Misplaced Pages

• "Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant" 1,930,000 search results and 6,510 results Google News results ....The most common name at this point is Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant. Gazkthul (talk) 05:56, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - Philpill691's search results are incorrect. They are very very wrong and were not done in line with Misplaced Pages:Search engine test. When doing a search for an exact name of something, you need to search that name within speech marks so it searches for that exact phrase; otherwise it searches for anything with them words not necessarily that exact phrase which you're looking for. Also when doing a google search, you need to exclude wikipedia from your search. Here are the real results.

Google News: "Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant" = 7,960 results whereas "Islamic State in Iraq and Syria" = 5,690 results

Google Search: "Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant" -wikipedia = 1,820,000 results whereas "Islamic State in Iraq and Syria" -Misplaced Pages = 107,000 results

It is clear that Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant is the overwhelming Common Name and per WP:Commonname I oppose this proposed move. Regards IJA (talk) 11:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• Strong Support The news reports (both printed and televised) that I've seen regarding this group all refer to them as "ISIS" or "The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria." Lithistman (talk) 15:21, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

@ Lithistman: Can you back that up with evidence please? IJA (talk) 16:58, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Upon digging further, a simple Google search including both the acronym "ISIS" and the word "Iraq" yields over 22 million hits, while a search for the acronym "ISIL" combined with the word "Iraq" yields about 4.7 million. It's not really even a close call, so I'm changing the above to a "strong support." Lithistman (talk) 17:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

@ Lithistman, the acronyms "ISIL" and "ISIS" do not tell whether "Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant" or "Islamic State in Iraq and Syria" are the Common Name. For example, the BBC uses the acronym ISIS, yet when using the full name, they use "Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant". These articles are from today and . Do a search of the full name (as I have shown previously) and you will clearly see that "Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant" is by far a more common name. IJA (talk) 15:44, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

@ Lithistman, also the acronym "ISIS" doesn't always refer to "Islamic State in Iraq and Syria", it can also refer to "Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham" / "Islamic State of Iraq and Sham". I think there are too many holes in your argument. IJA (talk) 09:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - the google search count is irrelevant. a common name popularized by media does not make it the correct name. the closest translation the Arabic name should be used. Jonpatterns (talk) 18:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment ISIS is being increasingly and far more being used so you might as well move it to "ISIS".

 Done - Technophant (talk) 20:10, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

*Support - When the acronym ISIS is taken into account, ISIS & Islamic State in Iraq and Syria is probably more common than ISIL & Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant. A possible compromise could be Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham, though that's the least common of the names I've seen (which is why I'd oppose it). I now support Islamic State in/of Iraq and al-Sham (I have no preference between in or of). Blaylockjam10 (talk) 08:04, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• Strong support. In adition to the Google searches above, here in the UK the media is universally using "...and Syria" and "ISIS". Clearly, there has been a shift. You just don't see ISIL. WP:COMMONAME.DeCausa (talk) 08:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
• I'd prefer Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Regardless, I utterly oppose the use of the word Syria. Levant or al-Sham; not Syria. AntiqueReader (talk) 09:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
• Here's a collation of a few names and acronyms:

The Wall Street Journal: Islamist State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS)

The New York Times: Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS)

The Washington Post: Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)

Los Angeles Times: Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS (ISIS)

USA Today: Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)

The New Yorker: Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS)

Al Jazeera: Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)

CNN: Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS)

ABC News: Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)

CBS News: Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)

BBC News: Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIS)

Channel 4 News: Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) (though they now sometimes seem simply use the word Isis without introduction, assuming people know what it stands for)

ITV News: Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) (again, don't even seem to bother introducing the term ISIS sometimes)

Sky News: Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS)

Financial Times: Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS)

The Guardian: Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIS)

The Times: Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS)

The Independent: Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS)

The Telegraph: Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS)

The Economist: Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria (ISIS)

Reuters: Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)

Associated Press: Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)

Bloomberg: Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)

AntiqueReader (talk) 20:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Also The Associated Press: Islamist State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) -Technophant (talk) 19:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I think with that one that, perhaps, the WSJ changed the original terminology of the AP report to maintain consistency. AntiqueReader (talk) 08:06, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• Move to Islamist State of Iraq and Sham or Islamist State of Iraq and al-Sham A review of the list above and the current Western media coverage shows definitively that the accepted acronym should be ISIS, but what does the S really stand for? US media has conveniently assigned it to Syria, but that's not what the name al-Sham means. I had to look up the term Levant because I never heard it before and neither have the vast majority of Americans. Pakistan Today uses the name Islamist State in Iraq and Sham in this article. The google search for this combination of terms leads to 35,400 ghits and 42 for news.

We need to try to look into the future and try to what this group (who may well succeed with their stated goals of being the governing body of most of the Levant and Iraq) will be called. I think that the name "Islamic State in Iraq and Syria" should be recognized as a valid name that Western media is using, but the name "Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)" just doesn't make sense for this article's title, or as an acronym. -- Technophant (talk) 15:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - I would like to call for a speedy close to this move discussion. There's over 45k pageviews a day and the name is leading to a lot of confusion. I'm fine with Islamic State in Iraq and Syria however some are not. If the WSJ, the AP, and The Telegraph and several regional scholars all think that direct translation of al-Sham is the official name, why are we going with old google search results? Best to follow the experts. - Technophant (talk) 19:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Sources appear to be divided on the exact name, but they appear to prefer the acronym ISIS over ISIL (even some using the name Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant use the acronym ISIS). Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:12, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I think the terminology and acronym used by Reuters and the AP is fine, i.e. that the article is fine as it is. It seems totally ridiculous to refer to them as the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant but then use the acronym ISIS, as if you were calling them the Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham. Well, either leave it as it is, or move the article to Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham and use ISIS. AntiqueReader (talk) 08:17, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Acronyms are based on the group's Arabic name. There's other examples of this such as Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn, "The Organization of Jihad's Base in the Country of the Two Rivers" (TQJBR) - Technophant (talk) 17:12, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

For sure. Italian Communist Party. AntiqueReader (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Would add that, as Fawaz Gerges points out, their Arabic acronym is Daish. AntiqueReader (talk) 22:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose There is not one clear favorited name at the moment, so we should keep the article as it stands now. Although I do favor using ISIS over ISIL in the article itself. --Tocino 09:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support Move, most of the mainstream media networks that I am familiar with have been referring to the group as ISIS, not ISIL, Misplaced Pages is the only place I've heard the term Levant instead of Syria for the name of the organization. Abrahamic Faiths (talk) 22:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
• STRONG OPPOSE ISIS stand for Islamic state of Iraq and al-Sham not Syria. The word Syria dose not equal Sham (Bilad al-Sham). if u wanna move it then move it to the right name "Islamic state of Iraq and al-Sham" 37.105.0.186 (talk) 23:31, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose It is funny to choose the name based on the media instead of what ISIL calls itself. "الدولة الاسلامية في العراق والشام‎ ʾad-dawla ʾal-islāmiyya fīl-‘irāq waš-šām" means "Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant". Levant is not restricted to Syria and ISIL clearly declares it does not believe in the modern borders. "The Levant is an old term referring to countries of the eastern Mediterranean. Some scholars include in it Cyprus and a small part of Turkey. But basically the Levant has throughout history meant Syria, Lebanon and Palestine. This means Jordan, the West Bank (now under Israeli occupation) and Israel itself are part of the Levant." I think the western media will wake up after the fall of Jordon or Lebanon!!!--Seyyed(t-c) 06:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose But support move to Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham based on all the news coverage I've seen in the UK and what people say about the Arabic above.  Philg88  09:17, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose The last S in "ISIS" stands for "al-Sham", not Syria, and these two things are not synonymous. For now, evidence has not been shown to support a different common name, so the article should remain at its present title by default. Xoloz (talk) 15:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Actually, no. The article was moved from the proposed name in the last year. So it would be reasonable if there is no consensus to retain at this name to move it back. Part of that discussion was that the current name was the one in use at that time. If usage changes then the article should move. This comment does not address the usage of Syria v al-Sham which is an additional consideration. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:56, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
    • The rename to which you refer was the result of prior sucessful RM. If this RM results in no consensus, standard practice is to defer to the consensus established in the first RM. Xoloz (talk) 20:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, "Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant" = 7,530,000 results, "Islamic State in Iraq and Syria" = 893,000 results. Nomination is based on flawed google search.--Staberinde (talk) 16:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose both. It should be "Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham", because (a) it doesn't exist geographically (yet) so it can't be "in" any country/area, and (b) "al-Sham" means not "Syria", but "Greater Syria" (which from what I understand includes other countries as well). --P123ct1 (talk) 23:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment The acronym that's now deployed by many agencies as well as the United Nations and the U.S. State Department -- and President Obama -- is ISIL, for the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

• Comment According to this, al-Sham means Syria or Greater Syria. It's Bilad al-Sham that means the Levant. I'm starting to think Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham would be the best name b/c it's the least ambiguous name. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 01:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per Xoloz. Neljack (talk) 02:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Faced with two common names, go with the one that is more precise. —  AjaxSmack  05:23, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose – There is no reason impose an incorrect translation, "Syria", on this title. Let's be as precise as possible, here. "Al-Sham" is no good. We use English here, and we are also WP:PRECISE. If the name of this organisation in Arabic included "Syria", fine. But it doesn't. It reads "Levant" in English, meaning areas outside of the modern state of Syria, such as Lebanon. We can't afford to be misleading here. Especially, of course, given that neither of these titles is the unambiguous common name. RGloucester — ☎ 19:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Additional request

Whichever title is decided upon above, I suggest the word of be used instead of in in the title, as of seems to be used in more sources than in for virtually all translations of the group's name. --Philpill691 (talk) 03:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support usage of of instead of in as nominator --Philpill691 (talk) 03:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support AntiqueReader (talk) 09:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support - I don't suppose it matters either way as both are commonly used, however "of" rolls off the tounge better. IJA (talk) 11:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support because it only exists as a concept so far! It can't be "in" anywhere (except the mind). --P123ct1 (talk) 23:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
• Wait - as per WP:TITLECHANGES. Too soon to know what the most accepted name is going to be. Changing "in" to "of" is a minor change that will result in many hours of fixing links in the many many pages linking here. There's also more redirects to this page than perhaps any other page on enwiki. If you look at this list you'll see there's almost 100 redirects, along with every combination of is/of possible. - Technophant (talk) 03:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
  • WP:TITLECHANGES is about changing from one controversial title to another. Thus it is not relevant here, as the of versus in question is hardly controversial (as you say, it’s a relatively minor change). Yes, it isn’t possible to know what the most widely accepted preposition will be in the future, but we do know what it is now: of is currently more commonly used than in, so the title of this article should reflect that. Also, the logistics of incorporating the name change into the encyclopedia should not be a factor in the discussion about what the title should be. (I mean absolutely no disrespect here) --Philpill691 (talk) 04:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I guess I should have been more specific. The part of Titlechanges I'm citing is "If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed." I guess I don't feel there's a good reason to change it. The Guardian and Al Jazeera both use the current title. Can I see some numbers? - Technophant (talk) 06:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Sure. (On a side note, these results do seem to indicate that "the Levant" is in fact the most commonly used translation). --Philpill691 (talk) 15:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Islamic State of/in Iraq and ...	"of" used	"in" used
"Syria"	4,290,000 results	1,070,000 results
"the Levant"	8,800,000 results	4,060,000 results
"al-Sham"	1,140,000 results	816,000 results
"Sham"	4,650,000 results	996,000 results

• Comment I think there's some contributors here that read and write Arabic. Which way is the better translation and why? - Technophant (talk) 06:53, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

The best translation is using IN because the new name of the state is "الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام" the word في in Arabic means IN so the right translation is Islamic state in Iraq and the Levant/al-Sham while the old name was "دولة العراق الإسلامية" which is better translated as "Islamic state of Iraq" 3bdulelah (talk) 02:06, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support per all. With the US State department announcing that The Islamic State of' Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) is going to be the primary designation for the group, plus the AP agreeing, I'm going to have to concede. It was interesting to note that Obama's speech today referred only to I-S-I-L several times. News sources in the US now have to started adding parentheticals about the different names. Add argument WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL also.Technophant (:]) 02:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Since this is an uncontroversial technical move, do we need to wait 7 days for this discussion to close? Couldn't an admin just 'make it so"? - Technophant (talk) 03:42, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
• Comment if u wanna know the official name used by ISIS itself here is this new video they use Islamic state of Iraq and Sham http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvRALYYThxk 3bdulelah (talk) 00:16, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

The only 'official' videos seem to come from Furquan Media Productions. The name they use in the English subtitles at 23:52 of Saleel Sawarim 4 is Islamic state of Iraq and Shaam. Levant is an antique name for Sham, like Mesopotamia is for Iraq. - Technophant (talk) 10:15, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing "antique" about "Levant". It is modern usage, and a modern word. If you are not familiar with the region, that isn't the fault of the word itself. RGloucester — ☎ 19:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Current new News

Headline-1: Iraq army capitulates to ISIS militants in four cities

• http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/11/mosul-isis-gunmen-middle-east-states

QUOTE: "Half a million people on the move after gunmen seize four cities and pillage army bases and banks" -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 18:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC) -- PS:FYI for future editing.

Headline-2: Iraq crisis: al-Qaeda militants push toward Baghdad - live

• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/10892299/Iraq-crisis-al-Qaeda-militants-push-towards-Baghdad-live.html

QUOTE: "US and UK speak of deep concern as al-Qaeda take swathes of northern Iraq, sparking exodus of civilians - follow latest developments" -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 18:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC) -- PS:FYI for future editing.

Headline-3: Mosul emergency: Anarchy in Iraq as militants seize northern capital and free 1,200 prisoners in jail break

• http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/militants-seize-key-sections-of-iraqi-city-mosul-and-free-1000-people-in-prison-break-9520982.html

QUOTE: "...The victory by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (Isis) is likely to transform the politics of the Middle East as foreign powers realise that an al-Qa’ida-type group has gained control over a large part of northern Iraq and northern Syria. The US said it supported a “strong, co-ordinated response to push back against this aggression”...." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 18:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC) -- PS:FYI for future editing.

Headline-4: 'They lined the streets with the decapitated heads of police and soldiers': Iraqi refugee reveals the horrors of the jihadi takeover as Baghdad vows to fight back

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2655977/ISIS-militants-march-Baghdad-trademark-bullet-head-gets-way-control-north.html#ixzz34S7xiERz Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

• http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2655977/ISIS-militants-march-Baghdad-trademark-bullet-head-gets-way-control-north.html

-- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 18:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC) -- PS: Click down a dozen times for another very excellent map.

Current situation of the 'state'

Did those men really established a 'state', cause it doesn't strike me as there is a functional 'country' scheme going on those lands.

After checking the List of states with limited recognition article, this 'organization' is not considered as a state per declarative theory of statehood and that.

Also there are no 'definite' sources that implicates a 'state' is ruling those 'claimed' lands.elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 22:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC) Neither is Somaliland, which isn't recognized by any UN Member, yet it is still considered a unrecognized state. On January 3, 2014, an Islamic state was proclaimed in Fallujah following its seizure by the ISIL. They now control a large portion of northern Syria and Northeastern Iraq. They consider themselves an Islamic state, basically a theocracy led by Emir Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. It controls a defined territory, which is inhabited by a permanent population. It receives aid from Saudi Arabia and Qatar in it's struggle with the Iraqi government, which I would say counts as relations. It is an unrecognized state. Toolen (talk) 02:29, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

It was not proclaimed in 3 January 2014, this is nonsense, and based on one poorly written Reuters report. They have been actively governing territory and referring to themselves as a state long before this. In addition, are there any sources for your claim that Qatar and Saudi Arabia are providing them with aid? Gazkthul (talk) 02:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

True, they have been an insurgent group longer than that, but according to this source (http://www.voanews.com/content/iraqi-city-in-hands-of-alqaidalinked-militants/1823591.html), the independent Islamic state was proclaimed following their seizure of Fallujah.Toolen (talk) 03:03, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, but there isn't much context in that article, no quotes for example. Compare to this report from 2006 (http://uk.reuters.com/article/2006/10/18/us-iraq-qaeda-idUKL1229983620061018) 'Dozens of al Qaeda-linked gunmen took to the streets of Ramadi on Wednesday in a show of force to announce the city was joining an Islamic state comprising Iraq's mostly Sunni Arab provinces, Islamists and witnesses said...."We have announced the Islamic state. Ramadi is part of it. Our state will comprise all the Sunni provinces of Iraq," he told Reuters in a telephone interview.'

That reads like a proclamation of a state to me. Gazkthul (talk) 03:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok then could you please discuss this matter on the Talk:List of states with limited recognition too, for convincing the majority consensus of Misplaced Pages. elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 07:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion there goes as such:

It's been discussed several times before. On this list, we need evidence either of diplomatic recognition by a UN member, or that some outside authority or reliable source considers it a state according to the declarative theory of statehood. In the latter case, that means that the source has to actually apply the theory - Wikipedians' interpretations of whether the theory is met or not do not count. Kahastok talk 17:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I also found this:

This expert opinion definitivly says it's an unrecognized state. “It also runs the equivalent of a state. It has all the trappings of a state, just not an internationally recognized one.” I found another article where the theory is applied and the decision is "unlike Al-Qaeda, ISIS is on its way to controlling a quasi-state, exercising de facto sovereignty over a territory, even if unrecognized by the international community." So, it looks like it's a little premature to declare it a state, however it looks like that's what is happening. The last condition of "declarative statehood" is having relations with other countries. That's yet to be seen. - Technophant (talk) 19:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Developments in June 2014

I notice there have been additions to the Lead and to section 7.7.5 in the past few days. During the latest hostilities in Iraq, Misplaced Pages should not be acting as a newspaper or bulletin board, in my opinion. I don't know what Misplaced Pages's stance is on this. Perhaps this article should be given semi-protected status as from now. Can we have a ruling, please? --P123ct1 (talk) 21:56, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

We don't do "rulings". But we do have a policy that says "As Misplaced Pages is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events". DeCausa (talk) 06:59, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I understand the policy now. I remember you gave some useful links on Wiki guidance - though unfortunately not the WP:NOTNEWS link re newspapers - when I raised this matter among others on the Max Clifford Talk page some time ago! (This is not a criticism - it is useful to get any help on finding info in the Wiki help pages!) --P123ct1 (talk) 12:41, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

There's also the policy WP:UNDUE. A recent event should not be described in detail that makes up 1/2 of the article space when it's only 1/20th of the story. Most new events can be summed up in a sentence or two. It's hard to know the true weight of a recent events. Overly lengthy sections can later be trimmed down later, or if they are notable and lengthy then be made into their own articles. - Technophant (talk) 16:29, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Etymology

I see someone has changed the heading of one section from "Name and name changes" to "Etymology". Etymology is the study of the origin of words, not names. Misplaced Pages will be accused of ignorance for this. I think "Name and name changes" describes this section accurately. --P123ct1 (talk) 19:07, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree.  Done. - Technophant (talk) 19:04, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

what's the technical name for the "study of names"? Jonpatterns (talk) 11:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Onomastics, however I don't think that's appropriate to use in the article. - Technophant (talk) 13:17, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

About the map

There is a map made my BBC News in that and that link which is different than the Misplaced Pages's, BBC News' source is Institue for the Study of War, well I don't know this isntitue but sounds cool and it is BBC so I believe that is a reliable source. elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 06:40, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

There's a good map at http://pietervanostaeyen.wordpress.com/2014/06/15/mapping-iraq-june-15th-2014/. I tweeted the author to ask if he would grand permission for reuse. - Technophant (talk) 13:31, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

But is his/hers sources are as verifiable or trustful as BBC's ?elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 14:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

No but is well-done and well illustrated. @arabthoness gave his permission for reuse here. If he gives permission for CC license it can be uploaded to Commons and be available to all. - Technophant (talk) 21:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Al-Nusra Front - ally or enemy?

With the recent announcement of a truce between al-Nusra and ISIS, could they now be considered an ally? Most sources seem to indicate they are in cooperation, and ISIS's recent success is a result of this. - Technophant (talk) 13:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit to box on first page

@Technophant: Have just noticed someone has made what looks like a MAJOR edit to the first box on the first page, which I would imagine needs immediate attention, given how many daily hits this article is getting. (Thanks for your message, btw.) --P123ct1 (talk) 21:34, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

@P123ct1: Do you mean changing al-Qaeda from enemy to ally? That's second box, I didn't touch the first one. If that's wrong it should be reverted.  Done From what I've found al-Qaeda is a competitor but not really an opponent. Maybe it shouldn't be listed as either? - Technophant (talk) 21:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

@Technophant: No, it wasn't your edit, it was made by someone today at around 21:00 UTC (see "View history") where they say why they made the change. It was about proclaiming independence, at the bottom of the first box. I am no expert on Iraq and the current crisis, so I wouldn't know how to handle this. (My edits are only copy-edits, not factual ones.) --P123ct1 (talk) 22:48, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

@P123ct1:Yes, I see this diff. It seems changing "established_event1 = Islamic State of Iraq Proclaimed" to "Independence Proclaimed" and also changing the established_date1 to 3 January 2014 with a different ref. It's already been undone. - Technophant (talk) 23:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Yup, it was a vandal! --P123ct1 (talk) 00:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Query re section 6.3.2, Rise and decline of AQI

Twice in this section, the AQI is seen as separate from the Islamic State of Iraq, BUT according to the "Name changes" section at the beginning of the article, "AQI" is said to be a name given to the group in any of its incarnations, the Islamic State of Iraq being one. The two instances are:

• "AQI-led Islamic State", in para 3 (which given the above is a tautology)
• In the last paragraph, where the AQI and the Islamic State of Iraq are equated in the passage beginning "AQI has long raised money ..." and ending "... the Islamic State of Iraq has been stepping up its fund-raising campaigns".

I do not know how to resolve this conflict. --P123ct1 (talk) 11:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and edited this myself now. --P123ct1 (talk) 19:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

al-Qaeda in Iraq, al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia

Re: "The Organization of Jihad's Base in the Country of the Two Rivers." At one point this was translated in the west as "al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia" rather than the literal. The article also says the organisation never called itself "al-Qaeda in Iraq." Perhaps that is worth a mention somewhere. 71.34.240.167 (talk) 08:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

It is mentioned under section "Name and name changes" - Technophant (talk) 14:59, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Warning re editing

On the Editing page it says, "editors of this article are restricted to 1 revert per 24 hours when reverting logged-in users". Does "reverting" mean undoing an edit completely (using "undo"), as opposed to changing/deleting some words in that edit? --P123ct1 (talk) 22:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Well @P123ct1, from WP:3RR we get " A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." Is there something happening on this page you wish to discuss? -Technophant (talk) 05:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

No, I just wanted to be clear, as I have been making a lot of changes and am fairly new to Wiki editing. I looked up Help on reverting, but WP:3RR is in a completely different section. Thanks so much for your clarification. --P123ct1 (talk) 11:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

The olde name, ISIL, is being resurrected by President Obama today

In his statement from his Teleprompter, and in his Q/A after with supporting press, US President Barack Hussein Obama is repeatedly saying "ISIL" rather than the abbreviation of 'Islamic State of Iraq and Syria'. I'll leave it for other Misplaced Pages editors to see and read the dots and the tea leaves. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 17:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

As stated in the introduction, ISIS stands not only for Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, but also Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, where al-Sham is the Arabic name for the Levant. — Matěj Grabovský (talk) 21:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Nice; thanks (knew that) ... Obama always tries to impress with world-understanding. What does this mean for the name of this Article/page? -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Why does this discussion have to be peppered with right-wing dog whistles: "teleprompter", "Barack Hussein Obama", etc.? Good Ol’factory 03:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't have known what you had known. Anyhow, there's a discussion above on this exact topic, so I don't think it's necessary to fragment it. — Matěj Grabovský (talk) 09:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll leave it for other editors to sort out in the discussion above, as you suggest; and just mention here that I refer to President Barack Hussein Obama because that is his name, and he uses it that when when it pleases his purposes. Also, because he demonstrated he favors the world view, apologized for USA around the world and supported the Muslim Brotherhood; but that is another discussion for a different WP page. Just Saying, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC) He even used the Telepromter when talking to elementary kids this month.

Oh brother—drop the talking points ... Good Ol’factory 22:55, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Obama was using the recently assigned official name. In the speech he used I.S.I.L several times without explanation, then CNN and NPR next had to explain that ISIL and ISIS are the same thing. It may show that Obama isn't watching the news, and I think it's a gaff, but moreover shows the ongoing debate/confusion about the name, which is discussed in detail above and is now also in the article. - Technophant (talk) 05:13, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Footnotes

I have come across quite a few footnotes that do not really back up the text (if at all sometimes), are in a foreign language (Turkish, Arabic), or are dead links. What is the best way to highlight them - here on the Talk page or in the text? If in the text, what is the best wording to use? I was thinking of something along the lines of the superscripted "dead link" or "citation needed" sometimes seen beside the blue footnote number in the text. (Attempts to mend dead links with Reflinks are not alway successful, either that or I'm not very good at it!) --P123ct1 (talk) 17:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

If the link is dead, put {{dead link}} after the closing </ref>. As for foreign languages, see WP:NONENG for the policy. If the language is not indicated, it should be either using the language parameter of the citation templates or one of the {{* icon}} variety (alternatively, {{link language}}). If the source doesn't support the claim, use {{failed verification}}; if it's completely irrelevant, use {{irrelevant citation}}. Also, please add new topics at the end of the page or use the New section link at the top. — Matěj Grabovský (talk) 18:52, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Pending revision

Can we please get rid of it? WP:Pending: "Pending changes protection should not be used on articles with a very high edit rate, even if they meet the aforementioned criteria. Instead semi-protection should be considered." AntiqueReader (talk) 18:43, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

IP users are contributing in this article too. No need for semi-protection but someone has to patrol changes they make.elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 19:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The reason they are contributing is because there is no restriction on their doing so. One could say the same about any article without semi-protect on. Also ignores WP instruction about not having pending on articles undergoing significant amount of editing. If IPs aren't vandalising, no need for pending; if they are, semi-protect it so we don't have 17 edits awaiting review. Well, last word is yours, since nothing more for me to add now. AntiqueReader (talk) 21:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The majority of IP edits I've seen are constructive. Semi-protection should only turned on when there's a significant problem with IP vandalism, which there isn't at this time. - Technophant (talk) 13:24, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I know I said I would leave it there, but want to emphasise again WP:Pending: "Pending changes protection should not be used on articles with a very high edit rate, even if they meet the aforementioned criteria. Instead semi-protection should be considered." If the IPs aren't vandalising, why on earth is pending even being used, let alone on an article with such a large amount of daily editing? AntiqueReader (talk) 22:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

You have a good point. After reading the Pending page I agree with you. There also seems to be a pattern of users using IP edits that have a high level of Wikimedia expertise, or inserting edits that were discussed and rejected on the Talk page. The one revert rule can't be enforced if everybody isn't playing by the same rules. - Technophant (talk) 10:20, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Territorial claims

According to the map, there are two sections of Syria that they are not claiming, one in the south and one on the west coast. This seems a bit odd, but I suppose there's a reason for it. If anyone knows that reason, it would make a good addition to the article. – Philosopher  20:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

They are the Alawites heartland of Tartus, and the Druze heartland of Suwayda. Much like the Shia majority South Iraq, ISIS has no meaningful presence there. Gazkthul (talk) 22:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Daash

The Arabic acronym is often transliterated as "Daash" in English, should that be among the names? Now we only have a direct transliteration ("dāʿiš") which isn't used anywhere. Seems this wasn't solved in a previous discussion. FunkMonk (talk) 22:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it's a transliteration of DAIISH. - Technophant (talk) 05:00, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Notable ISIS communications and propaganda

I've started a page in my userspace User:Technophant/sandbox/ISIS (military group) to help start a section on notable press releases and Al-Furqan Media Production. All contributors are welcome to edit. - Technophant (talk) 03:36, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Another proposed source

• Brecher, Gary. "The War Nerd: Here’s everything you need to know about “too extreme for Al Qaeda” I.S.I.S." (Archive). Pando Daily. June 16, 2014.

WhisperToMe (talk) 17:03, 21 June 2014 (UTC

This isn't what Misplaced Pages considers a reliable secondary source. This is a blog post by 'the War Nerd' and it is full of inaccuracies and bias. - Technophant (talk) 10:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Are you certain of this? I looked into it, and here is his article: Gary Brecher (seems to be the same as John Dolan (writer)). Since a third party is publishing it, this is not a "blog" in the sense that is applied. I'm assuming PandoDaily exercises editorial control. @Technophant:, please explain "it is full of inaccuracies and bias." WhisperToMe (talk) 14:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Starting off, we have a giant "HYPE" being blatantly associated with Hollywood bullshit. In case it wasn't blatant enough, we're then explicitly told "Don't believe the hype". What's hype, you ask? Good question, even though you didn't ask it.

Hype is a fat slob who spends approximately eight hours a day on the internet searching for war news convincing a Wikipedian he's reliable. Try spending eight hours a day Googling "war news" (with or without quotes) and see what kind of mixed conclusion you reach after even a week, either about war or "the outside world" in general.

Of course, I don't know whether the fat, lonely slob claim is true, because it's uncited. But I'll assume it is, because I read it on the Internet, just like I read Dolan calls Brecher " a more honest version of who I really am". If the real guy is the dishonest version, and the fake guy is only the more honest version, that's at least three warning bells. If you still choose to believe he has a genuine clue about how ISIS works, you're deceiving yourself. That's fine, but don't expect to Misplaced Pages to follow. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:28, July 9, 2014 (UTC)

Positioning of "Pending review" ribbon

Please do not put the "Pending review" ribbon right over the "Edit" tab for the Lead. Sometimes the "Edit" tab is completely obscured, making it impossible to click on it when I need to. --P123ct1 (talk) 15:03, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Footnotes

Why do so many of the footnotes have the "Retrieved" dates beside them? Are they really necessary? I can strip them out if you like. (I copy-edit.) --P123ct1 (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Lead

I think para 2 of the Lead is too confusing for someone coming fresh to the subject. First, AQI is mentioned in "Name & name changes" as a generic name for the group "through its various incarnations", not an actual group, and second, ISI is not mentioned as an originating body here although it is in the second box on this page. That is easy enough to rectify, but there are other questions:

• What were the Jaish al-Fatiheen, Jund al-Sahaba and Katbiyan Ansar Al-Tawhid wal Sunnah? Early insurgent bodies? Yes --P123ct1 (talk)
• If they were early insurgent bodies, then what does "and other tribes that profess the Sunni faith" mean? Doesn't that just mean "various tribes"?
• What does "later expanding this to include Syria as a result of the spillover from the Syrian Civil War" mean? (The link does not help) Does it simply mean that one reason for ISIS involving itself in the ongoing Syrian Civil war is to acquire land for a future Caliphate?

If someone could answer those questions, I could make a stab at rewriting the paragraph. If the answer is "yes" to all of them, rewriting it will be easy. Can anyone help? --P123ct1 (talk) 19:27, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, to all 3. Gazkthul (talk) 22:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Somebody has beaten me to it. I had something else in mind, but won't alter the new edit. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Boxes on first page

How appropriate is it to have two ISIS flags depicted on one page? Also, would it not be a good idea to have the Syria/Iraq border marked on the map? Not all readers will be familiar with the geography of the area. --P123ct1 (talk) 01:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Thats the point of those maps, to familiarize the reader with the geography that they exist/operate.elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 07:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

One of the first things I looked for was which part was Syria and which was Iraq, which is not unreasonable, I think. You can't tell from looking at this map. --P123ct1 (talk) 07:38, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Length of Lead

@Technophant: Is the lead still too long? I refer to my revision at 16:17 today. It seems to me about the right length for an article of this size, judging by other Wiki articles. (AntiqueReader cut it right down and with his agreement I restored some of it, but I think he disagrees about the length it is now. I don't want to get into an edit war over this!) --P123ct1 (talk) 15:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I know this is directed to a particular user, but it looks just fine now. Coinmanj (talk) 18:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I directed it to Technophant as he is the one who put up the banner about shortening the Lead. --P123ct1 (talk) 19:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Error in Template:Reply to: Input contains forbidden characters. I've been taking a break on editing for the last few days. I didn't put up the banner, which seems to be removed now. The lead seems to appropriate length for now. - Technophant (talk) 19:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI)

There is some confusion in section 6.3 over the use of the name "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" (AQI) which I am sure will bother readers new to the subject. Most of section 6.3 ("As Islamic State of Iraq") seems to do with Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) rather than the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI). I know that at one point AQI became the common name for the ISI (as it says in section 6.3), but seemingly in the earlier part of section 6.3 and definitely at the end of section 6.2, AQI is spoken of as a distinctly separate group. I don't know anything about this beyond what I have read in the article, and to me the use of "AQI" with two different meanings in section 6.3 is sometimes very confusing. Is there an expert who can either reorganise section 6.3 or change the names in it so that it is clear when "AQI" means "ISI" and when it means ISI's precedessor, Tanẓīm Qāʻidat al-Jihād fī Bilād al-Rāfidayn (as described in "Name & name changes" and section 5)? --P123ct1 (talk) 14:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I can take a look at it when I get some time. Basically, "AQI" and the Mujahideen Shura Council it was a part of ceased to exist when the Islamic State of Iraq was declared in 2006. However many media outlets and Government officials continue to referred to it as Al Qaeda in Iraq (or just Al Qaeda) until very recently. Gazkthul (talk) 22:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I realise all that. (Sorry, I should have said AQI-MSC, not Tanzim Qaidat etc - I jumped a stage.) That's exactly why the terminology in section 6.3 is so muddled. It's often hard in that section to tell when "AQI" means "ISI" and when it means "AQI-MSC". Even when it is clear, there is no way AQI-MSC and AQI-ISI can both be called "AQI" in section 6.3 without confusing the general reader. --P123ct1 (talk) 23:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Independence Date

ISI was declared on 2006 and ISIS was declared on 2013 There is nothing as Independence declared on 3 January 2014. Anbar Wylaiah was declared on 2006 and raising the flag is just a declaration of Liberation of what they believe is their occupied land not declaration of Independence.
we shouldn't add wrong information just because of a journalist who knows nothing about ISIS.3bdulelah (talk) 19:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Camp Bucca and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi

I have removed the whole entry for 16th June in the "2014 events" section re Camp Bucca, as the story from Kenneth King is unreliable. Please see the article on Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi for details on his detention in Camp Bucca (in the "Militant activity" section) and the Talk page, which shows why this story is spurious. Also, the second statement in the 16th June entry, that US intelligence analysts have begun to monitor for 9/11-type threats, is not backed up by the citation given for this. --P123ct1 (talk) 20:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Al-Qaeda and "too extreme"

I have already once removed (giving reasons in the edit summary) the statement about Al-Qaeda cutting ties with ISIS because it was "too extreme", but it has been put back in by the same person. The footnotes appended do not back up the statement. "Too extreme" is a quotation from the headline in an article cited in one of the footnotes. Al-Qaeda has never said in so many words that ISIS is "too extreme". If everyone is happy for this misleading quotation to remain in the article, so be it; I am not reverting it again as I do not want to edit-war. --P123ct1 (talk) 09:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Various sources (including the one that accompanies the the statement) says this. Therefore I'd say it's relevant in this case, maybe it should be reworded. I'd be happy to remove it though. Actually, you can also go ahead right now too. However, I can't find the footnote you're talking about but it doesn't really matter. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 13:30, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. Footnote #39 (Ken Barrett's article) has "too extreme" as part of a headline. Although this probably is one reason why al-Qaeda kicked ISIS out, I think we should be careful about how we report this. If one reads both articles carefully, AQ did not actually spell this out as a reason. It seems to be an inference made by journalists and now the world. If you can find sources where AQ actually did say this, we can add it back in. I wouldn't normally be so pedantic, but it doesn't seem right to put such a huge statement into AQ's mouth. I have put in some alternative wording which I think covers it. --P123ct1 (talk) 15:30, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

PS From what AQ actually said at the time, ISIS was thrown out because it fought too much with the other AQ factions, refused to listen to AQ (its master), and was more interested in building an Islamic caliphate than promoting the AQ cause. --P123ct1 (talk) 16:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

"Too extreme" is in the body of the piece as well as the headline, but I agree there's journalist interpretation going on here. The third cite also talks sbout extremism being a cause. I've edited it to read "reportedly for being "too extreme" or for its "notorious intractability"", which I think brings in the WT's interpretation that it is intractability that was the cause, and also that all we are doing is passing on media interpretation. DeCausa (talk) 08:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Interestingly, the third cite (which I unearthed) reports one commentator's view that the idea that extremism was a cause is overblown (which is why I added it). --P123ct1 (talk) 10:58, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

We should never depend upon headlines, which are not normally written by the reporter but by someone like a subeditor and are meant to be attention grabbing, not necessarily accurate. Dougweller (talk) 18:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely. Boko Haram is also called "too extreme" by Reuters (and similar or copy-pasters). Not in the body, though. This is the closest I've seen to an explanation. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:42, July 9, 2014 (UTC)

I got rid of "too extreme", which really is such an empty phrase. Extreme how? The word extreme gets bandied around out of sheer laziness half the time. Anyway, I switched it to wanton brutality, which is something al-Zawahiri has repeatedly criticised AQI/ISIS about. AntiqueReader (talk) 12:09, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

"Extreme" is a word used in the citations. "Wanton" is a quaint, old-fashioned word hardly in use today and one I doubt many modern readers who don't have English as their first language will have heard of. --P123ct1 (talk) 14:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

It looks the way it is in my opinion. For example, "Levant" is also a quaint, old-fashioned word. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 18:08, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Still common currency in academic circles. --P123ct1 (talk)

Common, but odd. "Too" means to a high degree or extent: very or extremely or more than what is wanted, needed, acceptable, possible, etc. "Extreme" (seemingly) still means very great in degree or very far from agreeing with the opinions of most people. It's like a play on words, except apparently serious.

Maybe Extreme parroted it best themselves with III Sides to Every Story. Or maybe it was 2 Unlimited's Real Things. Just one more third album, since I'm Too Legit to Quit. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:49, July 9, 2014 (UTC)

Edit request: change hyphen to en-dash

In the Analysis section, and in the Infobox "Strength" line, "3,000-5,000 in Syria" should be "3,000–5,000 in Syria".

Likewise, in the "Conflicts with the other groups", "estimated at 65,000-80,000 fighters" should be "estimated at 65,000–80,000 fighters" 71.41.210.146 (talk) 20:12, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Done Supersaiyen312 (talk) 01:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Has merged with al-Nusra Front

See . 68.118.53.183 (talk) 15:45, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

This has now been added to the "2014 events" section and the section on Al-Nusra. --P123ct1 (talk) 17:21, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Rename?

Should this page be moved to The Islamic State to reflect its new name? — Zcbeaton (talk) 17:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

• I think it should be moved as well, it's the new official name and reflects the group's claims over a wider region of the Islamic world than Iraq and the Levant. Hello32020 (talk) 18:16, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
• If you want the paged moved you should make a request at Misplaced Pages:Requested moves.--WikiU2013 (talk) 20:14, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 2

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

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Obviously this is a topic that is developing fairly quickly and already many of the comments in this discussion may have become dated, but I don't see there being a consensus to move here. This article has been at RM consistently for the past month or so and I'm loathe to suggest another RM, but a close of 'no consensus' means we will likely see one in the future. If there is, I would strongly encourage the proposer to make a detailed nomination clearly outlining their position and how it reflects policy and use in reliable sources. Simply stating something is the official name is a weak rationale. Jenks24 (talk) 15:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → The Islamic State – ISIL announced that it should now be called 'The Islamic State'. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 11:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC) Mightymights (talk) 21:06, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support - we should always go with the official name 3bdulelah (talk) 20:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support without using 'The'. I don't see anything controversial about this. That is an official name now. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:23, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support Surely this is a no-brainer? AntiqueReader (talk) 21:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Articles are not titled by their WP:OFFICIALNAME, but rather by their common name. Is there any evidence that this new name has become more commonly used by WP:RS than the old name? Also, there is already a WP:CONCEPTDAB article at Islamic State. Is there any evidence that ISIS is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the proposed title? Given how widely the term is used as a concept, that seems unlikely. TDL (talk) 21:40, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 06:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Update However, more and more sources are starting to use "Islamic State" now. I think it's time to rename now. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 23:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support - Perhaps with a parenthesis, The Islamic State (Militant Group) Gazkthul (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support - They are essentially already a state. States should be called by their official names. A hatnote can be used to clarify the difference between this article and the Islamic state article.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support - with 'the' elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 23:24, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. We don't name articles—and especially not "states"—by their official names. That's why we have Russia instead of Russian Federation, United Kingdom instead of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Sudan instead of Republic of the Sudan. I would wait on this and see how it shakes out in terms of common usage. Good Ol’factory 23:37, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment: You cant define a single common-name for this organization. Is it Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, Islamic State of Iraq and the Syria, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant or Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham ? What about its abbreviation; ISIL, ISIS, DĀʻiSh or DAISH ? elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 23:45, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Not 'The' in the title. And just 'Islamic State' is a bit meaningless as a name. Namechange or not, the majority keeps calling it ISIS for now. We should not rush a name change.--Wester (talk) 00:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support as long as the word "The" is in the title. There is no common name. But I oppose renaming it to just "Islamic State". I'd also keep ISIS &/or ISIL as acronyms until the media stops using the acronyms (if they stop using the acronyms). Blaylockjam10 (talk) 00:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support move to "The Islamic State" as I stated in the last section: it's the new official name and reflects the group's claims over a wider region of the Islamic world than Iraq and the Levant. So despite an official name not being the only reason for a name change, the new name reflects its claim of establishing a caliphate and the lack of consistency of other names for the group. Hello32020 (talk) 00:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: Using the rationale of using the most common name can't be applied in this instance as multiple names are being used for this organization (e.g. ISIS, ISIL, Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham). Using something similar to "Islamic State (country)" could be more appropriate as "Islamic State" is used in the all the variants of it's name, and its shorter..--WikiU2013 (talk) 01:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose: Either leave it at the current title, or move it to Islamic State. --Article editor (talk) 02:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
• Strong oppose WP:OFFICIALNAME we do *not* use the official name when a common name is available. Further "The Islamic State" is the Caliphate, not this entity. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • To clarify, "The Islamic State" should redirect to "Caliphate" -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Also, BBC and Al Jazeera are calling it "Islamic State" (in quotes) when referring to the rename, without the "The". -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
• Weak Support Until it becomes clear that most others (i.e., English-language news sources) are referring to it as The Islamic State instead of ISIS, ISIL, or Da'esh. It should be noted in the lead that the group calls itself "The Islamic State" now, though. Josiah Stevenson (talk) 05:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment: I've changed my vote from "oppose" to "strong oppose", as it appears at least some RSs are refusing to adopt the new name, at least for now. Per WP:COMMON, WP:OFFICIAL, and WP:PLACE, we should use one of the common names for article subjects, and in particular should not use an official name when several other names are in far more common use. So far, it appears AFP and the Telegraph have changed their name for it, but other sources (incl. Al Jazeera, the BBC, and the AP) have not, and still refer to the group as some variant of ISIS/ISIL except when quoting the group's announcements or people on the ground using the new name. It is not yet clear what the consensus of RSs will be, and it seems likely that there will be some controversy (outside WP) about whether to recognize the new name. In light of that, I also object to the use of the official name as the primary name in the body of the article until a plurality of reliable sources adopts the new name. There's no reason to rush here: within a week or two it will be clear whether Al Jazeera makes the switch, and we can follow them. On the other hand, I think rushing the change here at WP would hasten the switch elsewhere. We at Misplaced Pages should be among the last, not among the first, to recognize name changes, especially controversial ones. Josiah Stevenson (talk) 21:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment: As I noted in the other section, Al Jazeera seems to have changed its mind. Changed my vote to "weak oppose" for now, but if several more RSs switch today, that'll go to "support". Josiah Stevenson (talk) 11:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment (vote reversal) Since it is clear now that a significant portion of RSs are using "Islamic State" to refer to the group, it has emerged as a common name for it. It might even be more common than ISIS/ISIL now. But both are common names, and since one of them is the name the group prefers, I have no problem using that one (Islamic State/IS)Josiah Stevenson (talk) 22:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose I agree that we should move it only IF the English-language news sources start calling them by this new name. For example look at this page: Burma. They changed their name years, years ago, but the West refuses to recognize it. Plus ISIS's current name is more identifiable for the group as "The Islamic State" is too ambiguous. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 05:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment Quite a few publications use Myanmar. See Talk:Burma/Archive 10#Requested move (Burma → Myanmar) August 2012. But yes, no sources use just "The Islamic State". However, they're so divided that there's no common name, so I see no reason not to use the official name. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 06:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment I see a reason: that nobody uses it yet. We should use a name that is well-attested in the third-party English-language literature on the subject. Several names meet that criterion and would be perfectly acceptable for the title of this page (discussed at length above), but "The Islamic State" does not, at least not yet. Josiah Stevenson (talk) 07:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment Like others have said, we need to wait for the majority of sources to start calling them this first. It's still too early. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 05:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose – Talk about WP:RECENTISM. There hasn't been any time to establish whether "Islamic State" will become the common name of this entity. I, for one, doubt it will. Most media sources, despite noting the change and the launch of the "caliphate", still refer to the entity as ISIS, ISIL, and what have you. We don't move articles pre-emptively. We move them once it makes sense to do so. This is jumping the gun. This is even more true because the proposed title lacks disambiguation. "The Islamic State" could refer to many different things, and using a definite article in this manner in titles is deprecated by the MoS. What's more, a requested move discussion just closed recently. Give it some time. There is no deadline here, and we need to see how things work out before being so hasty. RGloucester — ☎ 05:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment Some geographical articles do have a definite article in their name. Examples include The Gambia and The Hague. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 06:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• NO - There ought to be TWO articles! As I see it, it's not simply a question about renaming the organisation Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. With the decleration of an actual state and caliphate on the 29th of June (and the state seems to exist de-facto whether anyone else recognizes it as such or not) I think there ought to be two articles, one to describe the newly formed state, and it would probably be the most correct to call this article The Islamic State and another to desribe the organisation until now known as "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" and since they have decided to change their name I would find it most appropriate to call it either Islamic State (organization) or The Islamic State (organization). This distinction because the article about the state itself should include information about the land (territory) it's people, the history, the government etc. etc. wheras the article about the organization "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" now known as "Islamic State" or "The Islamic State" would describe the development of this organization and it's appeal(?) among muslims globaly since it's evident, that the organization must recrute a large number of their followers from other areas and continents than just the immediate 'neighborhood' of The Levant. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 07:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment We should adopt this convention when sources (e.g., Al Jazeera, BBC, AP) do. So far, they still refer to the organization as ISIS, ISIL, or (occasionally) Da'esh; and they refer to the region land the organization controls as being parts of Iraq and Syria. Josiah Stevenson (talk) 07:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment Sources don't make such a distinction. Until they start making such a distinction, this shouldn't happen. If it's eventually warranted, the history of ISIS could become it's own article titled "History of (whatever name becomes the title of this article)". Blaylockjam10 (talk) 08:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• Yes that makes sense, it's a newly declared unrecognized state, and we have several articles on states with limited recognition (such as Transnitria) However, "The Islamic State" is still a bad name to use for the newly declared state. The Islamic State (2014-) would be better. "The Islamic State" should redirect to Caliphate or Islamic state -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. ISIS does not operate as a classic nation-state, recognized or unrecognized, so we shouldn't apply the international system framework with regards to a name change. We don't have to immediately change the name, just because someone announced something on an audiotape. Let's wait and see if the RS's move towards using the new name outside of the context of this announcement. --Tocino 07:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment This article indicates that ISIS somewhat resembles a state. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support to Oleryhlolsson: Ideally we should have two separate articles. While IS is a state, ISIS was the "independence movement". --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 09:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
• Comment "AFP has changed its style on the group formerly known as ISIL/ISIS. We now refer to the group as the Islamic State (IS)." AntiqueReader (talk) 09:35, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
• Strong support : Rename to The Islamic State or Islamic State (organization). --Panam2014 (talk) 09:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. Truly absurd proposal. There is absolutely no evidence that "the Islamic state" is widely used for ISIS. It is merely a claimed name by the organization. Per WP:COMMONNAME we don't use the so-called "official name". DeCausa (talk) 10:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

AFP

Financial Times

The Washington Post

Al Jazeera

The Telegraph

The Guardian

Associated Press

AntiqueReader (talk) 11:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

All merely part of the reporting of the "official" name change. WP:RECENTISM gone mad! DeCausa (talk) 17:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

They report the name change and then use it. AntiqueReader (talk) 21:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

No, they don't -- at least not most of them. Most of the linked sources (except AFP and Telegraph) only use "Islamic State" when quoting other people calling it that. In particular, read the AP article more closely: when it is describing what was said by people who call it the "Islamic State", they pass that along, but when the reporters refer to it of their own accord they still use ISIL. That convention is still being followed more broadly than at AP, and we should follow it until it becomes relatively uncommon. I'll concede that two sources have adopted the name change themselves, but until AP, Al Jazeera, and BBC do, I don't think we should. I also object to the use of the official name as the primary name in the body of the article until a plurality of reliable sources adopts the new name. We at Misplaced Pages should be among the last, not among the first, to recognize name changes, especially controversial ones. Josiah Stevenson (talk) 21:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Financial Times: "Iraq was shaken by an insurgency led by militants of the hardline Islamic State (known as Isis) that swept through Iraq’s Sunni areas." (journalist).

Telegraph The HEADLINE is "Iraq fights to seize back territory from Islamic State"; "The self-declared jihadist Islamic State"; "Islamic State-led fighters"; etc. etc. etc.

Guardian: "The militant Sunni group Isis has said it is establishing a caliphate, or Islamic state, in the territories it controls in Iraq and Syria"; "Supporters of Isis, or Islamic State"; etc. etc.

Al Jazeera: "Sunni groups which have fought with the Islamic State group"

The Washington Post: "Some jihadist groups operating in other parts of the region may be tempted to switch allegiance to the new Islamic state"; "Islamic State’s explicit rejection of national boundaries"; "The state will cover lands now under Islamic State control"; "Tikrit, which fell under Islamic State control" etc. etc. etc."

Not wasting more time on this. I submit that it is you who needs to read more carefully. AntiqueReader (talk) 09:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Channel 4

USA Today

AntiqueReader (talk) 09:12, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support - This is now the official name of the "group", and that should be reason enough to rename the page. It is also the name that is now being adopted by mainstream media outlets like The Telegraph and news agencies like AFP (above). ISIS/ISIL is now outdated. Zcbeaton (talk) 12:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, for now, if it becomes the most frequently used term for the group then will be the time.Smeat75 (talk) 12:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME Faizan 15:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support - ISIS is just one of the common names in this group, so WP:COMMONNAME is not entirely valid in this case. Furthermore the media will certainly use "The Islamic State" from now on. - ☣Tourbillon 17:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment WP:COMMON does apply because there are several common names for the organization, and "Islamic State" is not (yet) one of them. We need to use one of the common names -- ideally the most common one, but perhaps another common name if the most common one is problematic for some reason. It is also far from certain that the media will use "The Islamic State" from now on. It may, and when it does we should change it. Not before then, though. Josiah Stevenson (talk) 21:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• Strong oppose moving to "The Islamic State", because that is inconsistent with the United States, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, etc., and the presence of "The" would be POV as conferring some sort of special status, but would not be opposed to moving to "Islamic State", without the "the". —Lowellian (reply) 17:29, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose- This falls under WP:COMMONNAME. A quick Google Search brings up 10.3 million results for "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" and 13.8 million for "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant". Meanwhile, searching "Islamic State" brings up just 3.6 million. I am assuming that at least 2,000,000 of those have nothing to do with ISIS (No matter what they change their name to, I will always call them ISIS). When doing these searches, I put them in quotation marks to get more specific results. Aclany (talk) 20:04, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Google search results can only demonstrate that that is how the group was referred to in the past. AntiqueReader (talk) 21:23, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support -Two articles one for "The Islamic State" and another for the organization to be named "The Islamic State (organization)". These are completely two different things. Regarding the definit article "The", it should be kept as part of the name. The name of the unilaterally declared area in Arabic is al-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah "al" being the definit article. Islamic State without the The is just any type of government in Arabic Dawlah Islāmīyah - notice the absence of al- (literally just any islamic state), in which the primary basis for government is Islamic religious law (sharia). "Islamic State" is just a definition of the concept, whereas the name of the new political entity in Syria and Iraq is The Islamic State. Some media are also calling it The Islamic Caliphate which in Arabic would be al-Khilāfa al-Islāmīyah and they are using the two terms State / Caliphate interchangeably. In all fairness, the militants are also arguing they are not declaring a so-called "state" (ruler, government, parliament) but a "caliphate". Another distinction from the state is that a caliphate does not have legal borders. Its borders are wherever they reach. So this so-called state might technically have lands in non-Arab regions, like in Central or South or East Africa, in the Far East, Europe or the Americas as well. A third distinction: This "The Islamic State" does not recognize and will not recognize any other traditional Islamic States. So no UAE emir, no Bahrain king, no Saudi Arabian monarch and no President of Republic like Sissi, or Assad and no Prime Minister like Maliki. All these should abdicate and resign and swear allegiance to the one sole caliph of the "Islamic Nation" (umma or al-ummah al-Islāmīyah). In that sense, this is not even an Arab State although it might be almost entirely made of Arab Sunnis. It is not ethnic state, nor an Arab state, but a single pan-islamic non-ethnic all inclusive entity of all Muslims of the universe..... On another point, Usually the head of state would decide the name of a nation - Those ruled by a head of state are "states", those by an emir are "emirates", those rules by kings are "kingdoms", those by a prince "principalities", those by a sultan are a "sultanate" and those ruled by the caliph as the case here are "caliphates" and this is exactly what they are saying about themselves that they are establishing a caliphate not a state. So don't ask where is the head of state, or who is the prime minister, where is the parliament, when are elections etc. Another important distinction is that in a caliphate, it is not a hereditary rule, but what they call new caliph would be by "shawra" or "shoura" (consultations). The elder son of a caliph may be chosen, but does not mean he is necessarily and obligatorily the next caliph. Caliphs are assigned by consultation "shawra" and allegiance is give by "mubayaha" by everybody. werldwayd (talk) 01:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment Again, it makes no difference what the entity prefers to be called until most third-party English-language news sources are calling it that. The majority of these seem to still be using ISIS/ISIL, most notably Al Jazeera and the BBC. Adopting the name change before these sources do would be premature on Misplaced Pages's part. Josiah Stevenson (talk) 01:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose — I think we should give it a few days, at least, to see how the common name seems to be developing. To the extent that multiple names are in use by our sources, we should probably err on the side of the one that is closer to what the group calls itself. Also, if it does move, I think it should be to Islamic State (militant group). Although there are a few geographical names that have the definite article in the article title, this is exceptional and is based on strongly established usage. I think it's better to avoid using "The" to distinguish between similar names.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 03:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment The change of name has already been done at French, German and Greek Misplaced Pages. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 06:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment This is true, but not very relevant: if French-, German-, and Greek-language media adopt the new name, while English-language media generally do not, then it would be correct for Misplaced Pages to use the new name in those languages and the old one here. I'm not familiar with the literature on the subject in any of these languages, but in all likelihood their respective Misplaced Pages editorships are doing the right things for those languages. In any case, picking those languages misrepresents the global view on the subject: you might also notice that not even Arabic Misplaced Pages has changed the name. Neither have any of Spanish, Danish, Kurdish, Hebrew, Latin, Russian, Romanian, Portuguese, Turkish, Sweedish, or Urdu, as of this writing. The only one that I checked that has made any change at all in that direction is Polish, where the page has still not been moved (though it does use IS as the primary name in the lead). But even if they all change before Al Jazeera English and the BBC, we at English Misplaced Pages should wait for the English-language reliable sources. Josiah Stevenson (talk) 08:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually I haven't the slightest personal interest in whether the "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" is named like this in English Misplaced Pages or whether it's re-named as "Islamic State (organization)" or something else. My main interest is the matter of the the new state / caliphate declared on the 29th of June and wheter someone please would write an article about "The Islamic State" and remove the redirection to "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant". As for the other languages that has'ent made any move in the direction of changing the name of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant this could simply be a matter of to few users interested in this subject rather than a deliberate choise. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 08:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - Per WP:CommonName. Things may change in the future, but not yet. As things stands, the current title is the Common Name. IJA (talk) 11:16, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:CommonName for now, with no prejudice against new RM if reliable sources switch to new name in next months.--Staberinde (talk) 12:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Question What's the breakdown for the various names currently used by reliable sources? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Inconsistent between articles:

• Al Jazeera uses different conventions in different articles, calling it ISIL and the "so-called Islamic State" here and here, switches mid-article here, and just calls it Islamic State (formerly ISIL) here.
• Associated Press seems to call it Islamic State in that article, but also uses "in the Levant" and ISIS here

Still Use ISIS/ISIL (incl "so-called IS" etc):

• The BBC calls uses the abbreviation ISIS but "Levant" in the full name
• CNN is here using mostly "ISIS", but also using " 'IS' " (in scare quotes) and language like "so-called IS"
• The Telegraph is using similar scare-quotes
• Al Arabiya uses ISIS here

Use Islamic State/IS:

• The Jerusalem Post uses Islamic State
• Middle East Eye uses Islamic State
• Washington Post switches to IS after the first line of this article
• The Economist (update Josiah Stevenson (talk) 03:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC))
• NPR (update Josiah Stevenson (talk) 06:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC))

This isn't everything -- haven't checked at AFP or Reuters yet, for example, though I suspect AFP uses IS because they announced they would a few days ago. In general, none of these other outlets has an explicitly stated policy on the name; I'm inferring it from an article or two. Josiah Stevenson (talk) 06:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support renaming to "Islamic State" without the "The", since we normally use the official name in such cases. -- Ypnypn (talk) 22:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

We already have an article named "Islamic State". It has to include "The" in this case. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 08:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose as premature per WP:COMMONNAME, I'd like to wait and see how it settles out for a bit. There's little harm in being a bit slow to reflect a change (redirects are already in place), while jumping the gun leads to churn and possible confusion. I agree that the article title should omit the definite article, as is standard in reference works and already done in e.g. Netherlands. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 00:18, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose as per WP:COMMONNAME. Shiite (talk) 17:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Its still the widely recognised name. Media all around the world still refers it as ISIL or ISIS. - Rameshnta909 (talk) 11:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support We should always go by official names, and if we don't encourage the name change from ISIS to the Islamic State, the time for the latter to go public will take longer, in my opinion. Petrikov (talk) 15:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - There doesn't seem to be clear consensus in this matter. I would be more likely to support a move to "Islamic State" is there wasn't already an article by that name. I think the wisdom of Common Name should apply. - Technophant (talk) 18:18, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment 6th July naming usage!

Associated Press: Islamic State

Reuters: Islamic State

AFP: Islamic State

The Guardian: Islamic State

The Sunday Times: Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (Isis)

The Independent on Sunday: Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isis)

The Telegraph: Islamic State

Financial Times: Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isis)

BBC News: Islamic State

The New York Times: Islamic State in Iraq and Syria! (ISIS) (morons)

The Washington Post: Islamic State (IS)

Los Angeles Times: Islamic State

ABC (Australia): Islamic State

AntiqueReader (talk) 21:26, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment/reversal Since it is clear now that a significant portion of RSs are using "Islamic State" to refer to the group, it has clearly emerged as a common name for it. It might even be more common than ISIS/ISIL now. But both are common names, and since one of them is the name the group prefers, I have no problem using that one (Islamic State/IS). I do think we should say in the lead, for now, that many English-language outlets still refer to it by the older name (and remove that note when it ceases to be the case). Josiah Stevenson (talk) 22:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment I agree. More and more sources are starting to use "Islamic State" now. I think now is the time to rename. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 00:31, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• Relisting comment. Giving this another week because there doesn't seem to be a consensus at the moment, but with the way sources are trending it does seem there's a possibility there could be a consensus in a week. Jenks24 (talk) 11:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Given that there are various Islamic states, past and present, that are far more notable than this group, I find it unlikely that the phrase will be identified with this subject in particular. This group has changed its name an absurd number of times. We don't have to jump every time they do. This AP story calls them "the Islamic State group." The Sydney Morning Herald calls them "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant," although that was two name changes ago. Clodhopper Deluxe (talk) 01:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
• Question - does anybody know how to get a Google hit count for an advance search using a custom date range or the "past week" option? When I use these features no hit count is shown, just a list of pages and a list of pages 1-10 which can be expanded but no easy way to see how many pages are found. - Technophant (talk) 17:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Answer More readers are looking for ISIS than for "Islamic State" by a margin of 58 to 4, according to Google Trends. If you pull it back, you'll see that more than half the people seeking ISIS (32 out of 58) are actually seeking things other than this subject. But "ISIS" is still very much the common name at this point. Clodhopper Deluxe (talk) 11:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose for now - by the way, why not just ISIS?? Red Slash 07:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Possible Relationship to Pakistani Taliban

I have found an article from what appears to be a Pakistani Taliban source which claims a sort of alliance (albeit informal) between the Pakistani Taliban and what is known as ISIS (based on a harmony of purpose). I do not know whether this source is definitively valid or trustworthy enough to be cited, but I think it is a connection worth being investigated at some point. If these groups do officially collaborate, that would effectively double the current estimated size of either independently (from ~30,000 to ~60,000 combined) in militant member numbers. The web site I will link to also includes information of global support for ISIS, including in Indonesia. If this information is correct, it may be possible for us to have a more clear understanding of how widespread the influence of ISIS may quickly become.

Aforementioned source: abu al bawi blogspot - pakistani-taliban-stance-on-isis... BillyHamsterdave (talk) 02:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Mujahideen Shura Council (Iraq)

Is there a reason that this article exists, it says that it's the same group with a different name. Charles Essie (talk) 20:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I always asked why do we have separate article for Mujahideen Shura Council (Iraq) while Islamic State of Iraq and Jama'at al-Tawhid wa-al-Jihad dont have their separate articles. I would go with the creation of a separate article for each with former country infobox in Islamic state of Iraq's article. 3bdulelah (talk) 02:39, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

If the article becomes too big or it's decided that each incarnation before ISIS deserves an article, turn the redirects into an article for each incarnation. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 10:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

It's already too long 3bdulelah (talk) 20:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

It does seem big enough that I don't think it'd be hurt by turning the redirects into an article for each incarnation. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 04:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Allies and opponents

The infobox lists Ansar al-Islam and Al-Nusra Front as opponents, is that really the case anymore? And by the way, why aren't groups like the Army of the Men of the Naqshbandi Order, the Islamic Army in Iraq, or Hamas of Iraq listed as allies? Charles Essie (talk) 20:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Nusra is still clashing with ISIS in various places in Syria such as Dier ez Zor. Ansar al Islam seems to be fighting alongside ISIS in Iraq currently, although Twitter posts that probably don't count as WP:RS speak of tensions between them in areas where they overlap. Until recently, Islamic Army and Hamas were virtually defunct, and before that they were enemies of the then Islamic State of Iraq, things have changed recently but are still unsettled. Gazkthul (talk) 12:47, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Name (ISIS/ISIL vs. "Islamic State") in the Lead and Body

I think we should refer to this organization primarily as ISIL (with a note that it and its allies insist it should be called "The Islamic State") until most notable, reliable sources refer to it by the new name outside of quotations. In particular, I changed the lead from

The Islamic State (Template:Lang-ar al-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah), formerly known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (alternatively translated as Islamic State of Iraq and Syria and Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham) (Template:Lang-ar al-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fī al-ʻIrāq wa-al-Shām), abbreviated ISIL, ISIS, or from its Arabic acronym as DĀʻiSh or DAISH (Template:Lang-ar Dāʻish), is an unrecognized state and active jihadist militant group in Iraq and Syria. In its self-proclaimed status as a sovereign state, it claims the territory of Iraq and Syria, with implied future claims over more of the Levant region, including Jordan, Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Kuwait, a part of southern Turkey—including Hatay, part of the former Aleppo Vilayet of Ottoman Syria—and Cyprus.

to

The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (alternatively translated as Islamic State of Iraq and Syria and Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham) (Template:Lang-ar al-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fī al-ʻIrāq wa-al-Shām), abbreviated ISIL, ISIS, or from its Arabic acronym as DĀʻiSh or DAISH (Template:Lang-ar Dāʻish), now officially calling itself The Islamic State (Template:Lang-ar al-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah), is an unrecognized state and active jihadist militant group in Iraq and Syria. In its self-proclaimed status as a sovereign state, it claims the territory of Iraq and Syria, with implied future claims over more of the Levant region, including Jordan, Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Kuwait, a part of southern Turkey—including Hatay, part of the former Aleppo Vilayet of Ottoman Syria—and Cyprus.

for the time being, until there is a consensus among Enlish-language RSs and Misplaced Pages editors that we should use the new official name here as the main one. The infobox and references within the article should be consistent with this. This is in keeping with the convention still present in This AP article and most other sources too. On the other hand, at least two (the Telegraph and AFP) have adopted the change. We should keep a close eye on what sources do -- I suggest keeping track of which sources follow which conventions in this section. I think we should weight Al Jazeera, AP, the BBC, NPR, and AFP heavily in deciding which convention to follow. Josiah Stevenson (talk) 22:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Partial list of reliable sources that still call it ISIS/ISIL despite acknowledging the name change announcement by the group (as we should too, as long as there are a significant number of sources here):

• CNN

• AP

• Al Jazeera (Update Josiah Stevenson (talk) 10:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC))

• The BBC

• The Guardian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josiahstevenson (talk • contribs) 23:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• The Independent — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josiahstevenson (talk • contribs) 00:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• The Daily Beast (second-tier reliability)

Partial list of reliable sources that have adopted the name change:

• Al Jazeera (Update Josiah Stevenson (talk) 10:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC))

• The Telegraph

• AFP, in its tweet

• Washington Post

• The Economist (Update Josiah Stevenson (talk) 02:37, 6 July 2014 (UTC))

• Middle East Eye

Josiah Stevenson (talk) 22:44, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

@Josiahstevenson:, I agree with your proposal, it also reads better. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 09:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems Al Jazeera has made the switch. Once one or two more follow suit, I think we should do so here too (should be clear in the next 24 hours). Josiah Stevenson (talk) 10:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd wait for the results of "Requested move 2" before doing anything. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 10:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Of course! I just mean I'm likely to change my vote up there if others do what Al Jazeera's done, and it seems like many of the other "oppose" votes will too. Josiah Stevenson (talk) 11:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Surely, the territorial claim would have to change as well. Isn't the point of the name change that they no longer claim to be limited to Iraq and al Sham but now claim to be the universal Caliphate I.e. global leader of Muslims? DeCausa (talk) 21:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree; I think the statement of its claim should be updated to reflect the universality. Some distinction may be warranted (not sure if the group draws it) between (1) the broad, aspirational borders that contain substantial parts of Europe that the group seeks to eventually bring under its control; (2) the territory over which it claims more immediate control; and (3) the boundaries of its actual current military control. I would tend to put Syria, Iraq, and the rest of the immediate Levant area in category (2), but we should look more carefully about whether any distinction along the lines of (1) and (2) exists in terms of the group's current claims. Overall, though, yes -- the second sentence should primarily state that the group "claims to be an Islamic Caliphate with universal authority over all Muslims and aspires to establish political control over the parts of the world inhabited by Muslims", or something broadly like that. The lead should also say of course that the group currently controls parts of Iraq and Syria, and perhaps that its current military campaign aims to bring the entire Levant under its sway. Or something like that. Josiah Stevenson (talk) 23:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I think we should change the lead to

The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (alternatively translated as Islamic State of Iraq and Syria and Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham) (Template:Lang-ar al-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fī al-ʻIrāq wa-al-Shām), abbreviated ISIL, ISIS, or from its Arabic acronym as DĀʻiSh or DAISH (Template:Lang-ar Dāʻish), now officially calling itself simply the Islamic State (Template:Lang-ar al-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah), is an unrecognized state and active jihadist militant group in Iraq and Syria. In its self-proclaimed status as the Caliphate, it claims religious authority over all Muslims and aspires to bring much of the Muslim-inhabited regions of the world under its direct political control, beginning with the nearby territory in the Levant region.

or something similar very soon, per your suggestion, my agreement with it, reliable sources to that effect already cited at the name itself, and no objections so far. Suggestions for improvement are more than welcome. Josiah Stevenson (talk) 09:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Changed just now. Josiah Stevenson (talk) 23:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The Economist is now using "The IS". -- Ypnypn (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Josiah Stevenson (talk) 02:36, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

@Josiahstevenson: More sources are switching to "Islamic State". I think it's time now. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 00:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)}

refs

1. ^ Cite error: The named reference newname was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. ^ "THE SHORT ANSWER:Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham". Wall Street Jounal. Jun 12, 2014. Retrieved 15 June 2014. Cite error: The named reference "WSJb12-6-2014" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
3. Tharoor, Ishaan. "ISIS or ISIL? The debate over what to call Iraq's terror group". http://www.washingtonpost.com. The Washington Post. Retrieved 18 June 2014. {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help)
4. Tharoor, Ishaan. "ISIS or ISIL? The debate over what to call Iraq's terror group". http://www.washingtonpost.com. The Washington Post. Retrieved 18 June 2014. {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help)
5. "ISIL renames itself 'Islamic State' and declares Caliphate in captured territory". euronews.com. Retrieved 30 June 2014.
6. Cite error: The named reference Ibrahim was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
7. "Isis rebels declare 'Islamic state' in Iraq and Syria". bbc.com. Retrieved 30 June 2014.
8. Tharoor, Ishaan. "ISIS or ISIL? The debate over what to call Iraq's terror group". http://www.washingtonpost.com. The Washington Post. Retrieved 18 June 2014. {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help)

Ideology & Belief

The article lacks a section describing the ideology and beliefs of this ISIL. It should be notified what makes them toward such a movement. Mhhossein (talk) 13:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I Think the form of Government were Wrong, Caliphate was not Monarchy which Based on Bloodline, while Caliphate based on Majlis Shura or Islamic Scholars Parliament — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahendra (talk • contribs) 21:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

A Monarchy does not have to be hereditary, and a Caliphate seems to fit within the category. See the linked wikipedia article on "monarchy" in general, especially "cases in which the monarch's discretion is formally limited (most common today) are called constitutional monarchies. In hereditary monarchies, the office is passed through inheritance within a family group, whereas elective monarchies use some system of voting. Each of these has variations: in some elected monarchies only those of certain pedigrees are eligible, whereas many hereditary monarchies impose requirements regarding the religion, age, gender, mental capacity, and other factors." Josiah Stevenson (talk) 04:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

In That Case then it was not "Absolute Monarchy". but "Constitutional Monarchy" at best. you cannot Ignore the Shura Council Factor here, and we were talking about Government System, not Religion or Age etc

Look, the Vatican City is listed as an absolute monarchy, among other things. The relevant question is "does the autocrat wield absolute power once chosen?". I think the answer is "yes" here, so ISIL is an absolute monarchy. It's also perhaps some of "sacerdotial-monarchial", "elective monarchy" and/or "elective theocracy" (although really, I doubt the "elective" part), or other things like that, but that doesn't mean it isn't also an "absolute monarchy". Josiah Stevenson (talk) 21:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

the Link of 'Absulute Monarchy' of Vatican city http://www.catholic-pages.com/vatican/vatican_city.asp and the website's for description of Government System were Superficial, and again if you think "Monarchy" same as "theocracy" then it was all wrong(Ahendra (talk) 17:47, 6 July 2014 (UTC))

I don't think "monarchy" and "theocracy" are the same, but the Vatican is very clearly both, and so is a caliphate. It's not one or the other here. Josiah Stevenson (talk) 18:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Map of the Territorial control of the ISIS

ISIS now claims control over all the world, so I don't think it's relevant to show which areas do they claim, in orange. Either the legend should be corrected, or the file itself should be corrected, I suppose.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 20:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think "areas claimed" should be taken to mean the full extent of the organisation's territorial ambitions—it only means the areas in which the organisation claims to already have full authority, even when these areas are de facto governed by someone else. (The darker red represents areas where their claim of control is actually true.) Therefore, the map is fine. Zcbeaton (talk) 23:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

If that is the case then it should be clarified in the article and at the image description page. Currently the map seems to contradict the fact that the organization claims much more territory than depicted. --Philpill691 (talk) 05:12, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

It's based on this map , and represents where the group have active 'Wilayah'. Gazkthul (talk) 08:00, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok that makes sense, but that still needs to be clarified in the article. Perhaps the pink could be labeled something like "areas claimed to be under the current administrative authority of the Islamic State". That's kind of long, but its more fully descriptive of the situation, leaving a lot less ambiguity. --Philpill691 (talk) 17:04, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

How about showing which part is Syria and which is Iraq? You can't tell from looking at that map and readers not familiar with the geography of the area will be lost. Nearly all media reports of the crisis are accompanied by maps that clearly mark the borders of the different countries in the region. Why not Misplaced Pages? --P123ct1 (talk) 15:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Treatment of civilians

In a recent edition by @User:AntiqueReader some omissions are seen two of which are as such:

• Nadim Houry, deputy Middle East and North Africa director at Human Rights Watch said, "ISIS are doing atrocities such as executing the civilians, " A local official entered the village that morning said that he saw a 7-year-old child shot in the head.
• by the most radical jihadist group fighting in Syria

I'd like to know the reason of this editions, since nothing were mentioned in the edit summary. Note that, for the second one, same phrase was used by the News Website and I think it has nothing to do with NPOV or sth.Mhhossein (talk) 13:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey! I removed it simply because the detail for that one incident is excessive. Thousands of people are being killed, so detailed discussion of anything but the very worst incidents is just not possible. That was my thinking. AntiqueReader (talk) 18:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention @User:AntiqueReader! But I meant to focus on the child murdered by head shot, and the point that executing the civilians according to what the UN officials say. And whats your Idea about " the most radical jihadist group fighting in Syria" which is mentioned by the mentioned News Website? Mhhossein (talk) 19:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

In my unsolicited opinion, something's either radical or not. There's no more or less. Once you come close enough to the center, you simply stop being radical. Move away, and you switch over. Dictionary.com defines "most radical" (and "more") as just radical. Talking about more or less suggests the author is trying to make a biased point. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:08, July 9, 2014 (UTC)

Citations

When adding information, please take care to reflect citations accurately. I have found some glaring inaccuracies.

P123ct1 (talk) 03:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Wahhabi movement

Is "Wahhabi movement" suitable to be included in "See also" section? some websites claim it to follow wahhabi ideology. Mhhossein (talk) 12:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

No, reliable sources do not use Wahhabi to refer to ISIS or other active Sunni Jihadist groups around the world. Terms used much more widely by academic and journalistic sources include Jihadism and Salafist Jihadism. Wahhabism is inaccurate to use to describe them, as they are influenced by sources beyond al-Wahhab, such as Sayyid Qutb. In addition, the provided link does not contain the term Wahhabi. Gazkthul (talk) 23:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

But they are following similar ideology in practice! needs to be verified?Mhhossein (talk) 05:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Similar but not the same. Wahabism refers to a specific ideology that originated around the teachings of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab in (Saudi) Arabia, however it has come to be used as a vague term to describe any radical Sunni movement. Salafist Jihadism is a more accurate term because these groups draw from influences beyond al-Wahhab, such as Sayyid Qutb. Gazkthul (talk) 08:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Reversion of Ideology and beliefs

@Sa.vakilian The following part of the article mentioned in Ideology and beliefs section is omitted merely for being published in PRESS TV:

Zaid Hamid, a Sunni Muslim defense analyst from Pakistan, says that ISIS and related terrorist groups are not Sunnis, but Kharijite heretics serving an imperial anti-Islamic agenda.

It should be mentioned that this claim is quoted from an article by Dr. Kevin Barrett, a Ph.D. Arabist-Islamologist, who is one of America's best-known critics of the War on Terror. Dr. Barrett has appeared many times on Fox, CNN, PBS and other broadcast outlets, and has inspired feature stories and op-eds in the New York Times, the Christian Science Monitor, the Chicago Tribune, and other leading publications. Dr. Barrett has taught at colleges and universities in San Francisco, Paris, and Wisconsin, where he ran for Congress in 2008. He is the co-founder of the Muslim-Christian-Jewish Alliance, and author of the books Truth Jihad: My Epic Struggle Against the 9/11 Big Lie (2007) and Questioning the War on Terror: A Primer for Obama Voters (2009).

@Gazkthul & @Septate So please do research before doing such omissions and let other editors comment on these matters by discussing them in the article talk page before doing any thing. Thanks Mhhossein (talk) 06:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Zaid Hamid - "Through his TV programmes, Hamid has claimed that a nexus between RAW, Mossad and the CIA is responsible for the destabilization of Pakistan. He also claims that the November 2008 Mumbai attacks, were part of a plan hatched by "Hindu Zionists"", and that it was an attempt by the Indians to stage an attack just like the Americans executed the September 11 attacks."

Kevin Barrett - "'As a Ph.D. Islamologist and Arabist I really hate to say this, but I'll say it anyway: 9/11 had nothing to do with Islam. The war on terror is as phony as the latest Osama bin Laden tape." Barrett has also alleged the 2005 London bombings and the 2004 Madrid bombing appear to have been committed by U.S. or western military intelligence and not Islamic terrorists."

"In an interview with Iran's Press TV which aired on March 30, 2014, Barrett suggested that Israel may have been behind the recent disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, explaining that "Christopher Bollyn just found that there is an identical twin of this plane. It has been sitting in a hangar in Tel Aviv, Israel, for the past couple of months. There was a shell-game played with this aircraft. It was in the south of France, and then they moved it down to Israel. Speculation is that there was some sort of false-flag plan afoot, perhaps another planes-into-buildings deception like 9/11. We have so many parallels between this event and 9/11.'"

Without taking any stance on those above opinions, I believe as sources they fall within the category of WP:FRINGE, what do other editors think? Gazkthul (talk) 08:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

There are the other sources which support this viewpoint.

• " In January, shortly after the fighting between ISIS and insurgent groups began, Tartusi issued a fatwa calling on Muslims to fight ISIS, whom he said were Kharijites, a sect distinct from Shia and Sunni Muslims."
• "Zaid Hamid, a Sunni Muslim defense analyst from Pakistan, says ISIS and related terrorist groups are not Sunnis, but Kharajite heretics serving an imperial anti-Islamic agenda. (The Kharajites were an ultra-radical group that rejected early versions of both Sunni and Shia Islam and stepped outside of the Islamic community – hence their name, which means “those who step outside.”) Hamid argues that the ultra-radical groups destabilizing Pakistan, Syria and Iraq have indeed stepped outside of Islam, and are making war on Islam and Muslims on behalf of Zionism and imperialism.
• Adnan Arour: "حذر الداعية السلفي التكفيري عدنان العرعور السوريين من ما يسمى بـ "الدولة الاسلامية في العراق والشلام" (داعش)، واصفا أفرادها بأنهم "إما خوارج أو يخترقهم النظام ليشوه ثورتكم"، على حد تعبيره."

Therefor, I suggest to add a sentence which says some of the Muslim scholars resembles/describes ISIS as Kharijites.--Seyyed(t-c) 07:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like a reasonable compromise Gazkthul (talk) 08:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree that Kevin Barrett is a fringe, unreliable source. Cullen Let's discuss it 02:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Sunnis who don't subscribe to Takfiri ideology are always refered to as modern day Kharwarij (not Kharjites),by the Muslims who don't believe in Takfir, but every group fighting Assad isa Takfiri, or they cojuldn't fight him, as usualy by those without understanding of the basis of takfir, and its practice among the ASahaba (Abu Bakr fought a Muslim group just for giving up one aspect of sharia, PAYING ZAKAT, SO WHAT OF THOSE WHO ABANDON IT COMPLETELY? wAS ABU bAKR AS-SIDIQ A Kharwarij? Yassin.

Why The Name Change?

Why was this page moved? The former title doesn't even redirect to this page. I suggest we return the former title. See. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibrahimsqureshi (talk • contribs) 17:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I have moved it back to the original title. The move made by User:Teaksmitty was improper while the discussion above is still ongoing. De728631 (talk) 18:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit Revert

User:Ahendra has been Reverting my reverts for him. He thinks that this section of the article is "Propaganda", while I see it as well sourced and relevant. Should it be deleted, or is User:Ahendra just causing trouble?Staglit (talk) 23:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

A couple of those sources look pretty iffy to me: CNSNews.com and The Clarion Project. Quote from the latter page: "The group has been involved in the production or distribution of films such as Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West, The Third Jihad, and Iranium." The Inquisitr uses the Clarion Project report as it's source. The Sexual jihad claim seems disputed, with the cleric alleged to be behind it denouncing it as a hoax. The Buzzfeed source contains the following disclaimer: It is difficult to establish whether, or how much, sexual violence may be occurring in Mosul. Hannaa Edwar, a leading women’s rights advocate in Baghdad who runs an NGO called al-Amal, or Hope, said that as soon as she heard the rumors of sexual violence in Mosul, she scrambled to check them with her contacts there. None could confirm new cases of rape. All in all, I don't think this is very well sourced. Perhaps a line could be said about unproven allegations having been reported etc. Gazkthul (talk) 02:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

@Staglit After all these materials might be found in lots of other creditable sources, some of which are as follows:

• Huffington Post: Why We Must Act When Women in Iraq Document Rape

...who went door to door in Mosul, the second largest city in Iraq, taking "women who are not owned" for "Jihad Nikah" or sex Jihad. Between June 9th and June 12th, women's rights activists documented 13 cases of women who were kidnapped and raped by militants of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)...

• Free Republic: ISIS Issues Orders in Mosul: Give Over Girls for 'Sex Jihad'

according to this source and some other sources,"The reports came from Al-Masryalyoum, a well-respected Egyptian daily newspaper as well as other sources in the Arab press."

• Al-Masryalyoum: إعلامي كويتي: «داعش» يطالب أهالي الموصل بتقديم غير المتزوجات لـ«جهاد النكاح»
• Al-Mukhtasar News: وكالة روسية: “داعش” يختطف سيدات وصبية يتمتعون بالجمال لممارسة “جهاد النكاح
• Shoebat: Muslims Declare “Sexual Jihad,” Enter The Home Of Christian Family, Take The Mother And Her Daughter, And Then Three Muslims Gang Rape Them In Front Of Her Husband
• Just one of the many videos available: Jihad Al Nikah by Daesh (ISIL) in Syria and then in Mosul city north of Iraq
• Shoebat: Muslim Terrorists in Iraq Issued A Decree Ordering All Families to Send Their Unmarried Women to Participate in “JIHAD BY SEX”

@User:Ahendra So, the mentioned materials are creditable and verifiable. These article is viewed many times per day. So, be careful about what you write or what you omitt and revert. As I said before, do a little research before doing such reversions. Mhhossein (talk) 05:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I only read English, but that Shoebat has a clear Christian agenda, and the Free Republic is hardcore American Conservative ("We're working to...champion causes which further conservatism in America. And we always have fun doing it. Hoo-yah!")

These sites don't seem to care for fact-checking. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:36, July 10, 2014 (UTC)

It looks like many ppl were Pissed because im telling the truth, it looks like i must point my Evidence,

lets take Example Al-Arabiya report about 'sexual Jihad' http://english.alarabiya.net/en/variety/2013/09/28/Kidnapped-Syrian-women-forced-to-make-sexual-jihad-claims-on-state-TV.html

and THEN ONE RESEARCH CAST DOUBT OF IT AS VIRAL PROPAGANDA IN SYRIA-IRAQ WHICH EMULATED BY STIRRED OPINION AND ANOTHER SETUP WHICH IS REPORTED BY BIASED MEDIA! http://www.moroccoworldnews.com/2013/10/107183/sex-jihad-in-syria-a-mere-hoax/?print=pdf YOU ALL SHOULD TAKE SUSPICION TOO(Ahendra (talk) 07:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC))

this is Opinion which doubt the credibility of report about 'Sexual Jihad' in Syria

The Syrian regime published testimony by female teenager who was a purported victim. Rawan Qadah narrated a story of such proportions that only the Syrian regime could have fabricated it. Rawan narrated an incoherent story of how her father conspired against her and used her as a sexual commodity.

Perhaps the story which Rawan narrated is itself a crime committed by the Syrian regime; it doesn’t stop at anything for the sake of staying in power. The tragedy of Rawan, who was kidnapped months ago and whose father is an opponent of the regime, urged several media outlets to dig into this made-up phenomenon dubbed “sexual jihad.”

French daily Le Monde and American magazine Foreign Policy wrote articles and conducted investigation reports on this lie. After that, a torrent of Western and Arab articles were published in media outlets around the world in an attempt to compensate for falling in the trap of such a lie.

Perhaps the best means which Le Monde and Foreign Policy adopted in solving the case was beginning their investigation at the root of the issue. The sheikh whom the fatwa was attributed to has confirmed several times that he did not issue this fatwa. The media outlet which marketed this story for the first time was one that supports the Syrian regime. Not a single case of sexual jihad could be proven. Tunisian officials who spoke on the subject did not present solid evidence either. It later turned out that they had personal interests to achieve by making these statements.

http://www.aawsat.net/2013/10/article55318787

i Revert it not because im vandalist, i Revert it because the topic were full of Opinion and Suspicious, if i want to Vandal then i will not Delete it Instead change the Information about 'Sexual Jihad' to 'Mutah Marriage of Shia'and then i delete the Entire Section about the treatment to Civilian,

All i want is Misplaced Pages should be Accurate and Objective article instead of Propaganda Media(Ahendra (talk) 07:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC))

@Ahendra @Sa.vakilian @P123ct1 Syria, Syria and again syria. How about Mosul and Iraq? you can't forget these sources only for some issues in Syria. Please avoid reverting. as I believe you are involving a war edit and I avoid further editions on this part until the dispute is resolved. and another point: You are going to deleted the entire section about treatment of civilians on which basis? Mhhossein (talk) 08:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I am not aware of having reverted anything. I would like an explanation. Please see my message to you on your Talk page. --P123ct1 (talk) 08:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

@User:Ahendra, I think we can reach compromise by adding the other viewpoints to the article. I propose "Sexual violence allegations" as the NPOV title. --Seyyed(t-c) 08:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

@User:Ahendra, @User:Sa.vakilian Ok, It's a good idea to replace the title with the proposed one, maintain the previous material and add the other point of view to the existing one. Mhhossein (talk) 05:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• Okay everyone, I agree now that due to the limited access of reliable sources, we shouldn't include all of this information. It is obvious that sexual violence is happening, but we cannot guess, we have to have actual facts. I would propose having only a small section based on the little information we have instead on a large one filled with info from unreliable sites, be it Huffington Post, which has a very liberal bias, or a conservative bias. And finally, omg people, format this carefully! It looks like a toilet :(. Staglit (talk) 21:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

that's more proper as Objective Article(Ahendra (talk) 17:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC))

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2014

The date in the caption of the map near the bottom of the article (in the section "2014 events") reads "Current (June 2014) situation". The map was last updated today, July 11, and so the date in the caption needs to be "July 2014". Thanks. SaltySeas (talk) 22:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Done Supersaiyen312 (talk) 23:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

"unite to capture Rome"

I believe Rûm - Rome refers also to the occidentals in general, but more specifically to the Sultanate of Rum. Linking it to the city of Rome is probably misleading, is it not?--Elrafael (talk) 16:07, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

@Elrafael, I wondered about this too. Rome in this case could also refer to the former territory of the Roman empire. Would need to find a RS analyzing this statement. Just linking to the city of Rome for now isn't wrong, however linking it to anything else could be considered WP:OR and misleading. Might be best to delink it for the time being - Technophant (talk) 12:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

In classical Islamic literature, Rûm is the Eastern Roman Empire or Byzantine Empire.--99.232.96.72 (talk) 11:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Weapons and equipment

This section makes a variety of unsourced claims about weapons and equipment, including the claim that ISIS fighters wear US uniforms and body armor. It would be get a source for this claim, because it seems unusual that a militant jihadist group would wear US uniforms.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 16:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

the uniforms and armour mentioned are likely not US uniforms but rather, US supplied to the Iraqi army. There are various reports of IS militants wearing iraqi uniforms and impersonating iraqi forces. As for the body armour, they will obviously use what they capture.XavierGreen (talk) 19:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia and ISIS

Article by Patrick Cockburn about Saudi and ISIS. I don't have time to add it just now, but can do so later today. If anyone else wants to add it before then, feel free, obviously. AntiqueReader (talk) 08:40, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status of al-Furqan Media Productions / Global Islamic Media Front productions

Since they don't go by modern law this might be kind of an absurd question, but because of the rules for putting content on Wikimedia Commons I'm wondering what the copyright status is for media like "Clashing of the Swords IV". Has al-Furqan Media Productions (which is listed as producing that video) or Global Islamic Media Front (GIMF) ever made a statement about public domain status or Creative Commons licensing for the materials they distribute? (See also the Commons thread and a user there whose uploads were deleted or pending deletion for lack of copyright status) Wnt (talk) 12:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Well to start with as a united states entity, wikipedia does not need to pay any regard to the copyright laws of a state the united states does not recognize. Even if wikipedia is registered as an entity in other countries, since no country recognizes the Islamic State no country recognizes its copyright laws which i would assume it does not yet have anyway. That is assuming the agencies in question are affiliated with the islamic state.XavierGreen (talk) 00:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

You might want to ask this on Misplaced Pages:ELN. Possibly relevant, the Inspire (magazine) page does not link to issues of the magazine. Gazkthul (talk) 01:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

This is only incidentally relevant. I'm asking if anyone knows what the underlying copyright status is of these particular publications for our purposes. It is preferable to have the material on Commons in a fully open format rather than linking to a third party site. However, even if copyright prevents Commons from hosting the content, a Fair Use claim may protect Misplaced Pages when hosting a local copy. Third party sources hosting such content may have Fair Use also, or be authorized, and should not assume to be a copyvio issue without evidence. Wnt (talk) 02:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

The curators at Archive.org have collected the some of their releases and have assumed a Public Domain license. Take a look here. - Technophant (talk) 01:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Citations and paywalls

It does not seem right to use publications that have subscription paywalls in citations, such as the Financial Times. Perhaps these should be avoided in footnotes, for the sake of transparency. --P123ct1 (talk) 12:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Please note that I did not add the list below. It is unsigned. --P123ct1 (talk) 12:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

@user:P123ct1 I added a reflist to the lead section above to keep unwanted refs from appearing at the bottom of the page. - Technophant (talk) 04:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

No, so far as we have the date of the publication and the full title (and author if pertinent), then that's fine. We shouldn't avoid reliable sources such as the New York Times, etc. simply because you have to pay to read their websites. See WP:VERIFY. Dougweller (talk) 08:29, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I had already read WP:VERIFY and meant avoid them if there is not a reliable alternative, of course. Anyone who uses a source with a paywall should make the effort to find an equally respectable citation to add to it or replace it. Misplaced Pages needs to help its readers. If I see a link to the same paywalled publication on google that is freely accessible, I will note this on the footnote beside "Subscription required". What did you mean by "if pertinent"? Did you not mean "if available", or is there some rule about this? --P123ct1 (talk) 22:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

If you can find a source that has the same information that is not paywall then it's best to use that one instead. Also, it is good practice to add a quote in the citation of the paragraph you got your information from so a reader on the wrong side of the wall can still verify the source. - Technophant (talk)

That's correct. Sorry P123ct1, but as I have seen people say we should never use paywalled sources I misunderstood you. Dougweller (talk) 12:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

@Dougweller: That's OK. The other point: don't authors' names, if known, always have to be added to the citation? You said "if pertinent" and I wasn't sure what you meant. --P123ct1 (talk) 12:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Careless of me, I meant if known. Sorry. Dougweller (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Destruction of shrines, probably fake video, looting of antiquities to sell

It appears that one of their goals is to destroy various shrines. I think that is correct, but I've been reverting edits at Jonah claiming that his alleged tomb was destroyed based on an article in the unreliable British tabloid the Daily Mail. See and particularly and . More interestingly, states that they have been destroying shrines and looting antiquities: "Judit Neurink, writing for Germany’s Deutsche Welle says the ISIS militants’ motives are much more than religious. Before they desecrate, then bulldoze offensive shrines, mosques, churches and memorials, they loot them, stealing the artifacts and selling them on the black market." (see "The United Nations agency UNESCO confirms reports ISIS has profited enormously from selling antiquities. After taking over the city of Raqqa, it looted the local museum. Some of the valuable pieces surfaced in Turkey and Lebanon. But most of the loot disappeared, sold for a good price to private collectors." Dougweller (talk) 08:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Add: Destroting shrines, as Prophet Muhammad commanded Muslims to do anywhere they found them (Sahih Bukhari, Sahi Muslim)"Do not build anything over a grave, do not make a grave a place of prayer, and to destroy buildings over graves, these are all from Islam., from the Prophet, (SAW)It's misleading to not include this, as it makes the difference between anti-ISIL propaganda, and a unbiased wikipedia article. Thanks, Salaams. Yassin. Oh yeah, Jihad al Nikah, its "marriage jihad, asking for wives for the Mujahideen, in arranged marriages like 99% are in the Muslim world.Nikah technically refers to sex, but in use refers to Marriage, as they have Nikah ceremonies at the Mosque all the time. Are they orgies, or weddings? I'll let you guess. Yassin

Alleged Snowden leaks

On the Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi an anonymous user added this interesting diff. It says "On July 15 2014, as part of former US NSA Edward Snowden leaks, it was reported that "the British and American intelligence and the Mossad worked together to create the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)." Since the story was picked up by the International Business Times it may be worth noting on the site, however I don't think it's authentic information. Snowden handed over his files to journalists Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras. I don't think either one of those would submit a story to "The Voice of Bahrain" Gulf Daily News without even being quoted. I could post and article in my self-owned tabloid titled "Snowden Leaks: Misplaced Pages Run By Extraterrestrials" and I'm sure it would get some attention, but that doesn't make it reliable or verifiable. Comments? - Technophant (talk) 04:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree entirely which is why I removed it earlier. If there is such a leak, why haven't the major media picked it up? Oh sure, maybe there's a conspiracy to keep it silent, but without much better sources we can't use this. Dougweller (talk) 12:15, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Just a general point here: do you not think that rumours which become widespread, sometimes internationally, and persist although they have been disproved should nevertheless be recorded? Readers could wonder why there is no mention of them and (falsely) accuse Misplaced Pages of missing "facts", e.g. the idea that ISIS is "too extreme" for even al-Qaeda (said wrongly to be one reason AQ gave for cutting ties with them) and the al-Baghdadi threat, "I'll see you in New York", which still have very wide currency although they are not true and yet Misplaced Pages is silent on them. Rumours or false stories can always be worded diplomatically so that Misplaced Pages is not seen to be recording them as fact. I did this twice with the "I'll see you in New York" story (which I still see repeated in the media) but was reverted both times. In other words, I think rumours that gain traction should be recorded in Misplaced Pages, especially since they sometimes become folklore over time. Looks like it is happening already with the ISIS being "too extreme" for al-Qaeda notion. --P123ct1 (talk) 15:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

When the mainstream media report that there is a rumour to this effect we can include it, meanwhile we should not be party to spreading it. Dougweller (talk) 16:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with that, but don't agree that reporting something as a rumour would be being a party to spreading it; that is what I meant about choosing careful wording. Does "The Daily Beast" count as mainstream media? They were the first to report the threat story, I believe, which caught on everywhere. My edit was "'The Daily Beast' reported that ... However, the US Defence Department said ...", giving their plain statement, backed up with a citation, which clearly refuted the DB's story. That seemed fair enough to me and made it clear that Misplaced Pages was not passing on the story as fact. --P123ct1 (talk) 19:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually being to extreme is a cited reason by aq for disafilliating ISIS, but not the primary reason. Al-Qaeda central issued several letters rebuking ISIS for its progress towards building a state, something which al-qaeda central did not want to happen for many years to come. Furthermore there is a long history of Al-Qaeda central rebuking ISI / ISIS for excessively specifically targeting muslim civilians as it thought it would sully the image of the organizaitons efforts in iraq. That being said, the primary reason it was disowned was for overstepping its operational area by expanding into Syria and refusing Al-Qaeda's decsision that Al-Nusra was a seperate operational command from ISIS.XavierGreen (talk) 22:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

@XavierGreen: Where have you seen Al-Qaeda say being too extreme was one reason for disaffiliating them? In all the footnotes to this article, this has not appeared once. It would be useful to have a source for this information added in, as it changes the overall impression that this is merely journalistic inference. (See discussion above at #39) It would be nice to set the record straight. --P123ct1 (talk) 08:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

"Biggest bank robbery that 'never happened' – $400m Isis heist"

Biggest bank robbery that 'never happened' – $400m Isis heist

Not a single witness account has emerged of the Isis members making off with any money, and executives and employees from among the 20 private banks and 15 or so government bank branches in Mosul say there is no evidence that militants stole any money from the banks, many of which continue to operate. Isis itself has never claimed to have stolen the cash, though it has boasted repeatedly of the millions of dollars in US military equipment it looted from Iraqi armed forces who fled the city.

86.156.115.179 (talk) 17:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

It would be nice to put this information into the financial section of the article using your source as back-up, but the Financial Times is a paywalled source and I cannot read it to see those facts. Did you read of this anywhere else? I would have thought this news was rather major - I have hardly read or seen the media refer to ISIS without mentioning the $2 billion they are supposed to have - and I am surprised no-one has taken it up yet and added it to the article. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I've added this to the Finances section as the Financial Times is a WP:RS and the article contains quotes from Iraqi government and banking officials. It's behind a paywall but can be read by Googleing the title. Gazkthul (talk) 05:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

It cannot be read on Google. If you Google the title, you come up against the paywall there as well (if you are not a subscriber). This happens consistently with articles from the Financial Times. Other paywalled articles can often be read via Google (e.g. The Wall Street Journal) but never articles from the FT. --P123ct1 (talk) 07:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

That's odd, I was able to read the article through that method. Maybe it is affected by your geographical location or some other factor. Gazkthul (talk) 11:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Must be. Now have limited (free) sub to FT (block prevents copy-ed). --P123ct1 (talk) 11:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

NBC cites an unnamed "official" as saying they stole "to the tune of millions of dollars", but not hundreds of millions. For what it's worth. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:47, July 22, 2014 (UTC)

Have added the NBC report as a new footnote in the "Finances" section. Although the NBC was given the information by an unnamed US official, the NBC is an RS. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Twitter as a source

It seems to be a major source here - how does it meet WP:RS? Dougweller (talk) 20:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The number of Twitter sources, and even a YouTube source, in the "Equipment" section makes that section a bit of a joke, in my opinion. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Good to see you have removed them all! --P123ct1 (talk) 09:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Time for Wilayah Articles?

Should we make Articles about IS different Wilayat? Caucasus Emirate is a good example (https://en.wikipedia.org/Caucasus_Emirate#Overview) 3bdulelah (talk) 07:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

We could, but I'm not sure there is a lot of information available on them.Gazkthul (talk) 04:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

It depends on which Wilayah. for Example we have a lot of information about Nineveh Wilayah and Raqqah Wilayah while we have almost nothing about Al Badiya Wilayah. 3bdulelah (talk) 10:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Equipment

This is a message for user/users who have edited this section. The footnotes in the first paragraph all cite reliable sources, but none of them specifically mentions ZU-23-2 anti-aircraft guns (user makes an inference - see Military Times) or 2S1 Gvozdika self-propelled guns, so I have removed the picture and reference to them. --P123ct1 (talk) 13:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Water

IS and water. I keep adding sources to talk; I promise I'll get around to add them to the article soon!! AntiqueReader (talk) 15:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Farewell

Because of this I've decided to retire from Misplaced Pages. I must say that my experience helping edit this page has been the best I've had. Congrats to fine group of editors while work tirelessly to help keep Misplaced Pages great. Signed - Technophant (talk) 15:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)