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 Mbcap (talk | contribs) at 23:07, 23 July 2015 (→Alternative proposal: one-year moratorium on move proposals). 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.)

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]

References

  1. ^ www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29052144

---XavierItzm (talk) 15:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: I edited the above post per WP:TPG#Fixing format errors to fix some formatting errors. No content was changed or removed. For details see respective edit sums. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC))[reply]

"Islamic State" is not a living person. Please see the biography of living persons policy. RGloucester — ☎ 22:11, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The biography of living persons is bandied about to justify instantaneous renaming of transexuals on their say-so; apparently, absent a Common Sense Policy on Names of Theocratic Organisations, Wikipedia must continue using obsolete names for them? XavierItzm (talk) 10:20, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We have plenty of policy on organization names and we have been following it just fine. This post is not even remotely on topic. Legacypac (talk) 09:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Funny that, because as of now, the name of the article does not represent either the common name nor the self-designated name. XavierItzm (talk) 22:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox country

Is it a country? Is there any international recognition? In my eyes this box could cause a misunderstanding. -- 88.76.97.147 (talk) 14:08, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ISIS is not a state. This should be changed to use {{Infobox war faction}}. Jmj713 (talk) 17:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ISIS is a state, since it controls a territory and a people, and has political authority, thus having all three attributes of a state. So, on Wikipedia, ISIS should be treated like all states and thus Infobox Country should be on the article about ISIS. Faunas (talk) 23:09, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ISIS is not a state. Jmj713 (talk) 23:45, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just because John Kerry says so does not mean it's not. Government officials have other reasons for saying ISIS is not a state other than simply stating fact, such as their government not wanting to recognise ISIS as a state. Faunas (talk) 17:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, that article states that ISIS now rules over a territory and a people, two prerequisites of being a state. If you want to go with authorities, Foreign Policy states that the rise of ISIS paralels the rise of the Soviet Union in an important way: both were seen as mere terrorist gangs before being recognised as states, while always having a territory, a people and political authority. In territories it controls, ISIS also has courts and police forces and applies its own laws (which are said to be based on Sharia, but that's another story), so it has political power; this, plus its self-legitimization as a caliphate, gives it political authority. Thus, it is a state, independently of recognition by other states. Faunas (talk) 18:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What is a "state"? Does ISIS have a centralized government that maintains a monopoly of the legitimate use of force? Iapetus (talk) 16:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It used to be a Infobox Political Organization which suited it well. ISIL fails key elements of statehold and is not a state. Wiokipedia reflects sources, it does not make judgements and go ahead of sources declaring a new state in the world. Legacypac (talk) 09:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Updated to infobox war factionG8j!qKb (talk) 09:30, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I propose name change from Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant to --------> Islamic State (IS) or Islamic State (group)

since it controls places outside iraq and the levant as well. Khaleejian (talk) 06:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Look at the many previous name change discussions at the topic of this page please. Also if you are concerned about accuracy, it should be noted that it is not a state (nor is it Islamic, according to RS). —МандичкаYO 😜 12:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I suggest you start a discussion on what disambiguation to use for the name "Islamic State (....)". Then we can start an RM as a name change is long overdue. Mbcap (talk) 23:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As this article is subject to arbitrary sanctions, and some people feel moving the article to "Islamic State" would violate NPOV, it would be wise to wait several months before doing an RM. There have been four failed attempts at an RM to Islamic State/Islamic State (disamb) since September. —МандичкаYO 😜 04:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, the current page name is enormous POV. It was only used by Obama to indicate the ones they were going to fight, as they wanted to keep Syria out of it. Uninformed name changes are not an argument in support of them. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 12:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bataaf van Oranje What are your thoughts on considering a name change? What name would you think more appropriate? Mbcap (talk) 14:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support for Islamic State (IS) - But there needs to be disambiguation used in the title. For example, Islamic State (group), Islamic State (Islamist group) or Islamic State (IS). These are similar disambiguations used for the Khorasan Group.

In relation to Wikipedia policy concerning article titles, as per WP:COMMONNAME the Islamic State (IS) or Islamic State (ISIS) designation is by far the most recognizable. These top English-language sources see more use of the Islamic State (IS/ISIS) term than any other term for the group:
BBC- [2]
Associated Press - [3]
Vice News - [4]
Reuters - [5]
PBS - [6]
ABC - [7]
New York Times - [8]

I have only cited these institutions, becuase in my opinion, these are the most widely known and reliable English-language media sources. Media sources should be the ones used, and they will determine whether a term has broad recognition among people. You will find the trend to use the Islamic State and all its renditions such as Islamic State group or Islamic State (IS) as outweighing the usage of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant in most English-language sources.


The search results for Islamic State group:
Reuters - 13,300 results [9]
PBS - 25,200 results [10]
ABC - 6,553 results [11]
New York Times - 18,564 results [12]
NPR - 3,980 results [13]

The search results for the current term Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant were as follows:
Reuters - 941 results [14]
PBS - 690 results [15]
ABC - 3,331 results [16]
New York Times - 1,124 [17]
NPR - 87 results [18]

Also remember as per WP:TITLECHANGES, that " the choice of title is not dependent on whether a name is "right" in a moral or political sense." This relegates any feeble excuse that naming the group to the Islamic State (with a disambiguation) as being against morals and principles to be meaningless. The argument that it may offend or it is politically incorrect is therefore null-and-void on this Encyclopedia, and holds no water.

Google searches among the terms and the corresponding results figure:

  1. Islamic State (IS) comes up with 82,000,000 results - [19]
  2. Islamic State (group) comes up with 78,200,000 results - [20]
  3. Islamic State (Islamist group) comes up with 5,290,000 results - [21]
  4. The current name used in the article, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant only comes up with 1,310,000 results - [22]

Any attempt to counter this proposal will obviously be meant with the constant regurgitation of WP:POVTITLE. However, the current title is in violation of this very policy, as the intent on keeping this article from being named the correct title and more recognizable, as per WP:COMMONNAME is in order to ingrain a certain POV against this group, which violates the policy. At the end of the day, the current poposal is not only the groups official name, and therefore pertaining to WP:NPOVTITLE, but also to WP:COMMONNAME, as shown above. StanTheMan87 (talk) 17:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per COMMONNAME a better case can be made for "ISIS", however both titles the ambiguous but concise "Islamic State" and the common acronym "ISIS" were rejected multiple times recently, in a short time period, for various reasons which can be found in the past discussions. Khestwol (talk) 19:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal is to change the name to "Islamic State" with an appropriate disambiguation. "ISIS" is not proposed, and quite frankly, that ship has already sailed. Using an acronymization of a groups former name as the article name is ridiculous. This is especially the case when the reason to refrain from using the proposed name is to dissociate the group from what it claims it represents in a bid to POV-push. I remind you per WP:TITLECHANGES, that " the choice of title is not dependent on whether a name is "right" in a moral or political sense." Also, "ISIS" has too many other connotations placed upon it, see Isis (disambiguation).
Google searches among the terms and the corresponding results figure. If we add in "ISIS" and the disambiguation of "group" or "Islamist group", we get this. However, adding in "IS" with the disambiguation of "group" gathers the most results:
  1. IS (group) comes up with 4,110,000,000 results - [23]
  2. ISIS (group) comes up with 137,000,000 results - [24]
  3. Islamic State (IS) comes up with 82,000,000 results - [25]
  4. Islamic State (group) comes up with 78,200,000 results - [26]
  5. ISIS (Islamic State) comes up with 41,600,000 results - [27]
  6. Islamic State (Islamist group) comes up with 5,290,000 results - [28]
  7. ISIS (Islamist group) comes up with 3,680,000 results - [29]
  8. The current name used in the article, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant only comes up with 1,310,000 results - [30]
Moreover, those sourced I cited still favor the term "Islamic State" and all its renditions such as "Islamic State group" or "IS" allot more than ISIS. If the title was to be changed to "ISIS", it would need to be "Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham" or "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" with the disambiguation of "ISIS" added in, e.g "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)".
Google searches among the terms and the corresponding results figure. If we add in "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria or Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham and the disambiguation of "ISIS", we get this:
  1. IS (group) comes up with 4,110,000,000 results - [31]
  2. ISIS (group) comes up with 137,000,000 results - [32]
  3. Islamic State (IS) comes up with 82,000,000 results - [33]
  4. Islamic State (group) comes up with 78,200,000 results - [34]
  5. ISIS (Islamic State) comes up with 41,600,000 results - [35]
  6. Islamic State of Iraq and Syria comes up with 29,700,000 results - [36]
  7. Islamic State (Islamist group) comes up with 5,290,000 results - [37]
  8. ISIS (Islamist group) comes up with 3,680,000 results - [38]
  9. The current name used in the article, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant only comes up with 1,310,000 results - [39]
  10. Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham comes up with only 597,000 results - [40]
This is a rough indication that the two terms associated with the acronym "ISIS" are not as popular as the proposed "Islamic State" name, and both the disambiguations cited. StanTheMan87 (talk) 07:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support - I strongly prefer "Islamic State"; the main issue is that we are letting too much depend on politics. The fact that many prominent news outlets have recently used a new name is not enough to warrant imitation. "ISIL" is a recent, primarily Democrat American-term that U.S. President Obama first used in this speech:[1]

    In Iraq and Syria, American leadership – including our military power – is stopping ISIL’s advance. Instead of getting dragged into another ground war in the Middle East, we are leading a broad coalition, including Arab nations, to degrade and ultimately destroy this terrorist group. We’re also supporting a moderate opposition in Syria that can help us in this effort, and assisting people everywhere who stand up to the bankrupt ideology of violent extremism. This effort will take time. It will require focus. But we will succeed. And tonight, I call on this Congress to show the world that we are united in this mission by passing a resolution to authorize the use of force against ISIL.

    It has generally been seen as a political move to omit focus on Syria after the diplomatic "failure" with Assad in 2013. As he had promised not to have ground troops on Syria's soil, saying he was going to fight the Islamic State in Syria would likely garner a lot of criticism. My own country had an issue with the acronyms, and we have now long adopted Islamitische Staat ("Islamic State"). It takes the vital part of both "ISIS" and "ISIL" and can be used as a main article with perhaps the subarticles for IS in Syria and Iraq. I prefer "Islamic State" over "IS" for the simple reason that "IS" is far too generic.
Two very informative articles:
ISIS or ISIL? The debate over what to call Iraq’s terror group
‘ISIS’ vs. ‘ISIL’ vs. ‘Islamic State’: The political importance of a much-debated acronym
Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 23:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "Islamic State" as AT - StanTheMan87 Thank you for helping this move forward. I personally think stand alone "Islamic State" is the best name but I am happy to go with disambiguation if there is some sort of consensus on what disambiguation to use. I have no preference for IS or ISIS for disambiguation, though an explanation by yourself as to which is more appropriate would be most helpful. Also I should mention that Google searches can be difficult to interpret and they also make no distinction between reliable and unreliable sources. Our considerations should be towards the name being used by reliable sources for the group post 29th June 2014 (post name change) and in that regard the use of "Islamic State" is significantly more common than the other names. Mbcap (talk) 02:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately Mbcap, a disambiguation must be used. We tried before to change it to Islamic State and the common point cited against us was that those of us in favor of changing it to Islamic State could not agree on a disambiguation. We had (Islamist rebel group), (Islamist group), (group) or just (IS). We need to reach a consensus on this and then, using credible and reliable English-language sources, some of which have already been cited, we can vehemently push for the name to change. They will be able to use nothing to oppose such a change. I personally favor either Islamic State (group) or Islamic State (IS) as these two terms are used abundantly in English-language media, and had the highest search results through Google. In some articles they are referred to as the "Islamic State group" [41] or "Islamic State (IS)" and then will be continuously referred to as "IS" for the rest of the article [42]. Google searches do not filter out unreliable sources, but it is still a rough indicator on which terms are more commonly used in the English language through the worlds largest search engine. StanTheMan87 (talk) 07:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
StanTheMan87 I understand. I would go for "Islamic State (IS)" because then we can us IS as short form for the rest of the article but then again because "Islamic State" is more concise, we may not need to use an abbreviation. Mbcap (talk) 12:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" (Isil) is not a recent term nor an American term nor an Obama term. It has been the standard long form name for the group in British usage from day one, before any western military involvement. You fellows need to stop now, whilst you're ahead. If you want to move the article, start an RM. Don't play little games here on the talk page for the thousandth time. The present title provides WP:NATURAL disambiguation, as specified by our article title policy, as "Islamic State" is ambiguous. RGloucester — ☎ 05:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As per the cited sources above, it is now abundantly clear that "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" (Isil) is no longer the favorite or commonly used term by many reputable and credible English-language media sources. I have cited the major ones, I can cite many more if you wish in order to ram home this point. "Islamic State" and all the main disambiguations such as "group", "Islamist group" and "IS" outweigh the current title in use, and it has been like this for a long time. Once a disambiguation has been reached among those calling for the title to change, you will have absolutely nothing, no basis to prevent the name from changing. StanTheMan87 (talk) 07:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TITLECHANGES, for one. There's also the matter that WP:NATURAL disambiguation is always preferred to parenthetical disambiguation, meaning that any parenthetical disambiguator is secondary to the natural disambiguator currently used. Common usage is not the sole determination of whether we name an article a certain thing. Please see WP:NATURAL, which says "Natural disambiguation: If it exists, choose an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title. Do not, however, use obscure or made-up names". Even if the current title is not the most common, it is the most in line with our policies. RGloucester — ☎ 14:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
RGloucester, you can't possibly think the current title is a stable one. The fact that is has been in use for about a year for very poor reasons is not nearly enough to ensure its shaky status quo. Several times "no consensus" was assumed even though there has been a clear consensus from day one that "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" is far too POV. I do not know if you have any specific interests in this issue or if you are merely tired of it being discussed, but with an "almost moved" every two months there must be a good reason for our persistence (not that I had anything to do with any previous discussions, mind you). Read the two articles I posted and tell me what's wrong with them. I don't see why we need to alarm some sort of official authority group when TP goers are capable of discussing it. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 16:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Every title that involves this group is a "POV" title, which is exactly why WP:TITLECHANGES applies. Your repeated clamouring and "persistence" is only disruption, nothing more. You fail, once again, to recognise that the present title is a form of WP:NATURAL disambiguation, as specified by our policies. RGloucester — ☎ 17:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the WP:NATURAL disambiguation which states that the entity is the "Islamic State (of Iraq and the Levant)"? This used to be the case, until around 8 months ago where IS has expanded to locations around the world leading this "Natural" disambiguation to be worthless, in that it leads to ambiguity surrounding the groups presence. It's no longer a "Natural" disambiguation it is an ambiguation. StanTheMan87 (talk) 16:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. WP:NATURAL disambiguation is specifically NOT parenthetical disambiguation. Please read the policy again. RGloucester — ☎ 00:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
RGloucester , you have failed to actually interpret what I had typed. The "Natural" disambiguation which separates the term "Islamic State" from the philosophical/Political concept of an 'Islamic State" is the phrase "of the Iraq and the Levant", that is why I typed "Islamic State (of Iraq and the Levant)", putting the "Natural" disambiguation into brackets for you. So I will repeat again: The phrase "of the Iraq and the Levant" which constitutes the "Natural" disambiguation you are ranting on about in the article title is worthless and meaningless now. It now leads to ambiguity surrounding the groups presence due to the fact it no longer confined to the regions of the Iraq and the Levant. It's no longer a "Natural" disambiguation it is an ambiguation. The only possible reason you keep maintaining this "Natural" disambiguation is therefore to POV push, just like how western politicians refer to it as "ISIL" in order to intentionally de-legitimize the group then if they referred to it as "Islamic State". Because your "Natural" disambiguation is therefore worthless, (this is shown due to the all the change of name requests launched on this talk page to change it to "Islamic State" with a parenthetical disambiguation), you have no case to keep citing WP:NATURAL as an excuse. StanTheMan87 (talk) 06:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - the number hits appear to be skewed because of use of abbreviations; this does not seem to be taken into account. For example, if an article refers to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, they are going to use this ONCE in the story and the 12 other references will be referring to it as ISIL. Additionally, this search doesn't consider disclaimers; note the BBC here says they refer to ISIS as the "So-called Islamic State."[43] —МандичкаYO 😜 02:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support changing name to 'Islamic State'. This is the name of the group. DylanLacey (talk) 12:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is not the group in regard to references made by the majority of its many neighbours many of whom make similar claim to being Islamic (and yet do not kill journalist and aid workers etc. The name Daesh, a parallel to ISIL, is consistently and regularly used. GregKaye 05:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I thought we were jumping the gun. Banak (talk) 13:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And when such a request opens, I am happy to just copy and past what I have typed here. StanTheMan87 (talk) 16:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Islamic State (IS) is neutral, well known and unambiguous. I agree that ISIS and ISIL are inappropriate as the group controls territory beyond Iraq and Syria/al-Sham/the Levant. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 06:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: There's no good reason to change the title and I oppose the change per WP:TITLECHANGES. Many reliable sources still use the term 'Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant'. By the way, some sources such as BBC are alleged to act so that the term 'Islamic State' is legitimized. Check sources such as 1, 2 and 3 to get the point. Mhhossein (talk) 14:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your points for opposing have all been invalidated further up in the discussion. There are more reasons to change it than to keep the current title. The BBC is retaining using the term "Islamic State" and also in various capacities such as the preface "so-called" and "Islamic State group" [44], [45] as it is impartial, something this Encyclopedia should be as well. And yet people like you still have a POV to push. That is unacceptable, and has no place here. StanTheMan87 (talk) 14:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@StanTheMan87: please take personal attacks seriously and consider that "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" is regarded as personal attack. However, no one can ignore the facts that still many sources use the original title for calling the group. You may find some more sources by a little search. By the way, “I have to say that I have a different view of what impartiality means to the BBC,” take a look at Criticism of the BBC! Mhhossein (talk) 12:30, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@StanTheMan87: You regarded those who express their ideas (which are not the same as yours) here as POV pushers by saying: "Any attempt to counter this proposal will obviously be meant with the constant regurgitation of WP:POVTITLE". Mhhossein (talk) 12:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mhhossein: Yawn, so your definition of 'many' sources is two, Al-Jazeera and The Independent (That is not an invite for you to post every single source you can find on the web using "ISIL"). Not saying these sources don't qualify as reliable sources, but they pale in comparison in terms of reliability and NPOV to the BBC, Reuters and the Associated Press all three of which use the term "Islamic State" in one capacity or another as cited above. I find it rather interesting that you criticize the BBC's reputation for impartiality, yet to "support" your point about maintaining the term "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" you cite Al-Jazeera, owned and controlled by the Qatari government (I emphasis the word control, becuase although the BBC is the national broadcaster for the UK, it is not controlled by the UK government in the way that al-Jazeera is by the Qatari government, Russia Today by the Russian government etc.) and The Independent, an opinionated newspaper with a clear political alignment and agenda. Frankly, this pretty much summarizes your argument on impartiality as a joke. Next, it is a fact you are a POV pusher. The reason for this conclusion is the fact that you cannot support your contention with any Wikipedia Policy. Not one. Lets go through the main WP when it comes to article changes, shall we?
1.WP:COMMONNAME - This policy supports the usage of the term "Islamic State" with a parenthetical disambiguation such as (group) or (IS). You may be asking, 'oh StanTheMan87, why oh why is this the case? Can you cite figures?' Well I sure can. I already had posted search results on the various terms with disambiguations using the Google search engine, the largest in the world mind you, and found that the term you favor is not in fact the most common term. The results are here, but they may have changed slightly as the search was conducted some days ago.
Google searches among the terms and the corresponding results figure:
  1. IS (group) comes up with 4,110,000,000 results - [46]
  2. ISIS (group) comes up with 137,000,000 results - [47]
  3. Islamic State (IS) comes up with 82,000,000 results - [48]
  4. Islamic State (group) comes up with 78,200,000 results - [49]
  5. ISIS (Islamic State) comes up with 41,600,000 results - [50]
  6. Islamic State of Iraq and Syria comes up with 29,700,000 results - [51]
  7. Islamic State (Islamist group) comes up with 5,290,000 results - [52]
  8. ISIS (Islamist group) comes up with 3,680,000 results - [53]
  9. The current name used in the article, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant only comes up with 1,310,000 results - [54]
  10. Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham comes up with only 597,000 results - [55]


But, I will do one better for you. Instead of just using the standard search through the entire Web, I will use the News section. This will make the results much more accurate, due to all the news reports concerning the actions and activities of this group, rather than just any term phrased the "Islamic State" (which could mean the concept of an Islamic State for example).
Google searches among the terms and the corresponding results figure:
  1. Islamic State (IS) comes up with 16,500,000 results - [56]
  2. Islamic State (group) comes up with 11,900,000 results - [57]
  3. ISIL comes up with 3,390,000 results - [58]
  4. The current name used in the article, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant only comes up with 51,100 results results - [59]
We see here that the terms you favor register with the least amount of results than the ones being proposed. Now, I know what you're thinking "But Google searches don't mean anything (Because they don't share my POV)" well not quite. Although it is only a google search, it is the largest search engine in the world and gives a rough (at the very least) indication over a terms popularity via search results. So, you fail WP:COMMONNAME. Strike one.
2.WP:NATURAL - The "Natural" disambiguation which separates the term "Islamic State" from the philosophical/Political concept of an 'Islamic State" is the phrase "of the Iraq and the Levant". The phrase "of the Iraq and the Levant" which constitutes the "Natural" disambiguation in the article title is worthless and meaningless now. It now leads to ambiguity surrounding the groups presence due to the fact it no longer confined to the regions of the Iraq and the Levant. It's no longer a "Natural" disambiguation it is an ambiguation. The only possible reason you keep maintaining this "Natural" disambiguation is therefore to POV push, just like how western politicians refer to it as "ISIL" in order to intentionally de-legitimize the group then if they referred to it as "Islamic State". Because the "Natural" disambiguation is therefore worthless, (this is shown due to the all the change of name requests launched on this talk page to change it to "Islamic State" with a parenthetical disambiguation, like this one) you fail WP:NATURAL. Apologies, I copied most of this text from a previous discussion becuase I just cbf typing out something fresh to be honest. Because the "Natural" disambiguation is no longer applicable nor relevant, this means a parenthetical disambiguation take precedence. Did I mention you failed WP:NATURAL?? Strike two.
3.WP:TITLECHANGES - Remember, "the choice of title is not dependent on whether a name is "right" in a moral or political sense." This relegates any feeble excuse that naming the group to the Islamic State (with a disambiguation) as being against morals and principles to be meaningless. The argument that it may offend or it is politically incorrect is therefore null-and-void on this Encyclopedia, and holds no water. I'm going to assume this is your only "reasonable" excuse to avoid referring to it as the Islamic State (IS) or (group), becuase you have no other points. Well, you're wrong. Strike three.
So you fail all three. And, I can tell you have a POV to avoid referring the article as "Islamic State" with a parenthetical disambiguation, becuase of two reasons: 1.) Your argument was extremely weak and simple to begin with when you issued your opinion and 2.) The details on your user page. StanTheMan87 (talk) 15:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

StanTheMan87 you have hit the nail on the head with the explanation. The overwhelming majority of news magazines also use Islamic State with references to the other names as well. On a related note once the RM is posted, is there a way to notify all editors who contribute to the other Islamic State articles on Wikipedia? It is important that we get full input from relevant editors on this one. Mbcap (talk) 02:02, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would be WP:CANVASSING, so NO! RGloucester — ☎ 02:11, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
RGloucester how is letting all editors on ISIL related articles know about an RM canvassing? What you call canvassing, I would call getting a broader consensus. Mbcap (talk) 04:04, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Editors that are NOT involved with these articles are more suited to determining the article title than editors that are involved, as they have some distance from the subject. That's the purpose of an RM, to draw uninvolved editors to the page. Selectively choosing to invite involved editors is canvassing. RGloucester — ☎ 04:10, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Selectively choosing to invite editors is canvassing", well you don't say. There was no mention of inviting people but only of letting "all" editors who contribute to ISIL related articles know of an RM, for example on the talk page. This could be a neutral notice to publicise the discussion. Mbcap (talk) 04:50, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@StanTheMan87: My argument is based on the fact that we can still find major news oulets using the term 'Islamic state of Iraq and the Levant" or the acronym "ISIL" (I have to accept your invitation!). This is not the matter here to discuss but, to put in a nutshell, BBC is also said to be dependent on the government, an allegation denied by some characters. However, this does not change the status of its reliability as for The Independent and Al-Jazeera. According to the policy, search engine results are subject to certain biases and technical limitations and that makes us restrict the results to definite reliable sources and not to conduct to a total web search in the first step. The policy writes as such:

In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies, and notable scientific journals.

You may also add The guardian to the list which uses the acronym according to the 152,000 results found by Google (36,600 results for "Islamic State")! The telegraph seems to have used the acronym 215,000 times and the term 'Islamic State' only 14,500 times. Fewer hits was shown for the full name, because the sources use the full name for the first time and have the acronym in text when ever they want to repeat the term.
I'm not to undermine your effort to show the statistics but rather trying to let you know how unreliable the results may be. You may expand your search by trying other major news outlets. I tried CNN which have used 'ISIS' about 41,400 times while it had used 'Islamic State' 9,040 times. As for The Washington Post number of the hits are 75,700 times for 'ISIS' while it is almost a half, 35,000, for 'Islamic State'. Also, Similar results was found for The New York Times (check ISIS v.s. Islamic state). Let alone Fox News and some other sources. According to my findings, BBC had acted differently tending to use the term 'Islamic State' more than other terms. We see here that the terms you favor register with the least amount of results than the ones being used. By the way, we'd better still exclude number of the hits for 'Islamic state of Iraq and the Levant' from the 'Islamic state' results because they have overlap.
Needless to say that, according to naturalness, the title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles not what you argued above. The current title is precise, i.e., identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects while being consistent with the pattern of similar articles. Islamic state of Iraq and the levant and/or its acronyms are short and recognizable while not being vague to readers. Mhhossein (talk) 18:58, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mhhossein: Why, oh why do you and everyone who oppose a name change continue to use the acronym "ISIS" as a defense for the popularity of the current title, "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant"? The two terms are not interchangeable. If you are to oppose the term change to "Islamic State" with a parenthetical disambiguation, either show facts and figures to support the acronym "ISIL" or 'Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant". You cannot avoid "ISIL", as it is the clearly the unpopular term and then retreat to "ISIS" to support your claim. You cannot have it both ways. Therefore what you have just cited above, all the search results for those various media institutions are null and void. Congrats.
No, the current title is not precise. You are foolish to think otherwise. The fact that the entity in question is no longer even confined to the area of Iraq and the Levant proves this fact. "identifies the article's subject"? Oh, but Islamic State (IS) is just so ambiguous that people might think we are talking about something else other than IS...? See the searches below concerning news and media outlets relating to the term Islamic State/IS vs. Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/ISIL. It's exactly what you did but instead of my searches being null and void as they are of the term/acronym I'm supporting in this discussion, yours are of a completely different term, "ISIS"! The acronym IS is just as popular as ISIS and more so than ISIL, and has unparalleled media exposure in the English language. So just drop it with the whole ambiguous stuff.
The search results for Islamic State group:
Reuters - 13,300 results [60]
Associated Press - 73 results [61]
PBS - 25,200 results [62]
ABC - 6,553 results [63]
New York Times - 18,564 results [64]
NPR - 3,980 results [65]
Agence France-Presse - 484 results [66]
Wall Street Journal - 302 results [67]
The search results for Islamic State (IS):
Reuters - 20,600 results [68]
Associated Press - 100 results [69]
PBS - 54,700 results [70]
ABC - 6,553 results [71]
New York Times - 35,301 results State IS
NPR - 6,280 results [72]
Agence France-Presse - 1005 results [73]
Wall Street Journal - 302 results [74]


The search results for the current term Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant were as follows:
Reuters - 941 results [75]
Associated Press - 1 result [76]
PBS - 690 results [77]
ABC - 3,331 results [78]
New York Times - 1,124 [79]
NPR - 87 results [80]
Agence France-Presse - 54 results [81]
Wall Street Journal - 201 results [82]
The search results for the current term ISIL were as follows:
Reuters - 5,100 results [83]
Associated Press - 12 results [84]
PBS - 720 results [85]
ABC - 659 results [86]
New York Times - 2,890 results [87]
NPR - 259 results [88]
Agence France-Presse - 2 results [89]
Wall Street Journal - 32 results [90]
Bear in mind that Reuters, Associated Press and Agence France-Presse are the three biggest news agencies in the world.
So there you have it. The Islamic State (group) and Islamic State (IS) term with a parenthetical disambiguation added in so as to not skew results and it is still more popular than the term "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" and "ISIL". You no longer have the excuse that not only "Islamic State (IS)" is less popular than "ISIL/Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" but that it is not as recognizable in the largest English media sources and news agencies in the world. These searches prove that. Not only that but among the Google searches, its fairly safe to say you have failed. Any attempt to deny these facts is now a sign of ignorance on your part. StanTheMan87 (talk) 16:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First of all I should tell you that I aimed to show how uncommon the term "Islamic State" is in comparison with the acronyms and if there going to be name change there are other priored terms. So, please don't jump into unilateral conclusions such as Therefore what you have just cited above, all the search results for those various media institutions are null and void and You no longer have the excuse that... and regard them as your opinion, instead.

Secondly, why don't you pay attention to the notion that, clearly the full term of "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" gets less hits than many other terms only because most of the times it's used in title for the first time and and the acronym is used in text for next usages, a natural literal procedure. That does not prove the fact that the full term is no longer used by the sources. So, IMO, comparing the full term in the results with proposed title is wrong and has no value. To get the point you may easily compare results found for "United States of America" with the acronym "US" (with the words contact, visit, tell, email and call being excluded to avoid finding unwanted results). WOW! About 6,290,000,000 results for the acronym while it just found about 1,310,000,000 results for the full term.

Finally, IMO, your search results are really questioned and some of them are not valid. For example, "Islamic State (IS)" is not a valid search keyword. There's no sensible difference between that word and "Islamic search" "Islamic State". By the way, Why not having ISIS if the statistics support that?

@Mhhossein: Firstly, I should tell you that I aimed to show you how uncommon the terms "ISIL" and "Islamic State of Iraq and Iraq and the Levant" are in comparison with the term "Islamic State (group)/(IS)" with an added parenthetical disambiguation using google searches, and searches conducted on the largest and most impartial media sources in the English-speaking world.
Secondly, why don't you pay attention to the notion that, clearly the term "ISIL" gets less hits than the term "Islamic State (IS)" or "Islamic State (group)" becuase it is less popular?
Google searches and there results conucted on the following terms:
1.) Islamic State (IS) 15,900,000 results - [91]
2.)Islamic State (group) 10,900,000 results - [92]
3.)ISIL 3,230,000 results - [93]
4.)Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant 47,000 results - [94]
I used the news search results, as that will be more accurate. I used both terms you are defending, and they show up with less hits. I used the term "ISIL" which you claim is just so popular:
why don't you pay attention to the notion that, clearly the full term of "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" gets less hits than many other terms only because most of the times it's used in title for the first time and and the acronym is used in text for next usages...
and it still came up short. I used both terms I'm defending with a disambiguation added such as (group) and (IS), both of which are popular and common referrals to the group so that it's fair, instead of just using the terms "Islamic State" or "IS" on its own. No, of course "Islamic State (IS)" is not a valid search keyword. Of course. Because it doesn't fit your with your POV, so of course it is invalid. Because it shows that you are wrong, that what you are saying is wrong, that it is more recognizable than any term you are defending, so of course it is invalid. How convenient for you.
ISIS will not be used as the lone title because it is an acronymization. While the google searches showed it as having the highest number of hits, it has too many connotations upon it, see Isis (disambiguation). It is like me using the term "IS" which would have more hits than "ISIS". The two names used alongside "ISIS" which are the "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" and the "Islamic State of Iraq and Sham" register far less hits than "Islamic State (IS)" or "Islamic State (group)". These searches were already conducted further up. So for ISIS to have anything to do in the title it would have to be "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)" or ISIS (group) or "ISIS (Islamic State)". and "Islamic State (IS)" has more hits than "ISIS (group)", the most popular of the three. StanTheMan87 (talk) 07:39, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think I explained why the full term, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, naturally gets less hits than other terms. While I agree with the fact that there are many identities other than ISIS which might may be mistaken with ISIL, according to the mentioned disambiguation page, I believe that when it comes to News most of them are ignoreable. Aren't they? Btw, I still believe that "Islamic State (IS)" is not a valid key search because of using a parentheses. Mhhossein (talk) 14:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if it gets less hits Mhhossein, it is the current article title, and therefore the one which will be contrasted to the other options which are "Islamic State (IS)" or "Islamic State (group)". ISIL also gets less hits. Case closed. Of course the Google search News results are ignoreable to you, because they show you are wrong. Classic case of denying/refuting or ignoring facts that don't suit your POV. This is why I cannot and do not take you seriously as a Wikipedia editor. Arguing with an an inanimate object like a potato could result in a better conclusion than arguing with you.
Here, now I am going to use the regular Google search results, and lets see what we get:
Google searches and there results conducted on the following terms:
1.) Islamic State (IS) 79,000,000 results - [95]
2.)Islamic State (group) 77,200,000 results - [96]
3.)ISIL 22,600,000 results - [97]
4.)Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant 1,280,000 results - [98]
You still come up short Mhhossein, you still come up short. I wonder what you will say this time. The searches are 'rigged'? They aren't actually real? Whatever your excuse is now, it's sure to be something hilarious. And Mhhossein, I don't really care whether you think "Islamic State (IS)" is valid or not. It honestly doesn't matter whether you think it is in fact valid or not. At all. The search results come up, both in the News searches and in the wider web search, referring to the militant group known as IS, and that's it. Case closed.
I will be looking to file a RM soon, now that I have teased out those who oppose this discussion such as yourself, and how weak the arguments presented by users like you are. Everything you have been typing has only allowed the argument shared by me and many other users, to become more sturdy. And I have now built upon it. Thank you for that, it will make things allot more easier when the real debate begins. Toodles :) StanTheMan87 (talk) 18:18, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
StanTheMan87: Waiting for a RM! Mhhossein (talk) 13:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Caution: For the second time I'm asking you to take Personal attacks cautions seriously. "You are foolish to think otherwise" is a clear insult. Mhhossein (talk) 14:02, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Second caution: Calling other editors "potato" is not a civil behavior and is a clear personal attack. This has been considered here. Mhhossein (talk) 13:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong support - As outlined by StanTheMan87 above, the common name in use is "Islamic State." Furthermore, in the English-speaking world, the use of names other than "Islamic State", to the limited extent that it happens, is usually centered in the United States; i.e., non-U.S. sources most often use the correct name Islamic State for the organisation that has taken over large parts of Iraq, Syria, and other places. Finally, it bears remembering that many of the other leading languages call Islamic State by its proper name, to wit:
    État islamique (organisation) (French Wikipedia),
    Stato Islamico (Italian Wikipedia),
    Islamischer Staat (Organisation) (German Wikipedia),
    Estado Islámico (Spanish Wikipedia).
    It is worth mentioning that these leading Wikipedias do have disambiguation for the generic term Islamic state vs. the Islamic State, either via capitalisation where the language is flexible enough to denote the fact or via the addition or via the word "organisation" if necessary. XavierItzm (talk) 03:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@XavierItzm: Thanks for the information you presented on how the group is called in other wikis. I should tell you that the policy suggests to adhere to English reliable sources and we'd better search through out them. I already conducted a search through out the English major reliable news outlets to show how common the acronyms are. Mhhossein (talk) 13:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose - The common English name is ISIS or ISIL, which is the initialism for the current title. Since using an initialism for a title is somewhat problematic, the current title is fine as is. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:31, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Rreagan007: I already presented a short survey on how common the acronyms are in various enlglish reliable news outlets which proves what you said. Mhhossein (talk) 13:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
? StanTheMan87 (talk) 17:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
P-123, why then do you oppose the proposition that the name change be from the lesser known and out-dated "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" term as shown above, to the term Islamic State (IS) or (group) term? StanTheMan87 (talk) 17:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "whether we in the West like it or not." I do not think that we should so easily dismiss the majority views of the local and worldwide Sufis, Shias and the many Sunnis who do not share ISIL's agenda and who consistently use the name daesh. GregKaye 05:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Or whether Muslims who oppose their agenda like it or not. Same argument applies. We will never see eye to eye on what is and is not NPOV, Greg, :'(, but upholding NPOV is what it boils down to. ~ P-123 (talk) 12:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the term DAESH or DAASH (the Arabic name for ISIL/ISIS/IS)

(Comment by 217.39.62.99 moved from above for clarity) Daesh came up with 5,520,000 results (end of June 2015) - [99] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.39.62.99 (talk) 08:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC) Google search for DAESH resulted in about 6,170,000 results (8 July 2015) 14.172.180.136 (talk) 14:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Daesh" will not be used, given its large irrelevance in western mainstream media and in English-language sources. The search results are still lower than that of "Islamic State (group)" and "Islamic State (IS)" so hence, through WP:COMMONNAME, it is an inferior alternative. The fact that it was also conjured up by those with an anti-Islamic State POV breaches WP:POVTITLE, and it is always used in a pejorative and derogatory manner. StanTheMan87 (talk) 14:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"large irrelevance in western mainstream media ..." You haven't been reading the papers, or listening to PMQs - it is the most widely used term in Arabic discourse and they are neither a 'state' nor 'Islamic' [2] 217.39.62.99 (talk) 16:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In Arabic discourse it has sure been the main term, but that has little importance here. Fact remains that they declare themselves to be the Islamic State. That's why many Western Muslims are angry at them for their own reasons. English-speaking media has always used a variation of IS or Islamic State and - even though this is an international Wikipedia - our titles are in English. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 16:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is ridiculous to assert that it is unimportant: recently, politicians from a number of parties and countries have proposed that it would be most appropriate to use of the Arabic name DAESH for the organisation and the BBC, for one, is reviewing the use of IS[3].217.39.62.99 (talk) 22:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Fact: The term lacks the amount of recognition in the English-speaking world as "Islamic State" and all its renditions of "Islamic State group" or "Islamic State (IS). This is shown though the google searches, and undoubtedly, the searches conducted on each of the main English-speaking institutions as cited above for Islamic State (group/IS) v. Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Therefore, it fails WP:COMMONNAME. Also, the apparent fact that it is used frequently in Arabic media channels is irrelevant, given this is the English Wikipedia. Maybe if you hopped onto the IS page on the Arabic Wikipedia here [100] you could make that point.
  2. Fact: The term was created by those with an anti-Islamic State POV, based on a loose acronymization of its former name, The Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham. Due to the fact that it also sounds familiar for the Arabic word Da'ish which means 'to crush' or 'to trample, it is used exclusively in a pejorative and derogatory manner. This therefore contravenes WP:POVTITLE. In contrast the proposed term "Islamic State" with a disambiguation of either (group) or (IS) fails to express a POV, as this is the groups official name. We are not giving them a leg up, we are merely documenting the fact of the matter, however unfortunate that may be for you. You don't think it's fair, tough luck. It wasn't me nor anyone of these editors who chose to designate "Islamic State" upon this group.
Now, I am not sure if you are aware, but this is an Encyclopedia, not a Pro-NATO, Pro-CSTO, Pro-Western, Pro-Eastern or Pro-anything propaganda publication. This means that the article will not be changed into a term which is politically one-sided, with its heritage embedded in a clear POV. If you seem to disagree, then my advice is that Wikipedia just may not be the place for you, if you wish to espouse your one-sided views on matters of Encyclopedic discussion. Also the BBC has stated it will use the the term "Islamic State group", which is one of the name change options [101]. StanTheMan87 (talk) 14:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't know what the "correct" article name should be, and am not particularly bother about what is chosen. However, I'm pretty sure "the current name doesn't accurately describe the territory they control" isn't grounds for renaming it. Iapetus (talk) 16:47, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you are right, it's not. However WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NATURAL, WP:TITLECHANGES are all grounds for renaming the article. And the proposed terms with a parenthetical disambiguation satisfies all three. The natural disambiguation embedded within the title "Islamic State (of Iraq and the Levant)", with the words in brackets being the disambiguation, are now irrelevant and meaningless. It is now an ambiguation. This is seen by all the constant name changes over the past 12+ months espousing the same stance, that the current name is irrelevant. The fact is the group has expanded outside of these territories and has officially changed its name and that there new name is far more recognizable in the English language media, as shown above in the discussion, all prove it. StanTheMan87 (talk) 18:18, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! You 14.172.180.136 raise an unsuspected and rather valid point! Google translates the Arabic web page for Islamic State as "The organization of the Islamic State (Daash)" [تنظيم الدولة الإسلامية (داعش)]. Which means that, unless Google Translate is messing it up, the English page contains a huge falsehood, because it right now reads: "The group is known in Arabic as ad-Dawlah al-Islāmiyah fī 'l-ʿIrāq wa-sh-Shām, leading to the acronym Da'ish, Da'eesh, or DAESH (داعش, Arabic pronunciation: [ˈdaːʕiʃ]), the Arabic equivalent of "ISIL"."
I ask: if the editors of the Arab encyclopaedia call it the same as those of the Spanish, German, Italian, and French editors, i.e., the Islamic State, sometimes adding "organisation", then why is the English encyclopedia stating that in Arabic the thing is called something else? Or is Google mistranslating? XavierItzm (talk) 19:07, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
as per the opening search results having no validity. For instance the search on Islamic State (IS) could as easily come from a phrase such as "The so-called 'Islamic State' is a ..." ISIL and ISIS remain commonname and NPOV names for the group. We are not here to WP:SOAPBOX for a group that claims to have authority over all of Islam and yet actively prejudices against Sufis, Shias and non line towing and non extremist Sunnis. The group, as has been repeatedly commented by a vast number of commentators, is not representative of Islam. It presents itself as a state and yet the recognized states in the area of the groups activities are Iraq and Syria. If the group had called itself something like, "Sunni Extremist Polity" then this would have had accuracy. As it is Islamic State is ambiguous with every other group that has attempted to operate as an Islamic state. "Islamic State" of what? How? It certainly isn't within the general possession of Islam. The majority of Islam rejects it. GregKaye 04:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ [1]
  2. ^ http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/they-are-neither-a-state-nor-islamic-why-we-shouldnt-call-them-isis-isil-or-is-10353365.html
  3. ^ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3144257/BBC-review-use-Islamic-State-120-MPs-write-Corporation-calling-use-Daesh-terror-group.html
Greg to be honest your reply is a perfect example of WP:SOAPBOX. You are giving the the usual moral/political spiel about they don't represent Islam, this and that. Can we not just concentrate on building an article based on policy rather than editorialising? The sad fact on the ground is that Islamic State controls a vast stretch of land in Iraq, Syria and Libya. They also control ground in Lebanon and Nigeria, and according to some accounts also in Yemen, Egypt and Afghanistan. They can not go around calling themselves Islamic State of something because they reject the very idea of borders. Though that may be unfortunate, we can not simply ignore reality with constant rejection of wp;commonname and wp;titlechange applicability towards the name Islamic State. I appreciate that calling this group ISIL may have been proper a year ago when people thought the group would go away soon but it has metastasised and increased in territory over the last 12 months. The majority of reliable sources use the term Islamic State with some form of disambiguation. We should follow suite with haste as I am sure we will when StanTheMan posts the RM. Mbcap (talk) 06:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mbcap to be honest one of the WP:PILLARS of Wikipedia is WP:NPOV. This is a group that claims authority over all of Islam and is rejected by the majority of it. They have presented a very startling claim in presenting themselves as the "Islamic State" full stop. This is something that has rightly raised major objections across both Muslim and governmental communities. Common name remains ISIS and ISIL and this is especially apparent in content presented by a wide range of the interviewees of news organisations. Governments use ISIL. Muslim communities use ISIL and Daesh. Interviewees of news organisations predominantly use ISIL and ISIS. Given this context, on occasion that news organisations do use "Islamic State", I have to wonder what they represent. I think the regularly edited Britannica has, as we have done, got it right. GregKaye 07:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Still debating this? All efforts to change the name to the preferred name of the terrorists and away from the name used by world governments and media have failed. Give it a rest already. Legacypac (talk) 09:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Currency used by ISIL?

I had noticed the website on coins used by ISIL and they mint 10 and 20 fulus in copper (10 and 20 grams), 1, 5 and 10 dirhams in silver (2, 10 and 20 grams) and 1 and 5 dinars in 21k gold (4.27 and 21.25 grams). Price ranges from 5 cents for 10 copper fulus to about $700 USD for 5 gold dinar. Take note that metal prices fluctuate over time. Ryan (talk) 03:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a state, can't issue currency, no one would accept it anyway. Legacypac (talk) 09:13, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Name in the infobox

The page is called Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant but that does not explain why the infobox pretends that the name of the group is the same. The name in the infobox is falsely "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" and it also has the corresponding Arabic form. Can someone correct this please. Mbcap (talk) 17:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Policy related to the coherent presentation of content is for the title in the infobox to reflect the article title. GregKaye 17:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Where is this policy? Mbcap (talk) 19:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mbcap raises a most valid point. There may be some (rather unjustified) arguments that the Wikipedia entry for the Islamic State not being, well, the "Islamic State." However, the name of the organisation itself is none other than the Islamic State. Therefore, the infobox currently displays false information. XavierItzm (talk) 11:11, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would there be any policy based objections if I changed it? Mbcap (talk) 02:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that there are potentially contradictory views presented in the guidance at Template:Infobox_country#Syntax it says to use the "Formal or official full name of the country in English". As far as the formalities of international relations are concerned, there is very widespread rejection of the use of the name "Islamic State" with the vast majority of nations using ISIL with ISIS and Daesh also being used. The groups official name is Islamic State. A standard default for infobox titles is to use the article title and this is specifically mentioned in parallel templates. In all locations I do not see the validity of WP:SOAPBOXing their claim to being the State for all Islam in a situation in which the group is predominantly fighting communities that also make claim to Islamic faith. Such use goes against the majority of content that comes across the board from the people that news organisations interview. ISIL and ISIS remain regularly used and perhaps the most regularly used names by news groups. GregKaye 06:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Greg Is there a policy because I do not think there is? You say ISIL and ISIS remain regularly used but I am saying that Islamic State is most commonly used. It is their official name. I do not see what your objection is. Mbcap (talk) 06:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On one side of the page we present the title given to the subject and on the other side of the page we present the title given to the subject. We don't typically just chop and change things without explanation. It is not a name that is used in formal settings other than with a limited number of allies. We have a designation for the group. GregKaye 07:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox needs to stay the same as title. Discussed and decided over and over again. Legacypac (talk) 09:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Legacypac, could you please cite when was the infobox issue discussed? Could it be your statement is untrue? XavierItzm (talk) 13:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia designation for the group has been discussed ad nauseam. There may be others but one discussion on inclusion in the infobox here.
Following the lead the article also begins with the section #Name which has mainly been kept in response to editor preference. GregKaye 06:26, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please, You have Technophant, Supersaiyen312 and Dustin from then, and also P123ct, myself, XavierItzm, and several other editors. What is consistently the case with the position you two are pushing is that it involves you two. By that I mean Gregkaye and Legacypac. Stop with your constant page owning and allow us to edit the article as an encyclopedia. This editorialising by you two is vomit inducing and needs to stop. That discussion you post a link to regarding the infobox, it has the same tag teaming that you two, Gregkaye and Legacypac, engage in. It also has a line by Gregkaye about having an opening similar to "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" to which Legacypac then agrees to. Disgusting, disgusting, disgusting and it has to end. You make a statement, back each other up and then whalla, "you have a consensus which has been debated to death". Mbcap (talk) 07:59, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks GregKaye for highlighting the November 2014 discussion on the infobox. While it provides important context, its statistics are evidently obsolete and incomplete. Today, the WP:COMMONNAME is evidently Islamic State; hence, the conversation must be had anew without attempts at short-circuiting it. XavierItzm (talk) 00:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mbcap Please do not try to present this as two editors when you can look at every single RM that has repetitively been presented and see, again and again, overwhelming editor opinion. If in this you have any actual issue to raise then please do so. There is no tag teaming. I can also raise names of editors quite easily and can easily raise various points. Please either justify your WP:UNCIVIL and WP:BATTLEGROUND use of "vomit inducing", "disgusting" etc. or strike your directly offensive and WP:PA content. In regard the slurs presented please read editorialising. If you have a specific accusation then please present it.
Please can you cite "you have a consensus which has been debated to death" or similar. You have gone to great lengths to advocate article name change within which you did not make reference to repeated use of qualification in mention of "Islamic State" and you are now presenting insulting accusations to me. GregKaye 04:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
GregYou very well know what you are doing. Your constant debating of Islam and Islamic state as if this is a forum is indeed vomit inducing and disgusting. This is an article talk page. Discussion should be related to content, sources and policy and not "your" opinions on Islam and what it represents and what it doesn't. I don't give a shit what you think about Salafis, Shias, Sufis, non line towing Sunnis, etc but what I do care about is what sources say. Your constant conflation between source material and your world view is distracting as one has to sieve through the total garbage to get to anything that may be worth reading. This is not a platform for pseudo intellectuals who think just because they listen to some Maajid Nawaz that they are some sort of experts on the topic. Even if you were, this is not the place to discuss it. As for striking my comments, no I will not. Perhaps you should strike some common sense back into your head by following the rules at the top of the page; this is not a forum. Mbcap (talk) 04:36, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mbcap What I am doing is attempting to keep debate in context. Like it or not Shias, Sufis, non line towing Sunnis also have claim to Islam and very valid objections have been made. Their views, I think, are something that editors here should give a "shit about". What are you doing here? NPOV is a pillar of Wikipedia and issues that affect other groups are rightly considered. GregKaye 05:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The key statement is "don't give a shit about what you think." I did say I care about sources. All editors must abide by NPOV and should consider that content that may be relavent. Do not conflate these things with your constant editorialising. Get back to discussing content, sources and policy. This is not your personal advocacy platform. Mbcap (talk) 05:28, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mbcap specify an edit. What do you claim is wrong? Which things do you think that I have conflated? How? GregKaye 05:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Greg You previous edit clearly says that you attempt to keep debate in context. Do not conflate context with the context in which your world view is at the centre. Does that make more sense. Why write, "Policy related to the coherent presentation of content is for the title in the infobox to reflect the article title"? It is rubbish like that which demonstrates what I mean. Where is this policy? Please present it here. Your actual objection to the name in the infobox as Islamic State is more along the lines of, "Like it or not Shias, Sufis, non line towing Sunnis also have claim to Islam and very valid objections have been made." As I said, I do not give a shit about your emotional or personal opinions and pleas. Do not hide your actual non-policy based objection behind a false policy that only exists in your head. There are editors who disagree with having Islamic State as the title and they present completely respectable arguments but what you write is just drivel. As one editor recently said, I'm not going to entertain your personal thoughts on Sufis and Shias views, and the whole POV WP:SOAPBOX about offending people, etc, etc, etc. Stop wasting my time with such nonsense. Mbcap (talk) 05:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As far as policy and guidance are concerned, as mentioned, "A standard default for infobox titles is to use the article title and this is specifically mentioned in parallel templates." You are right in that this is as far as written policy goes. Practice within Wikipedia is a different matter.
A use of SPECIAL:RANDOM permits a random sampling of articles from which it is seen that the common and I would say coherent way of working would be to present one set of titles. Rarely does the infobox title differ from the from the article title and, when it does, it is only on very rare occasion that the infobox title is reduced in length. The purpose of an infobox is to add information.
With similarity to the legitimate concerns that I have raised as recently as the last RM (which was very recent) other editors has similarly expressed concerns as:
  • "An Islamic state means a caliphate. It's true that Da'esh represents itself as a caliphate, but it's not the primary meaning of the term. The trivial difference in capitalization is not sufficient to distinguish these senses, either; because "The Islamic State" represents itself as an Islamic state, a reader with no prior understanding of the topic could get very confused ...";
  • "Groups' self-naming is disputed by Muslim World and their 'stateness' is disputed" and
  • "wikipedia should not become a mouthpiece for ISIL ideological propaganda about themselves".
The views and example presented by the Islamic world are of central relevance to the presentation of a group that calls itself the "Islamic State" and these issues are presented as a common theme. I think that we have a disagreement here on the fundamentals of policy. GregKaye 06:13, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So there is no policy that objects to having Islamic State in the infobox which happens to be the name they have designated to them selves and which has become the most common name as used by journalists, news agencies and news magazines. Your use of personal opinion veiled as other comments on this page is not helpful. I am not interested in your world view. Mbcap (talk) 08:16, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Other names such as ISIL and ISIS (as representative of "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" presentation) remain in common use. Also, the people that "journalists, news agencies and news magazines" get their information from make comparatively rare use "Islamic State" and, on this basis, I think that it is a fair contention to say that various writers, typically working in Western city centers with potentially little contact with the Islamic world or Arabic communities, have got it wrong. For instance the BBC will even go as far as to present, in an extensive and contextualized documentary, the recording of several people speaking in Arabic who clearly and consistently use the designation "daesh" and will add the subtitles as ".. IS .." See: World's Richest Terror Army.
This is far from just being me making such name objections with other editors making name objection such as against the use of the preferred name of a terrorist group. Even within the context of the, I contest, questionable and non representative practice within various reporting of "journalists, news agencies and news magazines", the name is frequently given qualification such as "so-called Islamic State" or "Islamic State group". GregKaye 06:10, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Seems like you are going of on a tangent about journalistic ethics and fair contentions. If you are upset about the name reliable sources have decided to use, this is not the place to do it. The point is North Korea's page, has, "Democratic People's Republic of Korea", in the infobox. So exactly why is it that you are opposed to having "Islamic State" in the infobox? Mbcap (talk) 09:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The central issue here is Wikipedia's presentation of the group. The same issues apply here as with the article title. In our description of "reliable secondary sources", in this case, I dispute the applicability of the first two words. We call them reliable and yet, when the majority of the sources use other terminologies, they are failing to report directly. In effect it is a primary role they take. They are not reporting but are presenting the results of their own, arguably, subjectively determined opinions.
Why do you think that I am upset. I am not the one resorting to uncivil "don't give a shit" type comments. Islam is the second largest religion in the world. I certainly think that we should "give a shit" about the predominant views of its membership. GregKaye 06:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox is a separate issue from the article name though. Currently the infobox asserts the group's official name is Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, however this is demonstrably untrue, as the group released a statement [102] from it's official spokesman stating "the “Iraq and Shām” in the name of the Islamic State is henceforth removed from all official deliberations and communications, and the official name is the Islamic State from the date of this declaration".
Incidentally, the Arabic Wikipedia page refers to the group as Islamic State in it's infobox official name, and as Islamic State Group (Daesh) in the article title. Gazkthul (talk) 06:55, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
GregKaye is using, direct quote: "we should "give a shit" about the predominant views of its membership" with regards to a religion as a basis for editing an encyclopaedia. Sad that people want to edit an encyclopaedia based on religious views and that Wikipedia allows this sort of tampering. I think it is terrible this sort of tampering allows the infobox to display false information. XavierItzm (talk) 22:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is very said indeed and the consequences for this page are quite evident. Mbcap (talk) 22:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict: Reuters report of ISIL territory in Nangarhar Province, Afghanistan

A few hours ago, an IP added Afghanistan to the territories in the infobox. While I was updating the citation to the primary source from Reuters[103], Philg88 reverted the original (which cited Russia Today).

As a result of the edit conflict, Afghanistan is back in the infobox with the more reliable reference.

Has this first territory in Afghanistan been confirmed by other news sources? If not, I think we should remove it from the infobox (again) and give it a brief mention in the body of the article, perhaps in the timeline.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well Reuters is a WP:RS, but no harm done from leaving it out of the infobox until more sources become available or unless additional territory is taken. I would suggest it be mentioned in the Khorasan Province section. Gazkthul (talk) 00:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. While Reuters reports multiple POVs that the militant group in Nagarhar might be IS or might be merely "sympathizers"/"loyalists", and I notice that the territory is remote villages not major cities, I think we should be cautious in saying categorically that IS holds territory in a new country, in the way that an infobox listing does. I moved the incident to the Khorasan Province section. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Claims that Iraqis claimed to have shot down British planes?

When I checked the source for that it looked like some Iranian state run thing, not exactly the epitome of reputable. I'm not well versed in the ways of Wikipedia, so maybe this is considered acceptable? Seems like a pretty absurd allegation to me though. Just wanted to see if I'm the only one who thinks this way. Sorry for being a noob. AudreyTruong (talk) 07:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We were all noobs once: welcome.
You are absolutely right: we don't (as a community) rely on such sources for such extraordinary claims. See for example Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/Archive 4#Alleged_Snowden_leaks.
A brief web search can't find a second independent source, so I deleted the section.[104]
--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I mean no offense, gentlemen. But honestly, for all of Iran's faults, did you really expect this to appear in any of the major media outlets, such as CNN, Fox, Reuters, Associated Press, Al Arabiya or the SOHR? Fars News just happened to be the first one to cover the story, while all the aforementioned agencies omitted it. Only the Australian National Review picked it up. But it's still an unreliable source, isn't it?
Please, none of "this is not a forum". After all, anybody of us could have edited it to say According to an Iranian state-run agency, Iraq claimed to have shot down..., but on the other hand, a source is a source, no matter where it originated from, to be honest.
Otherwise, I apologize for the inconvenience. LlegóelBigotee (talk) 16:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lets leave out Fars News from the article. Fars News is a renowned joke in the middle east for having claimed an Iranian invented a time machine to actually running an onion news story. There is a large plethora of news sources we can use instead. Mbcap (talk) 11:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I had no idea what the Australian National Review was until now. But the site presentation doesn't look very professional (ad at the top corner) and in their article they just quote Farsnews, so it's not really an independent source, but rather a political blog under the veil of a news outlet, it would seem to me. AudreyTruong (talk) 18:41, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't this come up months ago? Banak (talk) 01:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is Daech an islamic state?

According to article introduction, «The (...) is a Salafi jihadi extremist militant group and self-proclaimed caliphate and Islamic state which is led by Sunni Arabs from Iraq and Syria.[1] ». It looks like a specific point of view as other people think differently. For instance, David Cameron « (...) wish the BBC would stop calling it 'Islamic State' because it is not an Islamic state.
What it is is an appalling barbarous regime that is a perversion of the religion of Islam and many Muslims listening to this programme will recoil every time they hear the words.». So, is this an islamic state and why to prefer one point of view rather than the other one?

If so, should one consider that Cameron fight against Muslims?

Why not make the article clearer?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.199.97.101 (talk) 19:20, 11 July 2015‎

References

  1. ^ "Kurds accused of "ethnic cleansing" by Syria rebels". cbsnews. Retrieved June 22, 2015.

Requested move 15 July 2015

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State (IS) – Per rationale below. StanTheMan87 (talk) 12:10, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer Anyone opposed to the the RM will not mention ISIS, Islamic State of Iraq and Syria or Daesh to prove recognizability. This is strictly between the current article title and the proposed title. There will be none of this: [105],[106]

Strong support as the nominator for Islamic State (IS)

  • Key disadvantage for Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant is that it uses an outdated natural disambiguation based upon a clearly defined geographical location of the regions of Iraq and the greater Levant region, compromising Syria and parts of Lebanon where the groups dominance reigns supreme. The term ad-Dawlah al-Islāmiyah fī 'l-ʿIrāq wa-sh-Shām was a term the group designated on itself once it expanded into Syria. Now that it has expanded outside those regions in places such as Yemen, Libya, Egypt, Nigeria, Afghanistan and other areas, it may serve to construe the facts this Encyclopedia attempts to convey by maintaining an outdated term. This natural disambiguation is therefore no longer viable, and may instead confuse readers who access this article. See [107]
  • Key disadvantage for Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant is that the title Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and the acronym associated with it, ISIL are both less recognizable in major English-language media sources and news agencies in comparison to the proposed titles with disambiguations of (IS) or (group) added.
  • Key disadvantage for Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant is that this term is intentionally used to delegitimize the group from being referred to as simply Islamic State with a suitable parenthetical disambiguation. While this may seem noble, such an agenda has no place on an Encyclopedia. This excuse that it therefore contravenes moral principles is therefore null-and-void as per WP:TITLECHANGES which states:""the choice of title is not dependent on whether a name is "right" in a moral or political sense." and also fails WP:NPOV.
  • Key advantage of Islamic State (IS) is that it uses a parenthetical disambiguation that contains the acronym commonly used to reference the group in major English-language media sources, News agencies, and major NGO Think Tanks. It therefore satisfies WP:COMMONNAME, as it is far more recognizable than both the current title and acronym associated with it.
  • Key advantage of Islamic State (IS) is that it contains a parenthetical disambiguation in reference to the group when a suitable natural disambiguation is missing. This satisfies WP:NATURAL.
  • Key advantage of Islamic State (IS) is that it is the groups official name. This therefore ensures neutrality when referring to them by their official name, as we are merely documenting facts in an Encyclopedia, which is what an Encyclopedia should be about, that is, accurately representing factual knowledge. And this current title as representing the article, is neither accurate nor factual.

In summarizing the main advantages and disadvantages of both the proposed and current titles, I will now go into further depth in supporting my argument, mainly revolving around Wikipedia Policy concerning this matter.

Firstly, the issue of WP:NATURAL. The current title as mentioned above, fails to have an accurate natural disambiguation in referring to this group. Proponents of the current name cite this natural disambiguation as being suitable and viable and therefore, something that shouldn't be changed. Disambiguation describes removing the possibility of ambiguity by making something clear. However, how then is having the article title Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, with the natural disambiguation being of Iraq and the Levant possibly making it clear for readers, when the group not only does not go by that designation, but are not even confined to only the geographic regions of Iraq and the Levant anymore? See [108] for Islamic State provinces and activity outside of Iraq and Syria. The fact that this article has had countless name change requests since July 2014 by multiple users, with hotly contested debates arising from each one is further proof that this natural disambiguation is nothing more than an ambiguation. As this article has quite allot of visitors, see [109], we owe it to readers to make the article as accurate as possible. As no suitable natural disambiguation can be found, the most appropriate form to be used is a parenthetical disambiguation. This takes place in the form of either (IS). (IS) is a recognizable and popular acronym for the group known as Islamic State, and is to disassociate the militant group known as Islamic State from the type of government of an Islamic state. This is a similar practice done to the Khorasan (Islamist group) to disambiguate itself from the historical region of Greater Khorasan and the Khorasan Province in Iran, see Khorasan for more. Because of this, the only possible reason why the term "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" is being maintained, is to POV push, just like how western politicians refer to it as "ISIL" in order to intentionally de-legitimize the group then if they referred to it as "Islamic State", as stated by Bataaf van Oranje. See [110] and then the comments of some editors on the issue: [111] (Note the word 'terrorist'), [112],[[113]

This brings me to my second point. On WP:TITLECHANGES, the policy states:"the choice of title is not dependent on whether a name is "right" in a moral or political sense." As we see here, there is no argument to be made that the group is neither Islamic nor representatives of the religion of Islam, that to term it "Islamic State" with a disambiguation will offend people both muslim and non-muslim, or that it is not line with how governments around the world term the group and their media mouthpieces. This argument, while again appearing noble, still holds no water on Wikipedia and should not on any Encyclopedia in general. Any such comments pertaining to therefore take the higher moral ground, will be refrained from being mentioned, and if mentioned, will be ignored. They hold no validity on Wikipedia. Statements such as these [114] are null-and-void.

Thirdly, and perhaps the most important of all, is WP:COMMONNAME. We should adopt the term used by most mainstream English-language media source, news agencies and magazines, as they will have much greater exposure to the public. Secondary considerations should be given to Governmental agencies, Think Tanks. This follows WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS

These top, reliable English-language media, news agency, Think Tank and intelligence sources see more use of the Islamic State term and the IS acronym than any other term for the group:

Note the sources included here mainly, if not exclusively use Islamic State with either 'group' or 'IS' also used. All other renditions used such as self-proclaimed Islamic State or so called Islamic State still use the term Islamic State, and do not disqualify them from proving this point. E.g an article uses self Self-proclaimed Islamic State but is referred to as 'IS'. This still proves the point being conveyed.

English-language mainstream media and news agency sources:
BBC- [115]
Associated Press - [116]
Reuters - [117]
PBS - [118]
ABC - [119]
NPR - [120]
Agence France-Presse - [121]

Among these sources are Reuters, the Associated Press and Agence France-Presse, three of the largest news agencies in the world. Also note, none of these sources were 'Cherry picked'. These are by far the most mainstream, impartial and reliable sources in the English-language, many of them being public broadcasters such as BBC, ABC, PBS and NPR. They therefore represent the conduct of what an Encyclopedia should be like, in comparison to institutions more opinionated with political alignments/agendas, such as Fox News, MSNBC and CNN, al-Jazeera, Daily Mail, The Guardian, Breitbart etc. It really says something when sources used to support one thing over another have a better history of pertaining more to impartiality than sources which do not.
Irrelevant - See a study survey from the Pew Research Center confirming this assumption, [122].

News magazines:
Economist - [123]
Der Spiegel - [124]
New York Times - [125]
Wall Street Journal - [126]

Other reliable media sources which have had incredible coverage of the group described include:
Long War Journal - [127]
Vice News - [128]
Al-Monitor - [129]
Soufan Group - [130]

NGO Think Tanks:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace - [131]
Brookings Institution - [132]
Council on Foreign Relations - [133]
RAND Corporation - [134]
Center for Strategic and International Studies - [135]

These are search results on each some of the most mainstream and most impartial English language sources and news agencies as mentioned above. The search results for Islamic State group:
Reuters - 13,300 results [136]
Associated Press - 73 results [137] PBS - 25,200 results [138]
ABC - 6,553 results [139]
NPR - 3,980 results [140]
Agence France-Presse - 484 results [141]
Wall Street Journal - 302 results [142]

The search results for Islamic State (IS):
Reuters - 20,600 results [143]
Associated Press - 100 results [144] PBS - 54,700 results [145]
ABC - 6,553 results [146]
NPR - 6,280 results [147]
Agence France-Presse - 1005 results [148]


The search results for the current term Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant were as follows:
Reuters - 941 results [149]
Associated Press - 1 result [150] PBS - 690 results [151]
ABC - 3,331 results [152]
NPR - 87 results [153]
Agence France-Presse - 54 results [154]


The search results for the current term ISIL were as follows:
Reuters - 5,100 results [155]
Associated Press - 12 results [156] PBS - 720 results [157]
ABC - 659 results [158]
NPR - 259 results [159]
Agence France-Presse - 2 results [160]


The proposed title meets the required criteria for WP:COMMONNAME:

  • Recognizability- The title is very familiar to people who either do not have a great deal of knowledge of the current crisis in Iraq, Syria and elsewhere in the middle east and with those who do. Current media exposure and social media are all cases for this.

Google searches with the following terms and their corresponding results:
Islamic State (IS) - 73,500,000 results [161]
Islamic State (group) - 72,700,000 results [162]
ISIL - 22,000,000 results [163]
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant - 1,900,000 results [164]

Google News search with the following terms and their corresponding results:
Islamic State (IS) - 12,800,000 results [165]
Islamic State (group) - 10,300,000 results [166]
ISIL - 3,100,000 results [167]
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant - 43,200 results [168]

Google News search (past month) with the following terms and their corresponding results:
Islamic State - 7,550,000 results [169]
Islamic State (IS) - 5,660,000 results [170]
Islamic State (group) - 4,060,000 results [171]
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant - 4,280 results [172]
ISIL - 62,600 results - [173]

  • Naturalness - A Google search showing the trend [174] between the terms Islamic State and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant reveals that before the 7th of July 2014, the search results were negligible for the term Islamic State. It is therefore highly unlikely that search results conducted on the term were in reference to media and news agencies writing about the type of government of an Islamic state rather than the militant group that blasted its way to media fame mid-2014 in June,July 2014. Also note the articles for Islamic State under the letters A,B,C,D,E,F,G all make reference to the Islamic State group. The search results for the terms Islamic State (IS) and Islamic State (group) were also higher than the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and ISIL above for Recognizability. For the past news in the past month, the term Islamic State all other common renditions all defeated Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and ISIL. News in the past month will undoubtedly be about the Islamic State group rather than anything else.
  • Precision - The proposed title unambiguously refers to the group more than the current title, utilizing both the official and more designation Islamic State and the common acronym associated with it to disambiguate the group from the Islamic state form of government, as shown in media sources.
  • Conciseness - The title is concise and no longer than necessary for the reader to be able to distinguish what exactly the subject is.

I have to thank XavierItzm for this one, as he brought to my attention the fact that many other language Wikipedia's refer to the Islamic State as its proper name and in line with Wikipedia policy. It provides some solace that at least these Wikipedia's have not been infected with this POV pushing nonsense. :
État islamique (organisation) (French Wikipedia) [175]
Stato Islamico (Italian Wikipedia) [176]
Islamischer Staat (Organisation) (German Wikipedia) [177]
Estado Islámico (Spanish Wikipedia) [178]

Finally, allot of criticism will be made at the term Islamic State (IS) with regards to the parentheses (IS). Some will make the argument that 'IS' could register as many more things than just the acronym of 'IS' in Google searches. Or that Islamic State could refer to as other things besides the group. Both are valid arguments. However, a Google search showing the [179] between the terms Islamic State and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant reveals that before the 7th of July 2014, the search results were negligible for the term Islamic State. It is therefore highly unlikely that search results conducted on the term were in reference to media and news agencies writing about the type of government of an Islamic state rather than the militant group that blasted its way to media fame mid-2014 in June,July 2014. Similarly, due to the overwhelming usage of the term 'Islamic State', the acronym IS will be used even more when referring to the group, as typically, media sources refer to the group once then use the acronym for the rest of the article.

Any attempt to counter this proposal will obviously be meant with the regurgitation of WP:POVTITLE. However, the current title is in violation of this very policy, as the intent on keeping this article from being named the correct title and more recognizable, as per WP:COMMONNAME is in order to ingrain a certain POV against this group, which violates the policy. What was stated by Legacypac is the WP:POV I'm referring to: "I'll just highlight that seeking to delegitimize ISIL is an goal shared by NATO, EU, GCC, Arab League, Russia, Iran, China, Australia, New Zealand, and other countries, plus the UN." - [180]

At the end of the day, the current proposal is not only the groups official name, and therefore pertaining to WP:NPOVTITLE, but also to WP:COMMONNAME, as shown above. P-123 made the very true fact that Wikipedia editors should stop editorialising in this article. This is an Encyclopedia. How about Wikipedia starts acting like one? StanTheMan87 (talk) 12:10, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • No. The history of the current debate, and the recency of a previous discussion, means that it is far too soon to discuss another move: it distracts from real editing. It is only worth revisiting so soon if it is highly likely to change the earlier consensus. Please stop this discussion. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Negative. The title should have been changed a long time ago. This article shall not be at the mercy of editors whose only reason to maintain the status quo is personal opinion and not Wikipedia Policy. StanTheMan87 (talk) 12:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And as per above, the natural disambiguation in the title fails to accurately disambiguate the subject from the group. If it wouldn't there would not be all those countless failed move requests being put forth in such short periods of time by editors who, like their Spanish [181], Italian [182], French [183] and German [184] counterparts, want what is actually suitable for this article. Moreover, the current title is less recognizable compared to the proposed title with a parenthetical disambiguation, so you fail to address WP:COMMONNAME, perhaps the most important Wikipedia Policy when considering a name change. And no, given the context of the article, "IS" is certainly not ambiguous, it is a widely used acronym for the group, as shown above, and more common than its "ISIL" counter-part. StanTheMan87 (talk) 16:19, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose – First of all, WP:TITLECHANGES suggests that we should think very carefully when moving between controversial titles. Moving from one controversial title to another, despite countless failed move requests for various titles, is simply not support by policy. Regardless of that, the present title provides WP:NATURAL disambiguation, and is stable. NATURAL disambiguation is always preferable to parenthetical disambiguation. The present title is commonly used by British sources, various governments, &c., along with its acronym ISIL and the other acronym ISIS. A parenthetical (IS) is not supported by any policy, and is redundant to the "Islamic State" bit, and provides no disambiguation from countless Islamic republics, such as Iran or Afghanistan, which at least have legitimacy in the international system. In addition, "Islamic state" refers to a general type of state that is Islamic. The present natural disambiguation ensures that the title is both unambiguous, neutral, common, and suitable for an encyclopaedic register. The same editors need to stop proposing the same change every minute, and start looking at Wikipedia policy. RGloucester — ☎ 16:05, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What you have just referred to has already been refuted up above. The "Natural" disambiguation which separates the term "Islamic State" from the philosophical/Political concept of an 'Islamic State" is the phrase "of the Iraq and the Levant". The phrase "of the Iraq and the Levant" which constitutes the "Natural" disambiguation in the article title is worthless and meaningless now. It now leads to ambiguity surrounding the groups presence due to the fact it no longer confined to the regions of the Iraq and the Levant. It's no longer a "Natural" disambiguation it is an ambiguation. The only possible reason you keep maintaining this "Natural" disambiguation is therefore to POV push, just like how western politicians refer to it as "ISIL" in order to intentionally de-legitimize the group then if they referred to it as "Islamic State". Because the "Natural" disambiguation is therefore worthless, (this is shown due to the all the change of name requests launched on this talk page to change it to "Islamic State" with a parenthetical disambiguation, like this one) you fail WP:NATURAL. Because the "Natural" disambiguation is no longer applicable nor relevant, this means a parenthetical disambiguation take precedence. And I doubt any serious human being would confuse the Islamic Republic of Iran with "Islamic State (IS)", given the recognizability of both terms in their respective context, also shown above. StanTheMan87 (talk) 16:19, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It leads to no ambiguity. Regardless of the territorial extent of the entity, it is still called ISIL &c. by RS. There is nothing "worthless" about it. What you propose is that a country like France cannot have territories outside metropolitan France, or that the USA cannot possess American Samoa. WP:NATURAL says to use natural disambiguation, and this is natural disambiguation. This is one of the common names of the organisation, eliminates all redundancy and ambiguity. RGloucester — ☎ 16:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Islamic State cannot be geographically be bound, it isn't describing a place or a location, unlike the term "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" which is vastly under used by most recognizable and impartial English-language media sources and news agencies. I've cited ones to support my case. The Wikipedia page refers to the USA as the "United States", and the term "United States" can not be geographically bound, becuase it is not referring to a set location. The fact "American Samoa" is called American Samoa proves the point, that it is indeed under the authority of the United State of America. Do we call Islamic State controlled territories in Libya "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant Libya"? or "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant controlled-Libya"? or "ISIL in Libya" or anywhere else in the world where they have control? What is the point of that? That is the reason why the natural disambiguation is a failure. How can people expect to see that the "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant", which implies it is only in the the regions of Iraq and the Levant, when it is not? The group no longer goes by that designation, as it is no longer confined to those regions, hence why it is now known as the "Islamic State". I'm afraid the circumstances are different. We are happy to call the "United States of America" the "United States", but we cannot refer to the "Islamic State" as the "Islamic State" and instead use an outdated name, with POV connotations attached, see [185] and the urging of the BBC to use the term "ISIL", which are the POV I am talking about. The only reason is to POV push, and to intentionally not call them simply the "Islamic State" with a parenthetical disambiguation because most RS use the term "Islamic State" with many renditions such as "IS", "militant" group", "islamist group" or "self-proclaimed. Do you not see the confusion here? Honestly, what goes on this article, on this Wikipedia page is just sheer stupidity and somehow I find it humorous that the English language Wikipedia is more backward than the Spanish, French, German and Italian Wikipedia's when it comes to this article. It astounds me how some people's personal Points of View are allowed to dictate the titling of a Wikipedia article page. StanTheMan87 (talk) 16:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for exactly the same reasons as in my 04:44, 14 July 2015 response above which clearly StanTheMan87 has not considered. The rationale presented with my oppose was:
"as per the current title being an encyclopedic name. See Encyclopedia Britannica, Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) (militant organization).
as per the opening search results having no validity. For instance the search on Islamic State (IS) could as easily come from a phrase such as "The so-called 'Islamic State' is a ..." ISIL and ISIS remain commonname and NPOV names for the group. We are not here to WP:SOAPBOX for a group that claims to have authority over all of Islam and yet actively prejudices against Sufis, Shias and non line towing and non extremist Sunnis. The group, as has been repeatedly commented by a vast number of commentators, is not representative of Islam. It presents itself as a state and yet the recognized states in the area of the groups activities are Iraq and Syria. If the group had called itself something like, "Sunni Extremist Polity" then this would have had accuracy. As it is Islamic State is ambiguous with every other group that has attempted to operate as an Islamic state. "Islamic State" of what? How? It certainly isn't within the general possession of Islam. The majority of Islam rejects it."
The search presentations, for a start, are a joke for the reasons presented. They also fail to take into account that the current title references the same source material on which the greatly prevalent ISIS in English and the similarly prevalent Daesh (in Arabic) are based.
Sufis, Shias and the majority of Sunnis reject ISIL and if presents staggering bias on the part of the group to even consider a presentation of themselves as "Islamic State". I do not think that is is Wikipedia's place is to WP:SOAPBOX an offensive reworking of the name of a Muslim killing terrorist group. GregKaye 19:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per Encyclopedic name, see the Wikipedia articles who also have adopted Islamic State with and without a parenthetical disambiguation.
French Wikipedia - État islamique (organisation)
Spanish Wikipedia - Estado Islámico
German Wikipedia - Islamischer Staat (Organisation)
Italian Wikipedia - Stato Islamico
You claim the search results are invalid, yet provide no proof to support your claim for "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" being the common name for the group. Again, what you cited before: Islamic State (IS) could as easily come from a phrase such as "The so-called 'Islamic State' is a ..." doesn't prove your point at all. It still uses the term "Islamic State" in that sentence, regardless if it is referred to as "so-called" or "self-proclaimed" this does not support your point. Again, "IS" is a popular acronym for the group, and is used by a plethora of reliable sources, some of which are the largest most impartial news agencies and English-language mainstream media institutions in the world, not to mention influential Think Tanks and News magazines, as is the term "Islamic State". Again, your efforts at denying the recognizability of these terms over "ISIL" and "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" are futile. Actually properly read everything in my opening paragraph and view every link rather than just type stuff which has already been refuted, I'm tired of doing the work for you. And I'm not going to entertain your personal thoughts on Sufis and Shias views, and the whole POV WP:SOAPBOX about offending people, that is absolutely irrelevant on an Encyclopedia, per WP:TITLECHANGES. StanTheMan87 (talk) 04:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
StanTheMan87 Re: "It still uses the term "Islamic State". No it doesn't. All it does is present a search on the three words/letterings "Islamic", "state" and "is". The search gives very similar results to a search on the two words "Islamic" and "state" and is worthless. I will amend. What you cited before: Islamic State (IS) could as easily come from a phrase such as "sources state that it is Islamic to recite the shahadah". There are many articles that might, in various ways, use the words "Islamic" and "State"/"state".
Various RMs have, out of context, presented various uses of the group as "Islamic State" and, as you have done, have ignored the fact that these references are regularly presented with qualification. Britannica, free of the potential influence of tendentious editors, have come to similar presentation of the group as "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant". Acronyms on this basis are frequently used. Many groups, with similarity to the Associated Press, use "Islamic State group". Others make reference to the "so-called Islamic State".
It makes no difference whether someone refers to the group as 'Islamic State group' or 'Islamic State (IS)', 'IS' or 'so called Islamic State group' or whatever rendition which only includes the phrase 'Islamic State' in it, they all mean the same thing, they all refer to the same group, and they all use the groups official and formal name, 'Islamic State' when referring to them, which is another point for recognizability. You make it sounds as if they all those renditions are in a completely different languages. That's just bad luck if it means it makes the term more recognizable than just the 'Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant'. But it will make it null and void for you to keep proselyting that argument further. And whether or not an edit is considered 'tendentious' by you, is completely irrelevant on Wikipedia, an Encyclopedia that should strive for fact and accuracy rather than a censorship political manifesto used to deligemisitise a group based on a POV held by the likes of you and other editors.
Google News search results over the past hour:
Islamic State - 508 results [186]
ISIL - 10 results [187]
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant - 1 result [188]
Google News search results over the past 24 hours:
Islamic State - 11,400 results [189]
ISIL - 2,220 results [190]
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant - 150 results [191]
Google News search results over the past week:
Islamic State - 81,200 results [192]
ISIL - 20,900 results results [193]
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant - 1370 results [194]
Google News search results over the past month:
Islamic State - 11,300,000 results [195]
ISIL - 59,300 results [196]
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant - 4,310 results [197]
You cannot dismiss these search results. Look at the number of hits for each term, in the period given. The numbers would have changed somewhat for each one, but the phrase 'Islamic State' which includes any mention of the term Islamic State in whatever rendition, such as 'Islamic State (IS)', Islamic State group) the 'so-called Islamic State' or 'Islamic State militant group' always comes out on top. You cannot cite the fact that both 'Islamic State' and 'Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant' both contain the terms 'Islamic State' and therefore they will overlap and is an unfair comparison. Nope, look at the vast difference in hits between each term. There is no overlap here, the term 'Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant' is purely less used then the term 'Islamic State' with whatever rendition used. Due to the amount of renditions for the terms in circulation, this will undoubtedly boost search results for the term. This only helps my argument for WP:COMMONNAME. Obviously, you do not like this fact, so you are attempting to make the results negligible by saying: There is a difference between each individual rendition term, that 'Islamic State group' is different to 'Islamic State (IS)', that 'Islamic State militant group' is different to 'Islamic State jihadist group'. Sorry, that argument is purely POV pushing ridiculousness. Just becuase you do not have WP:COMMONNAME on your side, does not give you the right to interject your own POV in contravening WP policy, and the policy states that the term with the most recognizability should be used. Look a the above searches, and you will see and bad luck when you come to that revelation. Tough luck if you don't. StanTheMan87 (talk) 04:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The argument that the title "Islamic State" is common name for the group often presented as "ISIL", "ISIS", "Daesh", the "so called Islamic State" or "Islamic State group" is very far from conclusive.
Google News search results over the past hour:
"Islamic State" - [198] 225 results results
"ISIL" OR "ISIS" OR "Daesh" [199] 872 results
Google News search results over the past 24 hours:
"Islamic State" - [200] 12,000 results
"ISIL" OR "ISIS" OR "Daesh" [201] 25,300 results
Google News search results over the past week:
"Islamic State" - [202] 58,100 results
"ISIL" OR "ISIS" OR "Daesh" [203] 695,000 results
Google News search results over the past month:
"Islamic State" - [204] 1,660,000 results results
"ISIL" OR "ISIS" OR "Daesh" [205] About 13,700,000 results
Again these results do not represent articles that add some form of qualifier in the text such as "so called Islamic State" or "Islamic State group.
response added late (inclusive of "Islamic State" search formatting amendment GregKaye 11:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Greg, do you know what the title of the current article reads? This proposal was to change the current article title which, if I am not mistaken, is solely the term 'Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant' and the acronym associated with it, 'ISIL'. Therefore, if you are going to try and prove WP:COMMONNAME, it has nothing to do with the terms 'ISIS', 'Islamic State of Iraq and Syria' or 'Daesh'. Do you understand? It would be different if the title was 'Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/ISIS/ISIL/Daesh'. The you could cite search results for each of those terms. Unfortunately for you, the title only contains the phrase 'Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant'. So if you are going to cite google hits, it will only be between the phrases 'Islamic State' vs. 'Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant' and 'ISIL'. I have already done this, and it shows you fail WP:COMMONNAME. StanTheMan87 (talk) 07:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
StanTheMan87 Re: "do you know what the title of the current article reads?" Of course I do and I would ask you to please avoid the use of uncivil, condescending questions. As you certainly realize the three acronyms "ISIS", "ISIL" and "Daesh" are all based on the same source material as forms the basis for the article title. This argument fully fits with the general principle at WP:CRITERIA: "Recognizability – 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." Anyone with any familiarity with the subject will know that "ISIS", "ISIL" and "Daesh" are interrelated terms. They are synonyms for exactly the same thing. You, being familiar with the subject, know this. GregKaye 08:54, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support prefering "Islamic State" (Per DIFFCAPS, "Islamic State (organisation)", "Islamic State (group)", "Islamic State (ISIS)" in that order of preference 14:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC) per same reasoning in previous RM. ISIL and ISIS (spelled out at least) are rarely used. The oft quoted references to NPOV and SOAPBOX fail to actually consider what is said.
1. NPOV says: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."
In other words, refusing to use the name used by the majority of reliable sources sources may actually go against NPOV. We already have a large portion of this article discussing the (in)accuracy of this name.
2. SOAP says: "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to usernames, articles, categories, files, talk page discussions, templates, and user pages."
Unless you believe by using a name we are agreeing it is representative, then there is no problem. It then lists five forms of SOAP. If you believe it to be one of these, please tell me which.
3. POVNAME appears to agree with this: "... Sometimes that common name includes non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (e.g. the Boston Massacre or the Teapot Dome scandal). In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper noun (and that proper noun has become the usual term for the event), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue."
I believe this also holds for groups as well as events. Islamic State is a proper noun, and therefore should override concern that Wikipedia is endorse Islamic State to be an/the Islamic State.
To my mind, the main focus of discussion should be OFFICIAL and COMMONNAME. Banak (talk) 19:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Banak can you please give a direct indication of what you mean in your claim "ISIL and ISIS (spelled out at least) are rarely used."
The likes of the Encyclopedia Britannica, use Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) (militant organization). I am currently watching a UK Channel Four documentary entitled "Escape from ISIS". Watch the trailer and, if to your interest, the full programme if you get the chance.
In google news:
"ISIS" gets "About 23,300,000 results". Granted "Isis" may also have other meanings but this is news. What other meanings might be commonly used??
"Islamic State" gets "About 3,790,000 results"
Thank you for the question regarding WP:SOAPBOX which presents, as its first point, "Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view...". This group is very specifically a Salafi Jihadist/Salafist/Wahhabist group on the fringe (if that) of Islam and yet, even though it is rejected by Sufis, Shias and most of Sunni Islam, they self promote themselves as "Islamic State". These people do not call them "Islamic State". The international community does not call them "Islamic State". The great majority of the people, from a wide range of backgrounds, that are interviewed by our so called "reliable sources" do not call them "Islamic State". The press quotes sources that THEY consider as being both reliable and noteworthy and these sources, with notable predominance, use other forms of reference for the group.
Often when news groups use "Islamic State" they use qualification such as "so-called". Presenting it as "Islamic State" when it is so far away of being representative of Islam in general is incredible POV. They are not an Islamic state for all of Islam.
GregKaye 22:40, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On soapbox, I don't know where you're going by repeating my quote. No one is suggesting we change the title to recruit people to IS, or as propaganda or to advocate for them. That is what is not allowed under SOAP.
On the issue of common name, my own searches, displayed previously found Islamic state to be more commonly used on top articles. If you do some for yourself and come to a different conclusion for full names, then I will respect that.
On the relevance of what groups call IS, "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources)". If they aren't a reliable English-language source, then they don't come into it.
On your comment on POV, I will repeat my comment from my 3rd point, I believe "Islamic State" has become a noun, and therefore should override concern for endorsing them being an/the Islamic State, in my the same way as it does for the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, or for Golden Dawn.
On the documentary, in the very intro you linked me to, it says "... with exclusive footage from within the Islamic State" and other than that just calls them "ISIS". It never calls them one of {ISIS or ISIL} spelled out. Banak (talk) 00:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again can I please ask, can you please give a direct indication of what you mean in your claim "ISIL and ISIS (spelled out at least) are rarely used."? Please stand by your words and explain. Please see the search presented on the usage of ISIS. Please, do not make a claim about one thing with attempts to link it with evidence of something different. Please specify what you meant by: "(spelled out at least)" and why you linked this to "ISIL and ISIS ... are rarely used"?
ISIS and ISIL remain at extremely high rate of usage and presentation "rarely used" I think belies an undercurrent of tendentious and selective argument here. Please directly and fairly say what you want to say. As you know from your own research usage of "Islamic State" when it is used, is often accompanied by a qualifier such as "so-called" or "group" which, having looked at the OPs talk page and following personal contacts with him, I think have all been tendentiously disregarded. If this kind of editor behaviour occurs here then I have no reason to believe that similar abuses have not occurred in other Wikipedias.
A presentation of being the "Islamic State" of the entire Islamic world is a central part of the group's propaganda and this is exactly why governments, representatives of communities with Islam based practice and the majority of the various experts interviewed by "reliable sources" either avoid the name or use it with some level of qualification. As far as WP:SOAPBOX is concerned all we have to do is to consider the end result effect. Issues regarding what any editor may have been openly "suggesting" or otherwise complying with irrelevant.
"Islamic State" is clearly presented within a context as "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant". A content as loaded as this it needs a context as, in some way, is regularly provided within the international community, by representatives of Islam, by various experts and by the reporting agencies. GregKaye 03:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@GregKaye:
I thought I'd already submitted a response yesterday, but it didn't send for some reason. Apologies for the delay.
I ask you to provide an example for the comment "Please, do not make a claim about one thing with attempts to link it with evidence of something different" or strike it, as otherwise I will consider it an unsubstantiated personal attack.
Please strike "While, I have not made any claim regarding editors intentions or motivations..." due to your comments of "tendentious and selective argument" and "tendentiously disregarded" which pre-date it.
ISIL and ISIS (spelled out): The names "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant", "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" and, less commonly, "Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham"
I mean the names are used less than the name "Islamic State" to refer to the group, both in common usage and in usage by reliable sources despite diplomatic pressure. The search results are not particularly relevant to this exact thread of reasoning, but I shall look at them. They should not be put in every single thread.
"tendentious and selective argument" is entirely inaccurate. I started with the POV that the name "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" was the most accurate and changed my mind based on arguments provided. I therefore see no way this could be construed as tendentious. I provided evidence before to show this name was rarely used. However, you decided to provide two sources you believed backed you up without providing any methodology to say how you selected them. You appear to have not watched the trailer you used in evidence as it actually never uses any name for IS other than "Islamic State" and "ISIS". This suggests to me that you are being selective.
"Please directly and fairly say what you want to say." I'm not sure what prompted this, but I will oblige. I will not be intimidated by what appears to be threats against two other users on this talk page. I will use policy and reason in arguments, and not repeated speeches ad nauseam about how terrible IS is. They are terrible, but that's makes no difference to this argument. The best way to handle this topic is to follow policy, and I believe that policy is on my side.
I've seen Stan brought to ANI for little reason and that brought up on this talkpage. You have brought a topic banned editor in what appears to me to be an attempt to intimidate Mbcap. This, in the context of the number of users who have various sanctions from ANI who opposed you and legacypac and Stan's ANI being brought up, leaves me believing intimidation is the only reasonable explanation, assuming good faith for everything else, as I believe it would be very unlikely you would not predict this. Please be careful not to intimidate users, even if you profoundly disagree with them.
As I remember it, my research showed that the name "Islamic State" (ignoring uses with a qualifier) was by far the most common name. Could you please link me back to it, or are you also working from memory?
"If this kind of editor behaviour occurs here then I have no reason to believe that similar abuses have not occurred in other Wikipedias." To be clear, you are saying you believe that many of the other Wikipedias that take the name "Islamic State" are doing so out of error on the basis of what you believe to be deliberately representing research I did in a previous more request.
I believe what other Wikipedias call this group is as irrelevant as what sources written in arabic say. None of our policies care about either.
As I said before, the group is taking the name as a proper noun as "(the) Islamic State", much like how Mbcap used the name (the) "Democratic Republic of the Congo". There is another state called the "Republic of the Congo" which is democratic, yet the Wikipedia article is titled "Democratic Republic of the Congo" and begins with the sentence "The Democratic Republic of the Congo..."
Moving to "Islamic State" will not change the context provided in the lead. Therefore I believe your concerns about context to be unfounded.
The usage of "ISIS" as a name is irrelevant, unless you want to move to that as a title. People who call the group "Islamic State" often call it "ISIS" for short. Banak (talk) 21:57, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Banak, can I ask please, if you want to make a claim such as "ISIL and ISIS are rarely used" then say that. If you want to present something along the lines of saying that "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" and "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" are rarely used" then say that. The search evidence presented clearly demonstrates that, at least, the first of these statements would be utterly false.
Please take care not to cobble together claims such as "ISIL and ISIS (spelled out at least) are rarely used." ISIS, in particular and as is demonstrated, has an extremely high rate of usage.
In the text below Mbcap said, "Changing name to Islamic State is absolutely policy based". To which I replied, "Please do not push opinion as fact. Wikipedia has a range of policy and guidelines and it is up to editors to take the whole package into account." Maybe I should have instead challenged this as a one sided opinion push. Objections including WP:TITLECHANGES and WP:NATURAL (which supports titles such as Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and Islamic State group) have similar p and g base. However is this what you are describing as "intimidation" or do you wish to comment on something else? My interpretation was that Mbcap presented a one sided presentation and that I fairly replied to state that there were two sides to the debate. GregKaye 06:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
GregKaye The actual quote is ISIL and ISIS (spelled out at least) are rarely used. please correct this in the first line. Appologies for any confusion from the "at least", this is a mannerism I seem to have adopted. The intention was for it be read as ISIL and ISIS (spelled out) are rarely used.
Please consider the two things I requested you strike.
My comment on intimidation: You have brought a topic banned editor in what appears to me to be an attempt to intimidate Mbcap. This, in the context of the number of users who have various sanctions from ANI who opposed you and legacypac and Stan's ANI being brought up, leaves me believing intimidation is the only reasonable explanation, assuming good faith for everything else, as I believe it would be very unlikely you would not predict this. I believe it is entirely clear that I did not mean giving counter arguments, rather that it appears to be a threat to take Mbcap to ANI if he continues to argue against your position. Banak (talk) 14:09, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support per the reasons given in the RM, but specifically because of WP:COMMONNAME. To quote: " If the name of a person, group, object, or other article topic changes, then more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change than in those before the change." StanTheMan87 has provided exhaustive evidence to show that Reuters, the Associated Press, Agence France-Presse and many other reliable sources have all switched to using the name Islamic State since its name changed in June 2014.
Just recently, the Washington Post (which uses Islamic State) reported that the BBC (which also uses the Islamic State) reviewed their use of the name after criticism from British Conservative politicians, and decided to continue using it to "preserve the BBC's impartiality".[206] Given that WP:NEUTRAL is a fundamental principal of the Wikipedia project, I think this episode is instructive. Gazkthul (talk) 23:59, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If this is your justification then why are you not arguing for the use of something like the previously proposed "Islamic State group"? Wikipedia in the Persian language (another language widely spoken among Arabic communities) simply presents fa:داعش (Daesh). Even the BBC (despite their consistent habit of overlooking use, by their interviewees, of ISIL, ISIS and Daesh) present the group, in the article you quote, as: "So-called Islamic State". (In your previous talk page edits here (including those in which you selectively presented content referring to the group as "Islamic State") you have consistently managed to sign your posts). GregKaye 06:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Greg yoru statement that Persian language is another language widely spoken among Arabic ommunities is simply false. As someone fluent in the Persian dialects of Farsi and Dari, I can tell you that, that can not be true as there is no source to back it up. As for Islamic State group, well that is actually an alternative that we could consider but I do not think it is as commonly used as Islamic State. Mbcap (talk) 05:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mbcap Fair enough yet the article Arabs indicates the presence of 1,600,000 Arabs living in Iran indicating about a fiftieth of the population. Arabs are a significant minority in just this one Persian speaking country and I presume that some of them speak Persian. GregKaye 17:08, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mbcap I guess that the main issue that I see here for me is Persian speaking countries like Iran are predominantly Islamic. On this basis I think that people from language groups such as Persian can be referenced to a give good indication of the reaction to the group from communities that have high rate of connection and understanding of Islam. GregKaye 20:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move and support an early close, a hat, and a move on to something productive. This proposal seems to stem from a fundamental misunderstanding of how we use parenthetical disambiguation. The proposed title is flat-out wrong even if it can be demonstrated that "Islamic State" is the best title root. The search results provided in the nomination are laughably naive from a technical standpoint (no crap, "is" is a common word! It is!). Also, work on concision. Seriously. VQuakr (talk) 01:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is a commonly used acronym for the group, used in a plethora of RS as shown above. The term "IS" is now as recognizable to the term 'Islamic State" as the term "USA" is to the "United States".
Google News search results over the past hour:
Islamic State - 508 results [207]
ISIL - 10 results [208]
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant - 1 result [209]
Google News search results over the past 24 hours:
Islamic State - 11,400 results [210]
ISIL - 2,220 results [211]
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant - 150 results [212]
Google News search results over the past week:
Islamic State - 81,200 results [213]
ISIL - 20,900 results results [214]
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant - 1370 results [215]
Google News search results over the past month:
Islamic State - 11,300,000 results [216]
ISIL - 59,300 results [217]
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant - 4,310 results [218]
I added the acronym "ISIL" to level the playing field, as most articles will refer to the term 'Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" firstly, and then revert straight away to the usage of the acronym. You still come up short against the "Islamic State" term, with all possible renditions included, such as "Islamic State (IS)", "Islamic State group", "so-called Islamic State" or "self-proclaimed Islamic State". It makes no difference which one is used, so along as the "Islamic State" is somewhere in the title. These searches virtually all refer to the group known as the Islamic State. Also, the argument that the terms "Islamic State" and "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" overlap is also nonsense, as the results are so far apart, it makes no difference if they actually overlapped. Maybe that argument could be made, should the two terms has registered a smilar number of hits. But the terms vastly favor "Islamic State" StanTheMan87 (talk) 11:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Google hits are a poor indicator of the best title even with competent search strings. These are not competent search strings. Nearly every web page on the internet written in English will contain the word "is". Every reference to "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" will turn up in your search for "Islamic State." You didn't even attempt to address your misunderstanding of disambiguation, which has been pointed out by myself and several other editors. Your proposal quickfails, and your lack of concision is so severe it borders on disruptive. VQuakr (talk) 01:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Parenthetical disambiguation changed from (IS) to (islamist group). So what if every reference to 'Islamic State' still makes reference to 'Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant'? Then merely substitute all the hits for the latter with the former, and even if that didn't work, the sources shown above in the first paragraph by the worlds most largest, reliable and impartial media sources and news agencies all use the term 'Islamic State'. 'Islamic State' still has more hits and is still the more popular term, even if Islamic State group or Islamic State islamist group added in to the search. Your Wiki-tirade is now irrelevant. StanTheMan87 (talk) 04:35, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The argument that the title "Islamic State" is common name for the group often presented as "ISIL", "ISIS", "Daesh", the "so called Islamic State" or "Islamic State group" is very far from conclusive.
Google News search results over the past hour:
"Islamic State" - [219] 225 results results
"ISIL" OR "ISIS" OR "Daesh" [220] 872 results
Google News search results over the past 24 hours:
"Islamic State" - [221] 12,000 results
"ISIL" OR "ISIS" OR "Daesh" [222] 25,300 results
Google News search results over the past week:
"Islamic State" - [223] 58,100 results
"ISIL" OR "ISIS" OR "Daesh" [224] 695,000 results
Google News search results over the past month:
"Islamic State" - [225] 1,660,000 results results
"ISIL" OR "ISIS" OR "Daesh" [226] About 13,700,000 results
Again these results do not represent articles that add some form of qualifier in the text such as "so called Islamic State" or "Islamic State group.
response added late (inclusive of "Islamic State" search formatting amendment GregKaye 11:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Greg, do you know what the title of the current article reads? This proposal was to change the current article title which, if I am not mistaken, is solely the term 'Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant' and the acronym associated with it, 'ISIL'. Therefore, if you are going to try and prove WP:COMMONNAME, it has nothing to do with the terms 'ISIS', 'Islamic State of Iraq and Syria' or 'Daesh'. Do you understand? It would be different if the title was 'Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/ISIS/ISIL/Daesh'. The you could cite search results for each of those terms. Unfortunately for you, the title only contains the phrase 'Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant'. So if you are going to cite google hits, it will only be between the phrases 'Islamic State' vs. 'Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant' and 'ISIL'. I have already done this, and it shows you fail WP:COMMONNAME. StanTheMan87 (talk) 07:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See response to identical content above. GregKaye 08:59, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Parenthetical disambiguation changed to (islamist group) in line with the disambiguation used for the Khorasan (Islamist group) page. 'Islamic State' which included every single possible rendition that contains the term 'Islamic State' such as 'Islamic State (IS)', 'Islamic State militant group, Islamic State jihadist group, 'Islamic State islamist group or even 'so-called Islamic State' are more popular are commonly used. All the terms still use the phrase 'Islamic State' which does not hamper recognizability, though you seem to think it does, just so you can express your POV. ISIL and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant are neither the most common nor the most recognizable, nor are they official. This has been shown multiple times. The natural disambiguation used is a farce and irrelevant now, and you have yet to reply to my previous comment above on this issue of WP:NATURAL. Provide evidence that the term 'Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant' is used by the worlds largest English language media sources and news agencies, which also happen to be the most impartial, reliable sources in the world, or cease continuing to regurgitate nonsense. StanTheMan87 (talk) 04:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Invalid point raised by editor SmokeyJoe concerning support for Daesh. The RM is only between the current and proposed title.
You don't get to set the rules. You can't constrain others to your false dichotomy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is why this nomination is Procedurally invalid and should be failed automatically due to the nominator's fake rules -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:08, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The proposed title with "IS" in parentheses appears to violate the parenthetical disambiguation rules of WP:NCDAB. "IS" is not a generic class, subject or context, or adjective describing the topic. Rather, it is an abbreviation of the unambiguous article title, which does nothing to help disambiguate. Furthermore, the search engine tests above appear to be flawed (see also WP:HITS). First they are heavily skewed towards recentism and recent news events for the past few years, which does not erase the fact the "IS" has been refer to, and searched for, a vast range of other topics listed on the IS page for decades. And second, it appears to be picking up all instances of the word "is" and the other uses of the "IS" abbreviation, which also skews the results (for example, one of the Google results is this article that has the phrase near the top "The Islamic State is..."). I'm not against a parenthetical disambiguation title in general, but the term in parentheses needs to be more clear per WP:NCDAB. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is a commonly used acronym for the group, used in a plethora of RS as shown above. The term "IS" is now as recognizable to the term 'Islamic State" as the term "USA" is to the "United States".
Google News search results over the past hour:
Islamic State - 508 results [227]
ISIL - 10 results [228]
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant - 1 result [229]
Google News search results over the past 24 hours:
Islamic State - 11,400 results [230]
ISIL - 2,220 results [231]
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant - 150 results [232]
Google News search results over the past week:
Islamic State - 81,200 results [233]
ISIL - 20,900 results results [234]
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant - 1370 results [235]
Google News search results over the past month:
Islamic State - 11,300,000 results [236]
ISIL - 59,300 results [237]
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant - 4,310 results [238]
I added the acronym "ISIL" to level the playing field, as most articles will refer to the term 'Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" firstly, and then revert straight away to the usage of the acronym. You still come up short against the "Islamic State" term, with all possible renditions included, such as "Islamic State (IS)", "Islamic State group", "so-called Islamic State" or "self-proclaimed Islamic State". It makes no difference which one is used, so along as the "Islamic State" is somewhere in the title. These searches virtually all refer to the group known as the Islamic State. Also, the argument that the terms "Islamic State" and "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" overlap is also nonsense, as the results are so far apart, it makes no difference if they actually overlapped. Maybe that argument could be made, should the two terms has registered a smilar number of hits. But the terms vastly favor "Islamic State" StanTheMan87 (talk) 11:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There might be many other "IS"s but there's almost a unique "USA", so the example is not applied here. Mhhossein (talk) 13:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You still fail WP:COMMONNAME. StanTheMan87 (talk) 04:06, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You still fail to even demonstrate the argument re: common name. Your searches are flawed and that's even before accounting for the many instances in which reference to "Islamic State" is given some form of qualification.
  • The argument that the title "Islamic State" is common name for the group often presented as "ISIL", "ISIS", "Daesh", the "so called Islamic State" or "Islamic State group" is very far from conclusive.
Google News search results over the past hour:
"Islamic State" - [239] 225 results results
"ISIL" OR "ISIS" OR "Daesh" [240] 872 results
Google News search results over the past 24 hours:
"Islamic State" - [241] 12,000 results
"ISIL" OR "ISIS" OR "Daesh" [242] 25,300 results
Google News search results over the past week:
"Islamic State" - [243] 58,100 results
"ISIL" OR "ISIS" OR "Daesh" [244] 695,000 results
Google News search results over the past month:
"Islamic State" - [245] 1,660,000 results results
"ISIL" OR "ISIS" OR "Daesh" [246] About 13,700,000 results
Again these results do not represent articles that add some form of qualifier in the text such as "so called Islamic State" or "Islamic State group.
response added late (inclusive of "Islamic State" search formatting amendment GregKaye 13:45, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Greg, do you know what the title of the current article reads? This proposal was to change the current article title which, if I am not mistaken, is solely the term 'Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant' and the acronym associated with it, 'ISIL'. Therefore, if you are going to try and prove WP:COMMONNAME, it has nothing to do with the terms 'ISIS', 'Islamic State of Iraq and Syria' or 'Daesh'. Do you understand? It would be different if the title was 'Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/ISIS/ISIL/Daesh'. The you could cite search results for each of those terms. Unfortunately for you, the title only contains the phrase 'Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant'. So if you are going to cite google hits, it will only be between the phrases 'Islamic State' vs. 'Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant' and 'ISIL'. I have already done this, and it shows you fail WP:COMMONNAME. StanTheMan87 (talk) 07:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See response to identical content above. GregKaye 08:59, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose the nominator cannot bar other people from making their opinions known, so the rationale is completely biased and this is no longer a fair discussion process, and should be automatically failed. -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 07:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. There he wrote:"Any attempt to counter this proposal will obviously be meant with the regurgitation of WP:POVTITLE." Mhhossein (talk) 13:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose: The proposed title, Islamic State (IS) is really questionable due to the fact that no actual disambiguation is done by the word in the parenthesis. Using this word as a key word for google search is not a valid attempt (because of the parenthesis) there for one may not show how common this title is in reliable news outlets (User:Zzyzx11 made a more comprehensive critique).
By the way as GregKaye said if we are to refer to statistics, titles such as "ISIS" has far more hits than any other terms. Greg said: "ISIS" gets "About 23,300,000 results". Granted "Isis" may also have other meanings but this is news. What other meanings might be commonly used?
"Islamic State" gets "About 3,790,000 results." Mhhossein (talk) 13:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Zzyzx11, the parenthetical disambiguation has now changed, and it still gains more hits in Google searches whether through the default search or through News search divided into time periods spanning from 1 hour to 1 month. StanTheMan87 (talk) 04:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per most of the preceding oppose !votes. I will simply add that bringing this proposal up so soon after the last time it was debated is bordering on vexatious. All of which said, I would support a proposal to put a one year moratorium on this topic. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea of a moratorium. Starting a subsection below. VQuakr (talk) 01:52, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The prior discussion was not a formal WP:RM. Gazkthul (talk) 05:33, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If RS use ISIL, ISIS, &c. to refer to the group as it fights elsewhere, which they do, then we are able to use it too, and should do. RGloucester — ☎ 15:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Does this mean reliable and impartial public broadcasters and the worlds largest news agencies are all not reliable sources? So I guess what you saying is that none of these sources are reliable:
BBC- [247]
Associated Press - [248]
Reuters - [249]
PBS - [250]
ABC - [251]
NPR - [252]
Agence France-Presse - [253]
But opinionated sources with political alignments like the Daily Mail, The Guardian, Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, al-Jazeera and Russia Today are much more reliable and impartial? Reuters, Associated Press and Agence France-Presse are the three largest news agencies in the world, but lets just forget that part becuase it's so convenient for your argument. What a joke. StanTheMan87 (talk) 05:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of the interviewees of the news agencies that you have mentioned use ISIL, ISIS and Daesh. Watch, listen to and read some news. From the get go when the Islamic State group self-declared itself as "Islamic State", despite the rejection of this titling by Muslims and both governmental and non-governmental agencies, the agency Reuters, I think, inexplicably adopted the unqualified use of the name "Islamic State". This is something that, in the same circumstances, would never have occurred in Wikipedia and, as far as I can tell, the decision was made purely subjectively. The BBC article mentions the "So called Islamic State" and, after considerable time, Associated Press adopted regular presentation of "Islamic State group". Britannica present "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)" and other news groups give similar presentation. GregKaye 09:45, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support - anything else would be taking sides. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and cannot provide commentary whether by implication or otherwise. It can only comment second-hand, as in "X said Y about Z". [Sorry to be the proverbial parrot/gramophone record. ;)] ~ P-123 (talk) 11:54, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per the OED, really it should be "Islamist group", not "islamist group". ~ P-123 (talk) 12:06, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
P-123 Britannica is also an encyclopedia with an article, that was last Updated 4-21-2015, that presents "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)". Islamist is also problematic both in terms or representation of Islam, the group is predominantly waging way against other groups who lay claim to Islam, and in reference to usage in sources. News searches (similar to those that have previously been presented in these pages) indicate raw stats:
GregKaye 14:07, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all parenthetical disambiguation alternative proposals, as the present title uses WP:NATURAL disambiguation, as preferred by the article titles policy. For the record, given the proposers attempt to muddy the waters by changing his proposal midstream. This is clear gaming the system, and is getting tiresome. RGloucester — ☎ 15:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but change disambiguation - If I can interject, I'd like to add that I can see good arguments raised by both sides in this discussion from what I have read so far.

The current title used has a natural disambiguation, which is always preferable in an article name and obeys WP:TITLE and WP:NATURAL. I don't wish to make a statement without any evidence to support it, but where I come from, everyone knows what the term 'Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant' means and what it represents so it's not unpopular. The acronym 'ISIL' is also accurate enough to represent the group. That being said, I have started to notice that both these terms are being displaced by 'ISIS', 'Islamic State' and 'IS' in publications that I read, and news that I tune in to. Many reliable sources are also starting to refer to it as 'Islamic State' with many many different variants. The other fact that also should be considered here is the actual wording in the name. 'Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant' makes the group sound as if it is geographically locked in these two regions, with no territory or ambition to spread outside of its primary spheres of influence. Similar to the Taliban-controlled Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. And, dare I say, it also makes them sound more legitimate as a group then just the ambiguous 'Islamic State' designation, due to the emphasis placed upon the areas of 'Iraq and the Levant'. Makes it sound more formal. But it is now not the case. As multiple editors have stated, it is not merely a parochial militant group with territory in the regions of Iraq, Syria and now even parts of Lebanon but a transnational entity bent on expansion. I cannot see how relegating it to two geographic positions is the mature thing to do in an Encyclopedia, whatever the intention. It is becuase of this that I do not believe the current name and its disambiguation is viable anymore, purely for this reason. Some editors had stated the potential and very real problem of justifying 'Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant' territory outside of Iraq and the Levant. It's not a recognized entity as far as I know. You cannot liken it to the Russian Federation having territory outside of Russia in Europe e.g Kaliningrad or the United States having territory outside of North America e.g Hawaii. What I am getting at is that this implies a level of legitimate ownership, and this group doesn't have it. Not in Libya or Yemen or Iraq or Syria or anywhere.

The issue I have with "Islamic State (IS)" is the disambiguation which, whilst being a widely used acronym for the group, can not be measured accurately to satisfy WP:COMMONAME through Google searches alone. Even though many sources use 'IS' which has been stated, on its own as a disambiguation, it is simply too generic. A similar issue arises with the term "Islamic State". However, were you to isolate the period for a search, the results would become more accurate, and this has already been stated. If a more appropriate disambiguation were to be found that could in concise terms explain what the article is about, I would support it. I suggest something along the lines of Islamic State (organisation) or Islamic State (ISIS) or Islamic State (group) or Islamic State (militant group). I am under the impression that WP:OFFICIAL and WP:COMMONAME are the important policies here, as editor Banak stated, and in my opinion the current title doesn't satisfy either, whilst a proposed title has the potential to satisfy both.

The only reason why I choose to support this current proposal, is that progress towards a better article name will emerge allot quicker were it 'Islamic State (IS)' vs. a proposed alternative rather than the current title vs. a proposed alternative. --Ritsaiph (talk) 11:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The article contains content including: "a leading Islamic educational institution, Dar al-Ifta al-Misriyyah in Egypt, advised Muslims to stop calling the group "Islamic State" and instead refer to it as "Al-Qaeda Separatists in Iraq and Syria" or "QSIS", because of the militant group's "un-Islamic character"" and "representatives of the Islamic Society of Britain, the Association of British Muslims and the UK's Association of Muslim Lawyers proposed that "'Un-Islamic State' (UIS) could be an accurate and fair alternative name to describe this group and its agenda"". I do not know of any title that has been more vehemently objected to and rejected than the one adopted by this group.
I continue to question the commonname claims presented in the OP, in a search across the last month:
site:www.independent.co.uk/ "Islamic State" gives "About 250 results"
I think that this ratio of results better represents early responses of the interviewees of news organisations.
GregKaye 21:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose. The common English name is ISIS or ISIL, which is the initialism for the current title. Since using an initialism for a title is somewhat problematic, the current title is fine as is. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:29, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Issues:
The common name for the group in a variety of sources is ISIS / ISIL and this counts across both secondary and primary sources.
Various "reliable secondary sources" arguably behave on this issue in the fashion of unreliable secondary sources or as primary sources. The vast majority of people interviewed or quoted by news groups call the group "ISIS"/"ISIL" or "Daesh" and in other cases they may mention the so called "Islamic State". Our "so called" secondary sources, on this issue, are not reporting sources but are expressing their own primary source style choice. The interviewees from Muslim sources, agencies even including relief and refugee agencies and governmental and intergovernmental sources, regardless, carry on using ISIS and similar terminologies. Why do they do this?
"Islamic State" is a WP:POVNAME. I can't think of any name that has ever been more contested and rejected than "Islamic State".
This is not simply a corollary of innocuous names like the much mentioned yet comparatively innocuous "Democratic Republic of the Congo". The so called "Democratic Republic of the Congo" does not consider other manifestations of democracy to be invalid. To my knowledge the Congo has not declared all borders and state recognition to be invalid while claiming, itself, to be a state.
In the case of the Islamic State group. It claims authority over all of Islam effectively saying that Islam will have validity if it is under the claimed authority of the claimed caliphate. Even though it is not a state, if they had called themselves something such as the Salafi Jihadi State then, arguably, something like this would have been less objectionable and, arguably, been more openly direct.
Mbcap has repeatedly, but while refusing to cite anything that I have actually said, described whatever similar comment that I may have made as "conflating the name with the claim". There is no issue of conflation as the claim of the name "Islamic State" and the groups various claims about states and being the state for all Islam are inextricably linked. A great many comments have been made by various sources criticizing this greatly POV loaded name and, within this context, I think that it is completely understandable as to why the name is so widely avoided. I have repeatedly asked Mbcap "To what extent do you think that there is a relationship between the group's self proclamation as "Islamic State" and their claim to be the state for all Islam?" and s/he, for whatever reason, has refused to answer. I do not see a valid justification for using this loaded name within the encyclopedia outside of the context of designations like the much mentioned "Islamic State group". Meanwhile commonname, even in "secondary" sources, remains ISIS. GregKaye 06:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative proposal: one-year moratorium on move proposals

Frequent move proposals are disruptive to actual article improvement. Per Ad Orientem's suggestion above, I propose a one-year moratorium on page move proposals for this article. VQuakr (talk) 01:52, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support moratorium as nominator. VQuakr (talk) 01:52, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support I respect the fact there are strong opinions on this subject. But it is painfully clear that after a month or more of often heated debate over two substantively identical proposals, that no consensus on this subject currently exists or is likely to be gained in the near future. It's time to move on to more constructive activities. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:19, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support – These repeated proposals have been disruptive and pointless. RGloucester — ☎ 03:14, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose - Changing name to Islamic State is absolutely policy based and a moratorium will just impede that effort. Regardless we should have this conversation after this RM has concluded. Mbcap (talk) 04:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mbcap Re: "Changing name to Islamic State is absolutely policy based" Please do not push opinion as fact. Wikipedia has a range of policy and guidelines and it is up to editors to take the whole package into account. GregKaye 05:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Greg I never said it was fact. An admin can judge what I said based on his/her own understanding of policy. As a serial POV pusher you should reflect on your own actions first. Maybe learn from the good arguments being made by those who oppose the name of Islamic State, where they actually use policy based reasons rather than personal thoughts. Mbcap (talk) 05:38, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mbcap then what were you trying to convey in saying "Changing name to Islamic State is absolutely policy based and a moratorium will just impede that effort"? Please note that when anything is presented on a talk page, other editors have the right to challenge the validity of what is said. If you think that something is POV pushing you need to establish that first. Please note that I am not here necessarily supporting a moratorium. I find it humourous that you are advocating censorship in some quarters and opposing it in others. If you dispute an edit then an appropriate course of action would be to present any aledged issue on a user's talk page. GregKaye 05:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Greg Where did I say it is a fact? Do you really wish to start a debate about epistemology. You are right that anyone can challenge the validity of said statements. If you do wish to know, please read my arguments from the January RM and also the very good explanation by StanTheMan, Banak, Gazkthul and Xavierltzm. If you have any question, do let me know. I also find it humerus that you find it humorous regarding censorship in some quarters and opposing in others. Yes I certainly do want to censor those comments that treat this page as if it is a forum. Mbcap (talk) 06:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mbcap you are not WP:LISTENing. If you have an issue with a particular edit please specify the edit and state your view on the alleged problem. I think that it is valid to consider the views and practices of other groups associated with Islam in their regular rejection or qualification of the use of the name "Islamic State". GregKaye 06:38, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Greg you are conflating the name with the claim. Maybe you should start a seperate thread on the claim. It is not as black and white as you make it out to be. The idea of an Islamic Caliphate is entirely at odds with modern international laws and precedents. It can never be accepted and everyone appreciates that. To understand the topic more, I recommend you read al-ahkam al-sultaniyya by the Kurdish jurist Al-Mawardi. I think this is one of the books they may be basing their governance on. A reading on a normative version of an Islamic State would instantly show that it is in no way compatible with the modern political structure in place. Therefore this talk about it not being accepted as being legitimate is a wasted discourse. It is said that this group has no basis in Islam and there are others who say that it is to do with Islam. There is another subset of people who say that it has something to do with Islam. Everyone can choose which they believe in but there is a distinction between what people who are Muslim's say and what classical sources on the subject say. We are here to accurately convey the content available on this topic. The constant attempts to "deligitimise" the group serve no purpose. No one is here to legitimise then and changing the name to accurately refer to it is not going to legitimise them any more than the current name. Rather we should spend time on improving the article. Mbcap (talk) 06:52, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mbcap To what extent exactly are you (if this is what you are doing) saying that the groups choice of the contracted name "Islamic State" is unrelated to their claim of being the state of all Islam? Please answer. Is this what you are saying? Again if you make an objection to an edit then you should specify that edit. The reaction of Islamic communities, government communities and the vast number of people that news groups interview are all in line with the view that the official name, as used by the group, is objectionable. I have legitimately expressed legitimate arguments in regard to legitimate issues.
In your previously proposed RM you presented claimed reference to use of "Islamic State" while making no reference to the many instances in which qualification is given to the use of the name as in line with the many "so called ..." and "... group" references. The current nomination presents internet search results that have done nothing more than search on the separate words "islamic", "state" and "is" and yet have, for whatever reason, avoided all reference to the also commonly used "isis".
Please put away your WP:CRYSTALBALL with regard to your claims that "No one is here to legitimise". While, I have not made any claim regarding editors intentions or motivations and have only indicated the results, you seem to be conflating what a person says and what they think. I suggest you take another look at the previous RM in which you were not involved and which resulted in a unanimously supported topic ban at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive882#Do we have a Daesh (ISIL) sympathizer?
It can also be noted that separate comments were made in this RM comments that:
  • "An Islamic state means a caliphate. It's true that Da'esh represents itself as a caliphate, but it's not the primary meaning of the term. The trivial difference in capitalization is not sufficient to distinguish these senses, either; because "The Islamic State" represents itself as an Islamic state, a reader with no prior understanding of the topic could get very confused ...";
  • "Groups' self-naming is disputed by Muslim World and their 'stateness' is disputed" and
  • "wikipedia should not become a mouthpiece for ISIL ideological propaganda about themselves".
These are commonly presented arguments as presented by separate editors which, I contest, all present legitimate good faith concerns. Again, if you do not view any such concern to be legitimate then please cite the actual edit so that fair reply can be made.
Finally, in agreement with your comment "we should spend time on improving the article", the view was presented in the previous RM so as to state "By the way, per WP:TITLECHANGES we'd better not to move this stable title and concentrate on the article itself instead." The issue of the evaluation of the value of time spent is an issue that is solely the responsibility of editors who advocate change.
GregKaye 05:07, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Greg You start of your post with the garbage I have mentioned previously. As I said I do not give a shit about your personal views. Your half backed arguments possibly work on those poor souls who you chase away from this page but not with me. You have never had a problem with not conflating the name with the claim of a country like North Korea or the Congo. Secondly your two favourite policies that form part of your tools to discourage discussion that is not in line with your world view is WP:SOAP and WP:CRYSTALBALL. I have no idea of the relavence of your comments about the ANI. Mbcap (talk) 08:07, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mbcap "To what extent exactly are you (if this is what you are doing) saying that the groups choice of the contracted name "Islamic State" is unrelated to their claim of being the state of all Islam? Please answer." GregKaye 08:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Greg To what extent is the name "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" unrelated to the claim that North Korea is democratic. No doubt this piece of common sense will give you a contusion so you will make this go in circles. How is this related to discussing title change. Mbcap (talk) 08:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mbcap North Korea (known by themselves as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea) does not claim authority over all of democracy. The Islamic State group is claiming authority over all of Islam. Please note the difference. The name that we give to the self proclaimed "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" is North Korea. We remove the self designated reference as "democratic" and add the qualifier "North".
To what extent do you think that there is a relationship between the group's self proclamation as "Islamic State" and their claim to be the state for all Islam? GregKaye 09:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We use the name North Korea because it is the common name. You say, "The name that we give to the self proclaimed "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" is North Korea." How you conveniently fail to mention "Democratic Republic of the Congo" which is what the page is called. As for your comments re conflation between name and claim, and other comments re pov name and so forth, I can not be bothered entertaining your personal views that are treating this talk page as a forum. I recommend you read Banak's support comment for the RM. Mbcap (talk) 11:00, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mbcap you make public accusation regarding conflating the issues yet refuse to answer a direct and related question. "To what extent do you think that there is a relationship between the group's self proclamation as "Islamic State" and their claim to be the state for all Islam?" GregKaye 16:43, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GregYou are jumping from one argument to another when it suits you. Answer my last post. Is The Congo democratic? It's main space article is called, "Democratic Republic of the Congo". Mbcap (talk) 19:04, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mbcap In my 05:07, 18 July 2015 edit I asked "To what extent exactly are you (if this is what you are doing) saying that the groups choice of the contracted name "Islamic State" is unrelated to their claim of being the state of all Islam? Please answer. Is this what you are saying?"
You make unjustified mud slinging accusations that I am "jumping from one argument to another when it suits" when you are avoiding responding to a simple direct
In my 08:12, 18 July 2015 edit I again asked "To what extent exactly are you (if this is what you are doing) saying that the groups choice of the contracted name "Islamic State" is unrelated to their claim of being the state of all Islam? Please answer."
In my 09:12, 18 July 2015 edit I asked "To what extent do you think that there is a relationship between the group's self proclamation as "Islamic State" and their claim to be the state for all Islam?"
In my 16:43, 18 July 2015 edit I again asked "To what extent do you think that there is a relationship between the group's self proclamation as "Islamic State" and their claim to be the state for all Islam?"
I do not think that there are many central African countries that are democratic and I presume, on the basis that you are asking the question, that The Congo is not one of them. Now "Please", "Please" answer my question. GregKaye 10:27, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Greg Is there a relationship between Congo's self proclamation as "Democratic" and their claim to be democratic. Does Wikipedia conflate the two? The question you have is the same. We go by sources here and the common name. Mbcap (talk) 09:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
After answering your question I will again ask you a sixth time. "To what extent do you think that there is a relationship between the group's self proclamation as "Islamic State" and their claim to be the state for all Islam?" This is a question that I asked you over two days ago and that you still refuse to answer. The comparisons between the two situations are extremely weak. While the titling of "Democratic Republic of the Congo" is inaccurate, the title does not generally cause offense among democrats and it would be ludicrous to consider that the Congo was, in some way, claiming authority over the institution of democracy. Many groups will also use the name "Democratic Republic of the Congo" without concern for the simple reason that the "Democratic Republic of the Congo" does make assertive claims regarding other people's life choices. At a different extreme the self proclaimed "Islamic State" claims authority over all Islam. This is a group that is not representative of Islam. At extremes it will (in a context in which men have all the power and all the options) make a public spectacle of the stoning of women caught in adultery with no comparative evidence being presented of the man caught in adultery, the man not even being referenced. The group similarly makes public show of the killing of aid workers and journalists that their Muslim friends have declared to be innocent in every way. These are the kind of things that have resulted in strong reaction from Islamic communities. Even the United Nations makes direct reference to the "Democratic Republic of the Congo" presumingly because no one is really taking it as a POVTITLE. Muslim groups reject the use of the title "Islamic State". Governments reject the use of the title "Islamic State". Aid and other agencies reject the use of the title "Islamic State". Can you see the difference? Please answer. AGAIN I will also ask, "To what extent do you think that there is a relationship between the group's self proclamation as "Islamic State" and their claim to be the state for all Islam?" GregKaye 19:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Greg We are not here to discuss how Muslims (members of a faith) and governmental organisations such as the UN and its member states use the terms for this group. That is not the criteria for producing or labelling content on Wikipedia. We go off sources and the majority of those use Islamic State. 23:04, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Support In general there should never be need for moritoriums and the like as they strike at censorship. Instead editors should review previous issues raised and discussions in their consideration of appropriate actions that they might take. GregKaye 04:56, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My change of view has come in application of a "catastrophic waste of time" view that, in the link provided, Mbcap applied to accountability in editing. Also in reaction to the, I believe, tendentious practices of this editor in particular that result in uncited slurs, as touched on in the link, accompanied with the flat refusal on six occasions (and within the context of accusation} to answer the simple question presented above. GregKaye 19:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support the nomination rationale on this nomination is clearly designed to break the process by making claims of how to ballot that are not supported under consensus processing. So, we should try to let people have a time out before doing this again, preferably without making invalid claims about how the process works. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose - The RM in question hasn't even closed yet. Also, please explain how move proposals have been disruptive to the articles improvement. Gazkthul (talk) 05:29, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well obviously those who oppose the name request find it disruptive. Mbcap (talk) 05:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So it needs yet another year of using a now irrelevant and false, with no basis held in WP policy in order to intentionally delegitimize a group on its Wikipedia page due to the personal bias held by editors? StanTheMan87 (talk) 05:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
StanTheMan87 Your arguments regarding WP:UCRN are not strong and your searches, including of separate terms "islamic", "state" and "is", do not amount to much. Within practice at WP:RM a regular contention is that a mere change capitalization in an article name is not sufficient to disambiguate the subject and this legitimate issue is raised time and again; WP:NATURAL has legitimately been cited by many editors in support of current title and WP:TITLECHANGES discourages unnecessary change and this is before we get on to various NPOV issues and the sometimes flagrant disregard that some news agencies have exhibited to content presented by their own various sources, the presentation of representatives within Islam and governmental representatives. Your assertion of "no basis held in WP policy" is incorrect. GregKaye 05:38, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@StanTheMan87: the underlying premise of a moratorium such as this one is that incessant move requests are more disruptive to the overall quality of the article than the possibility of using an imperfect name for a while. Whether the current naming reflects your version of WP:TRUTH is not relevant. VQuakr (talk) 20:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Modified support - a one-year moratorium seems excessive. How about a quarterly RM? That seems reasonable to me. ~ P-123 (talk) 11:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Moratorium - The name article name needs change anytime the name of the entity changes. So for instance, Wikipedia changed the name of the Bruce Jenner article the nanosecond he announced he would start crossdressing. Likewise, if the Islamic State tomorrow announces it wants to be called Islamic Paradise or some such, there would be grounds for an article name change, and an artificially imposed one year deferment would be just as unencyclopaedic as it is to call the Islamic State anything else other than what the majority of the English sources call it, which is Islamic State. XavierItzm (talk) 22:06, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support the number of these is proposed moves is enormous and they seem to always fail, with the arguments for moving never getting stronger. ISIL is used by some sources, and DAESH unlikely to be approved. -- Callinus (talk) 07:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PROCEDURAL OPPOSE: midstream change

This discussion is incredibly convoluted (the support and oppose votes really should have been segregated in different subsections) but retroactively changing comments and the nominating statement is a serious no no. Has this been corrected? -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@RGloucester: Agree Old comments are now non sense and the editors are not coming back correcting their comment based on the new proposal. I'm highly in favor of it being reverted. Mhhossein (talk) 18:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think I managed to revert the change. RGloucester — ☎ 19:06, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for handling that. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I will keep reverting any changes to the RM I proposed. I find it entertaining that those who want it reverted are those who want to oppose the RM. The term is the exact same, 'Islamic State'. The disambiguation has been changed, to conform more to WP policy. Unless of course, none of you really want what is best for WP policy?... Or you of course do not want the new proposed disambiguation as it makes many of your previous arguments null and void? StanTheMan87 (talk) 07:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
StanTheMan87 I find it astounding that you unilaterally change the proposed destination to Islamic State (islamist group) which fails to coincide with either of the two proposals and completely refuses to acknowledge the clearly presented objection that to the group is not representative of Islam. I agree that requests for a procedural close, following revert, strike at wikilawyering but also do not think that you are in any way presenting NPOV proposals. Your "I will keep reverting any changes to the RM I proposed" statement is clear sign of disruption and edit warring. You do not WP:OWN this page. I don't think that it always works but please read WP:BRD. GregKaye 05:04, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New proposal

Note - As many people have stated that the acronym 'IS' is too generic for a parenthetical disambiguation for 'Islamic State', (islamist group) will be put forth. Apologies, I still do not view IS as being generic in this context, but some editors have stated it is does not make for a suitable disambiguation on Wikipedia. (islamist group) still allows for 'IS' to be used in reference to the group in all articles concerning the Islamic State, and will be able to distinguish the article page more clearly than perhaps just 'IS'. It also follows the parenthetical disambiguation use for the Khorasan (Islamist group).

This way the whole discussion is a mess! A new proposal was rather better than revising the current one. Mhhossein (talk) 18:39, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Islamic State (militant group) could also work. Both are far more accurate and sensible than the current name of the article. DylanLacey (talk) 08:03, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's my preference. Gazkthul (talk) 08:20, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
late addition If it is proposed that we use parenthetic disambiguation rather than disambiguating by names use then I am unsure whether either ".. (Islamist group)" or "... (militant group)" would disambiguate from previous entities that have been described as being Islamic states. "Islamist" also does not represent the group's agenda which would be better represented as "... (Sunni Islamist group)". GregKaye 08:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A use of Islamic State group would better fit with the search consistently presented in StanTheMan87's proposal. As indicated, it fits with usage of many news groups and also corresponds with the usage of qualification by news groups with references such as the frequently used "so-called Islamic State". This also fits in with Muslim communities of the use, either of an alternative term such as daesh, ISIL or ISIS, or a direct qualification added to the term "Islamic State". This would also fit in with policy at WP:NATURAL. As has been proven (and not discounting common usage of terms like ISIS) when the group is referred to as "Islamic State", is very frequently referred to as "Islamic State group", "the group Islamic State" or similar. As has been consistently agreed, the term "Islamic State" is ambiguous and policy presents: "Natural disambiguation: If it exists, choose an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title." GregKaye 20:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Islamic State group" would not follow proper Wikipedia article naming conventions. "Islamic State group" is neither the organizations official name or its common name. Disambiguation is done with the use of a parenthetical, "Islamic State (Islamist group)" or "Islamic State (Islamist organization)" would be the best disambiguators that I can think of for "Islamic State".Rreagan007 (talk) 18:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rreagan007 which Wikipedia article naming conventions does it not follow? As an example, Associated Press present a title for one of their webpages as Now we say ‘the Islamic State group’ instead of ISIL and they clearly see "Islamic State group" and ISIL as synonymous. When "Islamic State" is used it is often used in the context as "Islamic State group" or, in other circumstances, with similar qualification.

I have long collaborated with and generally supported editor SMcCandlish on many parallel moves which related to a different breed of topic. I had already compiled a list of the articles that have similarly made, I think, good use of WP:NATURALDIS and they are presented below:

The designation "Islamic State group", though dealing with a different topic area, would be presented in much the same way. The "Islamic State group" designation has wide use within media as has been proven in evidence presented in the RM. It is also representative of the many uses of qualification such as "so called ..." GregKaye 08:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • To reiterate what was said in another of these confounded RMs, the subject of this article has no official name, as it is not an official body of any kind, and because it is not recognised by the international system as such. RGloucester — ☎ 02:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that the group is not an official body, the third paragraph of WP:OFFICIAL refers to the "subject's "official" name". This unofficial group self designated with the official name "Islamic State" which occurred on the same day as it declared itself as being the worldwide caliphate. I appreciate that this comment may be the result of nothing more than my own pedantry interpreting the official views of an unofficial group. GregKaye 08:30, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There've been some recent edits that I believe have cut too many links. Overlinking is a problem when it becomes distracting and makes the text difficult to read. But there are cases where links are particularly valuable. I would argue that these include infoboxes of various types and footnotes. In the first case they can turn an infobox (or a table) into a convenient navigational aid for the reader. In the second case they can make it very quick and easy for the reader to evaluate the credibility of a source. I would strongly urge that we go back to the prior practice of having flags in infoboxes link to the corresponding country, because it helps the reader quickly navigate between all of the various players. Operationally, that means going back to using template:flagcountry in infoboxes and tables instead of template:flagu. I would also strongly urge that in any citation template we link to the author and publisher whenever Wikipedia articles are available for them. Yes, links may already be available somewhere else in the article, but that doesn't necessarily help the reader who clicked on a footnote to see how credible the source is - they are much better off if they can click on through from the footnote to an appropriate article on the source. EastTN (talk) 14:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is ISIL a state?

It is very easy to say that ISIL is "a Salafi jihadi extremist militant group and self-proclaimed caliphate and Islamic state which is led by Sunni Arabs from Iraq and Syria". But whether one agrees with its ideology or not, it is a state. The current description downplays that to the point of extinction. It is a state as much as Northern Cyprus, Somaliland, etc are states. I suggest instead "a caliphate and Islamic state which was created by a Salafi jihadi extremist militant group". ISIL has been functioning as a state for a couple of years now. When will the world accept that, like Communist-controlled China, love it or hate it, it is a state?122.59.140.215 (talk) 07:51, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

122.59.140.215 Are there any sources that say it is a state? Please could you provide them if it is the case. Mbcap (talk) 07:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bill Clinton says it's, "arguably the most interesting non-governmental organzation today." H. Humbert (talk) 03:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bill Clinton said "Arguably the most interesting non-governmental organzation today, which proves the importance of inclusion by its short-comings but is formidable, is ISIS". GregKaye 09:16, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can we all agree to close this discussion because there simply is not a single source that says it is a state. Mbcap (talk) 11:20, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you need a single source that says it's a state? All you need is sources demonstrating their fulfillment of the characteristics of a state, or the lack of said sources. AudreyTruong (talk) 23:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cornell Law School's Legal Information Institute says that, to qualify as a state, recognition is part of the deal. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 23:50, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. You probably know more than me, so I'm not trying to question you, but just to play devil's advocate, the standard non-legal definition of the word doesn't include that nuance, and copied from the Wiki article on "state": "The existence or disappearance of a state is a question of fact.[3] While according to the declarative theory of state recognition a sovereign state can exist without being recognised by other sovereign states, unrecognised states will often find it hard to exercise full treaty-making powers and engage in diplomatic relations with other sovereign states." AudreyTruong (talk) 03:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
AudreyTruong I am sorry but there simply is no source to say ISIL is a state. We should have this conversation when and if that time arrives. Mbcap (talk) 09:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@AudreyTruong: I can assure you with absolute certainty that I do not know more than you!
The trouble I found—as did you, it seems—was the issue of recognition: some say that, if it looks and acts like a state, then it's a state; others throw in this extra requirement of recognition. And, of course, it's not loopy people who differ on this! I suppose one argument against Islamic State could be the inadmissibility of acquiring territory through war: Islamic State has conquered and claimed territory from the states of Iraq and Syria; but that means its territorial claims are inadmissible. But then does the notion of inadmissibility apply only to the acquisition of territory of one state by another? But then I believe there are counterexamples to applying the notion of admissibility so restrictively. But are they actually valid counterexamples? Enough of this ludicrous, ignorant speculation. Ah, the joys of having zero legal knowledge…
I presume a most important consideration is the definition used by the World Court, which is, after all, the supreme authority on international law in the world! --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 20:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All those considerations are all very well and good, but at the end of the day, why do we have to follow the definition of "state" in the more narrow context of modern international law, as opposed to its broad political/historical sense? Historians have been describing "states" formed through conquest all the way back to Sargon of Akkad, no? AudreyTruong (talk) 03:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@AudreyTruong: Hey, I totally misread, or rather merely glanced at, your original "devil's advocate" reply. I've no objections to using the word state in its non-legal sense. Within the article, it's just a matter of what the RS say; but that's not telling you anything you don't already know, I'm sure. NYT posted an article on this yesterday, the extent to which IS is a state. My initial response here, which I deleted, was: "I reckon it is a state. Has courts, police, etc. I mean, no one recognises it, but that doesn't change the fact. Just because it's a ghastly place, doesn't change anything—North Korea is not a nice place, and what is the big difference between living in Saudi Arabia and IS? Indeed, as of last year, all twelve judges in Raqaa were Saudi!" --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 04:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm a total noob at Wikipeida, so I don't even know what the RS is. ^^ AudreyTruong (talk) 04:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@AudreyTruong: RS just stands for reliable source. Click here to see what counts as an RS and what doesn't. Shouldn't be any major surprises awaiting you. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 07:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay, thanks for the info. Well, if there are no sources indirectly demonstrating characteristics of a state of lack therof, then I agree with Mbcap that we can't say anything, though I am somewhat surprised that there has not been substantial information on how things are run in their territory from SOHR type sources. But then again, I don't know much about the whole thing anyway. AudreyTruong (talk) 03:49, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lead cluttered

There are too many paragraphs. They should be merged to reduce to no more than four paragraphs per WP:LEAD. --George Ho (talk) 08:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

George Ho I think that in general the lead follows a logical structure and flow on a topic with a considerable amount of complexity but generally agree. As a stop gap response, of the nine paragraphs I think that the eighth and ninth might be merged. Perhaps some (I think) detail might be removed from the sixth paragraph. This would leave a sixth to eighth paragraph text that would read as follows:
"In April 2013, al-Baghdadi announced the merger of the ISI with al-Nusra Front and that the name of the reunited group was now the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). However, both Abu Mohammad al-Julani and Ayman al-Zawahiri, the leaders of al-Nusra and al-Qaeda respectively, rejected the merger. After an eight-month power struggle, al-Qaeda cut all ties with ISIL on 3 February 2014, citing its failure to consult and "notorious intransigence".
In Syria, the group has conducted ground attacks on both government forces and rebel factions in the Syrian Civil War. The group gained prominence after it drove Iraqi government forces out of key cities in western Iraq in an offensive initiated in early 2014. Iraq's territorial loss almost caused a collapse of the Iraqi government and prompted renewal of US military action in Iraq.
ISIL is known for its well-funded web and social media propaganda, which includes Internet videos of beheadings of soldiers, civilians, journalists and aid workers, as well as the deliberate destruction of cultural heritage sites. (para break removed). Muslim leaders around the world have condemned the ideology and actions of ISIL, saying that they have swayed from the path of true Islam and that their actions do not reflect the true message of Islam."
GregKaye 06:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done as suggested, but I still think we shouldn't bore or intimidate readers with lengthy intro. The guideline says so. George Ho (talk) 06:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
George Ho I do not think we should have deleted, "After an eight-month power struggle, al-Qaeda cut all ties with ISIL on 3 February 2014, citing its failure to consult and "notorious intransigence." This is an important and one of the defining points in the history of group and it deserves mention in the lead. It also follows on from the previous sentence and this taken as I whole I would say is an important part of their history, something most readers would be interested in. Please could I ask you reconsider trimming in other areas. Mbcap (talk) 08:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I reinserted the sentence and merged more paragraphs. George Ho (talk) 08:51, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We have the statement, "the leaders of al-Nusra and al-Qaeda respectively, rejected the merger" in the which provides a summary of the situation. GregKaye 09:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alterations I'd personally support:
  1. "The group has been designated as a terrorist organisation by the United Nations, the European Union, the United Kingdom, the United States, India, Australia, Canada, Indonesia, Malaysia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Syria, Egypt, and Russia. "
  2. "The group originated as Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad in 1999, which pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda in 2004. The group participated in the Iraqi insurgency, which had followedafter the March 2003 invasion of Iraq by Western forces. In January 2006, it joined other Sunni insurgent groups to form the Mujahideen Shura Council, which proclaimed the formation of the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) in October 2006.
After the Syrian Civil War began in March 2011, the ISI under the leadership of al-Baghdadi sent delegates into Syria in August 2011. These fighters named themselves Jabhat an-Nuṣrah li-Ahli ash-Shām—al-Nusra Front—and established a large presence in Sunni-majority areas of Syria, within the governorates of Ar-Raqqah, Idlib, Deir ez-Zor, and Aleppo.[46] In April 2013, al-Baghdadi announced the merger of the ISI with its affiliate al-Nusra Front and that the name of the reunited group was now to form the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). However, both Abu Mohammad al-Julani and Ayman al-Zawahiri, the leaders of al-Nusra and al-Qaeda respectively, rejected the merger. After an eight-month power struggle, al-Qaeda cut all ties with ISIL on 3 February 2014, citing its failure to consult and "notorious intransigence".[33][47] In Syria, the group has conducted ground attacks on both government forces and rebel factions in the Syrian Civil War. The group gained prominence after it drove Iraqi government forces out of key cities in western Iraq in an offensive initiated in early 2014. Iraq's territorial loss almost caused a collapse of the Iraqi government and prompted renewal of US military action in Iraq."
Basically, I think there's too much history of the formation of the group in the lead. Compare to al-Qaeda. Banak (talk) 02:41, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Banak I think that the nations designating the group as terrorist should either be referenced as a number of nations or listed in full. In various articles I think that there has been a disproportionate emphasis on roles played by the US and Israel and a comparative downplaying of the roles of other nations. The UK were the first nation to declare the group as terrorist and, given that this is a group that claims to have authority over Islam, I think that it is extremely notable that countries such as India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Syria, Egypt, are also on the list.
All the other changes look good to me. Can I suggest one amendment as: "The group originated as Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad in 1999, which pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda in 2004. The group, later called the Mujahideen Shura Council, participated in the Iraqi insurgency, after the March 2003 invasion of Iraq by Western forces." GregKaye 10:10, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline

Hi are we allowed to have a timeline as there is in the last section of the article? RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 10:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The listing below presents the redirect namespaces that target ar:(تنظيم الدولة الإسلامية (داعش, the Arabic article parallel of en:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

  1. Daash (redirect page) ( links ) - 232 links
  2. Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (redirect page) ( links ) - 157 links
  3. The organization of the Islamic State (redirect page) ( links ) - 71 links
  4. organize the Islamic State (Daash) main title - 44 links (and here's a non Wikipedia based machine translation of the article title)
  5. Daash organization (redirect page) ( links ) - 18 links
  6. Islamic State (organization) (redirect page) ( links ) - 6 links
  7. Islamic State (redirect page) ( links ) - 5 links
  8. State regulation (redirect page) ( links ) - 4 links
  9. State regulation (Daash) (redirect page) ( links ) - 3 links
  10. The organization of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (redirect page) ( links ) - 3 links
  11. The organization of the Islamic state (redirect page) ( links ) - 2 links
  12. Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (redirect page) ( links ) - 1 link
listings of the redirects

The organization of the Islamic State (Daash)

  1. June 26 ( links )
  2. Wikipedia: Selected nominations ( links )
  3. Syrian civil war ( links )
  4. The repercussions of the Syrian civil war in Lebanon ( links )
  5. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi ( links )
  6. List of armed groups in the Syrian civil war ( links )
  7. Wikipedia: statistics / more visit from 1 to 100 (embedded) ( links )
  8. Ansar Bait al-Maqdis ( links )
  9. Talk: Organization of the Islamic State (Daash) ( links )
  10. Template: Fund the Syrian civil war information ( links )
  11. Template: country organizing the Islamic state data (Daash) ( links )
  12. The first battle of Tikrit ( links )
  13. Unloading of Mosul Christians ( links )
  14. Arabs siege eye ( links )
  15. The international coalition operations in Iraq in 2014 - until now ( links )
  16. Attack Deir ez-Zor (April-July 2014) ( links )
  17. Battle of Mosul (2015) ( links )
  18. Yemeni civil war (2015) ( links )
  19. Abu Omar Chechen ( links )
  20. Islamic State ( links )
  21. Rating: Daash ( links )
  22. Battle of Yarmouk refugee camp (2015) ( links )
  23. Islamic Union for the hosts of the Levant ( links )
  24. Brigade Vatmeon ( links )
  25. Battle of Ramadi (2014-15) ( links )
  26. Palmyra attack (2015) ( links )
  27. Kalamoon attack (May 2015) ( links )
  28. Battle of White Hill ( links )
  29. Template: Daash ( links )
  30. Wikipedia: nominations selected / Iraq articles ( links )
  31. Imam al-Sadiq mosque bombing in 2015 ( links )
  32. Attack Sousse 2015 ( links )
  33. Niger raid in 2015 ( links )
  34. List of terrorist incidents 0.2015 ( links )
  35. The flames of war ( links )
  36. Battle eye Arabs (June 2015) ( links )
  37. Sinai attacks July 2015 ( links )
  38. Yarmouk Martyrs Brigade ( links )
  39. Nairiyah bombing incident in 2015 ( links )
  40. The level of terrorism to Muslims ( links )
  41. Army of the Mujahideen (Syria) ( links )
  42. Battle Barn ( links )
  43. Template: Box Yemeni civil war information ( links )
  44. The bombing of Khan Bani Saad ( links )

Islamic State (redirect page) ( links )

  1. Sinjar ( links )
  2. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights ( links )
  3. Mosul Museum ( links )
  4. Hadi al-Amiri ( links )
  5. Abu Mohammad al-Adnani ( links )

The organization of the Islamic State (redirect page) ( links )

  1. The Muslim Brotherhood ( links )
  2. Othman bin Affan ( links )
  3. Wahhabism ( links )
  4. Mosul ( links )
  5. Hussein bin Ali ( links )
  6. Salafi ( links )
  7. Omar bin Abdul Aziz ( links )
  8. Sunnis and the Community ( links )
  9. Nineveh (province) ( links )
  10. Modern people ( links )
  11. Al-Shafi'i ( links )
  12. Ahmad ibn Hanbal ( links )
  13. Malik ibn Anas ( links )
  14. Abu Hanifa ( links )
  15. Arabs eye ( links )
  16. Barelvi ( links )
  17. Yahya bin Sharaf nuclear ( links )
  18. Shirk ( links )
  19. Ancestor (Islam) ( links )
  20. Virtual ( links )
  21. Saqlawiyah ( links )
  22. Ali ibn Abi Talib ( links )
  23. Schools Sunnis ( links )
  24. Four imams ( links )
  25. User talk: Kuwaity26 ( links )
  26. Caliphate ( links )
  27. Omar bin al-Khattab ( links )
  28. Ash'ari ( links )
  29. Punishment (banner) ( links )
  30. Deobandi ( links )
  31. Jerusalem Day ( links )
  32. Template: Sunnis ( links )
  33. Abu Bakr ( links )
  34. Prophetic tradition ( links )
  35. Wrote Sunnis and the Community ( links )
  36. Ahlehadeeth Movement Bangladesh ( links )
  37. Hisham Barakat ( links )
  38. Ahmed Bin Alwan ( links )
  39. The organization of the Islamic State (Daash) ( links )
  40. Salafist call in Alexandria ( links )
  41. Bilal bin Abdullah ibn Umar ( links )
  42. Anbar clashes ( links )
  43. Ansar Bait al-Maqdis ( links )
  44. Terrorism in Sinai ( links )
  45. Battle of Mosul in 2014 ( links )
  46. User :. Eghatemelmasry ( links )
  47. Talk: Organization of the Islamic State (Daash) ( links )
  48. Military operations against the organization of the Islamic State ( links )
  49. Spyker massacre ( links )
  50. User: supporter Abu Awwad ( links )
  51. Rishawi ( links )
  52. Ziad Khalaf Raja al-Karbouly ( links )
  53. Islamic Unity ( links )
  54. Portal: Current Events ( links )
  55. Gateway: Ongoing / Sports Events ( links )
  56. US sniper (film) ( links )
  57. Portal: Current Events / February 3, 2015 ( links )
  58. Egyptian hostages executed in Libya in 2015 ( links )
  59. February 2015 ( links )
  60. Abu Omar Chechen ( links )
  61. Islamic State ( links )
  62. Armed attack on a bus Karachi in 2015 ( links )
  63. Battle of Ramadi (2014-15) ( links )
  64. Talk: unloading of Mosul Christians ( links )
  65. Imam al-Sadiq mosque bombing in 2015 ( links )
  66. July 2015 ( links )
  67. Portal: Current Events / July 7, 2015 ( links )
  68. Portal: Current Events / July 9, 2015 ( links )
  69. Portal: Current Events / July 12, 2015 ( links )
  70. Portal: Current Events / July 13, 2015 ( links )
  71. Portal: Current Events / July 18, 2015 ( links )

The organization of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (redirect page) ( links )

  1. Tadmur Prison ( links )
  2. The attack on the newspaper Charlie Hebdo ( links )
  3. Daash ideology ( links )

State regulation (redirect page) ( links )

  1. Talk: Organization of the Islamic State (Daash) ( links )
  2. Mohsen mosque of Imam ( links )
  3. Trebil ( links )
  4. Egyptian hostages executed in Libya in 2015 ( links )

Daash organization (redirect page) ( links )

  1. Egyptian Air Force ( links )
  2. The organization of the Islamic State (Daash) ( links )
  3. Super Diab Tefah ( links )
  4. The first battle of Tikrit ( links )
  5. Unloading of Mosul Christians ( links )
  6. Military operations against the organization of the Islamic State ( links )
  7. List wars Egypt ( links )
  8. Moaz Kasasbeh ( links )
  9. Egyptian hostages executed in Libya in 2015 ( links )
  10. Egyptian air strikes in Libya (February 2015) ( links )
  11. Daash ideology ( links )
  12. Battle of Ramadi (2014-15) ( links )
  13. Template: Daash ( links )
  14. Imam al-Sadiq mosque bombing in 2015 ( links )
  15. Niger raid in 2015 ( links )
  16. Battle eye Arabs (June 2015) ( links )
  17. Battle Sarrin ( links )
  18. The bombing of Khan Bani Saad ( links )

Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (redirect page) ( links )

  1. Osama bin Laden ( links )
  2. June 10 ( links )
  3. June 29 ( links )
  4. February 3 ( links )
  5. Tuber ( links )
  6. Mosul ( links )
  7. Talk: Mosul ( links )
  8. Iraq's history ( links )
  9. Sunnis and the Community ( links )
  10. Jihad ( links )
  11. Nineveh (province) ( links )
  12. Abdul Rasul Sayyaf ( links )
  13. Sultan bin Bejad ( links )
  14. Islamism ( links )
  15. Tenderness ( links )
  16. Hani Sibai ( links )
  17. Abdullah Azzam ( links )
  18. Eastern Christianity ( links )
  19. Islamic State of Iraq ( links )
  20. 2014 ( links )
  21. Baghdadi (disambiguation) ( links )
  22. Salafi Jihadism ( links )
  23. The list of countries with limited recognition ( links )
  24. Christianity in Iraq ( links )
  25. Iraqi Air Force ( links )
  26. Wikipedia: User control specialist / Yemen ( links )
  27. Iraqi Army ( links )
  28. Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi ( links )
  29. League of the Righteous ( links )
  30. Abu Qatada ( links )
  31. Abu Musab al-Suri ( links )
  32. Doku Umarov ( links )
  33. Humvee ( links )
  34. Djurdjura ( links )
  35. Syrian civil war ( links )
  36. Shabiha ( links )
  37. Mosque of the Prophet Yunus ( links )
  38. Qassem Soleimani ( links )
  39. Yassin al-Haj Saleh ( links )
  40. Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb ( links )
  41. Ibn al-Khattab ( links )
  42. Template: theorists of jihad ( links )
  43. Template: Salafi Jihadism ( links )
  44. Hamed bin Abdullah al-Ali ( links )
  45. Abu Mohammed Joulani ( links )
  46. Solomon band fighter ( links )
  47. List of modern conflicts, the Middle East ( links )
  48. Chokri Belaid ( links )
  49. Omar Alhduca ( links )
  50. Ahrar al-Sham Islamic Movement ( links )
  51. Brigade Abu Fadl al Abbas ( links )
  52. Talk: Syrian crisis / Archive 5 ( links )
  53. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi ( links )
  54. Wikipedia: review new pages by subject / date / July 2013 ( links )
  55. Wikipedia: review new pages by subject / Syria / July 2013 ( links )
  56. User talk: Liwan ( links )
  57. The organization of the Islamic State (Daash) ( links )
  58. Boubacar Hakim ( links )
  59. Wikipedia: review new pages by subject / date / August 2013 ( links )
  60. Wikipedia: review new pages by subject / Syria / August 2013 ( links )
  61. Tahar Touati ( links )
  62. People's Protection Units ( links )
  63. Iraq war in Anbar province ( links )
  64. User: Nourhanne Samir / Stadium ( links )
  65. List of armed groups in the Syrian civil war ( links )
  66. January 2014 ( links )
  67. Portal: Current Events / January 2, 2014 ( links )
  68. Anbar clashes ( links )
  69. Ansar Bait al-Maqdis ( links )
  70. Portal: Current Events / January 29, 2014 ( links )
  71. List wars, Syria ( links )
  72. Terrorism in Sinai ( links )
  73. Portal: Current Events / March 7, 2014 ( links )
  74. March 2014 ( links )
  75. Talk: Libya Revolutionaries Operations Room ( links )
  76. April 2014 ( links )
  77. Dezo Doug ( links )
  78. Portal: Current Events / April 27, 2014 ( links )
  79. Portal: Current Events / May 4, 2014 ( links )
  80. May 2014 ( links )
  81. Libyan crisis ( links )
  82. Talk: rafallah al-sahati brigade ( links )
  83. Portal: Current Events / June 7, 2014 ( links )
  84. Portal: Current Events / June 13, 2014 ( links )
  85. June 2014 ( links )
  86. Portal: Current Events / June 14, 2014 ( links )
  87. Portal: Arab World / Event / 06 ( links )
  88. Battle of Tal Afar in 2014 ( links )
  89. Portal: Current Events / June 18, 2014 ( links )
  90. Portal: Current Events / June 29, 2014 ( links )
  91. July 2014 ( links )
  92. Template: Fund the Syrian civil war information ( links )
  93. The first battle of Tikrit ( links )
  94. Portal: Current Events / July 20, 2014 ( links )
  95. August 2014 ( links )
  96. Body guards Baghdida ( links )
  97. Portal: Current Events / August 14, 2014 ( links )
  98. Wikipedia: transport requests / Archive 14 ( links )
  99. James Foley ( links )
  100. Massacre Musab bin Omair Mosque ( links )
  101. Wikipedia: Statistics / Weekly Report / August 24, 2014 ( links )
  102. Wikipedia: Statistics / Weekly Report / August 31, 2014 ( links )
  103. Steven Sotloff ( links )
  104. Portal: Current Events / September 4, 2014 ( links )
  105. Portal: Current Events / September 13, 2014 ( links )
  106. Portal: Current Events / September 14, 2014 ( links )
  107. Portal: Current Events / September 19, 2014 ( links )
  108. Portal: Current Events / September 20, 2014 ( links )
  109. Portal: Current Events / September 23, 2014 ( links )
  110. Portal: Current Events / September 26, 2014 ( links )
  111. Wikipedia: Statistics / Weekly Report / September 27, 2014 ( links )
  112. A buffer zone ( links )
  113. Spyker massacre ( links )
  114. Portal: Syrian civil war / belligerents ( links )
  115. Portal: Syrian civil war / map ( links )
  116. The international coalition operations in Iraq in 2014 - until now ( links )
  117. Hit Aill process ( links )
  118. Karam attack hoppers ( links )
  119. Attack Deir ez-Zor (December 2014) ( links )
  120. Battle poet second gas field ( links )
  121. Desert Hawks ( links )
  122. Ashura process ( links )
  123. Attack Deir ez-Zor (April-July 2014) ( links )
  124. Kalamoon attack (June-August 2014) ( links )
  125. Battle of the process of ( links )
  126. The attack on the newspaper Charlie Hebdo ( links )
  127. I'm Charlie ( links )
  128. Amedee Coulibaly ( links )
  129. Arab Winter ( links )
  130. Helly Luv ( links )
  131. 2015 Sinai attacks ( links )
  132. Kenji Goto ( links )
  133. Kayla Moyer ( links )
  134. Orient ( links )
  135. Username: As / Talk Archive 82 ( links )
  136. Ahmed Rouissi ( links )
  137. The second battle of Tikrit ( links )
  138. Alan Hanning ( links )
  139. Cauthron David Haynes ( links )
  140. Yazidis persecution by Daash ( links )
  141. Battle of Yarmouk refugee camp (2015) ( links )
  142. Islamic Union for the hosts of the Levant ( links )
  143. Brigade Vatmeon ( links )
  144. Fastqm as ordered ( links )
  145. Wikipedia: Transportation / Archive 18 requests ( links )
  146. Front originality and Development ( links )
  147. Palmyra attack (2015) ( links )
  148. Battle of White Hill ( links )
  149. Wikipedia: Notification of administrative / recovery / archive 6 ( links )
  150. Wikipedia: Notification of administrative / Security / Archive 4 ( links )
  151. Template: Daash ( links )
  152. Imam al-Sadiq mosque bombing in 2015 ( links )
  153. Niger raid in 2015 ( links )
  154. Battle eye Arabs (June 2015) ( links )
  155. The level of terrorism to Muslims ( links )
  156. Battle Sarrin ( links )
  157. The bombing of Khan Bani Saad ( links )

Islamic State (organization) (redirect page) ( links )

  1. Talk: Organization of the Islamic State (Daash) ( links )
  2. Copenhagen 2015 attacks ( links )
  3. User talk: Ibrahim.ID/ archive 13 ( links )
  4. Talk: Organization of the Islamic State (Daash) / Archive 2 ( links )
  5. Talk: Organization of the Islamic State (Daash) / Archive 3 ( links )
  6. Username: As / Talk Archive 87 ( links )

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (redirect page) ( links )

  1. List of armed groups in the Syrian civil war ( links )

Daash (redirect page) ( links )

  1. Home ( links )
  2. Tikrit ( links )
  3. January 3 ( links )
  4. May 17 ( links )
  5. May 20 ( links )
  6. April 8 ( links )
  7. March 5 ( links )
  8. February 26 ( links )
  9. February 21 ( links )
  10. December 15 ( links )
  11. Mosul ( links )
  12. Yezidi ( links )
  13. Islamic State (disambiguation) ( links )
  14. Nineveh (province) ( links )
  15. Talk: Ahmadiyya (range) ( links )
  16. March 20 ( links )
  17. February 15 ( links )
  18. Template: current events ( links )
  19. Theocracy ( links )
  20. User: Tarawneh / test1 ( links )
  21. Islamic caliphate ( links )
  22. Talk: Islamic caliphate ( links )
  23. Al-Hadar ( links )
  24. Saladin (province) ( links )
  25. Iraqi armed groups ( links )
  26. Fallujah ( links )
  27. Kink ( links )
  28. Sinjar ( links )
  29. Raqqa ( links )
  30. Egyptian Air Force ( links )
  31. User: Jak / Home ( links )
  32. Harith al-Dhari ( links )
  33. User: MK / Home ( links )
  34. Gray ( links )
  35. Talk: Yezidi ( links )
  36. TV 5 Monde ( links )
  37. User: TheEgyptian / Workshop ( links )
  38. User: Mosque ( links )
  39. 2014 ( links )
  40. Peggy ( links )
  41. Winged bull ( links )
  42. Iraqi armed forces ( links )
  43. Death by burning ( links )
  44. User: Mohamed Ouda / Home ( links )
  45. Amiriyat al-Fallujah ( links )
  46. Cliff victory ( links )
  47. Iraqi Museum ( links )
  48. Yarmouk refugee camp ( links )
  49. Valley of the Wolves (series) ( links )
  50. User: Colors / Home ( links )
  51. Wikipedia: Change Home 2009 / Proposed 1 design ( links )
  52. User: Colors / Home 2 ( links )
  53. Wikipedia: Change Home 2009 / Proposed 2 design ( links )
  54. Wikipedia: Change Home 2009 / Proposed 5 design ( links )
  55. Iraq war ( links )
  56. User: AhmadSherif / Main Page ( links )
  57. Iraqi Army ( links )
  58. Mosque Imam Sadiq (Kuwait) ( links )
  59. User: Fares Unification ( links )
  60. Home (Mobile) ( links )
  61. User: Sharaf al-Din ( links )
  62. User: Khalid / Home Design ( links )
  63. User: Waso99 ( links )
  64. User talk: Mahmoudhamido ( links )
  65. User: Moh2010med ( links )
  66. User: Aplikasi ( links )
  67. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights ( links )
  68. Religion in Iraq ( links )
  69. Nouri Mosque (Mosul) ( links )
  70. Mosque of the Prophet Yunus ( links )
  71. Mosque of Nabi Sheet (Mosul) ( links )
  72. User: Mahmoudhamido ( links )
  73. Mosque of the Prophet Zarzis ( links )
  74. User: Trabelsiismail / propaganda ( links )
  75. Qassem Soleimani ( links )
  76. Portal: Current Events / Latest Events ( links )
  77. Wikipedia: Current Events / candidate / Fader ( links )
  78. Wikipedia: Current Events / candidate ( links )
  79. Wikipedia: helping new / archive / 10/2011 users ( links )
  80. Mosul Museum ( links )
  81. User: Ahmed Tariq Ahmed ( links )
  82. Abdel Basset Sarout ( links )
  83. Badush prison ( links )
  84. Valley Horan ( links )
  85. Abu Mohammed Joulani ( links )
  86. User: Pop2009jesus ( links )
  87. User talk: Mahmoudhamido / page components ( links )
  88. User: Mahmoudhamido / rear ( links )
  89. User: Mahmoudhamido / Sanadiki ( links )
  90. User: Mahmoudhamido / Oosmta ( links )
  91. User: Mahmoudhamido / my notebook ( links )
  92. User: Mahmoudhamido / my duties ( links )
  93. User: Mahmoudhamido / my signature ( links )
  94. User: HamidoBot ( links )
  95. User: Mahmoudhamido / Stadium ( links )
  96. Rafah massacre ( links )
  97. 1435 AH ( links )
  98. User: Shbib Al-Subaie / Home 2 model ( links )
  99. User: Mohaton / my notebook ( links )
  100. Mahmoud al-Hassani Sarkhi ( links )
  101. Nasser al-Wahayshi ( links )
  102. Ahrar al-Sham Islamic Movement ( links )
  103. User: Abu Khalid 2,013 ( links )
  104. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi ( links )
  105. User: Ziad / Home ( links )
  106. Confident Battat ( links )
  107. The organization of the Islamic State (Daash) ( links )
  108. User talk: Muhib mansour ( links )
  109. Abdul Qadir Saleh ( links )
  110. Anbar clashes ( links )
  111. Talk: 2 Geneva Peace Conference on the Middle East ( links )
  112. Ansar Bait al-Maqdis ( links )
  113. Terrorism in Sinai ( links )
  114. Safety gate crossing ( links )
  115. Iraqi-Saudi relations ( links )
  116. User: Ziad / Home 2 ( links )
  117. User: Ziad / Home 3 ( links )
  118. Super Diab Tefah ( links )
  119. Portal: Current Events / May 7, 2014 ( links )
  120. Portal: Current Events / May 9, 2014 ( links )
  121. May 2014 ( links )
  122. Portal: Current Events / May 26, 2014 ( links )
  123. Talk: Ansar al-Sharia (Libya) ( links )
  124. Mohammed age (media) ( links )
  125. Battle of Mosul in 2014 ( links )
  126. Men Naqshbandi Army ( links )
  127. Vian Dakhil ( links )
  128. Abu Mohammad al-Adnani ( links )
  129. Unloading of Mosul Christians ( links )
  130. User: Shbib Al-Subaie / Home Page 3 model ( links )
  131. User talk: Mohamed Ahmed Abdel-Fattah ( links )
  132. Siege of amirli ( links )
  133. Houthis seize power ( links )
  134. Mehdi Aeran ( links )
  135. User talk: Moatasem Alagbara ( links )
  136. Military operations against the organization of the Islamic State ( links )
  137. COB Speicher ( links )
  138. Mariam Al Mansouri ( links )
  139. Tomb of Suleyman Shah ( links )
  140. User: Shbib Al-Subaie / Model Home 1 ( links )
  141. Incirlik Air Base ( links )
  142. Free Dawa Party ( links )
  143. User: Sadiqbassam / Stadium ( links )
  144. Spyker massacre ( links )
  145. User: Alfaris88 / test ( links )
  146. User: Alfaris88 / test2 ( links )
  147. User: Shbib Al-Subaie / Home 4 model ( links )
  148. Peace Brigades ( links )
  149. People crowd ( links )
  150. User: Mustapha.096 ( links )
  151. User talk: Ahmed Alsaedi97 ( links )
  152. Iranian interference in Iraq in 2014 ( links )
  153. User talk: supporter Abu Awwad ( links )
  154. Portal: Current Events / December 24, 2014 ( links )
  155. Rishawi ( links )
  156. Moaz Kasasbeh ( links )
  157. User: Yassin Usta / main page ( links )
  158. Portal: Current Events ( links )
  159. Arab Winter ( links )
  160. Mia Khalifa ( links )
  161. User talk: Hshamalsahra / Talk archive 2 ( links )
  162. John jihad ( links )
  163. Sofiane Chourabi ( links )
  164. User talk: The catty ( links )
  165. Talk: Syrian civil war ( links )
  166. Brigades of Imam Ali ( links )
  167. Orient ( links )
  168. Portal: Current Events / February 15, 2015 ( links )
  169. Egyptian hostages executed in Libya in 2015 ( links )
  170. Egyptian air strikes in Libya (February 2015) ( links )
  171. Wikipedia: nominations selected images / Rawa (Iraq) 17.jpg ( links )
  172. User: Khaled / 2015 proposed design / Home ( links )
  173. Mohsen Saeed Hussein Khaddour ( links )
  174. SITE Intelligence Group ( links )
  175. Dome bombings ( links )
  176. Wikipedia: User control specialist / Kazakhstan ( links )
  177. Intellectual terrorism ( links )
  178. March 2015 ( links )
  179. Hand Yathrib ( links )
  180. Glutinous (magazine) ( links )
  181. February 2015 ( links )
  182. The second battle of Tikrit ( links )
  183. Attack the Bardo Museum in 2015 ( links )
  184. Badr mosques and Alhchoc Sana'a bombings ( links )
  185. Portal: Current Events / March 20, 2015 ( links )
  186. Wikipedia: nominations selected images / acceptable / 11 Photo Archive ( links )
  187. Storm packets process ( links )
  188. Military intervention in Yemen ( links )
  189. Conquest Army ( links )
  190. File: John jihadist. Jpeg ( links )
  191. Environs of Jerusalem ( links )
  192. Gateway: Hold 2010 ( links )
  193. Gateway: Hold 2010 / Introduction ( links )
  194. Azwaip Salah al-Din ( links )
  195. Abu Azrael ( links )
  196. General Military Council of the rebels Iraq ( links )
  197. Daash ideology ( links )
  198. Abu Ala Afri ( links )
  199. Talk used: Mervat Salman / Archive 07 ( links )
  200. List of wars in which participated Bahrain ( links )
  201. Wikipedia: Transportation / Archive 18 requests ( links )
  202. Armed attack on a bus Karachi in 2015 ( links )
  203. Battle of Ramadi (2014-15) ( links )
  204. Qudayh bombing in 2015 ( links )
  205. Talk: bombing Qudayh 2015 ( links )
  206. Aldaloh incident ( links )
  207. Palmyra attack (2015) ( links )
  208. File: Abu Amer Aldaasha. Jpg ( links )
  209. Anoud bombing in 2015 ( links )
  210. Abdul Jalil Arbash ( links )
  211. Brigade Castle ( links )
  212. Mohammed Hassan Al-Essa ( links )
  213. Hadi Al-Hashem ( links )
  214. MSE ( links )
  215. Theocracy of evil ( links )
  216. Iranian religions ( links )
  217. Qayyarah West Air Base ( links )
  218. Portal: Current Events / June 17, 2015 ( links )
  219. Wikipedia: transport requests / Archive 19 ( links )
  220. Wikipedia: Notification of administrative / Security / Archive 4 ( links )
  221. Wikipedia: Notification of administrative / Remove protection / Archive 3 ( links )
  222. Portal: Current Events / June 18, 2015 ( links )
  223. Sanaa mosque bombings (2015) ( links )
  224. Sylvie (series) ( links )
  225. Tal Afar, the military airport ( links )
  226. June 2015 ( links )
  227. Imam al-Sadiq mosque bombing in 2015 ( links )
  228. Battle eye Arabs (June 2015) ( links )
  229. User talk: Taher2000 / Archive 4 ( links )
  230. User: Yassin Usta / Stadium ( links )
  231. The bombing of al-Ha'ir 2015 ( links )
  232. The bombing of Khan Bani Saad ( links )

The organization of the Islamic state (redirect page) ( links )

  1. Battle of Mosul in 2014 ( links )
  2. User: Freshsyria / Stadium ( links )

State regulation (Daash) (redirect page) ( links )

  1. Talk: Organization of the Islamic State (Daash) ( links )
  2. Talk: Organization of the Islamic State (Daash) / Archive 2 ( links )
  3. The bombing of Cairo July 11, 2015 ( links )

This information I believe to be relevant as it represents a response to the group in question from users of the language that, generally speaking, have the greatest familiarity with Islam.

Among over 500 redirects, only 5 come through the Arabic equivalent of a redirect "Islamic State". Note this is a redirect not a title.

Only six of the redirects come through the Arabic namespace equivalent to "Islamic State (organization)"

Approaching half of the redirects come through "Daash" or "Daash organization"

The rest of the redirects either come via a derivation of "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" or something similar to "Islamic State group" as used by associated press.


My issue that I have consistently presented is that, in September and October 2014 when Reuters (I contest) arbitrarily plunged into use of the terminology "Islamic State" as reference for the group and certain other reporters and news agencies followed, they did not have any significant understanding as to what the fuck they were doing. Their interviewees made predominant use of terminologies such as ISIS, ISIL and sometimes Daesh and yet, against the flow of widespread usage, some agencies adopted unqualified usage of "Islamic State" in their references.

I personally think that the Arabic speaking world are likely to have a better idea in regard to suitable approaches to handling Islamic issues than western media groups. I also contest that Arabic Wikipedia may be a suitable source of information on Arabic approaches to the issue although I do not doubt that other Arabic sources may prove to be useful in similar ways.

As far as I am concerned the only suitable titles for the article are "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" as has been historically used, "Islamic State group" as widely used by groups like AP, "ISIS" or "Daesh". Also for reason of following the example of Arabic Wikipedia, I do not think that anything other than WP:NATURAL disambiguation would be appropriate.

GregKaye 20:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:COMMONNAME.."Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." What the article is called on Arabic Wikipedia is not relevant to us, as they will be using Arabic-language reliable sources, rather than English-language ones. Gazkthul (talk) 22:59, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have often quoted the very same text myself in my regular work at WP:RM and yet, on this one issue and on the basis of review of various recorded and quoted comments by otherwise regularly reliable sources, I think that various sources have wholly unreliable. The people interviewed use "Islamic State" relatively rarely. On this basis and on this one topic, I contest that secondary sources have been in actuality reliable in their representation of their own source materials. These source materials have come from Islamic representatives both in and out of the Arabic speaking world as well as from both governmental and non governmental organisations. Anyone spending time with news reports will see that intreviewes will frequently refer to ISIS and ISIL. In many cases, even when an interviewer begins by talking about "Islamic State", an interviewee will respond with comment in regard to "ISIS" or "ISIL". This is something that I have been listening out for and I do not recall hearing an interviewer begin with mention of a term such as "ISIS" with the interviewee responding with mention of "Islamic State".
The sources, I contest, have failed to represent their own interviewees in English and I suspect, on the basis of the evidence form Arabic Wikipedia, that they have almost completely failed to represent source content coming from Arabic speaking areas.
In this case in which WP:COMMONNAME arguments are, in any case, inconclusive I think that we should be cautious in the way we proceed. I am also working from the belief that we can fairly present content presented by people in general and not just from journalists.
In similarity to comments regarding news interviews and similar, following news articles which that have not used the arguable commonname of "ISIS" and which have instead used "Islamic State" and "IS", if there is a blog, respondents will still frequently respond with reference to ISIS, ISIL and even Dash.
I think that on the basis presented above that there is a valid argument that, on this issue, there is cause to evaluate the source materials that we use. The topic relates to Islamic issues and, in this context, I think that Islamic viewpoints deserve special consideration. GregKaye 08:35, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is this meant to be related to the RM? If so, why is it in it's own section? Banak (talk) 13:48, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Banak The thread was intended so as to provide background information that I thought was relevant in relation to appropriate article name choice.
We have previously had RMs submitted proposing page moves to the namespaces:
  • Islamic State three times
  • Islamic State (Organisation)
  • Islamic State (islamist rebel group)
  • The Islamic State
  • Islamic State (organization)
In departure from the examples provided by the Arabic redirects, none of the proposals have offered a natural disambiguation from Islamic state.
It also occurs to me that disambiguation is tricky. All Islamic states have been formed of groups of people and have had their own forms of organisation. They may variously be interpreted to have been Islamist but, in each case, with a specific persuasion of Islamism. Militant group is a commonly used description for the group and, arguably, previous Islamic states might potentially be described as being militant.
We currently use the disambiguation Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant but, on the basis that the group has a few proportionately very small representations in other parts of the world, some editors find this a problem. Back in September 2014 I suggested an option as Islamic State (Iraq and Levant) here). This title has the same level of specification as Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant but may be charged with having the same perceived difficulty relating to the group's relatively minor operations in locations like Sinai and Libya. This was also proposed before my view on NPOV in regard to the group's name had more fully developed.
As has been presented in the recent RM there is considerable use of:
and it can also be noted that
gets significant usage and, ironically, the BBC currently tops the list for this usage. In comparison
is less commonly used.
I still contend that ISIS (and synonyms) remain commonname but, if certain editors see it necessary to drag us through another RM procedure, perhaps one of the mentioned titles could be considered. These titles fit in with:- the example given within Arabic speaking community; with the example of news groups like AP and with the common use of qualification being given in news articles along the lines of the regularly used "so-called Islamic State". GregKaye 16:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox War faction or country?

Should the info-box for this article be for the militant faction the Islamic State group are or the internationally unrecognized state they claim to represent? Thoughts? --Ritsaiph (talk) 11:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A militant faction infobox will be much less disputable. Khestwol (talk) 18:17, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I prefiers the infobox War faction. More neutral. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Name

Although I won't even bother to propose a name change, can anyone tell me why Wikipedia is quite literally switching to the propaganda term coined by the US government itself? Today's press briefing was an interesting example: the Gov Spokesperson only used the term ISIL, even though the journalists still mostly said ISIS.

This isn't a case of just liking one name more than another, this is the blatant hijacking of this page by political preferences in a political administration. The names denies the group's Syrian origin by claiming it operates in "the Levant" (which isn't true). This is an international Wikipedia, not the CIA Factbook. I have yet to hear a good argument for the current name besides "keep it as it is". Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 23:59, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should read past requested move discussions linked at the top of this talk page. Khestwol (talk) 18:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On six occasions, in a context that can be viewed in the recent RM and in contemporary edits on this page, I asked a question of Mbcap in the following two forms: "To what extent exactly are you (if this is what you are doing) saying that the groups choice of the contracted name "Islamic State" is unrelated to their claim of being the state of all Islam? Please answer", and "To what extent do you think that there is a relationship between the group's self proclamation as "Islamic State" and their claim to be the state for all Islam?"

Since this time I've rechecked content on the main page in the section on "Name", the text states that on the same day, specifically, "On 29 June 2014, the group renamed itself the Islamic State and declared it as the worldwide caliphate". It is my view that it is a fair contention to consider there is a link between the two issues but open this thread for general discussion.

GregKaye 19:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand what you are asking here, but the change of name and dropping of Iraq and Sham occurred when they declared themselves to be a caliphate, and thus were no longer confining themselves to the geographical area of those two countries.
According to Abu Mohammad al-Adnani [254]: "Thus, he [Baghdadi] is the imam and khalīfah for the Muslims everywhere. Accordingly, the “Iraq and Shām” in the name of the Islamic State is henceforth removed from all official deliberations and communications, and the official name is the Islamic State from the date of this declaration. We clarify to the Muslims that with this declaration of khilāfah, it is incumbent upon all Muslims to pledge allegiance to the khalīfah Ibrāhīm and support him (may Allah preserve him). The legality of all emirates, groups, states, and organizations, becomes null by the expansion of the khilāfah’s authority and arrival of its troops to their areas." Gazkthul (talk) 23:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gazkthul Thank you. This text, I think, could hardly make the association clearer between the group's declaration that "the official name is the Islamic State" and the group sourced claim that "it is incumbent upon all Muslims to pledge allegiance" to the leader of the proclaimed state. I appreciate your answer. GregKaye 03:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The conflation is real, having the name as Islamic State is in no way, shape or form endorsing the claim that the group makes. POVNAME says,"... Sometimes that common name includes non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (e.g. the Boston Massacre or the Teapot Dome scandal). In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper noun (and that proper noun has become the usual term for the event), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue." That is the crux of the matter. Mbcap (talk) 22:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

Military activities of ISIL should be merged here, as it is plagued with problems, including that it appears to promote ISIL, and because it duplicates much of the information at this article. Merging would also make it easier to keep the information accurate and up to date. --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:48, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sammy1339 I don't dispute your point but, on the other hand this may also bring into question articles like Military intervention against ISIL. There are no other examples of articles starting "Military activities of ..." and neither are there other examples of articles starting "Military intervention against ..." I would be interested to know if there are other phrasings of similar titles but both seem to me to present one sided accounts. GregKaye 04:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I recall, that page was setup as a fork from this one, so as to reduce the size of this article (which continues to be quite large). Reading through it, its beyond me how exactly it is "promoting ISIL", it does need a clean up though. Gazkthul (talk) 05:53, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As of this writing, this article is 347 kB - more than 5x the recommended length. Merging summary forks would be counterproductive. ISIL's military activities are well-documented; if there are NPOV issues they should be fixed by editing rather than by merging. Duplication should be fixed by paring down the parent article. By way of !voting, this is an oppose merge. VQuakr (talk) 06:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Sammy1339: How do you think merging it will keep the information accurate and up to date? Mhhossein (talk) 13:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: infobox country???

Should article continue to use infobox country?

No the war faction infobox is better, neutral, less controversial. Also see above subsection on this same topic. Khestwol (talk) 18:28, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Khestwol: How to establish consensus for so? recent change to infobox war faction reverted....G8j!qKb (talk) 18:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing a moratorium

Whether RM succeeds or fails, we need a moratorium to prevent more RMs. Shall we take a break for two or three years? --George Ho (talk) 18:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors have favored a one-year moratorium, but 2 years will also work. Khestwol (talk) 19:48, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's absolutely outrageous. Can you point to any other articles that have a 3 year block on them? Gazkthul (talk) 22:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I should have said move-protection. Sarah Jane Brown is move-protected for one year by moratorium proposal. George Ho (talk) 23:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wait. This article is already move-protected, but that doesn't stop nauseating RMs recently. George Ho (talk) 23:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islamic_State&oldid=672797944"