Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:40, 15 March 2015

Template:Pbneutral

To start a peer review, choose an appropriate topic from the list below and click on the link to create the review page. Arts Language and literature Philosophy and religion Everyday life Social sciences and society Geography History Engineering and technology Natural sciences and mathematics General topic or List If you have already done this, and the template has not changed, try purging this talk page.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Islamic State article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44Auto-archiving period: 10 days

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

Template:Syrian Civil War sanctions

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Iraq High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IraqWikipedia:WikiProject IraqTemplate:WikiProject IraqIraq High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Middle East This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Middle Eastern military history task force Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Syria High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Arab world Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as High-importance).

:Composing footnotes using the WP cite templates (Summary of WP:FOOTNOTES section 3.1.) Please note that bare URL footnotes – i.e. footnotes that contain only the website http address – are susceptible to link-rot, which means that if the website moves to a new domain with a new URL, the link will be broken and readers will be unable to read the citation. First put the cursor at the point in the edit text where you want the footnote to go, then click "Cite" in the edit strip at the top of the Edit Page, then click "Templates" on the left, and a drop-down menu appears. Choose "cite web" or "cite news" (for articles and websites), "cite book" or "cite journal", click and a box comes up. Fill in the all details of the citation, then click "Preview" and "Show parsed preview" to see it looks right. (To correct anything, correct the box entries, then click the two "Previews" again.) In "cite book" remember to add the page number(s) of the book. Click "Insert" and the citation automatically goes into the edit text. (It may not go in at the exact point where the cursor is if you use Firefox or Chrome.)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Islamic State article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44Auto-archiving period: 10 days

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination. Discussions: RM, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State, Not moved, 7 September 2014, /Archive 10#Move request - 6 September 2014 RM, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State (Organisation), No consensus, 17 September 2014, /Archive 11#Requested move 17 September 2014 RM, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State (islamist rebel group), No consensus, 9 January 2015, /Archive 28#Requested move 9 January 2015 Content discussion, References in the text: ISIS or ISIL?, ISIL chosen, 17 September 2014, /Archive 10#References in the text: ISIS or ISIL? Older discussions: Islamic State of Iraq and Syria → Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, Moved, 13 August 2013, /Archive 1#Rename RM, Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, Not moved (but moved back to "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant"), 12 June 2014, /Archive 2#Requested Move RM, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → The Islamic State, No consensus, 29 June 2014, /Archive 3#Requested move 2 RM, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, Procedurally closed, 31 July 2014, /Archive 3#Requested move RM, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State, Not moved, 8 August 2014, /Archive 5#Requested move 8 August 2014 Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State (organization), Quick close, 20 August 2014, /Archive 5#Move

Inconsistent section headings

These section headings are inconsistent:

1.3 As Islamic State of Iraq (2006–2013)

1.4 As Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (2013–2014)

1.5 As self-proclaimed Islamic State (June 2014–present)

All three of these iterations were "self-proclaimed". Either all should be listed as such, or none.

On a related note, since the Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham / the Levant ceased to exist under that name in 2014 (as shown by these section headings), surely the article should be updated to reflect the current name.116.55.118.114 (talk) 10:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

One difference is that the third name change was more widely rejected both in ~Arabic communities and internationally. GregKaye 11:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

That's a curious standard. Nowadays, people and organisations are always allowed to call themselves whatever they want; the politically correct stance seems to be that to call them otherwise is an infringement on their rights. It is not clear why an exception to this rule is to be made for the Islamic State, or why the "Arabic communities" you mention should have special veto power over anyone who wishes to call themselves whatever. XavierItzm (talk) 18:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Widely rejected - so we follow the sources. If you are here to promote the ISIL narrative which includes the name that is highly offensive to both muslims and every country in the world, try a different soapbox. Legacypac (talk) 08:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I notice the BBC, at least, seems to use Islamic State (IS), and other British newspapers also use the name (though they prefer ISIS), so the line that it's offensive is clearly not necessarily one we should accept. W. P. Uzer (talk) 09:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree with W. P. Uzer. Islamic State is the self-reference of the group and it is the internationally accepted designation. It is U.S.-centric to call them anything else, and it only happens because U.S.-media is following the lead of the U.S. government, which calls it by four-letter words.
See how the rest of the world calls it: "Islamic State" is the tile of the French Misplaced Pages (État islamique (organisation)), the German Misplaced Pages (Islamischer Staat (Organisation)), the Spanish Misplaced Pages (Estado Islámico (organización terrorista)), the Italian Misplaced Pages (Stato Islamico), the Portuguese Misplaced Pages (Estado Islâmico do Iraque e do Levante), and the Russian Misplaced Pages (Исламское государство). There you have the six top non-Asian world economies. XavierItzm (talk) 14:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Khawarij

The article on Khawarij states that ISIL is a modern variant of this phenomenon. There seems to be some support that Islamic scholars are categorizing them in this fashion. Whether this is mere war propaganda or a serious scholarly judgment is beyond me but it does seem to be an interesting issue that deserves a new section. Before I stick my hand in the buzz saw of adding such a thing, what's consensus on ISIL as a neo form of Kharijites? TMLutas (talk) 18:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

TMLutas It depends. How much weight does it get in reliable sources? Mbcap (talk) 19:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

A good start would be the page on Khawarij which has the following section:

The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, Al Qaeda and like minded groups are also modern day Khawarij according to all major Salafi and Sunni scholars.

ref name="http://www.islamagainstextremism.com/articles/leuiyij-shaykh-saalih-al-suhaymee-it-is-obligatory-to-name-expose-and-refute-the-instigators-of-extremist-ideologies.cfm">cite web|url=http://www.islamagainstextremism.com/articles/leuiyij-shaykh-saalih-al-suhaymee-it-is-obligatory-to-name-expose-and-refute-the-instigators-of-extremist-ideologies.cfm}}/ref>ref name="Unjust to ascribe actions of kharijite renegades to islam and muslims">cite web|url= http://www.islamagainstextremism.com/articles/nbleuwe-it-is-criminal-and-unjust-to-ascribe-the-actions-of-the-kharijite-renegades-to-islam-and-the-muslim.cfm}}ref>ref name="contemporary Kharijites">cite web|url=http://www.islamagainstextremism.com/articles/hnjsd-imam-al-albani-contemporary-takfiri-kharijites-are-dogs-of-hellfire-upon-the-prophetic-description-of-them.cfm}}/ref>ref name="theglobeandmail.com">cite web|url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/another-battle-with-islams-true-believers/article20802390/%7Ctitle=Another battle with Islam’s ‘true believers’|work=The Globe and Mail|accessdate=13 October 2014}}ref>

If anything, the Khawarij article needs be edited! Its sources are: three propaganda site citations, and one opinion page. Completely disagree with bringing such a mess into this article. XavierItzm (talk) 16:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Having a useless degree in religious studies I can actually comment on this issue. The Khariji sect emerged at the battle of Siffin where the forces of Ali met Muawiyya and his forces. Ali wanted to negotiate with Muawiyya but the Kharijis believed that he was going against the will of God and succeded from seceded from the party of Ali. Unlike Sunnis and Shia the Kharijis believed that only Abu Bakr and Umar were legitimate Caliphs and posited that the Islamic ummah needed to be ruled by the 'pious'. Thus the Kharijis differed on who through which line or structure the leader of the Islamic Ummah should be. While some Kharijis only viewed other Muslims as hipocrits, others such as the Azraqis that believed that Muslims that did not join or acquiesce to them deserved to be killed. During the end of the Umayyad period some Kharijis even managed to overrun much of Mesopotamia. Perhaps becasue of this and for other reasons the term 'Khariji' has become a term of abuse used against Islamic fanatics and Wahabbis. Thus while haveing some difference with the theology and questions of leadership, as far as fanaticism and wanton violence is concerned, ISIS is seen by many Muslims to be the contermporary heir of the Kharijis. I hope this is helpfull. Zaharous (talk) 04:48, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Is the infobox as acurate as it could be? Re; Primary participant and target

Is Islamic State a primary participant in any of the following conflicts (in reliable sources);

• Second Libyan Civil War (2014–present)
• Sinai insurgency
• War in Afghanistan (2015–present)
• War in North-West Pakistan
• Moro insurgency in the Philippines
• Insurgency in the Maghreb (2002–present)
• al-Qaeda insurgency in Yemen

Is Islamic State the primary target of (in reliable sources);

• Global War on Terrorism
• Patrick Maxwell — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertPaulsen0311 (talk • contribs) 03:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Mbcap (talk) 01:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Re:Global War on Terrorism is concerned, UK commentators speak of two major wars that relalate to national security, the war in the Ukraine and the war with ISIL. Russia and the separatists in Ukraine are not designated as terrorists. 'SIL are certainly a major target in the Global War on Terrorism with more global involvement against it than I think is even ranged against a group like al-Qaeda.I certainly don't think that 'SIL come a clear second place as far as targets are concerned/ GregKaye 23:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Mbcap and others. Following on I don't see how there is any justification/clarity that Khalifa Islamiyah Mindanao are primary in the Moro insurgency in the Philippines, how Jundallah (Pakistan) are primary in the War in North-West Pakistan and certainly not how there is anything close primacy in al-Qaeda insurgency in Yemen. In the cases of these articles it seems to me that the contribution of ISIL may sometimes be exaggerated and their recent placement as a third column in the list of participants and the placement of their name in bold when others are not may be/is uncalled for. I have concerns here about WP:TENDENTIOUS editing. GregKaye 12:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Greg Thanks you for the response. Yes I would agree with your assessment. As far as reliable sources are concerned, the Ukraine conflict is probably seen as a matter of Realpolitik whereas the war against this group is seen as the War on terror. Your second assessment is particularly interesting and I would echo the sentiments you have aired in terms of giving Islamic State more prominence that what they are actually given in sources. For example how are they primary participants in the Moro insurgency? How do you suggest we modify the Infobox? Mbcap (talk) 22:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Mbcap I think a simple removal of the less appropriate material is called for. Even in the case of Boko Haram, they have been presented as a group that pledged allegiance to ISIL and not as ISIL themselves. I don't see this is an issue for this page. GregKaye 02:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Mbcap I'm not sure all the groups that have sworn allegiance to the Islamic State belong in this infobox. If we do include them, we might want to change the wording as only the franchises in Sinai, Nigeria and to a lesser extent Libya are primary participants in those conflicts. Gazkthul (talk) 02:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Greg and GazkthulI agree that the less appropriate material warrants removal. This was the reason behind raising the issue in the first place. For example the Moro conflict, the Afghan war and the Pakistani conflict I feel do not belong in the infobox. As to the groups which have pledged allegiance, I am not yet sure how we should handle it. Mbcap (talk) 16:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

ISIS is a state

ISIS is a state, not an "Islamist rebel group that controls territory in Iraq and Syria". If Northern Cyprus is a state, and the Donetsk People's Republic, then so is ISIS. It purports to be a state, it controls territory, it has an army, and it has a rudimentary form of government. It seems to me that there is no justification for not describing it as a state. This is an entirely different matter to whether it should be allowed to continue exist. To pretend that it is not a state is like pretending that Adolf Hitter was not the ruler of Germany.101.98.186.134 (talk) 05:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Donetsk is classed as a state? That's odd. Regardless, as it's in the middle of active fighting for the territory as the civil war is going on., it shouldn't be considered a state. I think this is stated on list of sovereign states' talk. Donetsk is also listed as a rebel group. Banak (talk) 10:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

'SIL is neither recognised as a state by the international community, by academia or by reliable sources. This has been extensively discussed in previous threads. It would be appreciated if editors would check through previous threads on topics before presenting proposals. I think that this case again raises the issue of potentially requiring editors to register and login b4 editing this talk page. To describe groups like Boko Haram and 'SIL as states is quite far into the realm of original research and, I think, POV. GregKaye 08:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources do not recognise the possibility of Islamic State being "an unrecognised state" so we have to wait to see if and when reliable information points to the contrary. Mbcap (talk) 09:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The contrast between the lede on Northern Cyprus and the one on the Islamic State is significant. "Northern Cyprus is a self-declared state that comprises the northeastern portion of the island of Cyprus. Recognised only by Turkey Northern Cyprus is considered by the international community as part of the Republic of Cyprus."
It seems to me that as soon as one single state recognises the Islamic State, the lede here will have to be harmonised to that of Northern Cyprus. However, if it hasn't happened yet, it might be premature to acknowledge that the Islamic State is yet one, even though it clearly meets all other criteria, including the collection of taxes. XavierItzm (talk) 16:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

It fails as a state on multiple fronts, including no international recognition, all territory seized by arms, no acceptance by the population it controls, active fighting, no stable territory etc. Legacypac (talk) 08:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Disagree. You cannot claim a state is not such just because "all territory seized by arms". England, for instance, is a state, and yet it was all seized by arms. Just ask William the Conqueror. Iran was also seized by arms by a Muslim cleric from its previous ruler, the Shah, and many today regard it as a legitimate state. Bottom line is, The Islamic State is a perfect state except for international recognition. XavierItzm (talk) 14:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

XavierItzm There are a great number of politicians and academics that will consider views as to whether "the armed group", as the UN describes it, is classified as a state. This is not something that you or anyone else can push. There is no source justification for considering it is a state and yet there is a seemingly unanimous view to say that it is not. GregKaye 12:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC) strikes added GregKaye 17:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Greg I wrote the Islamic State is already a perfect state except for international recognition. I.e., I wrote that it is not a state. It will not be a state until at least one established state recognises it. When that happens, the encyclopaedic thing to do will be to harmonise its entry with that of Northern Cyprus. XavierItzm (talk) 15:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

XavierItzm apologies for my earlier misreading/understanding of your content. I was also unaware of the content of List of states with limited recognition#Criteria for inclusion which certainly mentions two options, either to satisfy the declarative theory of statehood, or to be recognised as a state by at least one UN member state. I don't know if you can help with a guide to the rational for the second case or on what it is based.

The self-declared "Islamic State" does not itself consider the validity of any other state.

I do not know of any other situation in which international views have been put more clearly to say that the group is not a state.

If we go by the mentioned declarative theory then we find that a state has to have a defined territory. How is this possible with a group whose whole creed denies the existence of borders. This is a warring group that shows no signs of wanting peace and, perhaps, would only be declared a state by a state that had become its puppet. I doubt that it would come to this but don't personally think that Misplaced Pages should advocate shotgun statehood. I would also be interested to know when the declarative theory or statehood was itself first declared. In any case I don't think that your comparisons to nations like England carry any weight. The "the land of the Angles" has long been "the land of the Angles" with a largely consistent population no matter who was in charge and which has not, as in the unstable nature of the ISIL situation, suffered consistent "ethnic" cleansing. This group would need to be able to sit down with stated borders and a stable population to have the possibility of even being considered as being a state on an international basis. Otherwise I think that Ban Ki-Moon's interpretation of an 'Un-Islamic Non-State', echoed across the Arabic world, carries. GregKaye 20:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Name of article

Why is this still called (the expansion of) "ISIL"? All the news organizations I can find (and the same point is confirmed by someone else's list above) call it either ISIS or IS. The entity itself apparently calls itself IS. There may have been a time a few months ago when ISIL seemed OK as a title, but now it looks behind the times. W. P. Uzer (talk) 08:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

W. P. Uzer, I generally agree but use of Isil persists in the news and it remains a recognisable name. The original discussion on the topic was: Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/Archive 10#References in the text: ISIS or ISIL? which may now be dated. GregKaye 11:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Seems to me ISIL is being used less and less in the news. But even if that's the title we're using for now, we should still follow normal Misplaced Pages practice and put the other common (more common, in this case) English names in the first sentence, otherwise it looks as if we're taking a stand as to what the group "ought" to be called. I think also the Arabic form of the self-appellation "Islamic State" should appear somewhere - I assume it's just the first two words of the full name. W. P. Uzer (talk) 12:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

You are wrong. See the recent RM at the top of this page, where such evidence was provided (it just closed yesterday). I'm not sure if you are American, but "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" with the ISIS acronym dominates British and Irish usage. RGloucester — ☎ 14:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Reverted. I agree that ISIS is more common than ISIL, but we can't claim it stands for Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Rothorpe (talk) 14:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

It is not a "claim". This usage is standard in RS. I provided the sources in the RM discussion above: The Daily Telegraph, the Financial Times, the Daily Mail, The Guardian, the Daily Mirror. RGloucester — ☎ 18:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• DeCausa, why you claiming that "ISIS" is an abbreviation for "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria"? It isn't. It is an abbreviation for "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant". Sources have been provided. Please do not remove sourced content. RGloucester — ☎ 18:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

That creates an absurdity. All those sources show is that in the abbreviated form ISIS is more common than ISIL, even when the source uses the long form "...and the Levant". It's SYNTH (and obvious nonsense) to believe those sources they are saying that those initials stand for that long form. There is no useful purpose to the reader to include "ISIS" twice. I find it difficult to believe that it is even necessary to explain that. DeCausa (talk) 18:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I made no comment about what it "stands for". I said that "ISIS" is used an abbreviation for "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant". This is a fact. "ISIS" is not proper to "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria". The proper abbreviation for "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" must be shown. "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" should not even be granted an abbreviation. I say write "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS)", and write "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" with no abbreviation at all. RGloucester — ☎ 18:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I thought I'd seen some nonsensical positions while editing WP but that really takes the biscuit. DeCausa (talk) 19:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

HH (which stands for: I agree with DeCausa). Rothorpe (talk) 19:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

You may agree, but the fact remains that "ISIS" is an abbreviation for "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant", and is widely used by RS. RGloucester — ☎ 20:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The sources you cite don't say that at all. I'm afraid you've disappeared "up" your own rabbithole. DeCausa (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

If a source writes "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isis)", that fairly obviously means that they believe "Isis" to be a suitable acronym for "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant". "Isis" may well be derived from "Sham", and not "Syria", given that "Syria" is plain wrong, and that the long form "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" predominates in RS, and has done so, though some have converted to "Islamic State". Regardless, all long form translations take "Isis" as an acronym. Isis, one could say, has taken on its own life. Many sources use "Isis" without any long form, something I also demonstrated in the above discussion. Certainly, Isis might not be considered an acronym or abbreviation at all, but a name in its own right. RGloucester — ☎ 21:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Pure WP:SYNTH, Alice, which even if true still would not support your bizarre edit. 22:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

How can it be "SYNTH"? One source is enough, and there is nothing bizarre about it. ISIS is not proper to "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria". RGloucester — ☎ 22:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Probably ISIS or Isis is becoming the most common name, and possibly ought to be what the article is eventually titled. The introduction is always going to look a bit bizarre at the moment, since it needs to link in with the current title, which is not really the right one. Maybe rather than put ISIS in parentheses after something, we should write "...also known as ISIS (an acronym for ... or ...)". W. P. Uzer (talk) 07:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

RGloucester, you say that "it fairly obviously means thay believe "Isis" to be a suitable acronym for "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant". Of course it doesn't. You've drawn a conclusion which isn't stated in the source. This is excacerbated by it being a particularly bizarre conclusion. None of your sources say it is an acronym for the "...and the Levant" version of the name, they're using it as an alternative name. Apart from the fact that they don't actually say it is an acronym, how do we know that? Because a wording beginning with an L doesn't figure as an S in an acronym of course. I can't believe I'm having to write this. On the other hand, however, the Washington Post article currently cited aginst that line in the article says "The Washington Post has been referring to the organization as ISIS, shorthand for the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria". So that it is a source which explicitly states it. Your sources are allegedly make your Alice-in-Wonderland point in an implied way. This one makes the opposite point explicitly. Sheesh. DeCausa (talk) 12:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

You're the one that's nonsensical. Acronyms need not align with the long form. The fact remains that "ISIS" is often attached to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. It is not owned by Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. It is proper to all long forms, even Islamic State. RGloucester — ☎ 15:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

"Acronyms need not align with the long form." Now that's nonsense. Rothorpe (talk) 16:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

RGloucester I believe your suggestion somewhere above of having a seperate section on names is a good idea and is reflected within our guidelines. We should keep one name in the lead and document the other names in a separate section. Also Islamic State of Iraq and Syria are not the sole proprietors of ISIS. The acronym also represents Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant as taken from its Arabic alternative of Islam State of Iraq and al-Sham. However I should say that ISIL is still commonly used within the sources. Mbcap (talk) 17:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Official name

• This is only discussing one of the alternative titles, not the article title (i.e. not the name of the article). Discussions of the article title should not be done in this section. Widefox; talk 01:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
• The official name is Islamic State. That should be listed as such in the lede as a valid alternative title (irrespective of the current title per WP:COMMONNAME). It is against policy to hide per WP:CENSOR or disagree with that fact per WP:NPOV. The argument that the name is invalid as it is self-chosen is folly. Organisations chose their own name (generally). Attempts to delegitimise the name by that argument seem to be conflating the factual organisation name with the controvercial territorial claim (which of course the name asserts). That valid argument is best utilised in discussing the legitimacy backing the name as a self-proclaimed caliphate and unrecognised country, which is important, and should be detailed per WP:BALANCE and WP:WEIGHT but not used in delegitimising the latest of a string of names this group call themselves this minute.
• User:Legacypac and User:Ljgua124 re this undo , if we can not conflate the legitimacy of the name and the legitimacy of the territorial claim there may be a way forward. Widefox; talk 10:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Official name according to who? Groups do not get to pick their own name without restriction. I can't form "The United States" or "The Catholic Church" and expect anyone to call my group that. If I want to form a legal group in Canada/Iraq or Syria I need to register the name with the government. They are not a legally registered anything. They are not any kin of country either according to all reliable sources. The world community generally rejects the territorial claims (claim of up to the entire world), religious claim (all muslims must follow) and political claims (all governments are void) and the name that demands all this. What is in it for you to push terrorist propaganda at Misplaced Pages that goes against the condemnation of many world leaders, muslim leaders, and the standard name DAESH used in the region? Your proposed name has been rejected here repeatedly, so why push again unless you are trying to push the terrorist agenda? Legacypac (talk) 10:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Legal registration means nothing when it comes to militant groups. The group has called itself 'Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant', and that was considered legitimate, but removing that describer somehow makes it less legitimate? And we are talking here about the legitimacy of the name, not the territorial claim. The two are independent of each other - just because the name the group identifies itself with changes, it does not mean their integrity changes too. The name is self-styled but there's no reason to pursue a practice of undermining a name change. Mind you, the name is recognised.. I see "IS" and "Islamic State" being used daily on television, to undermine a globally acknowledged change of name seems a pointless exercise. This is a global encyclopedia and I believe it should reflect that in at least being passive and impartial towards whatever this group decides to call itself. It is our job to record history, not try and influence it.Ljgua124 (talk) 10:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:NPOV forms a basis for a major argument here. The group has unilaterally made an unfortunate contraction to their name in the claim of being the Islamic State, as caliphate, to purportedly all of Islam and the world. This is a group that burns purportedly Sunni Muslim prisoners of war, that will behead aid workers and a Japanese man that only came to plead for the liberty and release of another prisoner and that has bombs aimed at it inclusive of the, I think justified, writing "enemies of Islam". We can indicate the groups claims here but we can't indicate such far reaching claims in Misplaced Pages's voice. Other organisations may fail in regard to their standards of NPOV. This is no reason for Misplaced Pages to do likewise. Isis, Isil and Daesh remain in common currency. They are all reflective of a name chosen by the group and, in a form such as Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, provision is made for natural disambiguation.

The use of Misplaced Pages designation is not, I think, done to delegitimise the group. Legitimacy and legality is a matter to be worked out within the context of neighbouring nations and in the wider international sphere. Even under the ISI and ISIL names they were not regarded as a state. The difference now is the contested claim of being the Islamic state in regard to people who don't agree. GregKaye 11:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict with above)

Can we hold off on the name changes at least until we finish being reviewed for A-class article status (or a month, whichever is shortest)? We just had failed move request to Islamic State, so the name is not about to change to Islamic State, however much I believe policy says we should. We are getting nowhere, and we could instead by working on improving the article or other projects. I disagree with Greg's argument, but for some reason in our many past discussions we have been unable to get anywhere

Also, I'd be interested to see if anyone would be interested in Requesting mediation over this and one or two other issues, such as quotes from the Quran? Banak (talk) 11:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

We don't need mediation - we need to follow our NPOV policy and the sources which we have generally found do NOT use only "Islamic State" but instead qualify it or use ISIS or ISIL or so called or "group" etc. The name has been stable on Misplaced Pages since at least Aug 2013 and does not need to change. Legacypac (talk) 17:33, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment User:Banak Legacypac in case this is in any way not clear....this is not about changing the article name. That is a separate issue per WP:COMMONNAME. This is not about COMMONNAME.
• Legacypac if you're actually serious that you think a bunch of people can't call themselves whatever they want (compare with for example an unincorporated organisation), then who do they ask? Your point about using one that doesn't infringe on the rights of holders of other names is a separate issue (which is dealt with by e.g. for registered companies by entities like Companies House (in the UK), and legal restrictions/enforcement such as trademarks, passing off etc bounded by trading areas and sectors). That's all irrelevant, but we'd need to know about Iraqi law to say about that properly. You seriously think they care about Iraqi law, and trademarks anyhow? Tell me, what's the process then for applying for a terrorist organisation name?!
• User:GregKaye I don't understand your NPOV argument. That is what they call themselves. It is their name. A fact. Backed by WP:RS. To want to withhold that is WP:CENSOR. For instance, their multitude of names is reflected in, for example, the BBC which uses variants "IS" "Islamic State" "so-called Islamic State". The point is that's their name (currently). Let's not conflate that with the issue of their recognition as a state, which is another issue. Widefox; talk 19:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

@Widefox: Thanks for the point about it not being a name change, I missed that somehow. Sorry for accidentally misrepresenting what you were doing,

Misplaced Pages policy does seem to suggest, for it's purposes that an individual cannot unilaterally change their name (see WP:SPNC). The example it gives (Cat_Stevens) has the name they changed to as the leading name, even though the name hasn't changed, so I agree that a title name doesn't have to match the leading name. Banak (talk) 20:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• Widefox Let's do what it takes to present a NPOV presentation of the group. I don't understand where you are coming from with your WP:CENSOR argument which makes no sense. The wording "Islamic State" is still in and has always been in the name "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant". Its just that the second wording, which provides natural disambiguation, makes geographic reference to the main locations in which they are based. In regard to the title's descriptive qualities it is argued here that "Islamic State" falls utterly flat, way short of the most basic standard of WP:AT. Misplaced Pages is also not a WP:SOAPBOX for 'SIL's extremist religious claim of being the state for all of Islam. Have you read any of the many news articles relating to the many names that are used for the group? GregKaye 20:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Banak It is an organisation name, not a living person. WP:AT WP:BLP do not apply here as we're not discussing the Article Title, or a BLP. It is even OK to even use a self-published source per WP:ABOUTSELF (although we have WP:RS exceeding that)... "the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim". Also OK.

Greg we're not talking about the article title, so disambiguation is irrelevant. This is only about an alternative title (the ones included in bold in the lede). The fact that the characters "Islamic State" are in "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" is irrelevant. They are both proper nouns, names of the organisation (at various times). (Similar org names happen all the time, we don't call KFC "Kentucky Fried Chicken" for the same reason.) They changed their name. (just to spell this out again, I'm not proposing changing the article title). WP doesn't care what you or I think of the group or their name, it is up to us to present their name and not WP:CENSOR it, or present their name with some caveat.

My point is that the name should simply be included as their current name. We should cover how it is a controvercial name per NPOV/WP:BALANCE/WP:WEIGHT. The current wording actually does that, but I want it underlined here with WP:CONSENSUS, that's all. Ref 27 is not a ref, but a collection (see WP:SYN). They need citing individually. Widefox; talk 19:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

@Widefox: I am aware it doesn't apply, I was trying to point out that as according to wikipedia policy individuals cannot unilaterally change their name, and there is therefore no reason to believe organisations can without seeing a policy that says they can, and therefore it probably follows from common usage, which believe IS has. I was also using the example from that page to point out, that even if a name change is rejected that the title doesn't have to match the starting name, which to me seemed odd.

@GregKaye: The only way I see this could violate WP:SOAPBOX is if you believed it counts as "Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment", to refer to IS as such. I consider it no such thing. Calling the "Democratic Republic of the Congo" by this name doesn't imply it is democratic and the only democratic republic in the Congo. Similarly calling "Islamic State" such doesn't imply it is Islamic, a State, or the one and only Islamic State. Banak (talk) 19:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Banak, of course it works as soapbox as just one of the objections. The group claims authority in governance over all of Islam. They call themselves Islamic State. Why do you thing Arabic nations call them Daesh? GregKaye 00:26, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• Banak To clarify, when people and orgs change their name (of course they are free to), that is reflected in the WP article as an alternative title, even if self-sourced (per guidelines above).
• WP:SPNC is about changing the article title (the name above the article). The article title lags that change due to being based on the most used common name in sources. WP:NCCORP is the naming convention similarly for companies, WP:NCPP for political groups, WP:NCGAL for government and legislation (WP:PLACE for the geographical claim). This is all off topic as this isn't about the name of the article.
  • WP:NCPP does say "and place the original native name or names on the first line of the article" so there's an expectation that the names are in the first line (unless there's many like here). Interestingly, WP:NCGAL says to "Use official names". WP:POVNAME is also worth a read.
• Anyhow, this isn't about the article title.
• This is Misplaced Pages:Article_titles#Treatment_of_alternative_names "If there are at least three alternative names, or there is something notable about the names themselves, a separate name section is recommended (see Lead section)."
  • Importantly "All significant alternative titles, names, or forms of names that apply to a specific article should be made to redirect to that article." So we should have a redirect from Islamic State which we currently don't have (due to an old consensus in discussion of that redirect)

(see also Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (geographic_names)#Alternative names has details of 2 or 3 alternative names in bold in the first line (more in a paragraph), and "Local official names are often listed first". )

Greg conflating the issues of name and the claim doesn't help. Widefox; talk 00:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Widefox, I agree that conflating of issues should not be encouraged but this is exactly what I regard to have already happened at the time that this theologically questionable group pronounced themselves as "Islamic State". I don't think that it is right to side with the group and against all the Arab nations all around. GregKaye 01:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out here that I have never heard it being called Daesh either on television, newspapers etc. It seem to me that 'Islamic State' or some variant thereof is the English name in its most common usage. Many people and many organisations don't recognise many other entities around the world, but those names are never conflated with their claim. Ljgua124 (talk) 09:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Ljgua124 I don't know if you have noticed this. In many news interviews I have seen with a wide range of expert and other interviewees, the reporting team may, as you say, refer to the "Islamic State" or "IS" but the interviewee will often make reference to ISIL or ISIS. From what I have seen this happens on the vast majority of such cases. I have not known, when the interviewer starts by speaking of ISIL, that the interviewee will then talk of "Islamic State" or "IS". GregKaye 14:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Widefox that Islamic State is "what they call themselves. It is their name. A fact. Backed by WP:RS. To want to withhold that is WP:CENSOR. For instance, their multitude of names is reflected in, for example, the BBC which uses variants "IS" "Islamic State" "so-called Islamic State"." The point is the current official name is "Islamic State". XavierItzm (talk) 15:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• Entity cannot have an official name, as it is not "official" anything. RGloucester — ☎ 16:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
• On the subject of "official"/self-designated names and what us using them means: there is a terrorist group calling itself the Real Irish Republican Army, and there was once another calling itself the Official Irish Republican Army. Despite the only organisation that could legitimately call itself by either of those names being the actual Irish armed forces, we still refer to the terrorist groups by their chosen names. I don't see why the same shouldn't apply here - within the article, at least initially, refer to IS as IS (or whatever they are calling themselves today), regardless of whether or not they are really "Islamic" or really a "state". Calling them by their name doesn't mean we recognise their claims (any more than having an article on Emperor Norton does). Iapetus (talk) 14:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Poor examples. Also, nope. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 16:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Can you expand on those points? Iapetus (talk) 11:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, these are pretty good examples. The standard is to let people call themselves what they will, and it is seen as an infringement on their rights to call them other than that. This is why you have a Misplaced Pages entry for the Real Irish Republican Army. In the case of the Islamic State, that's their name. That's why media as diverse as The Guardian and the BBC have created sections on the Islamic State, and named them as such: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/islamic-state/, ISLAMIC STATE CONFLICT (BBC). XavierItzm (talk) 14:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

RGloucester yes, agree. I use "official" here only as shorthand for "self-designated name" (just like we have {{official}}). Both terms are either side of neutrality/illegitimacy. "the name of the organisation". Widefox; talk 15:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

This article is not called "Islamic State" for a variety of reasons, including disambiguation, neutrality, and lack of commonality. Such a renaming has been rejected enough times. That's that. RGloucester — ☎ 17:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

RGloucester, More accurately we have reached no consensus on the last three attempts to do so, rather than the proposal being rejected. Banak (talk) 19:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

RGloucester, this thread is not a proposal to rename the article, from the original post: "This is only discussing one of the alternative titles, not the article title (i.e. not the name of the article)" Gazkthul (talk) 21:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

So Private Manning self-identifies as "Chelsea" and Misplaced Pages has to use that name, but several thousand people self-identify as the "Islamic State" and the article hasn't been renamed yet? Gee, that's consistent. 208.163.245.159 (talk) 04:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• 208.163.245.159 If Private Manning had called herself something like "Pope of the Catholic church" then it is possible that Misplaced Pages might not use such a title without some form of disambiguation. GregKaye 18:19, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The argument (well, this particular argument) isn't about what the article is called. I personally have no objection to keeping the article at "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant", or to using "ISIL" in the body of the article whenever they are referred to. As far as I can tell this particular argument is about whether the lede should begin with some variant of "Islamic State (الدولة الإسلامية), formerly (and still commonly referred to in English sources as) Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and also known as X/Y/Z", or if - as at present - it should begin "The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, also known as X/Y/Z and Islamic State". While I'm not too bothered about it, I would support giving its "real" (self-chosen) name first, simply because that is (currently) its "real" name. (I don't care about allegedly "infringing their rights", just clearly and accurately reporting what they call themselves). Conversely I don't think the accuracy of their name in describing what they really are is relevant, any more than it is for all the different Real/Official/etc IRAs, and I don't think the lede should get bogged down in describing how other people don't like it calling itself that. Another article would could perhaps use as a guide is North Korea, which begins "North Korea, officially the Democratic People's Republic of Korea", which gives the common name immediately followed by the official (but completely untruthful) full name. Applied to IS, that would probably correspond to something like "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), officially Islamic State". Iapetus (talk) 14:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree it should read along the lines of "The Islamic State, otherwise known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant...". Mbcap (talk) 15:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Unreferenced additions in Designation as terrorist organisation

Here Koerdistan added Syria and Iraq to the table of nations ascribing Designation as terrorist organisation to 'SIL. Can this please be corroborated or removed? GregKaye 14:25, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I removed Iraq as it had no sources. XavierItzm (talk) 21:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I am still a bit woolly on what constitutes designation which I would argue best has official primary source confirmation. I had not realised that the Syrian reference came from a government news agency here. References are made to a "statement". It would be helpful if this statement were found. Perhaps there are links that an Arabic reading editor can follow. GregKaye 19:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Anthem

Just curious as to what you all think. The Arabic word "Ummatī" doesn't exactly translate to "my nation"; it technically means "my Ummah", as in the collective body made up of all Muslims. Not in any sense like the current concept of a nation-state. Even if we're trying to use idiom here, it's not remotely accurate. Should we change the translation to reflect what it actually means? Quinto Simmaco (talk) 06:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Ummah when used without the definite article al- as in this case, is the Arabic word for "nation". See ummah. The current translation of "my nation" for ummati seems accurate. Khestwol (talk) 09:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC

However, there is no reliable source to confirm if ummati, qad laha fajrun is really the "national anthem". It is poorly sourced. Khestwol (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Renaming of many subsidiary articles

Several Da'esh subsidiary articles have been proposed to be renamed, see Talk:List_of_Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant_members#Requested_move_4_March_2015 and Talk:Killing_of_captives_by_the_Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#Requested_move_4_March_2015 -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 05:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

This is an interesting subject. If the four subsidiary changes are allowed, these will most likely be used later as pretexts to come back to the parent article and change the name its current name of "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant". XavierItzm (talk) 15:33, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

An additional similar move request is occurring at Talk:The Beatles (terrorist cell) -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 04:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

also known as (in the lead)

So, if the text reads "also known as", why doesn't it also say "also known as Islamic State", which is the name by which the organisation refers to itself, and which is also widely cited by the RS? XavierItzm (talk) 15:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Arabic media at least mostly refer to it is Da'ish or the long full name (from the English translation of which "ISIL" derives). "Islamic State" is a controversial name and commonly found in media (along with ISIS and ISIL) but not academic sources. See the long discussions which took place before as to why using IS as the primary name for the group has been opposed here. Khestwol (talk) 16:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I was not aware that RS now have to be "academic" in order to be included on the Misplaced Pages. Used to be Reliable Sources just had to be Reliable Sources, even if not academic. XavierItzm (talk) 19:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Khestwol: You say "See the long discussions which took place before as to why using IS as the primary name for the group has been opposed here." Never anywhere did I see Xavier suggest changing the primary name to Islamic State. It just looks like a suggestion to include it as one of the possible names. Dustin (talk) 21:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure why the lead does not read "also known as". Islamic State is the common name so it should read in the suggested way. Mbcap (talk) 21:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• In fact, per WP:Alternative name, I believe that only "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" should be in the lead. A separate section should be created to explain the various names, their origins and their differences. This is what our AT guidance suggests, and it is the most intelligent thing to do. Cluttering up the lead is contrary to both policy and sense. RGloucester — ☎ 22:01, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Try reading the article. Section 1.1. 82.20.70.218 (talk) 15:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:Alternative name actually reads "at least three alternative names". The lead has only two alternative names. I quote: "also known as Islamic State of Iraq and Syria or Islamic State of Iraq and ash-Sham". Therefore, the current guidance per WP:Alternative name is to add the third "also known as Islamic State".
Need a RS? Here is a BBC report from yesterday, referring exclusively to the "Islamic State" and to "IS" and absolutely nothing else.
Once upon a time, used to be the Misplaced Pages took the BBC as a RS. XavierItzm (talk) 14:56, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah, yes. Well, y'see... the BBC used to be a reliable source. But ever since England morphed into a metaphorical Titantic, the BBC has lost some of its old clout. Blame the youths.

Plus, they are making themselves look like a bunch of jerks by referring to them by that name anyway. So even more minus points for them for that. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 15:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Can you actually verify that the BBC is no longer a reliable source? Dustin (talk) 15:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The BBC is frequently being accused of being non-neutral, typically by both sides of any debate against the other, e.g. left wing by right wing and vice-versa, pro Israel and pro Palestine. The use of the common-name Islamic State does not undermine the BBC's credibility at all. Notably, it refused to side with the British during the Falklands war. Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, BBC is neutral. Banak (talk) 15:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The BBC has used "Islamic State" for ages. They don't have to disambiguate articles, though, so it's a different story. As far as alternative names, we have AT LEAST THREE. We have "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant", Islamic State of Iraq and Syria", Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham", "Islamic State", and "ISIS". We could of course also include "Islamic State of Iraq" and other formers names as "alternative names". Therefore all names that are not "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" must be removed from the lead per our policies. Get to it. RGloucester — ☎ 15:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The policy you refer to is, of course, an imaginary policy in which the implication you read into WP:Alternative name (that once you get above 3 alternates only 1 name is permitted in the lead) is express. DeCausa (talk) 16:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

It is "recommended", and there is no reason not to follow the recommendations of our policies and guidelines. I'm sure you've seen many cases in your life where something has been "recommended", but was actually required. You might also look at MOS:LEADALT. RGloucester — ☎ 16:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Alternatively, if there are more than two alternative names, these names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section; it is recommended that this be done if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves. Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line. As an exception, a local official name different from a widely accepted English name should be retained in the lead.

In this case, we have too many names, and we also have naming issues that are notable in their own right. There has been much written about the choice of name used to refer to these people. Misplaced Pages has chosen "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant", and that's the name we should use in the lead. We should have a naming section that details all alternative names, explains them, and the controversy. RGloucester — ☎ 16:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah, so "get to it" because it's in policy is wrong is it?. It's in a guideline. And even then not a statement in a guideline, but a recommendation in a guideline. So, your indignant command to "get to it" because there is no possible alternative was nonsense. DeCausa (talk) 16:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:AT, where WP:Alternative title is found, is a policy, and tells us to follow the recommendations of MOS:LEADALT. Get to it. RGloucester — ☎ 18:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Fiction. You're disappearing up your own rabbithole yet again. DeCausa (talk) 18:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

New EU Syria sanctions reveal regime collusion with Isis

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/324b07f6-c42a-11e4-9019-00144feab7de.html
--YeOldeGentleman (talk) 21:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Much appreciated.

Thanks for somehow keeping this at this title all of this time. I applaud those who have fought to keep this here, rather than move it to "Islamic State". This group should have absolutely no influence on what "Islamic state" means. They are not the "Islamic State". They are just ISIL, a terrorist group. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 04:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that the stance we have taken is The trend generally representative of use in entirety. A trend I have seen is that when some "reliable sources" may use "Islamic State", when they interview people from a wide range of backgrounds, these people tend to use ISIL or ISIS. However, I would define them as centring more as a militia in prominence over definition as a "terrorist group". GregKaye 14:10, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

True enough. They have been around since the turn of the century, yes? Were they originally called ISI back then? Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 14:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Simplest way to find out is to read the article. Section 1.1. 82.20.70.218 (talk) 19:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Boko Haram

Hey guys,

It appears that Boko Haram may have pledged its allegiance to ISIS this morning. If the reports are true, could someone make the necessary modifications to the page to add what needs to be added?

-TheBoulderite — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.134.128.84 (talk) 13:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, here seems to be some seemingly reliable material in the Independent. GregKaye 14:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Yep, the BBC headline is "Nigeria's Boko Haram pledges allegiance to Islamic State". XavierItzm (talk) 14:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

XavierItzm thank-you for sharing the POV. For the sake of balance the Independent headline was "Boko Haram pledges allegiance to Isis in video message". GregKaye 12:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

For the sake of balance, the Al Jazeera headline was "Boko Haram pledges allegiance to ISIL, reports say". RGloucester — ☎ 13:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

For sake of balance, I quote all three cited articles at the first in-text reference:
BBC: "Nigerian militant group Boko Haram has pledged allegiance to Islamic State (IS)"
The Independent: "Boko Haram, the militant Nigerian group, has announced it is allying with the Islamic State (Isis)"
Al Ajazeera: "Nigeria's armed group Boko Haram has pledged allegiance to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)"
Looks as if the sole common denominator in all three sources is the words "Islamic State". XavierItzm (talk) 15:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

XavierItzm which is also true of the article title. Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. What point are you trying to push? In a great many instances qualification is given to references to the "so called" Islamic State. We do the same. This thread is about Boko Haram. GregKaye 16:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi there! It seems ISIS have accepted Boko Haram into the Caliphate... so... VelvetCommuter (talk) 21:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

State/ organisation - can we reword the language?

Something strikes the ear and mind as very odd to say that "The Islamic **State** of Iraq and the Levant is an Islamic extremist rebel **group** controlling territory in Iraq and Syria". It sounds odd to say the "The .... state .... is a .. group ...." Can we not say: "The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant is the **name** used by the Islamic extremist rebel group controlling territory in Iraq and Syria? Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 16:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant is not the name used by the group, Islamic State is. Gazkthul (talk) 21:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I just hate getting replies from people who don't address the question. If you don't understand the issue, don't bother replying. You can help by NOT confusing the issue. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 08:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia You raise an interesting point but I fear that it is one that is out of our hands. "Group", in these cases and as far as I have seen, it the most regularly used reference to a similar form of large collection of people. The problem is that, since they first called themselves "Islamic State of Iraq" their name has been at odds with realities as perceived both in academia and internationally. Their more recent usage of "Islamic State" noted by Gazkthul only exacerbates or otherwise highlights the conflict and I would agree that the situation is rightly described as "very odd". "Rebel" is a common description of "collectives" that operate within the acknowledged borders of nation states and group is the word used in article content such as the linked List of active rebel groups#Groups that control territory. Rebel, in itself, is merely a form of description which is perhaps best known from its context in Star Wars. Searches tend to suggest that ISIL is most commonly regarded as a group.

• (isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND group gets "About 13,900,000 results" in news

(isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND group gets "About 397,000 results" in books

(isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND group gets "About 344,000 results" in scholar

• (isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND (organisation OR organization) gets "About 10,900,000 results" in news

(isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND (organisation OR organization) gets "About 244,000 results" in books

(isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND (organisation OR organization) gets "About 133,000 results" in scholar

There is not a huge amount of difference but I also don't see how calling them something such as a "rebel organisation" would clarify anything. GregKaye 13:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Greg. Yes, it is a tricky one. As for "rebel" reminds me of the Angolan civil war, with UNITA being referred to as "rebels" or "freedom fighters", depending on whether you liked or disliked them. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 14:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Use of label --> "Extremist"_"Extremist"-2015-03-08T19:57:00.000Z">

A recent removal of the label Extremist was reverted by the editor Khestwol. The reasoning behind the removal was that according to WP:LABEL, contentious labels should be used with in-text attribution. Since this was not the case, it was removed. I will remove the label again and ask that, should it go back into the article; it should be attributed appropriately. Mbcap (talk) 19:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)_"Extremist""> _"Extremist"">

Done. Source: the BBC: "Islamic State (IS) is a radical Islamist group that has seized large swathes of territory" XavierItzm (talk) 21:20, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Islam as such is already extremist. So every strict group of followers is by definition extremist. ♆ CUSH ♆ 22:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The difference is that every Islamic group does not barbarically slaughter innocent men, women and children because they disagree with their personal outlook on life and the world. You know who does do that though? ISIL. The Muslim conquests of the Middle East are long over. ISIL is massacring areas and committing global terrorist acts. Not only is that "extremist", it's also sick and inhumane.

As such, the label "extremist" makes perfect sense. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 23:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The revert was per the research found at #Propose dropping "rebel" from lead, which lead to a consensus for that version of the lede I reverted to. Far more reliable sources describe ISIL as "extremist" than as other labels such as "Islamist" (which is relatively rare) or even "rebel". Which was the reason for the consensus that at least the label "extremist" and "rebel" must be a description in the lede. Khestwol (talk) 01:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

And I would still prefer the same wording in the lede again ("Islamic extremist rebel group") which is supported more by reliable sources. Khestwol (talk) 01:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Mbcap Yes or no? Were you aware of the two recent discussions on the use of descriptions for the group as that showed a great comparative prevalence for the use of the description "extremist"?

Here are most relevant results again:

Results in news were that:

• (isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND ("extremist" OR "extremism") gets "About 6,790,000 results" results in News

(isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND ("extremist" OR "extremism") gets "About 8,780 results" results in Books

(isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND ("extremist" OR "extremism") gets "About 15,600 results" results in Scholar

• (isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND rebel gets "About 3,880,000 results" in News

(isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND rebel gets "About 11,800 results" results in Books

(isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND rebel gets "About 14,900 results" results in Scholar

• (isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND ("Islamist" OR "Islamism") gets "About 611,000 results" results in News

(isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND ("Islamist" OR "Islamism") gets "About 17,500 results" results in Books

(isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND ("Islamist" OR "Islamism") gets "About 17,900 results" results in Scholar

This seems to me to present an accurate reflection on the group. How is it not extremist? Admittedly Islam is often regarded as being a potentially violent religion but Muslims that I have known have oft given me the greeting As-salamu alaykum. This is a group that cuts the heads off aid workers. The description as extremist is well sourced and accurate. No one describes it as "mainstream". What is there that is "contentious" in describing the group in this way?

As far as I see it calling them "Islamic extremist" or "Islamic anything" is a concession. There is a view that rejects all these references as demonstrated in searches such as (isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND refusal AND ("radical Islam" OR "Islamic extremist"). However it seems to me that "radical Islam" and certainly "radical Islamism" are the less supported and more controversial terminologies. GregKaye 11:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)_"Extremist""> _"Extremist"">

Hello, you have just deleted an in-line textual reference from a WK:RS and you have replaced it with an unsourced link to https://en.wikipedia.org/Islamic_extremism. Is this WP:OR? Is the BBC not considered a RS anymore? Here is the BBC reference you eliminated: Islamic State (IS) is a radical Islamist group that has seized large swathes of territory. Please advise the reasons for deleting a RS and replacing it with an unattributed link. XavierItzm (talk) 16:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The BBC is not a reliable source nowadays. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 16:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I am also in agreement with GregKaye, "radical Islam" and "radical Islamism" are more controversial and seem by far less supported in reliable sources , which is why we cannot use them right in the lede. The current labeling of the group in the lede is fine. Khestwol (talk) 16:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• XavierItzm If you want a reference, take your pick:

As mentioned (isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND ("extremist" OR "extremism") gets "About 6,790,000 results" results in News

GregKaye 18:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Greg I think there may have been a misunderstanding. There is no issue with using the words of "extremist" or "radical" as long as they are widely used by reliable sources. My point was that we cannot use those words without providing in-text attribution per WP:LABEL as these are contentious labels. Therefore we should either; leave the labels as they stand in the article but with in-text attribution or alternatively these labels should be removed. To answer your question about why the labels are contentious; the word is given as an example in the aforementioned guideline. I completely understand what you are saying about the acts of this group but I would say that we are here simply to document what is said in reliable sources. Our remit does not extend to issues of morality. Would you not agree that if we were to document all the information on this group, it would paint an accurate picture of the group regardless. However if we were part of the UN or a human rights organisation or a governmental body then it would make sense for us to take a stance on the group. You are also correct about Muslims, I too have had Muslims greet me in the way you have described. When people make reference to Islam as being a violent religion, they forget that no entity is monolithic. Mbcap (talk) 22:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Mbcap I honestly think that extremist is quite simply the most appropriate defining point in regard to the group. Report after report on the group demonstrates it to be extreme and I think that this is the most appropriate primary description that can be applied to the group. We have an lead to present that starts ~IS.. is a ... What do we say and how? What do you want us to say?

In the article's current state the text basically says "ISIL is an Islamic extremist group" and then the text goes on to describe a group that cuts people's heads off and bulldozes the most ancient of world cities. Find it difficult to imagine a more conclusive in text attribution than this. A key strategy for writing is to start with a summary and then to flesh this out in content. This is exactly what the article does. Who is it that thinks that it is controversial to describe ISIL as being an extreme group? I am at a loss to see the controversy here. GregKaye 01:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Guys, this is not a forum for your feelings. I had a RS with inline attribution, to wit, and it got deleted with an unattributed link to a Misplaced Pages page. How is this acceptable?
Here's what got deleted: Islamic State (IS) is a radical Islamist group that has seized large swathes of territory. XavierItzm (talk) 14:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

XavierItzm there is a difference between in-text attribution and providing citation. Greg It may well be appropriate to define the group as an extremist. We usually avoid such words but if it is widely used by reliable sources, such as in this case, then we can use it. The caveat is that we provide in-text attribution. This is the guidance within WP:LABEL. The actions of this group do consist of cutting off people's heads and demolishing archaeological specimens but those events do not constitute as in-text attribution to the qualifier "extremist". Something along the lines of, "most people think" or "most sources say" or whatever else is appropriate. Regarding the word "extremist" it is WP:LABEL which calls it a contentious label. Mbcap (talk) 17:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)_"Extremist""> _"Extremist"">

Mbcap I really don't think that describing the group as extreme in the current situation is the same as calling a group something like a cult, racist or terrorist. I suspect that if a survey was conducted on the question "If someone described the group ISIL as extreme, would you regard this to be controversial?" that it may be unlikely that there would be many positive replies. We can read a presented definition at wikt:controversy to show a meaning: "A debate, discussion of opposing opinions; strife". Who is debating whether ISIL is extremist? I don't know of a group presented as more extreme. GregKaye 20:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

GregKaye On a personal basis it would be no problem to describe the group in such a manner and we are all certain here, I am sure, that they would be described as such by the vast majority of people. However, when it comes to using the label on this article, our guidance states that we should provide in-text attribution if the label "extremist" is used widely by reliable sources. Moreover, the reasoning given above does constitute an Argumentum ad populum. Mbcap (talk) 21:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Alright, "Islamic State has been characterised by the BBC as radical Islamist". Really guys, I find it striking that for 48 hours there has been a preference for having an unattributed, unsourced, WP:OR link to "extremist" over an actual WP:RS from the BBC. XavierItzm (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

That'd be unacceptable, as it would not be giving WP:DUE weight to the characterisation as "extremist". It is not the "BBC" who characterises the group that way, it is pretty much every RS across the world. Read WP:LABEL: "use these in articles only when they are in wide use externally (e.g. Watergate), with in-text attribution if in doubt". There is no doubt, here. No in-text attribution is required, and doing what Xavier suggested would be giving much less weight to the characterisation as "extremist" than is warranted per RS. RGloucester — ☎ 22:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

In that case you would have us change/ignore WP:Terrorist? I mean if there's an article to change it over, this is it. Banak (talk) 23:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't want us to "ignore" WP:TERRORIST, which is the same thing as WP:LABEL. I just cited it to support my position. It says "Use these in articles only when they are in wide use externally (e.g. Watergate), with in-text attribution if in doubt". There is no doubt. The preponderance of RS refer to the group as "extremist", and using in-text attribution would be a form of weasel wording that would result in an incorrect dose of WP:WEIGHT. "Terrorist" is a different case, as the word has no meaning other than through emotion. "Extremist", however, is an accurate description of the ideology of this group. RGloucester — ☎ 23:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the above quote is in relation to the use of the prefix "pseudo" and the suffix "gate". What WP:LABEL actually says about value laden terms is;

"Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution."

There is no mention of "if in doubt". Mbcap (talk) 00:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)_"Extremist""> _"Extremist"">

Mbcap I really think that WP:WIKILAWYERING, item 2 comes into play here.

• Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles

The underlying principles of policy are found in its WP:PILLARS the first of which reminds us that Misplaced Pages is an encyclopaedia. The most common form of reference that is made to this group is to say that they are extreme and no argument that I have seen either here or anywhere else says that they are not. We are not advocating any kind of WP:FRINGE viewpoint here. We are presenting a major defining characteristic of the group. GregKaye 18:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Greg I understand your point regarding wikilawyering but I would disagree. I would not call to such strict adherence to policy and guideline if we were covering the flora of British Columbia. But I do believe, on a controversial topic such as this we should keep strict adherence. The word extremist is emotionally loaded and does not relay any real meaning. There is no precise definition of the word and within political sciences, there is lack of consensus regarding its true meaning. The use of the word also impedes from developing a deeply dispassionate account of this groups actions on this article. But these are my opinions and I understand if editors think I am wikilawyers. Moreover, it seems that consensus is much against my take on the use of the word so I shall no longer be calling for its removal for the time being. Mbcap (talk) 20:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Mbcap I think that we are faced with difficult and conflicting situations when we deal with intense topics such as ISIL. They are an emotive subject and they are well described, as has been done consistently elsewhere, with emotive words. I really do not want us to potentially fall down a hole of political correctness (my interpretation) in this situation. There are other situations in which genuinely emotive words are used such as in the many Misplaced Pages categories on rapists, paedophiles etc. The, I think, fair description "extremist" is comparatively mild and also based clear comparisons to the wider group.

The word extremist has meaning:

Merriam-Webster define extremism as: 1 the quality or state of being extreme; 2 advocacy of extreme measures or views : radicalism.

In both cases comparisons are inferred to a wider group. ISIL are extreme in comparisons with other people of Mohammedan based religious views and they advocate forms of practice that are regarded to be extreme.

That being said the second dictionary, Oxford, I looked into referenced extremist as being "chiefly derogatory". To me I think that this may be derogatory to someone or something that was not extreme but, none-the-less, this may potentially back a WP:LABEL contention. The definition provided is: "A person who holds extreme political or religious views, especially one who advocates illegal, violent, or other extreme action:" Included here there is the inference "especially one who advocates illegal, .. action" and, obviously illegality is a matter of perspective. ISIL are accused of war crimes and killings of the likes of David Cawthorne Haines. While the Oxford definition does not necessitate illegality it seems to be a common component.

I personally do not think that the commonly used extremist definition of ISIL is unjustified but further editor thought and insight would be welcome. GregKaye 22:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The entry currently states that the Islamic State is an "Extremist Salafist group" and has two sources for his statement which are a horrible case of WP:SYNTH. The Guardian source clearly defines the Islamic State as Salafist, and the adjective extremist or similar does not even show on the source. The Wall St Journal source, on the other hand, makes casual references to "extremists" without ever bringing up "Salafists." It seems quite remiss to allow this blatant WP:SYNTH while at the same time rejecting the BBC's quite deliberate citation: Islamic State (IS) is a radical Islamist group that has seized large swathes of territory. XavierItzm (talk) 06:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

XavierItzm, I will appreciate if you also keep an eye on the RS which explicitly oppose the labeling "Islamist radicals" that you are advocating by singling out a single ref. This opposition to the labeling in RS have made the labelling by itself controversial to use. Then compare these RS to other RS which oppose the label "extremist" for ISIL. (I am yet to see a single example of the latter which is why it seems more neutral.) Khestwol (talk) 08:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Peer review and Core Contest

I wanted to let everyone here know that I requested a peer review of this article and got a bit of feedback. I've also added this article to the Core Contest, and aim to make improvements this month. Eventually, I'd like to get this article to A-class and FA. Tonystewart14 (talk) 08:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Not likely. The article would need to be stable, and this article won't be stable until events stop happening. RGloucester — ☎ 13:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Your efforts however are greatly appreciated. For instance I have heard many comments on things like the standard of English. I also think that the ".. diverse opinions" banner at the top of the page is well placed. GregKaye 14:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for your input. It might be a while before it's stable, but cleaning it up now will help make the job of A and FA a lot easier down the road. I also did in fact put the British English banner at the top of this talk page and changed several words in the article to be consistent with WP:ARTCON. Tonystewart14 (talk) 07:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Simon Elliot Re-Direct

I was searching Misplaced Pages to see if there is a page for the historical person Simon Elliot, Esq. of Newton, Mass, and when I type in Simon Elliot or click on the suggested page that's auto completed, I leads me the page for ISIS... I Googled his name and it looks like there is some conspiracy mongering about the leader of ISIS actually being a Jewish agent of that name or some such bologna. Does this re-direct make sense? I can see that there is a mention of it in the article, but it almost seems as if it is granting credence to the conspiracy by pointing to the larger page without any context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ADGB1750 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry forgot to sign! Still trying to remember all the procedures. ADGB1750 (talk) 17:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

50.252.249.155 (talk) 21:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC) no good evidence of that conspiracy meme. Lots of evidence of Israeli support for Al Qaeda/Al Nusra, however

http://www.richardsilverstein.com/2015/03/03/shin-bet-partially-lifts-gag-order-regarding-secretly-arrested-golani-druze/

There is some likelihood Israel is also supporting ISIS, or some suggestion, along with the US.

It is curious that neither the US nor Israel merit a section under 'support' but Assad, who has been fighting foreign Salafist mercenaries armed by the Saudis, Turks, US and no doubt others, manages to get accused to aiding the people sent in to topple him and fracture Syria - that's cute, isn't it?

There have been a number of accidental {or 'accidental'} air drops by the US, the IDF has bombed Syria proper in a way that begs the question - why would you weaken a man who kept the peace and aid crazy Salafist jihadis {most of them not Syrian} on your doorstep? Must be that chaos itself isn't so bad for Israel or the MIC {?}

50.252.249.155 (talk) 21:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)mpk40

Has ISIL done any good?

A two part edit presented here (and which was deleted by another editor as "satire") complained that the article "fails to mention anything positive about them".

The comment was "Did you know that since IS came to power, there has been a 127% boost in niqab manufacturing and sales? Millions of people have jobs thanks to IS. Not to mention the contracts to replenish the munitions used in the conflicts. Tens of thousands of people are benefiting from IS, but it's completely ignored by you people."

Personally I think that if people can only make and spend an amount of money that is limited to the amount that they are able and want to spend so I see no humanitarian benefit there. I am also unsure how situations that contribute to the investing in weapons of destruction will have any general benefit in world standards of living.

However I'd still like to pose the question - has ISIL done any good?

They destroyed Nimrud and Mosul, as well as beheaded scores upon scores of individuals. There is nothing that they could possibly do that could be construed as "good". Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

It's kind of like asking if Hitler and the Third Reich did any good. I suppose Hitler could be praised for building good highways and for his anti-smoking campaign, but it seems absurd to do so. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The article mentions that Welfare services are provided, price controls established, and taxes imposed on the wealthy. ISIL runs a soft power programme in the areas under its control in Iraq and Syria, which includes social services, religious lectures and da'wah—proselytising—to local populations. It also performs public services such as repairing roads and maintaining the electricity supply . I'm sure some people in Eastern Syria consider this to be good, or at least better than Bashar Assad or the Free Syrian Army. Of course only Sunni Muslims who acquiesce to their rule benefit from this side of them. Gazkthul (talk) 00:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

While I think that a comparison between the larger Nazi Germany and ISIL is, if anything, insulting to the Nazis it can also be noted that the article on Nazi Germany has a small section on environmentalism. I think that if the group have done anything particularly notable then this information can rightly be presented in the article. I don't know if comparisons with the Free Syria Army are very fair and I suspect that it may be WP:CRYSTALballing to project the amount of groundwork that the FSA would be doing if it controlled the continuous extent of cities inclusive territories as is controlled by ISIL or how much ISIL would be doing if they where in the FSA's situation. I suspect that a clue to one difference between the philosophies of the two groups is found in the "free" of the FSAs title. While I think it fair to give clear representation to the criticism/condemnation ranged against this group I also think that a balanced picture of its activities must also be fairly presented. GregKaye 08:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I believe the question of this group doing anything good is irrelevant. We should just document the information on them and let the reader make their own mind up. Mbcap (talk) 17:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Mbcap I certainly agree. However after seeing the deleted talk page comment I thought it worth asking the question to find out if there might be relevant content that was being overlooked. I am glad that content of what ISIL is doing is in the article. It wouldn't be right for the article to be a polemic. GregKaye 20:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Greg Thank you for bringing up the deleted comment for discussion. I am certainly for that and if we can find a citation for that information, we could possibly write about it. Did the user leave any sources for his comment? Mbcap (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh it seems Gazkhtul has provided a citation from the Atlantic. I will look into it when time permits. Mbcap (talk) 20:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Mbcap I have more often than not been against censorship in Misplaced Pages in the form of deletions and collapsings of content etc. especially in cases where no reference/description is given to the content that has been deleted or collapsed. However I agree that the particular content presented certainly bordered on satire in the way that it might be read by a wider audience. Following an interpretation of a religion to the extent of enforcing half of a population to wear a full black niqab in places like Syria and Iraq is unlikely to be considered to be a "positive" thing in many people's interpretation. Sure modesty can be considered to be a form of bodily censorship but many may view that some behavioural issues can be taken too far. There is no getting it. When a group threatens that if people do not dress to a prescriptive norm that they will face "severe punishment" then other people will consider actions such as these to be extreme. GregKaye 18:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Map of influence of ISIS and terrorist groups associated with ISIS

I've seen some maps that outline on a worldwide scale the territory of influence of ISIS and with that I don't mean only the Middle East but also other parts of Asia, Europe (mostly Western Europe), Africa etc. I think such map should be included. Rbaleksandar (talk) 12:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

If you mean maps like this, then no we shouldn't. Let's be clear, I'd be incredibly surprised if they controlled any territory in Europe. They are involved to some degree in Yemen, but I'm not convinced they hold much if any territory by themselves. They control some territory in Libya, and I believe that is actually controlled by them. They allegedly also operate in Lebanon and Afghanistan, but I've not seen any maps that show this, nor do I know how much of a presence they actually have there. Banak (talk) 18:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

There is already a pretty good map that shows it's claimed 'Provinces' and actual territorial control . It does need to be updated with Khorasan (Afghanistan/Pakistan) though. Gazkthul (talk) 02:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant occupation of Derna

FYI, the naming, scope and topic of this possible subsidiary of Da'esh is under discussion, see Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant occupation of Derna -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Add Boko Harem to supporters

The alliance between two of the most radical groups is a very key element of the situation that needs to have its own section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:B162:46D9:7422:C9F0:49AC:BE47 (talk) 07:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Done, but I don't think it needs its own section. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 07:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

RfC: What content should be used in the "Ideologies" section of the ISIL infobox?

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: History and geography Politics, government, and law Religion and philosophy Society, sports, and culture When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Content that has, at various times, previously been included in "Ideologies" section of the infobox include:

• Sunni Islam/Sunni Islamism, Anti-Shiaism, Extremist Islamism, Fascism, Salafism, Salafist Jihadism, Takfirism, Wahhabism

(and these entries represent all the content that I have found when trawling through the article's revision history).

Results (which just mean that sets of wording happen to be found in some way on the same pages) relating to this content are as follows:

• (isil or isis or daesh or "islamic state") AND "Fascism" got "About 1,180,000 results"
• (isil or isis or daesh or "islamic state") AND "Wahhabism" got "About 153,000 results"
• (isil or isis or daesh or "islamic state") AND "Sunni Islam" got "About 27,200 results"
• (isil or isis or daesh or "islamic state") AND "Salafism" got "About 13,900 results"
• (isil or isis or daesh or "islamic state") AND "Takfirism" got "About 11,500 results"
• (isil or isis or daesh or "islamic state") AND "Salafist jihadism" got "About 1,430 results"
• (isil or isis or daesh or "islamic state") AND "Sunni Islamism" got "About 270 results"
• (isil or isis or daesh or "islamic state") AND "Anti-Shiaism" got "About 192 results"
• (isil or isis or daesh or "islamic state") AND "Extremist Islamism" got "About 198 results"

At most recent edit the ideologies were edited to/down to:

• Salafist jihadism
• Salafism

Editor comment would be welcome on this but I suggest that a content might be:

• Sunni Islam
• Salafism/Wahhabism
• Takfirism

I also provisionally think that the selectivity of "facism" has a great relevance, so also:

• Facism

I think that justification for inclusion of "Salafism" may be weak. I don't think that there is justification for inclusion of "Salafist Jihadism" which is a neologism and which, in any case, seems to me to be synonymous with "Salafism" and "Wahhabism". Despite the fact that one of the clear drives within the group has been to engage with proponent of Shia Islam, I don't think that a reference to Anti-Shiaism is supported. However, given the context of its religious cleansing and persecution of people who do not share the groups Sunni based philosophies, I think that a reference to "Sunni Islam" is warranted.

I thought to raise the subject here to hopefully protect the content from wp:tendentious editing. If it is possible to establish the relevance of the ideologies here I don't see that there would be relevance of including source references to the content in the article. The validity of one of the ideological references is not increased because an editor has found that a particular source has made that reference to the group.

Here are notifications to/of contributory editors

• @Nulla Taciti: removed ] and ] in Revision as of 20:30, 16 January 2015
• @Imfeelyoung: changed ] ]<br />] → ] ]<br />]<br/>] in Revision as of 10:09, 23 January 2015
• @Ritsaiph: removed ] ] in Revision as of 01:36, 11 February 2015
• @Mbcap: added ]<ref name="NS">... in Revision as of 19:11, 15 February 2015
• @Fraytel: added ] <ref>... in Revision as of 19:30, 21 February 2015
• @KahnJohn27: removed ]<ref>...<br />...] <ref>.. in Revision as of 12:21, 22 February 2015
• @Vietcong nuturlizer: changed ] → ] in Revision as of 22:28, 22 February 2015
• @Mbcap: changed ] → ] in Revision as of 22:53, 22 February 2015

GregKaye 12:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

GregKaye's research shows that fascism is the most well-supported ideology as per reliable sources, from among the proposed terminologies. The second-most supported terminology is Wahhabism, and we may mention both, they have not been rejected by any reliable source I know of. We may also add to it: extremism (as per GregKaye's earlier research found here). Some other terminologies, especially controversial neologisms like "Islamism", have been shown to have explicitly rejected in reliable sources. Including the controversial neologisms in the infobox would be making this article biased and non-neutral. So in conclusion: I think only "fascism" and "Wahhabism" should both be mentioned in the ideology section of the infobox, and possibly "extremism" as well. Khestwol (talk) 14:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Khestwol "Extremism" is not in itself an ideology. I do not necessarily see that their motivation is to be extreme. I think that they have particular and specific motivations which come first and these these run to levels and along routes that commentators widely interpret to be extreme. GregKaye 17:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Please read the article for Takfiri: this theological term has become a sectarian

insult when used by more extremist Shia factions like Hezbollah, or questionable news sources like Press TV (a Tehran propaganda outlet). Misplaced Pages policies prohibit the use of such terms. Also Wahhabi should not be used as this is also used pejoratively. As for fascism? That is just inaccurate—fascism is a secular ideology, ISIS are Islamic extremists. Also using this latter term evokes the cringeworthy Islamofascism label. Nulla Taciti (talk) 16:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Nulla Taciti, The article on the topic Takfiri begins, "A takfiri (Arabic: تكفيري‎ takfīrī) is a Muslim who accuses another Muslim (or an adherent of another Abrahamic faith) of apostasy." As far as I can see, this is exactly what the group has done time and time and time again. Its habitual. Besides this it is a term that has been widely used in relation to the group and this warrants comment. Given the prevalence of this use I was surprised to see that previous reference to Takfiri within the text has been removed and this strikes me as a sign of tendentious editing.

A useful source on fascism may be the article on definitions of fascism. A major theme seems to be a tendency towards dictatorship and that a "fascist regime" is foremost an authoritarian form of government". I agree that this form of behaviour may well be regarded as cringeworthy but, if the description is apt and well cited, then it should be included. Italy is a predominantly religious country and, in the time of WWII and to arguably his shame, the Pope supported its fascism. I do not see that fascism is an exclusively secular term. GregKaye 17:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

We don't even need to use "Takfiri" if we can use the more inclusive and the more supported term "Wahhabism". Khestwol (talk) 17:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

GregKaye you aren't addressing the key part of what I was saying: Takfiri is a sectarian hate word. It absolutely can't be used in this context. If you can find a source where ISIS specifically refer to themselves as Wahhabi, that is fine, although I doubt you'll be able to find such a source for "fascism". Personally I think the ideology section is fine as it is. Nulla Taciti (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

See the Zelin & Smyth article "The vocabulary of sectarianism" (can be easily found on Google). Nulla Taciti (talk) 19:19, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Nulla Taciti I think that you are confusing accurate description with self designation. The question as to whether the group likes or uses the description is irrelevant. The only question is accuracy. We are here to build an accurate encyclopaedia. We do not toe party lines. Takfiri is an accurate description that is widely used. When ISIL persecutes and kills Sunnis that don't follow their view of things, Shias and more or less everyone else I think that it is perfectly possible that they will receive hate from some quarters. This, however, is irrelevant. Just because people may or may not have emotion is of no relevance to the use of accurate description. BTW if any of the other groups involved are indicated to be Takfiri then these issues should also be fairly addressed. We cannot show bias or partiality here. GregKaye 19:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Takfiri isn't even an "ideology". Takfiri is a very specific Islamic theological term that has been used as a sectarian slur. It isn't accurate or appropriate for the ideology section, and that has nothing to do with whether ISIS "likes" the designation/description. Nulla Taciti (talk) 20:01, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

The ideology section is accurate the way it is in reference to Salafism. Salafi Jihadism I am not sure about. Jihadism has always been part of Salafism and Salafism has always been part of Sunni Islam. The google searches have to be taken with a pinch of Salt because the results do not only include reliable sources. Salafi Jihadism and Salafism both has been attributed to this group by the latest report to have come from the Brookings institute. Facism is not a label used in referring to this group by reliable sources. Wahabism is used but its use is not as prevalent as that of Salafism. Mbcap (talk) 20:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Mbcap top of the list of the search on fascism (which by far outstrips all related searches in terms of the number of its results) is an article from the Huffington Post. GregKaye 09:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Greg I will answer below. Mbcap (talk) 15:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Salafi Jihadism is more accurate than just Salafism, as the later refers to millions of people around the world, including those that explicitly reject political violence (see Madkhalism). Salafist Jihadism is an academic term used specifically for those that have come out of the Salafi tradition that do accept political violence, such as Al Qaeda etc. As Nulla Taciti has stated, Takfiri is a pejorative and occasionaly sectartian word (and one that IS has explicitly rejected) and is inappropriate to use in an encyclopaedia. Wahhabism is essentially a "politically incorrect" term for Salafism and one that is considered pejorative by Salafis around the world. While the group has certain fascist attributes, I would be uncomfortable with us explicitly saying it has a fascist ideology, as they probably don't fall within the formal definition of the word. Gazkthul (talk) 22:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I oppose the use of "fascism". Authoritarianism would be less inaccurate from my POV, but I doubt will be added. I have no opinion beyond that on the rest of the suggested labels atm. Banak (talk) 23:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Oppose "fascism." The Islamic State's ideology, which is of a religious nature, is not on the same universe, let alone the same plane, as fascism, which is a devil's brew of dirigisme, national syndicalism, with elements of left-wing politics, and is in opposition to liberalism, Marxism, and traditional conservatism. It's all clearly explained in the Misplaced Pages entry for "Fascism" in case anyone is curious.
With regard to the Islamic State, why don't we just settle for the BBC's description, which reads, and I quote: "Islamic State (IS) is a radical Islamist group that has seized large swathes of territory" XavierItzm (talk) 03:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

"Fascism" provides very accurate representation of this and several Islamic extremist groups but I think it is fair to me say that I think that the term Islamofascism is as, to me, as questionable as Islamic terrorism. Islam as a whole is not generally characterised as either fascist or terrorist. And, in the second case I would prefer "Islamist terrorism" as more accurate. However, in specific instances, a clear principle of accurate and truthful representation is well demonstrated in the phrase

See Huffington post ISIS and Clerical Fascism and the American Muslim Is it Accurate to Call ISIS Fascist? GregKaye 09:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Is there a serious proposal to use a blog entry at the Huffington Post and a propaganda website as if these were WP:RS? These can only be condoned if there is substantial peer review agreement, and in any event, wouldn't the BBC's definition that "Islamic State (IS) is a radical Islamist group that has seized large swathes of territory" have primacy over such weak sauce "sources"? XavierItzm (talk) 12:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Gazkthul hit the nail on the head; Wahhabism is essentially a "politically incorrect" term for Salafism, and it is often used by Shia groups to disparagingly refer to all Sunnis. So obviously Wahhabism, fascism, and certainly not the non existent ideology of takfiri(sm) are appropriate. All these terms are essentially used in a derogatory manner, and 2/3 carry unpleasant sectarian connotations. Nulla Taciti (talk) 15:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

XavierItzm I agree with you that "Islamist" is a better term for this group. As for radical; I am not sure. The ideology of this group is through and through Salafi. They have been called both Salafist and Jihadi Salafist by the majority of reliable sources. These two would be accurate names for the groups ideology. What has to be understood is that the Ideology of a given Muslim is depended on the Aqeeda or creed which they follow. Islamic State follows the Aqa'id of the Salaf which is known as Athar. This can be seen in their literature where they quote the Salaf and the scholars who followed them after, on endless occasions. A good analysis of the groups Ideology is contained within this document, written by Cole Bunzel from Princeton University. As for Fascism, Google news searches are not a good way to ascertain the popularity of a give word within reliable sources as the search is unable to sift out unreliable sources including blogs. As for Wahhabism, it is a derogatory term for someone who is a Salafi. All Wahhabi's follows the Athari Aqeeda so they too are Salafi's. Mbcap (talk) 15:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

First thing to point out is that I get the impression that to use Salafist terms would be to use minority terminology as per searches in books:

• Wahhabism gets "About 28,600 results"
• Salafism gets "About 6,550 results"

Here are some other results in books

• "About 985 results" from "fascist" AND (isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND (-nazi AND -hitler AND -Mussolini) AND (iraq OR syria OR baghdadi OR mosul)

• "About 918 results" from "Wahhabi" AND (isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND (iraq OR syria OR baghdadi OR mosul)

• "About 890 results" from "Sunni Islam" AND (isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND (iraq OR syria OR baghdadi OR mosul)

• "About 787 results" from "Salafi" AND (isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND (iraq OR syria OR baghdadi OR mosul)

• "About 740 results" from "Radical Islamist" AND (isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND (iraq OR syria OR baghdadi OR mosul)

• "About 584 results" from "Radical Islam" AND (isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND (-nazi AND -hitler AND -Mussolini) AND (iraq OR syria OR baghdadi OR mosul)

• "About 516 results" from "Sunni Islamist" AND (isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND (iraq OR syria OR baghdadi OR mosul)
• "About 465 results" from "Takfiri" AND (isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND (iraq OR syria OR baghdadi OR mosul)

Mbcap per your suggestion:

• "About 33 results" from "Jihadi Salafist" AND (isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND (iraq OR syria OR baghdadi OR mosul)

again this is a minority term.

The problem with the use of the term Islamist without qualification is that it if is a gross misrepressentation of reality. The group is primarily at war with other people of Mohammedan based faiths, Shias, Sufis and other Sunnis as well. To say that they are working to advance the cause of political Islam without giving any indication of an interpretation of Islam that was being promoted would be flagrantly dishonest.

We have to present honest and representational content. I opened the thread #Has ISIL done any good? really just opening things up to see if we might be suppressing positives about the group. On the same token I think it is valid to ask about a fair and representational view about their ideology. PLEASE keep in mind that Misplaced Pages is not here to WP:CENSOR content. We have to present the big picture. GregKaye 17:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC) results edited added to, GregKaye 20:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Greg I appreciate that we do not censor information and I would not wish that anyway. I would also agree that we have to present the big picture. I will make the following points:

• I have no idea how google books returned so many results because as far as I am aware, there are only one or two books which have been published on this group so it is not possible to get so many results. This is one of the reasons why we should not rely too often on Google searches. Even within the results served, one word can be in one paragraph and the other in the second whilst the issues discussed may be different.
• Islamist is a label that has been used by reliable sources so I do not see why we cannot use it. Yes they do fight other groups which include Muslims and Non-Muslims. They regard anyone who does not rule according to the Qur'an to be unbelievers so they fight them for that reason. We have to keep an eye on the bigger picture here too. This group was acting in this fashion since its inception. When Zarqawi was running things, they were behaving in a similar manner; killing Shia's and destroying shrines and their mosques. Bind Laden at the time thought this was bad PR so they engaged in extensive discourse to make Zarqawi change course. What was interesting though was that, at no point did Bin Laden or Zawahiri say that they were going against their version of Islam but that it was simply bad PR at the wrong time. This has been discussed extensively by Scheuer in his books Imperial Hubris, and America and Islam after Iraq. I understand this is original research but I wish to explain my position. Even discounting this, they are referred to as islamists by a wide array of reliable sources.
• In all my reading of the different ideologies of Islam which include; Athari, Ash'ari, Maturidi, Mu'tazilla, Murjia, Khawarij, Ithna Ash'ari, Alawi and Esmaili, I would say that their ideology falls squarely into Athari which is the creed of the Salafi school. This has been attested to by reliable sources including the Guardian and the Brookings institute. The latter labels them two folds; Salafists and Jihadi Salafists. In their report in the appendix, their ideology is detailed point by point.
• In terms of positives for the group; we can certainly document such things if reliable sources are presented.

Mbcap (talk) 19:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Mbcap The only reason that I have presented the search data is that, after looking at the history of the editing of the ideologies content, I regarded that editors did not necessarily have much genuine interest in the actual definitions of the terms and their applicability. There has certainly been utter disregard to the preponderance of the usage of the terms. Let's get this straight. Sunni Islam is by far the largest faction amongst Mohammedan faiths and the extremists that are known as Wahhabists or Salafists are a significant group amongst them. Regardless of this Wahhabi terminologies are the ones that are most predominantly used. They also add direct and accurate description and, by rights, it would be easy to recommend Wahhabism to be the one reference made, or at least to present Wahhabism first. My suggestion of presenting "Salafism/Wahhabism" gives more than enough ground and, if anything, goes too far in regard to compromise.

I honestly do not think that you have taken it on board that this group kills people who have an equal regard for themselves as being Islamic. How can we make unqualified reference to them as being an Islamist group? They kill muslims/"muslims". Where is the NPOV in calling them Islamist? Where? What kind of Islamism are they following? Where is the perspective here? The Jordanians write enemies of Islam on their bombs and you want Misplaced Pages to declare, in its own voice, that they are fighting for Islam. This is utterly ridiculous. We cannot push POV. You may perhaps decide that they are being faithful to Islam but we cannot push original research or individual opinion here. Sources may, on occasion, make passing reference to them as being Islamist. What we are doing in the ideologies section is, by nature, presenting something definitive.

Despite the fact that the group recently burnt alive a Jordanian, Sunni Muslim prisoner of war, I think that a reasonable base for a definition would be "Sunni Islamism". The context remains that many do not regard them as being representative of the Sunnis and certainly that they are not representative of Islam. None the less, one of the defining issues of the group is that they are sectarian .. very sectarian and i think that it is reasonable that something along these lines be clear in our presentation.

The descriptions of Fascism, Takfirism remain very apt. GregKaye 21:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Is this an encyclopaedia or a Google popularity contest fuelled by WP:OR? Please bring WP:RS that are substantive to the case, or use what we already have, i.e., the BBC having defined the Islamic State as "radical Islamist." XavierItzm (talk) 21:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Al-Nusra Front

The Lead says,

Under the leadership of al-Baghdadi, ISI sent delegates into Syria in August 2011 after the Syrian Civil War had begun in March 2011. This offshoot named itself Jabhat an-Nuṣrah li-Ahli ash-Shām or al-Nusra Front and established a large presence in Sunni-majority areas of Syria within the governorates of Ar-Raqqah, Idlib, Deir ez-Zor and Aleppo. Having thus expanded into Syria, al-Baghdadi announced the merger of his ISI with his Syrian-based offshoot-group al-Nusra Front in April 2013, and changed the name of the reunited group to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).

So what was al-Nusra Front set up from and exactly when? From the ISI in 2011, or from a merger with the ISI in 2013? In other words, the paragraph needs rewriting. ~ 82.20.70.218 (talk) 17:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Editrequest:Protection icon

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add the protection icon template to the page to indicate protection level -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Done NiciVampireHeart 11:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Done 09:29, February 9, 2015 Seicer (talk | contribs) changed protection level of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant‎ ‎ (expires 10:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC))‎ (indefinite) (Lengthening to original timeframe for edit pp) (hist) is the top item in http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special%3ALog&type=protect&user=&page=Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&hide_patrol_log=1&hide_review_log=1&hide_thanks_log=1 so I've fixed the expiry. — {{U|Technical 13}} 11:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Editrequest: hatnote

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add {{redirect|Daish|people by this name|Daish (surname)}}

-- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

65.94.43.89 I have added the content within the existing hatnote as:

I don't personally think that it is appropriate for the top of the page to get overly crowded. GregKaye 09:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Already done GregKaye (talk · contribs)'s edit should be sufficient. NiciVampireHeart 11:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

1. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/03/isil-accepts-boko-haram-pledge-allegiance-150312201038730.html

Incorrect closure of previous discussion concerning map

I was just made aware that a previous discussion concerning the map was closed by a heavily involved editor: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant/Archive_26#RfC:_File:Syria_and_Iraq_2014-onward_War_map.png_not_used_to_highlight_Israel

The discussion was closed by heavily involved user:Legacypac. He closed it as "Consensus is that map legend should exclude reference to Israel, Disputed or Occupied and the Golan Heights should be light gray like all surrounding areas are." Anyone who reads the discussion can clearly see that his claims are inaccurate. There is no such consensus. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

There are at least 2 more major issues with this RFC, I'm going to need a minute to write them up, but this is actually seriously concerning. I believe I majorly screwed up here, in addition to any mistake that user made. You may wish to ping them. Banak (talk) 23:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

@Legacypac: I believe we have both screwed up to say the least, though I have not heard your side of the story.

Here are my concerns:

My Behaviour:

• I commented under two different names on the same account without making it clear I had changed names.
• I was counted as "Banak" and "John smith the gamer" (the username I had changed to), so appear to have been counted twice. Whilst my comments under the name "John smith the gamer" were intended to only clarify and not offer any opinions at all, it was counted as support. In effect, I have may have accidentally sock/meatpuppeted therefore (Though not technically falling under either definition, I'm not trying to wikilawyer myself out of my own screw up). This was not an intentional abuse of the name change feature.
• I updated later versions of the map in accordance with this "consensus" after Spesh531 removed the stripes without checking the consensus actually existed, for 19 versions of the ISIL map, the most recent of which was a couple hours ago.

Behaviour of Legacypac:

• As an involved user they closed the discussion
• They treated a RFC as a vote
• They decided 7 to 5 was consensus
• They included my "John smith the Gamer" comments as a vote for the proposal, which I believe to be neutral clarifications.
• This user was not new at the time this happened, so this conduct seems very odd, and I cannot think of an explanation for. That said, I am not assuming bad faith, particularly as I have not seen this user act in bad faith before.

Banak (talk) 23:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• Peer review requests not opened
• Requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Iraq articles
• High-importance Iraq articles
• WikiProject Iraq articles
• B-Class military history articles
• B-Class Middle Eastern military history articles
• Middle Eastern military history task force articles
• B-Class Syria articles
• High-importance Syria articles
• WikiProject Syria articles
• B-Class Arab world articles
• Mid-importance Arab world articles
• WikiProject Arab world articles
• Unassessed Crime-related articles
• Unknown-importance Crime-related articles
• Unassessed Terrorism articles
• High-importance Terrorism articles
• Terrorism task force articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• Misplaced Pages articles that use British English
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment