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 128.194.229.152 (talk) at 23:28, 30 September 2015 (→‎Map: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Syrian Civil War sanctions

NOTE 1: This talk page has a history of high levels of activity. Please check to see whether your additional content can be added to an existing discussion section, and please make new section titles as precise as possible.

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.)

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.

I agree with you, but we can"t let our personal opinions effect our edits. The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant is now a self-declared, unrecognized Caliphate and Islamic State. The statement in the issue merely reflects what they CLAIM to be, not what they truly are. The same can be said of all the articles about unrecognized states. it is there because encyclopedic entries are written from a neutral standpoint. they are statements of fact, not opinion. Anasaitis (talk) 18:08, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editorial bias

The Lead reads throughout as if ISIL is a Very Bad Thing. Not exactly encyclopaedic, is it? ~ P-123 (talk) 11:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have attempted to modify this. ~ P-123 (talk) 14:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC
@P-123: Do you mean that it pushes POV?Mhhossein (talk) 14:25, 13

August 2015 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Whether it is deliberate or not, yes! Though I don't believe it is deliberate, more accidental. ~ P-123 (talk) 14:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Back in March a two part edit was made with the complaint that the article "fails to mention anything positive about them" but another editor deleted the comment as satire. I reopened discussion in a thread now found at Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/Archive 31#Has ISIL done any good? Content within the article is as it is found in RS and opportunity is always available for comment on what should be presented.
If you want a content to be changed it would be well to make a proposal. The most commonly used and I think valid descriptions used for the group are extremist and terrorist. The second was kept in by consensus but has since been edited out. There also has to be an element within which we directly present the group with clear and accurate description. GregKaye 15:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The The Holocaust article Lead reads throughout as if Holocaust is a Very Bad Thing. I assume we can consider it as encyclopædic as it is rated class B.
If you "fails to mention anything positive about them", this might depend on what you consider positive, but you can consider as positive for Daesh that «Besides the sectarian angle, Daesh appears attractive for young religious militants because of the territory it controls and the financial resources it possesses. » www.dawn.com/news/1160813 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.105.53 (talk) 23:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that the essence of neutrality is to describe the subject as accurately and dispassionately as we can. If we do that, readers can form their own judgments as to whether it is a "good thing" or a "bad thing." EastTN (talk) 19:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
EastTN That is really what I was driving at. NPOV should rule, and it certainly does not in this article, IMO. ~ P-123 (talk) 19:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - with the caveat that if you clearly, accurately and dispassionately describe something that most readers would objectively consider to be a "very bad thing," it's going to sound pretty bad. In this case, what ISIL says and does is evil enough to shock the conscience of the civilized world. We absolutely need to approach it dispassionately and encyclopedically, but if we also do it accurately (as we must) then the nature of what is being done will be evident. Neutrality means that we, as Wikipedia editors, do not offer our own judgment as to the evil or virtue of the subject. However, it also does not allow us to skew the discussion to make the subject appear in a more positive light than the available facts and sources justify. I'm convinced that with some editorial discipline we can portray ISIL dispassionately. I don't see any way to portray ISIL that is both accurate and positive. EastTN (talk) 15:33, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting to see an ISIL supporter in here trying to inject positive things, when the group spends a lot of energy trying to shock the world. Legacypac (talk) 12:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be very significant editorial bias against anything lending weight to US support to, or at least ambivalence toward ISIL. (Given the recent calls by prominent political and military leaders to support Al Qaeda, this is less shocking than some would profess). However, all kinds of allegations that the Syrian government supports ISIL are given prominent space, despite the premise being rather far-fetched (Assad is close to being toppled, according to most reports). I added (under 'Conspiracy Theories') a mention of the recent report by the Associated Press that the Greek government had reported that the US government had pressured it to refuse to allow Russia to use Greek airspace to supply military assistance to the Syrian government, ostensibly for use against ISIL and other related groups like Al Qaeda/Al Nusra. My post was removed 4 minutes later by a moderator who admits to be a US government employee (at least he is being honest). I can understand editing or even removing the conclusion that this could support the view that elements of the US government are possibly interested in perpetuating the conflict, such that no side wins (not so far-fetched, given the stated aim of removing Assad, as well as views of some neocons within government about rolling back Iraq, then Syria, and then finally Iran), but to remove the reference to a report by AP entirely seems heavy-handed. The editor's comment was that there is no credible evidence that the US supports ISIL; how can we judge the credibility of that assertion when any evidence that might support that assertion is removed automatically? It seems the editors feel that such assertions are 'silly' or 'ridiculous' on the face of it, with no further need for comment. Another editor mentioned that an entire server would be needed if all allegation about ISIL were to be included, but yet there was a claim (that I edited) that stated that ISIL sends terrorists to Europe posing as refugees; this was based on the say-so of one Libyan government operative, who happen to be fighting ISIL. Anyway, I really don't see how Wikipedia can expect to maintain any sense of credibility or objectivity with this kind of editing. I expect that my IP address may be banned from further Wikipedia edits for posting this comment, but at least this will (hopefully) remain in the Talk section (if you see no further comments from Kawika99, that is why).

here is my reference from Yahoo! News: http://news.yahoo.com/greece-says-considering-u-request-deny-airspace-russia-104110471.html Kawika99 (talk) 02:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's nothing to do with IS one way or the other. Russia is massively upping it's military support to Assad in the wake of recent losses by his Army to various Syrian rebel factions, and the anti-Assad governments (Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and to a lesser extent the US) are opposed to an influx of sophisticated weaponry to a Government that they openly oppose. Gazkthul (talk) 06:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This whole page reeks of editorial bias! Even the Infobox is the result of editorial bias and personal opinion. It's a mess! I would love to help make the article neutral in viewpoint, but at this point I don't know where to begin! Anasaitis (talk) 21:30, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anasaitis is this satire or are you part of ISIL's cyber warfare operations? Legacypac (talk) 18:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: One year moratorium on move proposals

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is consensus for a one year moratorium on all move proposals for this article. The majority opinion is that multiple move requests in the recent past have hurt development and become a time sink. AlbinoFerret 23:55, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: impose a one-year moratorium on all move proposals for this article, starting at the time this RfC is closed. Any new move proposals started during the moratorium will be speedily hatted and/or archived. VQuakr (talk) 02:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Background: as noted in the template at the top of this page, this article has been hamstrung by a steady stream of move requests. These requests have not been without merit, but no consensus closures have been the rule rather than the exception. Since the closure of the most recent move proposal two weeks ago, we have at least three new threads currently on the talk page requesting moves (albeit informally). A moratorium will allow quick hatting of such proposals, attracting the community's attention to more important matters.

A recent proposal to impose a one-year moratorium on all move proposals garnered some support here, but was closed without comment along with the move discussion of which it was a part. See also here and here for discussions related to the previous moratorium active October 2014-January 2015.

Please note that in the spirit of WP:WRONGVERSION a !vote for a moratorium is not synonymous with a !vote for the current name. It is merely a confirmation that endless move proposals are disruptive to article improvement. Similarly, in this discussion section please consider refraining from expressing a preference for any specific article title.

Pinging !voters in the last moratorium discussion: @Ad Orientem, RGloucester, Mbcap, GregKaye, Gazkthul, Hroðulf, and Banak: @Panam2014, DylanLacey, StanTheMan87, SmokeyJoe, Khestwol, P-123, and XavierItzm: @Callinus and George Ho:

It is also my belief that a moratorium of length of over 3 months would be incredibly bad for the restoration of good faith and civility on this page. If you have been following this page and the interactions between the editors on this page, or watching WP:ANI for a year or so, you'd know the RM did not spark the bad faith that is apparent between editors on this page, which is deeply split between those who believe the page should be renamed {"Islamic State" or "Islamic State (something)"} and those who think it shouldn't (some of whom argue for Daesh). Banak (talk) 06:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The current title in self-proclaimed propaganda. Support following the emerging real world international consensus and renaming to Daesh. For example, [1], [2]. I agree with the 120 British MPs arguing that the militants are neither Islamic nor a state. I do not support continuation of the current. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The title is a very important matter, even if it may seem trivial. There is significant support for a change in name, just no consensus. Shutting down the conversation will not help resolve the issue. The name should be changed to Islamic State (militant group) or something similar. DylanLacey (talk) 04:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe and DylanLacey: per the request in the RfC, can you refactor your !votes to address why additional move discussions are important rather than focusing on a specific title or whether we have The Wrong Version? VQuakr (talk) 04:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose moratorium because the current title has an unacceptable problem. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose the moratorium because additional discussion is necessary to come to a consensus on what the title should be. I believe the current title is woefully inadequate. Also, a year is far too long for a current events oriented page. DylanLacey (talk) 05:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It has been two years since a move discussion reached a consensus to change a title (to the current one). Since then, we have had nearly constant move proposals that have accomplished nothing. How many more years of additional discussion will be the correct amount? An article can be about a current topic without needing to be moved often; indeed, the purpose of the proposal is to refocus on content. As noted in the nomination, the adequacy of the current title is not the topic of this discussion. VQuakr (talk) 06:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support The oppose !votes appear to be following the dictum that "the debate shall continue until the desired result is obtained." A clear lack of consensus after protracted debate is a very good reason to suspend things for a while. And one month is not a moratorium, it is just a brief cease fire. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 3 months to one year. This has been canvassed many times and comes up several times a month. Many of the debates are cyclical and most of the points made have been made in preceding months. -- Callinus (talk) 05:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support one-year moratorium as per other editors here and in the last RM. This page does not need disruptive and pointless RMs almost every month. Khestwol (talk) 06:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A year is excessive, there is nothing wrong with healthy debate as long as there are a few months to avoid disruption. Gazkthul (talk) 06:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Srongly Oppose this will prevent any attempt to rename then you can just take 1 year to discuss the title, since it is clear that the current title is outdated . --Panam2014 (talk) 22:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging !voters in the last moratorium discussion:

@Ad Orientem, RGloucester, Mbcap, GregKaye, Gazkthul, Hroðulf, and Banak: @Panam2014, DylanLacey, StanTheMan87, SmokeyJoe, Khestwol, P-123, and XavierItzm: @Callinus and George Ho: to comment that:

The last and previous RM's were based on selective choice of reference in relation to name usage in RS. Since the end of July I've presented further research into name usage by sources which is presented at #Name searches at random. For those not regularly following this page, this content may have relevance as background then making comment here. GregKaye 00:16, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The last and previous RM's were based on selective choice of reference in relation to name usage in RS." I dispute this claim. I also disagree with this methodology of your research as well as it's relevance. This aside, has no bearing on what is happening here. This isn't rejecting a move request, this is a proposal to not allow any mover requests for a year. Banak (talk) 06:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Usage in a range of sources is very far from indicating that proposed titles represent commonname. Then adding a range of other arguments against move there is zero chance of move for the foreseeable future. My view on moratorium has changed in the context of battleground tactics. Editors here have made unsubstantiated accusation and, has was even referenced in the last moratorium discussion, repeatedly refuse to answer questions related to the accusation. GregKaye 00:27, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikimandia, this isn't about evaluating the motivations of the use of names, though the current one has issues with that like any possible name we can thing of for this group as mentioned in the article. Every name is accused of being a POV push and accused of violating NPOV, and being down to other people's POV. Banak (talk) 06:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support – Enough time has been spent on this. There is no one clear and unambiguous common name, hence the use of the current title. Things may well change in a years time, but there should be no more hankering over this in the meantime. Let's reevaluate the situation after a year. RGloucester — ☎ 02:38, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GregKaye, Wikimandia, and RGloucester: If you believe the COMMONNAME means we should not move the page, or that arguments about common name are relevant, then unless you are sure this will not change in the next year, you should oppose the moratorium rather than support it. This is not a proposal to not move the page, it's a proposal to not allow discussions of a change of name for a year. Banak (talk) 06:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Banak I certainly know that COMMONNAME is just one of the arguments relevant for the page remaining titled as it is. Any suggestion that this is or has been the only argument fails to represent the history of these discussions.
I am certainly against discussion in context where an editor can make accusation and then regard such responses as answering simple questions that were directly related to the accusation as being a "catastrophic waste of ... time". This for me was the tipping point. We have indulged too long in these these discussions in which both references and arguments are manipulated. GregKaye 07:00, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
GregKaye, you know as well as me that there are frequent discussions in which both sides do not believe the other side is acting in good faith between You/Legacypac and Me/Mbcap/StanTheMan87, that dates back to at least DocumentError's ban. I do not want to go into everyone's conduct in the RFC here, but I raised some of the issues with stuff you'd done during RFC. Nevertheless, this should be on the topic. Rreagan007 Opposed any change by commonname alone. You raise POVNAME and COMMONNAME as your final objections in the RFC, and about a large proportion of the discussion revolved around it. Banak (talk) 17:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Banak Please consider your comment "I do not want to go into everyone's conduct in the RFC here, but I raised some of the issues with stuff you'd done during RFC." You make a one sided slur without any kind of the direct reference that might afford a chance to answer back. I reply directly to your comment. You make a one sided reference to past discussion with nothing definite being alleged.
My final objections should have been made at the beginning of the discussion. GregKaye 00:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
GregKaye I was trying to fairly balance the comment I am certainly against discussion in context where an editor can make accusation and then regard such responses as answering simple questions that were directly related to the accusation as being a "catastrophic waste of ... time". This for me was the tipping point. We have indulged too long in these these discussions in which both references and arguments are manipulated. which appeared to me to be an unfair one sided summary of the conduct of editors in the RFC, and I do not see how this is a slur. Banak (talk) 03:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Banak I was responding to your comment, "If you believe the COMMONNAME means we should not move the page, or that arguments about common name are relevant, then unless you are sure this will not change in the next year, you should oppose the moratorium ..." and, if this were the only issue involved and if opening arguments to the RMs had not been based on selective reference then I would consider this to be entirely reasonable. I am consistently against manifestations of censorship in Wikipedia and the shutting down of proposals, initiatives, arguments and the like. For instance, at WT:ANI, I have gone as far as to argue unsuccessfully for editors right to reply on administrator notice boards. My response was to clarify my, I belive, reasonable stance on moratorium here.
You refer back to a discussion in which I made my last reply at 10:58, 24 July 2015 and which was conducted within the context of an RM that was closed on 16:42, 29 July 2015. If you think that there are issues that now need to be addressed then it would be fair for them to be specifically named preferably with evidence either being cited or with quotations related to alleged misconduct being given. GregKaye 06:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support An incredible amount of time and energy has been wasted on these move discussions. Whether or not the current name is ideal, it's good enough for interested readers to find the article without undue effort. Our time would be better spent working to improve the content of the article. EastTN (talk) 14:10, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. In the simplest of terms, the issue has been an energy sinkhole for editors. Give it a break. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A year is far too long, but one month is far too short. The picture is ever-changing with ISIL, so it is reasonable to attempt to reassess every two to three months, I think. ~ P-123 (talk) 09:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a dramatic and obvious changes in the interim period, they will be evident enough to overturn any moratorium. Revisiting the issue every time someone gets a bee in their bonnet is an energy sinkhole. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support summoned by bot ideally for 2-3 months, but I can live with a year. I am a strong believer in the notion that NPOV should take precedence over COMMONNAME, but the debate over which POV is reflected by which name has gone on for so long, and gotten so convoluted, that it is not constructive any longer. We need to devote our energies elsewhere. In particular, people who believe the article reflects a POV would be far better served trying to correct this, given that in a topic this controversial, any name is going to be seen as POV by some, and the current one seems as decent as it can be. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose a year is an eternity LavaBaron (talk) 21:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose One year is far too long. It will also continue the use of the current outdated title. --Ritsaiph (talk) 02:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ritsaiph, Please see the recently archived thread: Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/Archive 37#Name searches at random or check recent results:
Google News search results over the past month:
"Islamic State" - [3] About 3,490,000 results
"ISIL" OR "ISIS" OR "Daesh" [4] About 18,400,000 results
There's only a small fraction of "Islamic State" uses in comparison to other uses and this is before other relevant arguments are brought into consideration. GregKaye 11:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you did a search on each of those terms separately, then I would be more inclined to see things from your point of view. Clumping three terms vs. one in search results will more often than not show the three terms having more hits in google searches then just one. --Ritsaiph (talk) 12:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are also more than welcome to work through any searches you want to substantiate your claims. The fact is that "Islamic State" is a lesser used designation for the group across sources especially as used amongst Muslim groups and governmental and non-governmental agencies.
Have you read the last RM? Reference after reference was made to Islamic State group. Even when the name is used this often happens in a qualifying context. GregKaye 12:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Greg:
Google News search results over the past month:
"ISIS" - [5]
About 14,500,000 results
"Islamic State" - [6]
About 8,970,000 results
"ISIL" - [7]
About 54,700 results
"Daesh" - [8]
About 38,000 results
There's only a small fraction of "ISIL" or "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" uses in comparison to other uses. This has however been stated time and time again by multiple editors. In contrast, the phrase "Islamic State" dominates over "ISIL" and no doubt the more commonly used acronymization of "IS" would also be more prevalent than "ISIL", even if all terms with the words "is" were filtered out. And before you jump to the "ISIS" bandwagon which has the majority of results, keep in mind that all the RM's proposing a name change haven't mentioned "ISIS" or "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" as a proposed title. It's all been "Islamic State" with some disambiguation. Also bear in mind that becuase "Islamic State" is the more commonly cited term for a name change, a fairer comparison would then be:
"Islamic State" - [9]
About 8,970,000 results
"ISIL" - [10]
About 54,700 results
This is becuase the current title is "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" (ISIL) and the proposed titles are almost always "Islamic State" (IS) with some form of variation in the disambiguation used. It would only be acceptable to use "ISIS" or "Daesh" in this comparison if the current title for the article was "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" (ISIS) or "Daesh". As for the moment, it's purely an "Islamic State" vs. "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" debate. But that being said, I would support a change to the name "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" (ISIS) over the current title due to that term being much more popular:
"Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" - [11]
About 51,300 results
"Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" - [12]
About 6,910 results
--Ritsaiph (talk) 06:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ritsaiph Your search ("Islamic State" - [13] About 8,970,000 results) is not formatted to search on these words in sequence but can include reference to any article that references (at any place in the article) the word "islamic" [14] "About 17,500,000 results" and the word "state" [15] About 154,000,000 results.

Please see results as have been very recently presented:

"Islamic State" - [16] About 3,490,000 results

You can reference the same arguments as you have made in numerous RMs.

GregKaye 07:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Islamic State" - [17]
About 3,490,000 results
"ISIL" - [18]
About 54,700 results
"Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" - [19]
About 51,300 results
"Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" - [20]
About 6,910 results
It still illustrates that the phrase "Islamic State" is still more popular than "ISIL", "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" or "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria". Not to mention the acronym "IS" being more popular than all three, including "ISIS".
Greg, you amaze me. You frequently cite figures to prove your point of view. But when someone picks you up on the fact that you combine three terms against one (hardly a fair comparison), or that the phrase 'Islamic State" is and will always the most popular in search results due to WP:COMMONNAME, it's as if you just don't care or pretend like the figures others cite against you don't even exist. We are not talking about opinions here where we can agree/disagree, we are talking about facts. Figures are facts. They stand on their own. You cannot deny that the figure 54,300 is somehow less than the figure 3,490,000 . There is no room for interpretation. The registered hits for "Islamic State" are higher than that of "ISIL", "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant", "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" and "Daesh" combined. --Ritsaiph (talk) 07:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ritsaiph let me refer you to a comment that I made relatively late in in the last RM once almost all the !votes had been cast and the RM was already heading towards rejection.[21] "... 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. ..."
All we are doing is going the same ground as has been covered time and time again and this just confirms everything that others have said about waste of time.
GregKaye 08:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that the term "Islamic State" and "IS" are less recognizable than "ISIS", "ISIL", "Daesh" "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" and "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria"? Considering that "Islamic State" is more common than not only the current title and its acronym and Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, (but not ISIS) I have no doubt that the acronym for "Islamic State" (IS) is far more commonly used than "ISIS".
It's very convenient for you that you can use the title of the article page "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" plus "ISIS", "ISIL" and "Daesh" when an RM pops up to change it to any alternative. Four terms against one. Very convenient. I've never myself seen an editor on Wikipedia state that before. Notice the heading of what WP:CRITERIA relates to: "Deciding on an article title". Notice "an article title". This references to one title only. Last time I reviewed the title page, it was not "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and ISIL and ISIS and Daesh". Maybe if that was the article title you could cite the three other terms.
It states "Editors choose the best title...". The phrase 'best title' is defined by the following points, of which Recognizability is the one that WP:COMMONNAME relates to the most. The best title. So we know that there can only be one title for an article, which there is (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) and that we must choose the 'best' one based on recognizability. Ok then:
"Islamic State" - [22]
About 3,490,000 results
"ISIL" - [23]
About 54,700 results
"Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" - [24]
About 6,910 results
Whad'Ya know Greg. If I'm not mistaken, it appears as if "Islamic State" has more results in the past month than even the article title in use and its acronym. And again, last time I checked which was about 5 seconds ago, the title of the article is "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" and that is the only title which can be debated on when discussing an RM vs. any proposed name e.g Islamic State, Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, Islamic State of Iraq and Sham and Daesh. However, none of the previous RM's that i have been apart of have ever called for the title to be changed to "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" or "Daesh". Therefore these terms were irrelevant in those RM's. You seem to be the only editor here who, when opposed to a proposed title, cites not only the current article title but every single alternative in support of the current title, which is ridiculous. I'm afraid Greg that I cannot understand your logic behind this article and its RM's regarding the change of article name. --Ritsaiph (talk) 09:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I with others am stating is that a range of such arguments have been presented on numerous occasions in numerous RMs all with the same result.
  • What I am stating is that WP:COMMONNAME does not support this move and that "Islamic State", especially when used without qualification, is a minority term as used both in news and especially by the people that various news agencies interview.
  • What I have previously stated is that "Islamic State ..." is incorporated within the current title but that the current title is also representative of the predominant use of the term "ISIS", which along with parallel uses of "ISIL" and "Daesh"/"Daas" etc. present the substantively used presentation of the group.
What I do not plan to present here are the various NPOV arguments related to the proposed moves. ALL of this has been covered on numerous occasions.
You are going into monologue on one aspect of argument. Within the great many extremely extensive RMs a wide range of issues have been raised and, as any editor can see by scanning through the talk page, it is readily apparent that this behaviour has been exhibited time and time again to no effect. This adds one more discussion repeating exactly the same pattern.
GregKaye 13:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arguments... you mean a range of such trivial POV-inspired drivel on whether or not to use the term 'Islamic State' alone in the title, despite its WP:OFFICIAL and WP:COMMONNAME status? The only reason why previous RM's have failed is not due to your arguments. It's due to the sheer amount of POV-inspired editors who just so happen to share the same biased POV. Therefore, when an RM is launched, consensus will benefit the biased cretins who plague Wikipedia with their agendas.
  • Again, you are in denial Greg. Look at the search results before between the current title and its acronym and the proposed term "Islamic State". Look at them. Look at the figures. "Islamic State" is more popular than all terms, save "ISIS". But "IS", the acronym of Islamic State is more popular than "ISIS". Why? Because the "Islamic State" is the most popular term that is not an acronym. Sources will use it once or twice and then use "IS" in the rest of the source. Because of your moral dilemma in accepting this fact, you just pretend that you are in the right. You don't care at all about Wikipedia Policy on what is better for the article and WP:TITLECHANGES. Your arguments solely come from not offending those with a "Mohammedan based faith", and citing mere opinions about "legitimacy" while also constantly mentioning your own search results by clumping every single term imaginable for the Islamic State group and pitting those results against the "Islamic State". That is sheer stupidity and POV-inspired biasness. Please, do not try and justify it. You have already shown me you can't.
  • The title "Islamic State of the Iraq and the Levant" means the "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" or "ISIL". It does not give you or any editor the right to shoot down a proposal to "Islamic State" when WP:COMMONNAME is in its favor by citing other used expressions for the group that are more popular than the current title. That is ludicrous stupidity. If an RM was arguing to move to the term "ISIS" or "Daesh", then those terms could enter into the argument. But no such RM going back to early 2014 has used those terms. Again, becuase of your illogical biased conscience, I don't really think you will be able to understand what I am saying.
I'm not going to continue wasting my time on you any longer, and your biased point of view. I voted oppose for a reason, and that is becuase the current title is outdated and fails both WP:OFFICIAL and WP:COMMONNAME. --Ritsaiph (talk) 04:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We don't go by WP:OFFICIAL and, while other editors have consistently cherry picked references to present, "Islamic State" has been proven to be very far from WP:COMMONNAME. "Islamic State" has only been one choice of title and one that (on the basis of a variety of objections that they have frequently raised themselves) editors have consistently rejected.
Ritsaiph Please either cite what you think that I have done here that in any way justifies your slurs of "biased point of view" and similar or please strike. GregKaye 04:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a year of no more round and round move proposals. There are no new arguments to be made. Legacypac (talk) 12:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for any time period up to a year (though perhaps a year is too long). Article titles are not as important and should not be allowed to distract from the substance of the article, and when they begin to detract it is important to take steps. There is too much variety to reach a consensus on the title (e.g. I have only heard the name "Daesh" once, here in the 3rd largest English-speaking country). A year can be a long time in the life of an armed group; maybe a consensus will develop in the year. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 03:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:CRYSTALBALL. Although there's currently no consensus for moving to another title, things can change quite quickly, and we can't predict whether there will be one in 2, 4, 6, or 8 months time.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

US support

FF @Drmies: Hey please discuss the materials here before removing them. Thanks Mhhossein (talk) 04:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: wow, about a year ago some news reports were wrong? Seems way too trivial. I guess I don't have a strong opinion about the Rand Paul quote. Why do you think it should be added to the article? VQuakr (talk) 04:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll discuss important removals. There is nothing important about this. First of all, there is no credible evidence for US support of ISIS (can't believe I have to write this sentence). Second, this is at best a statement about, not evidence of, some kind of indirect support, but really an unintended consequence. One might as well say that, well, any country that sells spare tires to the Turkish army is supporting ISIS. Third, it doesn't matter that Rand Paul is a senator (Iago said it better then I ever could): it was an idiotic statement made only for Fpolitical purposes, and it has no relevance to an encyclopedic article about ISIS. And yes, false reports from a year ago likewise are silly to include. This isn't K-pop, you know, where every reported thing needs to be included--and at over 300k, this article is already long enough. Drmies (talk) 12:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, the section is entitled "Allegations of United States support", i.e. no certainty is mentioned there and no credible eveidence is required to reflect an allegation. A senator, as a political figure, is notable enough to have statements, whether silly or not! The best way to have it appear silly is to have the counter viewpoints beside it. What ever related to the ISIL and is published by WP:RS may be added here and time is not limiting us. Btw, based on which policy shall we not use the statement here, because it dates back to a year ago? Mhhossein (talk) 14:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @VQuakr: Was the report proven to be false? I mean, did he not say such a thing? Mhhossein (talk)
    • If we are going to publish every thing that's been said about ISIL, we need new servers. Instead, we should apply editorial discretion. Of course it's published in a reliable source--it's election season! If "he's a senator so it should be included" is a valid rationale, then please add [25], [26], [27], and [28] to the article--the first four hits for one single senator. Seriously, there is no rationale for including sub-par, politically motivated allegations just because they are "reliably sourced". None whatsoever. Drmies (talk) 14:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, we are not going to publish every thing said about ISIL but rather we try to reflect all aspects of ISIL as an encyclopedia within the limits drawn by the policies, don't we? To me the statement by Paul is different from those which you presented, although all of them might be used in closely related pages and sections. I don't mean that we should write that a senator is deeply worried about ISIL, but we should keep track of notable and challenging statements. However, I have to respect by viewpoints of other editors. If there's a consensus to have it removed, do it, although I think we can at least keep the first paragraph. Mhhossein (talk) 18:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mhhossein: the "news reports were wrong" comment was about the incorrect reportage of a cease fire. VQuakr (talk) 18:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that there is pretty clear consensus that neither paragraph is important enough to include in this article, with no support voiced for Mhhossein's position. Are we agreed it should go? VQuakr (talk) 18:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
VQuakr: I would wait to know how other editors think on this.
pinging involved editors: @GregKaye, Mbcap, P-123, and EastTN: Mhhossein (talk) 06:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that this might be of more relevance to Wikipedia articles on US political infighting. I also think that if there was anything at all genuine or substantiated in the story then other Republicans would have joined in with the claims or, at least, Rand Paul would have persisted with them.
A tendency that I have noted in this and parallel themed articles is to prominently present the influence / involvement of the US and Israel while presenting comparatively little emphasis on the, I think, extremely notable involvements of Middle-eastern, Asian and European states.
Without substantiation and in a context in which the US has shown clear support of groups in active combat with ISIL it seems to me that the allegation is a bit like criticising a doctor of supporting the flu when treating a cold. Admittedly, when commenting on western influence, the doctor may be open to accusation of being a bit of a quack but I think that the analogy still stands. GregKaye 09:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am no longer an "involved" editor, but I support Mhhossein on this, i.e. to keep the Rand Paul reference. ~ P-123 (talk) 10:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Btw; is there any evidence, other than U.S. government & Syrian opposition propaganda, that Syrian government is supporting ISIL? As far as I know, the Syrian government and ISIL are mortal enemies. - [29], [30]. -- Tobby72 (talk) 12:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tobby72: That's interesting! Mhhossein (talk) 14:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Greg: Paul's statement does not deserve to stay here? Mhhossein (talk)

I think that the citation for the text would far better describe "Allegations of United States cock-up/ineptitude" than "Allegations of United States support". To me "support" is suggested of intentional aid and I don't think that this was ever suggested. The titling as used is unencyclopedic imo.

In the: the associated citation we read: “I think we have to understand first how we got here,” he (Rand Paul) said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” "I think one of the reasons why ISIS has been emboldened is because we have been arming their allies. We have been allied with ISIS in Syria."

First he does not specify who these "allies" are (any ideas?) I am not sure on any substantiation for the use of "emboldened". I certainly think that, if Rand Paul had been a Wikipedia editor and presented the synthesis "We have been allied with ISIS in Syria", he would have been challenged.

P-123 What justification is there that we should "keep the Rand Paul reference". GregKaye 06:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notable comment by a prominent US politician, however wrong-headed it may be? [Sorry, forgot to sign] ~ P-123 (talk) 12:17, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This likely seemed more notable at the time it was originally added. I don't have the sense that Rand Paul has been successful into turning this into a significant political issue. That may change, but at this point my sense is that it's a political sideshow. He did say it, though. I don't feel particularly strongly either way about whether it stays or goes. EastTN (talk) 20:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rand's quote adds nothing to the understanding of ISIL. Should be gone. Legacypac (talk) 12:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That nature of that quote reveals why it isn't usable here. It is quite obvious that the "allies" Rand Paul mentions are the other rebel factions. He is of the opinion that the rebels are allied with ISIL, and that one Froup of armed Muslims is just as bad as another. This view is ridiculous, and, if I may be so bold as to say so, idiotic. Not all rebels in Syria are extremists, and the rebels have been fighting against ISIL since late 2013. Rand Paul is clearly a biased and prejudicial individual, and we are not going to use such an unreliable source on what is supposed to be an encyclopedic article. Anasaitis (talk) 18:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. arming rebels

The U.S. doesn't support ISIS, but the Western and Gulf Arab states created the conditions under which ISIS could come to power. As was the case in Afghanistan in the 1980's - CIA's Operation Cyclone - history repeats itself in Syria.

CIA operatives and U.S. special operations troops have been secretly training Syrian rebels with anti-tank and antiaircraft weapons since late last year, months before President Obama approved plans to begin directly arming them, according to U.S. officials and rebel commanders. ... The training has involved fighters from the Free Syrian Army, a loose confederation of rebel groups that the Obama administration has promised to back with expanded military assistance, said a U.S. official, who discussed the effort anonymously because he was not authorized to disclose details.

The CIA has begun delivering weapons to rebels in Syria, ending months of delay in lethal aid that had been promised by the Obama administration, according to U.S. officials and Syrian figures. The shipments began streaming into the country over the past two weeks, along with separate deliveries by the State Department of vehicles and other gear — a flow of material that marks a major escalation of the U.S. role in Syria’s civil war.

For a long time, Western and Arab states supported the Free Syrian Army not only with training but also with weapons and other materiel. The Islamic State commander, Abu Yusaf, added that members of the Free Syrian Army who had received training — from the United States, Turkey and Arab military officers at an American base in Southern Turkey — have now joined the Islamic State.

Fighters from the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and Islamic military groups are joining forces with Isis, which has gained control of swaths of Syria and Iraq and has beheaded six western hostages in the past few months. Some brigades have transferred their allegiance, while others are forming tactical alliances or truces.

At $1 billion, Syria-related operations account for about $1 of every $15 in the CIA’s overall budget, judging by spending levels revealed in documents The Washington Post obtained from former U.S. intelligence contractor Edward Snowden. U.S. officials said the CIA has trained and equipped nearly 10,000 fighters sent into Syria over the past several years — meaning that the agency is spending roughly $100,000 per year for every anti-Assad rebel who has gone through the program.

-- Tobby72 (talk) 19:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Below there is an interesting commentary from Seumas Milne:

A revealing light on how we got here has now been shone by a recently declassified secret US intelligence report, written in August 2012, which uncannily predicts – and effectively welcomes – the prospect of a “Salafist principality” in eastern Syria and an al-Qaida-controlled Islamic state in Syria and Iraq. ... Raising the “possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality”, the Pentagon report goes on, “this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran)”.

-- Tobby72 (talk) 19:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Editors are still forgetting that encyclopaedias do not write history - i.e. interpret facts - they only record them. ~ P-123 (talk) 20:50, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, editors often forget this. I do not see that the above content constitutes support of ISIS by the U.S. as has been stated. GregKaye 16:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are the Western and Gulf Arab states supplying them with the actual arms/weapons? Who is supporting them with Arms, I don't remember any country in the middle east or Africa manufacturing weapons, isn't it the West , North Korea or the U.S? Bobbyshabangu talk 17:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They obtain their weapons from primarily from capturing it from the Iraqi and Syrian militaries. In the capture of Mosul alone, the Iraqis left behind enough weaponry to outfit 4 divisions. Gazkthul (talk) 22:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update Map + conflicts between map editors.

ISIS has left Hawija retreating to mosul and sharqat. Many twits confirm this too. I am unable to edit the map so please do it for me.

In the current Iraqi conflict page and syrian civil war page some people are editing back and forth with 2 different versions of the map, one apparently a pro-ISIS map. I saw some rude comments between users also in the map history.

This is the source: http://www.iraqinews.com/iraq-war/isis-leaves-hawija-retreats-mosul-receiving-painful-blows-f-16/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrSam88 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

source is bull, IS still hold hawija city and kurds are not even close — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.97.57 (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Hello everyone,

I would like to say that from my point of view (and I think the point of view of many like me), it is a bit strange how such a small military force like the IS, with little land controlled can maintain such a power for months. Obviously, IS is a very small army compared to the forces of NATO, Russia and Arabia altogether.

To give an example, Iraq government was defeated in just a few weeks (2003) and it was done mainly US and UK forces who did the work. I know there was a 8 year post-war period of time, but not a war itself, which it lasted for only one month or so. The Iraqui Government was rapidly changed and a new Constitution created and adopted, in about 3 to 4 years (2003-2006).

To add up, it is hard to believe why several big powers (USA+NATO European Countries+Arabia and others) cannot even maintain the control and reduce the IS expansion. I think a coaliation between US&Western and the IS against Syria Goverment or a kind of false flag operation) shoud be considered and investigated. Please, do not consider this like a conspirancy theory, well because there are serious reasons that (like I told before) to consider the idea of something deeper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.25.238.87 (talk) 23:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

if the US was against the syrian government, why dont they just give them 20,000 airstrikes like they did IS? take your bullshit conspiracy theories out of here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.97.57 (talk) 08:55, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can't say warfare between the US & partners against Iraq's conventional army (an army that generally sucks) in a successful effort to conquer Iraq and warfare between conventional forces and an insurgent like ISIL are very comparable. For starters, the US is not trying to conquer Iraq and Syria. They can bomb ISIL all day long, but if local forces (Iraqi, Kurdish, Syrian rebals etc) can't hold the ground, its a tough fight. Legacypac (talk) 18:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lebanon Removal?

Crossposting this here from other pages on the Wikimedia Commons.

I've noticed that someone has edited the map of the current military situation to remove Lebanon & Hezbollah. I feel that this change should be reverted: while it's true there's minimal or no IS activity in Lebanon, that's no reason to blank it out on the map - after all, the map is meant to show the territories of all of the insurgent groups in the area (hence the "And Lebanese Insurgencies" in the title), as opposed to just the ones in Syria and Iraq, and having the extra information did help give a sense of what's happening in the region without having to look at several different maps at once.

Any thoughts?

206.223.166.51 (talk) 16:10, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll re-add it and update, if we want a map without Lebanon we have a different map for that. That said, I'm not convinced of the case for Lebanon. Banak (talk) 18:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge "In the media" into "Supporters"?

The "In the media" section has five subsections, four titled as "Allegations of _____ support", and one on conspiracy theories. This doesn't have much to do with media, but does relate to supporters. I propose moving the current "In the media" section to the end of the "Supporters" section. Tonystewart14 (talk) 07:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and moved the Allegations subsections, but left the media section in place with the lead text and conspiracy subsection. I believe these four subsections are better suited in the Supporters section, but feel free to discuss below if you believe otherwise. Tonystewart14 (talk) 10:29, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Khawariji or Salafi?

Should the lead be changed to: The Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham Arabic: الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام,[1] is a Khawariji extremist militant group and self-proclaimed caliphate led by and mainly composed of Khawariji Arabs from Iraq and Syria.

Also the article name is not Islamic State because Wikipedia doesn't label them as what they would like to be called by others so we should changed that also from Salafi to Khawarij which is what 99.9% of Muslim consider them to be and which they have shown by their actions to be that they are not just any Salafi Jihadist group but rather are in the league of their own. (See the references on Muslim position about ISIS in the article below). 217.23.5.70 (talk) 15:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, because virtually no non-Muslim will know what a Khawarij is, and the term is not used as an adjective by any English language WP:RS that I am aware of. You have not provided a source to show that 99.9% of Muslims consider them to be Khawarij, but even if this were true, it wouldn't mean Wikipedia would accept the terminology.
And plenty of other Salafi Jihadist groups (Boko Haram, Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis, Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan) have sworn allegiance to them, so they are not really in a league of their own. Gazkthul (talk) 22:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is there is no single comparable word in English for Khawarij. Also the King of Jordan just used that word in his speech to the UN today. He was speaking in English. 217.23.5.77 (talk) 16:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Role of the United States

Should this be included in the article?

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/03/us-isis-syria-iraq

It contains a link to a declassified US intelligence report from 2012.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Pg.-291-Pgs.-287-293-JW-v-DOD-and-State-14-812-DOD-Release-2015-04-10-final-version11.pdf Ich901 (talk) 09:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know what to make of this...

I stumbled upon this 'book' of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant group being sold on Amazon, entitled 'Know Thy Enemy: Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant' by 'Richard York' and upon looking into it, I found that the book is a near identical copy to this Wikipedia article. See for yourself: [31]

Is something like this allowed? I mean, I know Wikipedia is free information, but does that give someone the right to essentially print out a screenshot of a Wikipedia article and announce it as your own copyrighted work that this 'Richard York' seems to be doing? Does Wikipedia have some sort of partnership with this author? --Ritsaiph (talk) 17:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can use the article freely. Legacypac (talk) 18:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Map

We need to update the map

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference ISIS or ISIL? The debate was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islamic_State&oldid=683546001"