid? Did you read anything written above and in the comments? On what rationale do you oppose? Khestwol (talk) 14:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TITLECHANGES, for one. There is no justification for moving a stable article from one controversial title to another. What's more, this group is not primarily known as "ISIL" by anyone. The full name is required. Please stop this pure disruption, which has no goal other than to harm the stability of the encylopaedia. RGloucester — ☎ 14:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
RGloucester, you have provided no rationale to oppose. Why is "the full name required", even when the article itself mostly refers to the group as "ISIL"? There is of course a justification provided above, hence your assertion to discourage a title change does not apply. Khestwol (talk) 14:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I only want to move towards a more recognizable, consistent, and concise COMMONNAME that is clear and unambiguous, and suitable per Wikipedia's guidelines. You are free to !vote, but please state your rationale and do not oppose because you WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT.
Please do not WP:PERSONAL attack me by calling this proposal stupid. Because it will only discourage our consensus-building process. Khestwol (talk) 15:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is very simple. The proposed title "ISIL" is not recognisable, as it does not adequately describe the subject. The subject is not known primarily by "ISIL", but by a variety of different names. In every case, the long forms are read out. Acronyms are useful in prose, but are not suitable for an encyclopaedic article title except in certain circumstances that do not exist here. RGloucester — ☎ 20:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I have got your POV now. Though I disagree with you. The obscurity and extremely rare usage of the long name "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" reduces its recognizability. Please note that WP:RECOGNIZABILITY states The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize. "ISIL" fulfills this guideline easily. The acronym is much more common in usage, as per the evidence from Google Search provided above. "ISIL" is about 30 times as common as "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant". This automatically means the acronym is more recognizable to someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject. Khestwol (talk)
"Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" is indeed too long, which obscures its recognizability. As a result, "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" is not as much in use as ISIS and ISIL. As for "Islamic State" however, many users have disagreed in past discussions. Khestwol (talk) 22:20, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was the editor that proposed Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → ISIS. While the proposed change has the advantage of increasing consistency while maintaining recognizability, I have recently also really recognised that editors search for the article under a range of terms such as "ISIS", "ISIL", "Islamic State" and, it seems, "Daesh". The proposed change may have effect with regard to some of the searchability of the main article. GregKaye 03:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
GregKaye, doesn't "ISIS" have the same sequence of letters and pronunciation though, as the ancient Egyptian goddess Isis? I think the two names "Isis" and "ISIS" are too similar and "ISIL" provides a natural disambiguation to avoid ambiguity. Khestwol (talk) 08:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Khestwol I personally see strengths in both options and think that yours is a very valid proposal. I certainly think that "Islamic State" is problematic for mainy issues regarding NPOV, international usages and a need for disambiguation but I think that "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" provides one suitable route to resolve these issues. "ISIL" would provide commonality in terminological use with other articles. I think that there are advantages either way. I have read the arguments that you have presented. GregKaye 09:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
GregKaye: Thank you! At least someone is supporting. Khestwol (talk) 12:14, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
GregKaye, so would you be happy if this article gets moved to "ISIL"? Khestwol (talk) 18:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
TY Khestwol, as mentioned I can see arguments both ways. However, with a bit of recent research, one of my concerns (relating to the formatting of the article's opener) has recently dissipated. I had thought that a change in title might have led to a potentially messy rewrite but a check across to the article for IBM indicated that this would not necessarily be the case. While I have no objection to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant I am also happy to support a move to ISIL. All the same I am very aware that this is, in Wikipedia terms, a fairly significant move to be bringing to consideration and think that it may be best to draw in contributions from editors who have contributed to previous RM discussions on this article to better establish consensus: pinging: @BD2412, In ictu oculi, DeCausa, Terror4us, P-123, Imc, and Gazkthul: GregKaye 20:31, 30 May 2015 (UTC) GregKaye 20:31, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OccultZone: But earlier above you opposed moving article titles to use the full form. And here you are also opposing from using the acronym, and yet within the comment only referring to the group as "ISIL" rather than the full form? Khestwol (talk) 12:14, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - no, more common in usage is "ISIS". Khestwol (talk) 21:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, more common usage is "Islamic State". DeCausa (talk) 21:48, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here is why your rationale is wrong. Google Search gives about 109,000,000 results for "ISIS" AND ("Iraq" OR "Syria"), but only about 47,500,000 results for "Islamic State" AND ("Iraq" OR "Syria"). The later even includes hits such as "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant", "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria", etc, hence it should be kept in mind the real hits for "Islamic State" must be a lower number than that. And yet, "ISIS" is still, by far, more common in usage than the phrase "Islamic State". Khestwol (talk) 22:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You've misled yourself. You've included in your searches periods when the other names were more common. No longer - usage has changed. DeCausa (talk) 22:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But evidence doesn't back the assertions you make up. Khestwol (talk) 06:13, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (counterproposal)

Any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Quranic justifications

@Mbcap: I read your edit summary. Sorry for not pursuing the thread regarding the issue. Could I have the link to that discussion? Mhhossein (talk) 13:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MhhosseinThere was a discussion a while back about this where the justification section was trimmed down. It should be in the archives. I am bogged down with exams so apologies for not posting a link. If you find no consensus for it, please do revert the edit. Mbcap (talk) 14:32, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder whether GregKaye can help with this. Mhhossein (talk) 07:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PNG or SVG emblem?

The file https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Seal_of_the_Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant.svg is a clearer and scalable version of the somewhat blurry .png file that is currently used in the infobox. The wikimedia description of the .png even recommends that the .svg version should be used whenever possible. Plus, all other emblems in infoboxes seem to use the scalable versions. Stygmax (talk) 22:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The use of this image was discussed in February at: Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/Archive 30#Emblem by Kathovo, Legacypac, Mbcap, Banak and LightandDark2000 and was removed. The last edit in the thread was a request to: "provide sources that corroborate the view that they use this emblem." It was re added by StanTheMan87 in a Revision as of 06:40, 6 May 2015 but I do not see how the inclusion of the image is warranted. GregKaye 04:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was mentioned in an article detailing a journalist's trip to ISIL-controlled territories. It stated that he had received ISIL's Seal on a letter (implying that they are still using seal), which authenticated their approval for his visit. LightandDark2000 (talk) 06:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from that, the current version of the Emblem is more detailed and better formed (in terms of the shapes and the writings), so it should be used in place of the other version. LightandDark2000 (talk) 06:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
LightandDark2000 Was this a newly printed emblem, a usage of an old piece of stationary, something else? Where can we see the image? How is it notable?
Re: "the current version of the Emblem is more detailed and better formed" is this in reference to the original version of the emblem as presented by the group or the representation produced as Wikipedia installed fanart? In whose opinion is it more detailed and better formed? Where have you seen it? GregKaye 04:19, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, I'm referring to the original version of the emblem as presented by ISIL , as the closer to the original, the better. LightandDark2000 (talk) 06:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone please "provide sources that corroborate the view that they use this emblem" as discussed GregKaye 12:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no source for this emblem. The emblem has the old name so I doubt there would be any credible source for this emblem. I have removed it. Mbcap (talk) 22:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how you define a source, but there are many, many images available online with that emblem clearly visible, see [1], [2] for examples Gazkthul (talk) 22:42, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the emblem is visible but it is not the one we have on this article. On this Wikipedia article page, the emblem reads ad dawla islamiya fee iraq washam encased around the seal but the emblem in the sources you have posted are different all together and consist of just the prophetic seal. Considering this, I have no idea why the current unsourced emblem has been re-included on this page. Mbcap (talk) 01:56, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From what editors are saying it may even be possible to develop a whole content on imagery used by the group. However, depending on images used, it may be difficult to pick one and to encyclopaedically say that this is their emblem in the way that we have done. GregKaye 04:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
related images were added in a Revision as of 01:08, 21 May 2015 by Illegitimate Barrister this time with use of File:Seal of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.svg instead of File:Emblem of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.png. Either way, this can work if images are representatively captioned. I have used: Emblem of Isil although, perhaps with the emblem reading ad dawla islamiya fee iraq washam, a direct indication of Daesh might be more applicable. Previous consensus was to use "emblem". GregKaye 05:41, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No single source has yet been provided for the emblem or seal. If there is no source, we should delete the emblem. Mbcap (talk) 07:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It would be helpful if an editor such as StanTheMan87 or Illegitimate Barrister could do so. There has already been too much edit warring on this article. GregKaye 21:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The emblem has now been removed as no sources have been provided. Mbcap (talk) 14:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2015

The map for ISIS depicts ISIS as having control of Ramadi, yet they only fully captured Ramadi on the 17th. The description of the map says it is depicting ISIS as of 12 May. Revise the description of the map to say it is depicting ISIS as of 19 May or 17 May.

Austinharig (talk) 23:01, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to take advantage of this talk page section to request a separate edit - there's an awkward line in the article that's been bothering me for what feels like quite a while. The final line in the opening section (This territorial loss almost caused a collapse of the Iraqi government that prompted renewal of US military action in Iraq.) I feel ought to be changed to "The territorial loss almost caused a collapse of the Iraqi government and prompted renewal of US military action in Iraq." 24.163.57.88 (talk) 06:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done I don't know who fixed the map caption, but it is an ongoing chore, as the map's author continually updates it at Commons, sometimes more than once a day (great job), but never changes the file name (which causes the article/caption to get out of sync.) I fixed the last sentence of the lede. Thanks both for pointing out these issues. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IS Map

First of all, thank you to whomever has been updating the map at the top of the article. I check in every other day or so to see how things have changed.

Is there anyone here with the expertise to combine these successive maps into a gif? I realize the image quality may have to be scaled back to make it a reasonably sized file, but it would be fascinating to watch the area progress in one animation. I have no idea how difficult this is to do. If I knew that much I would probably just try to make it myself. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 01:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen animations on YouTube and one gif on reddit, but don't have the links to hand. Banak (talk) 07:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Hezbollah to IS map

Is it possible to add Hezbollah to the IS map? Thousands of Hezbollah fighters are taking part in the Syrian civil war but its very unclear what part of the country they are controlling right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.84.124.225 (talk) 11:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd imagine it is almost certainly not possible, nor a good idea. They are on the same side as the Syrian Government.
  • The number of Hezbollah troops is disputed from a tiny number of advisors to being "pretty much the entire SAA". It's a major propaganda point for the rebels that they claim that only Hezbollah and Iran are left fighting them. Similarly the amount of ground that is controlled by whom.
  • They typically seem to have integrated into the Syrian Army to some extent, and therefore often don't fight alone.
  • It's likely to cause major edit warring because of the difference of opinions of the extent of the army, and pro-opp sources may call "Hezbollah advances" what the Syrian Gov calls "SAA advances".
  • When they're on the same side, it seems a massive waste to try to differentiate.
  • The map has already got a ton of colours. It's not even funny.
  • It's likely to cause the same shading colours as we got from splitting Al-Nusra from other rebels, because of their military cooperation.
  • There'd be a massive scramble to go over every single red dot and figure out what to colour it.
  • We'd need a ton of new symbols for the new colour, potentially unless we used blue.
Just my opinions, if I thought this were practical I'd be completely for it. But reality means, for me, this seems like an idea that wouldn't work out well. May I ask why you'd want to do this? Is it for the purpose of the effects this would have on the Lebanese module, or did you not realise they were included in the red colour already? Banak (talk) 22:17, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hezbollah are involved in fighting in Syria, but they aren't exercising territorial control anywhere. Gazkthul (talk) 05:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Lebanon military situation to IS map

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c9/Lebanese_insurgency.png/300px-Lebanese_insurgency.png Thoughts? It's just a matter of including Lebanon into the Iraq/Syria map, seeing as there is ISIS presence in Lebanon. I understand not including Nigeria and Libya, but I think Lebanon should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.148.113.212 (talk) 05:50, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I dislike the Lebanon map, because I believe it to be outdated and lacking in markers, as I've previously stated. However, we've previously had RFCs over map issues (notably Golan heights), so if you think enough people care, that might be the way to go. Previous changes also made a new file for changes to maps while discussion went on. Banak (talk) 07:34, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"extremist terrorist group" is a biased description

Hi, I think judgement should be avoided when posting encyclopedic content. "extremist terrorist group" is a biased description. Whether we agree or not with their views. The "terrorist" description is used to lightly and usually towards a particular ethnic group. Best 190.130.237.75 (talk) 13:36, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a valid point for discussion. I closed your edit request template, as we only post those for uncontroversial changes, or after a consensus has been reached.
At Wikipedia, (unlike some politicians or news media) it is best only to use the word terrorist when justified by the tactics or strategy (supported by reliable sources). We try not to let the article be swayed by whether we agree with their views.
In this case occasional use of the word is justified by the group's avowed strategy.
--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively we could state "extremist rebel group" because this wording was chosen in a consensus a few months ago. However, the current wording seems ok too. Khestwol (talk) 14:09, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as groups around the world and groups within the general category of Islam are concerned, ISIL are fairly described to be extreme.

This was recently discussed in discussion at Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/Archive_32#Use of label --> "Extremist" where it was shown that extremist is a far more widely used description for the group than rebel or other descriptions. Since then someone must have placed terrorist into the description and, while I don't think we should necessarily pander to descriptions used in RS, I think that the usage is far from unfair.

(isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND ("terrorist" OR "terrorism") gets "About 32,500 results" in books
(isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND ("terrorist" OR "terrorism") gets "About 25,100 results" in Scholar

Terrorist is by far the most widely used description. It also seems to me to a fitting description for a group that has produced threat laden captive beheading, throat slitting, shooting and burning videos and for a group that has resurrected the practice of public crucifixion. GregKaye 13:45, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is a a biassed description that also happens to go against Wiki guidelines on attribution. Google searches do not make a distinction between reliable and unreliable sources. Also there are possibly 10-20 books on this group so the result of 25,000 just shows that we cannot take these google searches too seriously. I think it is quite rich that when Islamic State is by far the most commonly used term for the group, there is all this resistance against the use of the name as the article title but at the same time we have this constant soapboxing when something happens to be used by a portion of the media establishment. Mbcap (talk) 14:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The only bias here is with a group that pushes people off buildings solely on the basis of their sexuality. The sources are from news, books and scholar. The "soapboxing" is by a group that claims to be "Islamic State" but makes war against and denounces Sufi, Shia and other Sunni groups. GregKaye 17:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to say I don't like either the word terrorist (such an abused term it's ridiculous) or the word extremist (tells you precisely nothing). --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 14:39, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

YeOldeGentleman would you describe ISIL as mainstream Islam? This is the description that is predominantly and very relevantly used by RS. GregKaye 17:24, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@GregKaye: Well, I would not say they are mainstream, but this does immediately throw up the issue of what word to use to describe their extra-mainstream position within Islam. I mean, obviously the IS fruits are Muslims, but a term that actually gives the reader an indication of which lunatic strand of Islam they adhere to would be best. The fact that this strand of Islam is adhered to by a small minority of Muslims then tells you everything you need to know about how mainstream the IS fruity-loops are.
I mean, even Nazi Germany doesn't get described with meaningless terms like extreme or loaded ones like terrorist. Many, including me, would say that, for example, the Сheney Administration was, amongst other things, extreme and terroristic; but no one thinks about using such language on Wikipedia, even about that ghastly bunch of people.
Feel free to disagree with what I've said, of course. I'm always open to having my mind changed! --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 23:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The words "extremist" and "terrorist" are very clearly defined and are widely and accurately used in description of this group.
Cheyney may, in some ways, have been a bit of a so to speak dick but I doubt if even he would have gone to the "extremes" of selectively choosing women who had been caught in adultery to stone them to death (while still giving permission for other women to be used as sexual slaves). "Insurgent" is another commonly used word.
(isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND ("insurgent" OR "insurgency") gets "About 6,360 results" in books
(isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND ("insurgent" OR "insurgency") gets "About 11,600 results" in scholar
GregKaye 23:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If there are less than 20 books on this group, how are their 6,360 books? Mbcap (talk) 23:52, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you claiming bias here as well? GregKaye 06:11, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just trying to advocate for the devil here, wouldn't it be more accurate to describe them as a extremist or radical (perhaps Islamist) militant group? It seems pretty clear that they are engaged in maneuvers to capture strategic objectives and hold them. They are, in many ways, a military force. This seems pretty distinct from the traditional terrorism of blowing things up to instill fear or advance an agenda. And let's be honest, there is no shortage of historical examples of militaries that did all of these terrible things to the people they conquered. The Khans make ISIL seem amateurish. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 02:33, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As has been demonstrated in numerous previous discussions, the most regularly used descriptor for the group, which has been edited out of both the ideologies reference and the opening description, is "Sunni". GregKaye 06:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see the relevance. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 10:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We are editing an encyclopedia. I don't see issue with the current and accurate descriptions used but some description needs to remain. We can't just remove stuff without presenting constructive ideas of what can remain. You are the only other editor to have done this. GregKaye 12:16, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To refer to them as Sunni is perfectly fine. I don't think anyone is contesting that. I was trying to contrast the use of the word terrorist with the use of the word militant. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 18:39, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This group has been variously described as militant, insurgent, Sunni, Islamist, Jihadist and Salafist, each of which is more precise in definition than extremist. Extremist is very ill defined, you will only have to look at the fiasco with the new law being introduced in the UK to appreciate that. Also these google searches need to be carefully looked at because there is no way there are 6,360 books on the group and that is a fact. There are only about a dozen books on the group. Serious academic publications do not use vague terms like 'extremist'. Take for example the recent publication by the Institute for the Study of War, "THE ISIS DEFENSE IN IRAQ AND SYRIA: COUNTERING AN ADAPTIVE ENEMY[3]", which compares IS to an insurgency but at the same time says it is different from an insurgency. Another example is the publication by the Brookings Institution titled, "From paper state to caliphate: The ideology of the Islamic State[4]" which refers to them variously as Salafist or Jihadi Salafist. I suggest we review the various sources and agree on a more precise and accurate descriptor for the group.

Based on your sources, Jihadi Salafist appears to be apt wording. It seems more specific and descriptive than either terrorist or militant. They both may be true, but there is a thin line between vague truth and meaninglessness. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 04:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ideology of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant includes a section saying "global jihadist" - the term is also applicable to Boko Haram, Al-Shabaab and other groups who promote themselves as global jihad, and declare allegiance to ISIL. -- Aronzak (talk) 11:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The content mentioned presents: Ideology of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#A Sunni (Salafi) based ideology. I don't think that Wikipedia should be used to soapbox group supportive interpretations on jihad or to be drawn into used less commonly used descriptions. Jihad is commonly understood as being a doctrine of primarily spiritual and secondarily physical defence as a adopted by Muslims and arguably it is very far from application to many of the expansionist policies of ISIL. A concept of "waging a jihad" is an oxymoron. GregKaye 15:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While I presume the complaint at the beginning of this thread was made in good faith, it is clearly misguided. Pretty much the entire world outside of radical Islam considers the group to be both extremist and terrorist. There is an ocean of RS sources confirming this. No obligation exists to refrain from negative descriptives in an article if they are unquestionably accurate. In this case I think suggesting that the group is anything other than extremist and terrorist would be so far off base and divorced from reality, that it could be fairly described as fringe. Beyond which it contradicts both WP:BLUE and WP:COMMONSENSE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Categorized as "Theocracy"?

It's true, of course, that they use religion to justify all their atrocities, and Baghdadi claims religious authority over all Muslims as caliph, but as far as I'm aware, very few if any of the people in charge can be considered clergy. Does a dictatorship being run by someone who claims that they're doing God's work automatically justify the designation "theocracy"? 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:C421:D27F:537:E61E (talk) 03:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The designation seems to fit the three sources given for the definition on Theocracy. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 06:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I guess they might be described as a "claimed theocracy" but similar might be said about other groups. It can certainly be debated whether any group is a true theocracy as a group governed by a god/God. I can also honestly say that I have not spent time in the presence of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi but, on the one recent occurrence that I know of where pictures have been produced, he has appeared in clerical type robes. GregKaye 11:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Think of a theocracy as a group governed by theology, not so much a group governed by a god or gods. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 22:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What do you call a group governed a military? That's what I think of when I think ISIS. The New York Times seems to agree. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:44, May 28, 2015 (UTC)
Daesh has members claiming to be imams, so they have a clergy of sorts. The biggest issue is whether or not the sources label it a theocracy. If they do, we do. If they don't, we don't. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. So, what do the sources say? 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:C421:D27F:537:E61E (talk) 00:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The ISIL article is currently in Category:Proclaimed but largely unrecognised caliphates. I have placed this category into Category:Theocracies. The issue presented in the article is the group's claims to be caliphate. In lieu authoritative substantiation to declare it a theocracy then this direct reference should be removed. GregKaye 09:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
People really should stick with wikipedia Reliable Sources. So, here is the Boston Globe:
"Starting last fall, ISIS began imposing its theocratic rule over a wide swath of Syria, then quickly wrested control of the emblematic Iraqi cities of Fallujah and Ramadi. With the more recent attacks, it menaced the government in Baghdad; it also forced President Obama to reengage with a war from which he thought he had extricated the United States."
https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2014/06/28/the-surprising-appeal-isis/l9YwC0GVPQ3i4eBXt1o0hI/story.html XavierItzm (talk) 12:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Add a time event on may 2015

YPG advanced against Islamic State in northeastern Syria on Al-Hasakah region. They took more than 4000 km2. [1] [2]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 21:32, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.naiz.eus/eu/actualidad/noticia/20150527/los-kurdos-recuperan-al-ei-4-000-kilometros-cuadrados-en-el-noreste-de-siria
  2. ^ https://www.en.zamanalwsl.net/news/10133.html

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.147.254.133 (talk • contribs) 13:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Facts, not emotionalism

The statement "is an Islamic extremist terrorist group controlling territory in...." should be edited to just state "is an Islamic group controlling territory in...." for accuracy as "terrorist" is an overused term that is now vague and virtually meaningless. Lets stick to information, not inflammatory opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VulPecula (talk • contribs) 13:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Facts, it is sad to say, are facts. They have their behaviours and we are here to provide descriptive content. Please see the very recent discussion where exactly I think bias was overruled at #"extremist terrorist group" is a biased description. We stick with sources as per encyclopedic policy. Please read options as mentioned. GregKaye 19:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The simplest thing to do is to refer to Wikipedia Reliable Sources. In this case, the BBC states simply:
Islamic State (IS) is a radical Islamist group
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29052144 XavierItzm (talk) 12:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "The simplest thing to do is to refer to Wikipedia Reliable Sources." If that is what you say then please note that the most often cited description for the group as shown in reliable sources is terrorist. This has been demonstrated time and again. You are still picking and choosing your sources GregKaye 10:20, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sources for the above statement statement? Here a canonical source is brought: the BBC's definition for "What is Islamic State?". This RS, by the way, resolves the issue raised regarding "Facts, not emotionalism". I am not sure what value the above statement, devoid of sources, adds to the discussion. XavierItzm (talk) 15:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree we need to present facts rather than presenting what is not fact. Please could someone define terrorist or extremist. Regardless we should not use such words in the lead at least because these are contention labels. Even if used we should provide attribution which is clearly not the case at the moment. I agree with XavierItzm that the BBC descriptor is better. Problem is editors come with these concerns about the contentious descriptor of 'extremist' or 'terrorist' but then leave the page after a while so it creates an impression that the current status quo is the consensus when in fact it is not if taken as a whole. Also for some reason the word terrorist has been slipped into the lead which is also a very contentious and absurd label. There was no consensus for the word terrorist. Why is it in the lead? Mbcap (talk) 23:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merge from Penal Code of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

A stub that might be better incorporated herein. FeatherPluma (talk) 01:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the article does any harm being there. It provides a minimal but succinct summary which may, or may not, be expanded upon in relation to content of documented speeches etc. Certainly at present it doesn't amount to much. GregKaye 20:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lead sentence

The Lead states:

"The new name and the idea of a caliphate has been widely criticised and condemned, with the United Nations, various governments, and mainstream Muslim groups all refusing to acknowledge it."

What is "it"? The group, the new name and/or the idea of a caliphate? ~ P-123 (talk) 12:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The new name (been nearly a year thought) has been criticized but I am not so sure about caliphate. Their idea of the caliphate maybe but the normative concept of a caliphate is accepted by traditionalist and orthodox Muslims. Maybe the sentence needs to be clarified. Mbcap (talk) 14:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does need clarification. What about "refusing to accept the legitimacy of the group's claims", or is that still too vague? ~ P-123 (talk) 15:17, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A very good point. "... refusing to accept the legitimacy of the group's claims" sounds good to me. Alternatively "it" be swapped for "them". GregKaye 19:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Declassified DIA Report - Various media allege this is proof that the US knowingly facilitated the rise of ISIL

A Defense Intelligence Agency document declares that in 2012, the US considered the establishment of a Salafist organization in eastern Syria in order to further the downfall of the Assad regime.

Extracts from the declassified DEA document http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/05/newly-declassified-u-s-government-documents-the-west-supported-the-creation-of-isis.html

Various other sources, for instance http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article42026.htm

In light of the whole subject apparently being rather controversial, I would like to get some of your views before making an attempt to include this. Do you think this is legit and should be referenced? And if not, why not? 210.1.218.149 (talk) 11:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those strike me as remotely credible sources for such an exceptional claim. (One is a blog and the other is, well, this; it appears to be someone's private website, makes no claims to editorial control or fact-checking, etc.) That particular claim is clearly WP:EXCEPTIONAL, meaning it probably requires coverage from multiple established, reputable mainstream news sources before we can include it. See WP:RS for more details on what makes a reputable source. --Aquillion (talk) 07:21, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. There are plenty of reliable sources that have described how U.S. policies could have inadvertently created conditions conducive to ISIL's rise (the same could be said of Iraqi government policies, Syrian policies, Iranian policies, and any number of other factors, like drought), but this is quite different from claiming that the U.S. government wanted or planned for the establishment of a violent, transnational terrorist group. This article may be of interest.TheBlueCanoe 19:56, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It has been on my mind for some time that this page may benefit from an exclusion of contribution from non registered users.
There is a huge difference between leaving a situation that had, with a variety of influences, developed the conditions for ISIL to evolve and the wilful "establishment of a Salafist organization in eastern Syria". GregKaye 12:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite possible that some blogs made a sensational misinterpretation of the document. It is hazardous for untrained people (like most of us) to interpret primary sources on controversial topics, especially this one that is largely redacted. Judicial Watch itself, that published the document[5] from its FOI request, concludes the opposite of the above quoted blogs.[6]. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Jenner and Islamic State

Bruce Jenner declared he now has a new name, and the Wikipedia immediately renamed his page. The Islamic State declared a year ago its name is Islamic State, and the Wikipedia does not use the name "Islamic State", which is used, for example, by canonical sources such as the BBC.[1] ---XavierItzm (talk) 15:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your Tax Dollars at Work: A Grossly Oversimplified, Overtly Optimistic Situation Map

The stench of this page reeks, of Pentagon and CIA propaganda. One example which serves to underline my contention quite effectively: the accompanying situation map portraying steady Pentagon progress against ISIS, in the absence of none. How to lie with cartography for idiots, 101: Not only does your situation map fail, miserably so, to depict the current situation, in Iraq and Syria? The information your situation map conveys, is patently false! Over the course of several months, illustrated in gray 2-cell cartography located in the right-whel accompanying this page, the cartographer of your handy-dandy "ISIS situation map" has, from December of 2014 to June of 2015, erroneously assumed, perhaps a function of wishful thinking, a constant progression of force sweeping ISIS away, magically materializing to a warm, reassuring, ever diminishing area of influence ISIS is portrayed to control in Syria and Iraq when, in actuality, total urban area plus total population under ISIS "control" (e.g., as opposed to ISIS "presence") increased significantly throughout what's left of Syria and Iraq.

So you believe the marks on the map are misleading, or the shading disingenuous? Unless you want rural areas to be somehow shown as such, I'm not sure what can be done. At any rate, you might want to mention this on the relevant module or image talk-pages, and please sign in future. Banak (talk) 11:37, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lebanon in the map?

I find it strange for Lebanon to be on the map. Lebanon isn't in the war. Areas 'controlled' by Hizbullah aren't really controlled, it's more like 'protected' and this is how it has been since a long time. There is no conflict in Lebanon and I see the addition of Lebanon to the map as unnecessary misleading clutter. --Kuwaity26 (talk) 07:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

if Lebanon and Hezbollah are going to be on the map could someone desaturate the colors to be in line with everything else on the map it looks atrocious 24.163.57.88 (talk) 08:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have misgivings about this map, but a voice or two every couple of days has appeared asking for it. RFC time like with the Israel issue? Banak (talk) 22:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Is the Islamic State involved in active engagements within Lebanon and is there enough data to support a map? If the answer to both is yes then addition of Lebanon is worthwhile. If not then it should be left alone. Mbcap (talk) 02:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I like it. The Islamic state IS in Lebanon, as you can see from the map. --Monochrome_Monitor 05:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The map, which by the way, still looks atrocious and like a bad ms paint job compared to Iraq and Syria. The colors are still offensively saturated. 24.163.57.88 (talk) 11:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But then that applies to Saudi Arabia too. DAESH had engaged with the Saudi borders guard some months ago, and they're bombing and trying to bomb a mosque there every week. Does that mean Saudi Arabia too should be added to the map? --Kuwaity26 (talk) 07:28, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No. They aren't holding ground in SA, but they are holding ground (albeit very minimal) in Lebanon. --Monochrome_Monitor 11:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hezbollah

You guys added it to the map! That's great! Puts things in perspective. --Monochrome_Monitor 05:53, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Template:Http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29052144
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islamic_State&oldid=667181281"