Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:13, 8 October 2014

Template:Pbneutral

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: 7 days

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 not 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 Mid‑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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-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 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating 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 Mid-importance).

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: 7 days

Error: Target page was not specified with to.

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:Findnotice

New name

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No clear consensus on a new article title has emerged during this conversion and two RMs have been proposed since this discussion was started. Some of the suggestions indicate that at lease some of those taking part in this discussion have not read the relevant Article Title policy as they are proposing and supporting names not supported by the Article Title policy -- PBS (talk) 19:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello there. Before changing the title is now out of fashion, I think we should discuss the new title to offer demand renaming. When we have reached a consensus, the application will be made. --Panam2014 (talk) 09:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

I propose Islamic State (organization) since it is still an organization. Moreover, one can also create an article for the caliphate but that's another discussion does not address at this time, to complete this discussion. Regards. --Panam2014 (talk) 09:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I would not agree with the concept that the Islamic State is an "organization", as it is such only to the extent of any other unrecognized state. The Islamic State is, in fact, an unrecognized political entity. I would suggest "Islamic State (entity)", or something along those lines. Perhaps even Islamic State (state); a perfectly legitimate phrasing. -- Director (talk) 11:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I have been thinking about this calmly for a while, and I saw the use of the Islamic State group which, in my informed opinion, is the correct name to use. Feel free to discuss. Worldedixor (talk) 13:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I support either "Islamic State (Caliphate)" or the "The Islamic State (Caliphate)". It is definitely not an "Organisation". The Islamic State is a Paramilitary / Terrorist group winch has declared a State in the form of a Caliphate. IJA (talk) 14:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Correct, it's a self-declared sovereign caliphate which is a form of "state", just as Islamic state states in the first sentence: "An Islamic state is a type of government". Could also say Islamic State (government) which would be more generic and clear for those who don't know what a Caliphate is. The definition of Caliphate is self-referential saying it is an Islamic state. -- GreenC 15:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

We shouldn't use "government", "organization", or "group". This is a self-proclaimed, unrecognized state. -- Director (talk) 16:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Is self-declared state an issue? There are dozens of micro-nations which are self-declared Empires, Duchys, Republics etc... not recognized by anyone. Or, is ISIS so evil that we have to go out of our way to make sure everyone knows Misplaced Pages doesn't support it while more benign self-declared states like Grand Duchy of Flandrensis are acceptable without disambiguation. -- GreenC 16:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the term group is appropriate because it is also an entity, you wouldn't refer to Azawad or the Donetsk People's Republic as a "group". IJA (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Director has a point but I agree with GreenC. There was an American that recently declared himself King of the Kingdom of North Sudan by placing a flag over Bir Tawil. Does that make his kingdom an unrecognized kingdom? Of course not. IS is no different. Worldedixor (talk) 16:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Another thought is rename Islamic state to Islamic state (government) would free up Islamic State for the actual state. -- GreenC 17:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose To rename to Islamic State. Hi. It is not a State but a very special state. Il am not agress with you. --Panam2014 (talk) 17:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
• Strongly Support If they changed their name then we shoud also refer to them the same. in addition, all media outlets are also already using the new name. --Midrashah (talk) 17:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • My support is in any form of change : "Islamic state"/"Islamic State (organization)" etc. --Midrashah (talk) 17:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello. This is not enough because when you have homonyms, they are called in the same way by sources and the type of government is called Islamic State. We can name this article The Islamic State. --Panam2014 (talk) 17:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• Another point: They are called The Islamic State so how about titling the article as such with the word The distinguishing it from other articles? --Midrashah (talk) 18:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Strongly Support It is a good solution because it is the unique subject called The Islamic State. Regards. --Panam2014 (talk) 18:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• Al Salam Alaikum. I don't think this is the right form to do it... But when someone does create the correct request, I will SUPPORT Midrashah and Panam2014 and add my support to The Islamic State as an article title and the Islamic State in the rest of the article. Worldedixor (talk) 18:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

While the ideas with "organization" are reasonable, I have a new suggestion that gives a bit more context: Islamic State insurgency.--Pharos (talk) 18:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• This is just a discussion not a vote. No one's counting and no one has proposed any particular solution just exploring ideas. -- GreenC 18:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• That's all good, and since this name change has been running in circles for a while, I just felt that I'd encourage a consensus, even though, I personally prefer the addition of group. However, in the best interest of Misplaced Pages, we can be flexible to we can reach logical consensus. Worldedixor (talk) 18:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

This one is going to be controversial and difficult to reach consensus. There are some passionate voters and this is a high-profile article. I'm prepared for a few weeks of RfCs and the like it won't be solved anytime soon. The first thing is some discussion on a good starting point and where the arguments are. When a formal proposal is put forward it should include things like Google counts to establish most common name, a summary of main arguments and proposals, relevant policy and guidelines, etc.. then it needs to be advertised and bring in as many people as possible and let it run for 3 weeks or more. If no consensus then we repeat and escalate. -- GreenC 19:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The majority of sources call it Islamic State, and that is what it's actually called, there's no debate on this fact. The problem remains the article Islamic state about the form of government is in the same name space. That can be renamed to Islamic state (government) or similar which is standard. Calling it The Islamic State kind of works but it's non-standard because the group doesn't use "The" and most sources don't use "The" (in capital proper-noun form). See earlier comment above about micro-nation names on Misplaced Pages, we don't discriminate against a state just because it's not formally recognized or happens to do evil deeds. -- GreenC 19:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

An RfC was closed today with no consensus, another RfC was started but closed because of the RfC closed today, and now we have this which is not an RfC. User:Panam2014 I don't understand why you did this, but please notify everyone who !voted in the RfC that was closed today. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 19:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

GreenC: When you say the "group", do you mean ISIS? If so, then a friendly correction: ISIS now call themselves "the Islamic State" with the "the". Still, I am not sure what works in an RFC, is it what ISIS call themselves? is it "facts" as you correctly pointed out? or is it consensus?... Based on my several years of experience on Misplaced Pages, I believe it is consensus, even when it repeatedly ends up in "running in circles" and "no consensus". Worldedixor (talk) 19:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi.It is not a RfC but a pre-RfC. We could name the article Islamic State (Iraq and Levant) or Islamic State (Iraq and Syria). Regards. --Panam2014 (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

A pre-RFC makes sense, and to help you avoid running in circles as before, I will state that I will oppose what you proposed just now. In my opinion, this would be redundant and wrong as ISIL already removed "Iraq and Levant" from their name, and "Iraq and Syria" was a bad translation, and a common mistake, from the start. Worldedixor (talk) 19:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Wait a sec.. the "s" is not capitalized in the title of the Islamic state article. If I'm not mistaken, Misplaced Pages can have two articles of the same title if they're capitalized differently? -- Director (talk) 20:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Good question, Director. Let me find out if this is even allowed or at least there is a precedent. \Worldedixor (talk) 20:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

yes, Director, it appears to be permitted. Worldedixor (talk) 20:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they can coexist when one is lowercase letters and the other majuscule letters. Sinon for me even if they have removed "Iraq and the Levant" from their name, they are still operating in Iraq and the Levant as before, so when you put in parenthesis, that does not mean it's their name, but rather that we should not confuse the Iraq and Syria group and historical Islamic state. --Panam2014 (talk) 20:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I disagree Panam2014. The now old references to "Iraq and the Levant" must be included in the article but it would be confusing in the encyclopedia. Worldedixor (talk) 21:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I said that the group still claims Iraq and Syria but changed its name. Parentheses must show areas "of the group operation. Otherwise, if you're for, I agree to Islamic State not to be confused with Islamic state. --Panam2014 (talk) 21:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

One thing to consider. ISIS is a more appealing sound in speech than ISIL or just IS as it is easily recognized and understood. In text, it also looks better than IS. So expect ISIS to be used for a long time. Worldedixor (talk) 22:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Well great. Then I support a move simply to "Islamic State" over redirect (provided its the most common in sources of course, as usual). {{Distinguish}} templates would of course be essential. -- Director (talk) 05:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I would support Islamic State. There are many articles where upper and lower case versions co-exist at the same time. -- GreenC 14:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Midrashah, Panam2014 and Worldedixor. The name of the article should be The Islamic State, as this is how the official Arabic name of the group translates into English, and it should be called the Islamic State in the article. Am I right, Worldedixor, that the Arabic language makes no distinction between "the" and "The"? (See my question here to a user on this page, .) --P123ct1 (talk) 19:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

It is more complicated than that but, to give as simple an answer as I can, no, there are no such things as capital letters in Arabic. Worldedixor (talk) 20:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I rather suspected it. That clears up a point that has bothered me for quite a while! --P123ct1 (talk) 20:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Can anyone request the move? or move it by himself? --Midrashah (talk) 15:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

For me, you could move. Regards. Midrashah. --Panam2014 (talk) 16:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't able to move. The page The Islamic State is already redirected here, and I don't know how to re-redirect the opposite way. I think we need the help of an admin. --Midrashah (talk) 19:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

For a move of this page, which seems very likely to be challenged, you should formally request a move and establish a consensus after a discussion of more than a few days. Three days ago this was "not an RfC but a pre-RfC", when did that change? Huon (talk) 20:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose "The Islamic State" in favor of "Islamic State". The definitive article is most inappropriate, and we can have a different article through capitalizing "State". -- Director (talk) 19:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Question: How is it in Arabic? Is it "The Islamic State" with "the" or without? caus in the opening of the article the translit show: الدولة الإسلامية‎ ad-Dawlah al-ʾIslāmiyyah. I don't speak arabic but I do know that "a-" and "al-" mean "the" in Arabic....? --Midrashah (talk) 22:25, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't really matter at all: the issue doesn't pertain in any way to naming policy.. There shouldn't be any definitive article there, its just unwarranted. -- Director (talk) 00:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Do we include a discussion of the American group currently being organized with female warriors to travel through Syria and Iraq and kill as many ISIL members as possible. The reason for the women warriors is to insure that the executed ISIL members will not receive any of the benefits of martyrdom such as 72 virgins, etc.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drbigd (talk • contribs) 04:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Unofficial vote:

Supporters of "The Islamic State"

• Support --Midrashah (talk) 19:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
• Strongly Support The name of the organization is (الدولة الإسلامية‎) ad-Dawlah l-ʾIslāmiyyah not (دولة الإسلامية) Dawlah l-ʾIslāmiyyah but the name of the Nusra Front is (جبهة النصرة) Jabhat an-Nuṣrah not ad-Jabhat an-Nuṣrah (الجبه النصرة). Regards. --Panam2014 (talk) 08:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
• Weak support More sources are starting to use Islamic State at this point. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 01:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Er, you just voted for "The Islamic State", not "Islamic State". I agree that sources are using "Islamic State". They are not using "The Islamic State" with a capitalised definite article. See the other section below. RGloucester — ☎ 01:52, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I just took a look at it agian, and you're right. The (Capital) and (non-capital) part confused me, so I just said "Weak support" right here. I'll change my vote. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 02:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support The Islamic State is a revolutionary front. Like The Red Guard. However The Weather Underground is titled Weather Underground in wikipedia.. --User:Mr. Booger

Supporters of "Islamic State" (Capital)

• Support. Why "The"?? -- Director (talk) 00:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Why "The"?? Do you speak Arabic? Do you think that calling Al-Qaeda just Qaeda is correct? Do you say "boy went to school" or "I want book"?... I explained the importance of the "the" in a previous discussion above. Feel free to refer to it. Worldedixor (talk) 05:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

In English, "the United States" or "the United Kingdom" is the correct way to write the names of those countries in a sentence, yet the articles are "United States" and "United Kingdom", that's because we don't use the definitive article unless explicitly mandated by WP:THE. Further: this is the English-language Misplaced Pages, and the correct spelling in Arabic has absolutely no bearing on the issue at hand. -- Director (talk) 08:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

But the article in Arabic wikipedia is: "الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام" - "The Islamic State in...", Whereas in English "United States" in English wikipedia is without "the". So if you look each to its original language you can tell how it is titled on wikipedia. --Midrashah (talk) 09:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

What other Wikipedias do isn't relevant here, we have our own policies and guidelines. And WP:COMMONNAME applies here - the most common name used in English language reliable sources. Dougweller (talk) 09:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Would editors please read the previous discussions on the Talk page about what this article should be called? The same points are being repeated over and over again. Dougweller has referred more than once to WP:COMMONNAME - that the name should be the one most commonly used in by reliable sources - there was a long discussion about this on another thread, please refer to it.. If we have to abide by WP:COMMONNAME, we should concentrate on finding out what that is. Another look at reliable sources and current usage is the only line of inquiry we should pursue now. --P123ct1 (talk) 13:42, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I assumed "Islamic State" was the COMMONNAME? -- Director (talk) 14:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it is, but others have disagreed. I will note that "Islamic State" is used in the media at times with no preceding "the" -- thus Reuters "It was the Syrian army's last foothold in an area otherwise controlled by Islamic State, which has seized large areas of Syria and Iraq." Dougweller (talk) 15:48, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Articles with Capital "The": The beatles, The Who, Al-Qaeda. I'm sure many articles in the newspapers refer to "(the) Beatles", for example. However, since The Beatles is its official name the article is named as such. --Midrashah (talk) 19:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

"The" is used in accordance with WP:THE. Those titles warrant "The", this one does not.. -- Director (talk) 00:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I was giving examples exaclly from WP:THE article. You haven't given any reason why in this case there is no justification for "The". Merely stating that isn't good enough... --Midrashah (talk) 11:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes those examples use "The" in accordance with requirements at WP:THE. How do you justify using "The" here? -- Director (talk) 21:12, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

It's the official name The Islamic State. The WP:THE states: "These conditions are sometimes met if the page name is:...*the official or commonly used name or nickname of a group, sports team or company (e.g., The Beatles, The Invincibles, The Hershey Company), or *another official or commonly used proper name (e.g., The Hague, The Crown). --Midrashah (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• Still needs disambiguation, but I support dropping the definite article. Nonsense about Arabic language trivialities isn't helpful here. This encyclopaedia is written in English, and it would be very unusual to have a capitalised "the" in this context. Most media sources use "Islamic State" without the definite article capitalised. "Al-Qaeda" is a fundamentally different matter, as that is not translated, but transliterated. As this name, unlike that one, is translated, it must adhere to English language conventions. RGloucester — ☎ 22:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The Beatles adhere to English language conventions... still many news papers refer to them as "(the) Beatles"...? --Midrashah (talk) 22:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

That's an exception (a proper name that relies on the "the" to convey meaning), and one that doesn't apply here. Unless you'd like us to retitle United States as The United States, of course. RGloucester — ☎ 22:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The Islamic State also relies on the "the" to convey meaning - It's their official name, so this is what they wanted to convey to people. However, Practically speaking to be specific as to what should be done with the title of the article, I think we all exhausted all arguments here, so I think those two options should be put to a real vote. I wouldn't know how to open a real vote process or the procedures, and the article clearly needs a new title. Can anybody help? --Midrashah (talk) 23:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The definite article with respect to the "Islamic State" doesn't convey any meaning whatsoever. It is only there as a function of the English language, which requires that nouns have articles. In reference to such a thing as "The Beetles", the "the" conveys meaning that "Beetles" does not. This meaning is simple, in that it implies a "a specific group of people called 'The Beetles', as opposed to beetles generally". With regard to the Islamic State, this is not the case. It already conveys the meaning that it is a specific group of people (state, organisation) through capitalisation of the word "state", which differentiates it from Islamic states generally. RGloucester — ☎ 23:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

It is not merely a function of English, since this is part of their official name. Capital "Islamic State" is the one who is merely a fuction of English, which technically differs it from lower-case "Islamic state", but does not reflect the broader meaning of 'The Islamic State a specific state that implemnts the idea of the general term (lower case) "Islamic state"...--Midrashah (talk) 17:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support "Islamic State" (Capital), and let all redirects point to the disambiguation page. Reason: "On 29 June 2014, ISIS was renamed the Islamic State (IS)." -- Brangifer (talk) 23:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support "Islamic State", and there are ways of disambiguating, as Dougweller has said before. I don't think there is any point in discussing what the media call other groups, it really is irrelevant, we should concentrate on what the media call this particular group now! I did a straw poll some time ago, and it is clear the media are now calling the group "the Islamic State" (sometimes along with "ISIS/ISIL" and never "The Islamic State" except at the beginning of sentences) or "Islamic State", as in Dougweller's example above. I think there was even a Guardian article that started the sentence with "Islamic State". So as long as it can be established that it complies with WP:COMMONNAME, i.e. current media usage, I vote for "Islamic State". This was what I found earlier this month (see discussion at ):

I googled the following to see what names they have been using in the past seven days or so —

The Times, The Telegraph, The Guardian, The Independent, The Economist, The Spectator, Financial Times, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, TIME, Al-Ahram (Egypt), Middle East Eye, BBC News, CNN, NBC, Aljazeera, Al Arabiya, Reuters, Associated Press and Agence France-Presse

— and with the exception of The New York Times and Al Arabiya, they are all now calling ISIS either "Islamic State" or "the Islamic State", with a few of them using the new name and "ISIS".

P123ct1 (talk) 15:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I remove my objection to (Capital) Islamic State. I still think that "The Islamic State"" is better but the article needs a new title and (Capital) 'Islamic State is better than nothing. --Midrashah (talk) 15:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

A lot of people use ISIS which apparently stands for Islamic State of Iraq and Syria in the English language, so that can also be argued to be the "common name". However, I am more neutral regarding this. Also keep in mind that this group changes their name quite a lot. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 03:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support move to Islamic State. This article is the primary meaning of Islamic State so disambiguation is unnecessary, the majority of news sources are using Islamic State, and Islamic State is the official name. Chessrat (talk) 15:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Supporters of "Islamic state" (non-capital)

I don't think anyone supports this variant, the section seems redundant. It wouldn't correspond to sources and the title is already taken by "Islamic state".. -- Director (talk) 00:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Not only that, but (a) "Islamic state" means any Islamic state and (b) the Arabic title is "the Islamic State". --P123ct1 (talk) 15:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Supporters of "Islamic State insurgency"

• Support as this both uses their common name and disambiguates the general Islamic state concept in a more meaningful and obvious way than just playing with capitalization.--Pharos (talk) 02:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

This article should be about the organisation (state), not the conflict or insurgency. Hence, I strongly oppose this proposal. RGloucester — ☎ 15:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose, per RGloucester. -- Director (talk) 19:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Others

Islamic State (IS)

• Another Idea: How about Islamic State (IS), both Capital and the acronyms of it. --93.173.188.66 (talk) 18:00, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Nice idea, but if you look at other articles for example, we don't really put the acronyms in the titles. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 08:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

AQI ("Al-Qaeda in Iraq") name changes

Quote:

"The Organization of Jihad's Base in the Country of the Two Rivers," more commonly known as "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" (AQI).

"Country of the Two Rivers" links to Mesopotamia. Media also translated that to "Al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia" which is not mentioned in this long section on names and name changes.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.221.67.50 (talk • contribs) 06:58, 24 August 2014

Map is misleading

Most of the big red splotch of Islamic State is empty desert controlled by no one. At most, ISIS/ISIL controls the cities/towns they occupy and the routes between the cities/towns. The area fully controlled by Islamic State (and the for that matter most formal governments in a desert region) would look more like a spider web. --Naaman Brown (talk) 09:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

"Note: map includes uninhabited areas" was added to partially address this. I don't believe it's technically feasible, or at least far more challenging, to create and update a map using the 'spiderweb' that Institute for Understanding War and others are using. Gazkthul (talk) 02:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

If you were to modify the map, you should add another color for "no man's land (desert)". To be fair, that territory does not count for either side in the conflict. JRSpriggs (talk) 03:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Which part is Syria and which part is Iraq? That is a basic question any reader would want answered looking at this map. Why is this considered so unimportant? The maps have never shown borders. Why? --P123ct1 (talk) 11:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The statement that the "map includes uninhabited areas" is facile; nearly any map of anywhere in the world above the city level includes uninhabited areas of some kind, depending on the reader's interpretation of "uninhabited". I had no idea what the note meant to communicate until I read this talk page discussion. I recommend either re-wording the note or removing it outright. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 07:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed that it's ambiguous and unhelpful. The easiest fix might be to include the locations of cities so the sparseness of al-Anbar province will be more obvious. I'd also suggest replacing "uninhabited" with "uninhabitable". 136.159.160.242 (talk) 16:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

"Uninhabitable" is not a bad idea, but I worry about quibbles about what that means. How about Note: shading includes large area of undefended desert. This includes several significant wording changes. I'm hoping "undefended" conveys the sense of "nodody gives a f***" what we're trying to find words for. It's not quite "unclaimed", but close. And by saying "shading" (not just "map") and "large areas", it's clear that the indicated sizes are misleading. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 18:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I would like to bring this discussion to your attention which deals with the same question. Kind regards. --RJFF (talk) 17:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

"Daash", "'Daʿesh" or "Daesh", coverage in Arabic media and reflected content in the article

I just did a search on ("داعش") OR (" الدولة الإسلامية‎"). That's "Daash" / "Daʿesh" / "Daesh" OR "Islamic State". "Daash" / "Daʿesh" / "Daesh" got a lot of coverage.

I am curious about the following extreme results:

• "Daash" / "Daʿesh" / "Daesh" as "داعش" gets "About 45,700,000 results"

(I am yet to find other meanings for "Daash" / "Daʿesh" / "Daesh": https://translate.google.com/#ar/en/%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%B9%D8%B4 )

• "Islamic State" as "الدولة الإسلامية‎" gets "About 9,830,000 results".

First I think we should decide on a prevalent use of one English representation of "داعش" and I propose "Daash"

• "Islamic State" AND Daash gets "About 1,210,000 results"
• "Islamic State" AND Daʿesh gets "About 62,800 results"
• "Islamic State" AND Daesh gets "About 219,000 results"

Second, I propose that "Daash", "Daʿesh" or "Daesh" should be given a far higher level of representation in the article.

Dāʿesh is currently mentioned twice; Daash does not appear; Daʿesh is mentioned once in the article and once in references; Daesh is mentioned once in the article and once in notes.

In this connection I also propose that the lead be changed perhaps as follows:

At the moment the lead reads: The Islamic State (IS); (Template:Lang-ar ad-Dawlah l-ʾIslāmiyyah), formerly the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL /ˈaɪsəl/; Arabic acronym: داعش Dāʿesh)...

I propose: The Islamic State (IS); (Template:Lang-ar ad-Dawlah l-ʾIslāmiyyah), previously self-described as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL); (Template:Lang-ar - Arabic acronym: داعش Dāʿish, DaashDaʿish)...

I do not think that "formerly" is sufficient. There is significant use of "Daash", "Daʿesh" or "Daesh" in Arabic sources while the United States and others make direct reference to the "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant".

Gregkaye ✍♪ 00:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I really don't see why Daash needs a far higher level of representation in the article. Outlining the term in the lead and repeating it with spelling variations in the 'Name and Name changes' subsection should be more than sufficient. Gazkthul (talk) 00:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I might have missed some previous discussion, but shouldn't we be deciding this based on the MOS's guidelines about Arabic transliteration? "داعش" should appear as "Da`ish" throughout, no? Suomichris (talk) 01:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Gazkthul:, I said "should be". Reason, its a term in prodigious use and this "should be" fairly reported. @Suomichris: in reflection of the high level of use in arabic, "Daash", "Daʿesh" or "Daesh" is widely reported in western media. In this regard I had assumed that WP:Use commonly recognisable names applies. Gregkaye ✍♪ 02:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

My 2 cents. The داعش acronym is correctly pronounced Da3esh, where 3 is the internet representation of the guttural sound that Arab speakers can pronounce like they do in the word 3ayn - eye-, and is correctly transliterated as Dāʿesh. Daash is incorrect but it may be used by uninformed persons. I have never heard anyone call them Daash. An analogy may be something like a Latin speaker trying to say "my son" and it comes out "mi zhon". Worldedixor (talk) 02:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Whatever you all decide on this time, it will be changed again by a new editor down the line, and the discussion will start again and perhaps another variant will be chosen, and so on. Have lost count of the variants on this acronym that have appeared in this article in just a few months. The beliefs in the infobox are ever-changing as well, and the titles of the infoboxes. Some Misplaced Pages articles are like an amoeba, and this is one of them. So much for solid information from Misplaced Pages. --P123ct1 (talk) 07:15, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, I don't think it should stop us that other editors will change it later—there's a clear MOS guideline here, and if we can also get consensus here on the Talk page, anything that doesn't match those two things should be reverted. Worldedixor and I seem to be largely in agreement that this should be represented as "Daʿesh" (note that the transliteration guidelines have the kasra as a /i/, regardless of actual pronunciation, and not /e/). Also, Gregkaye, the guideline you point to about recognizable names is specifically for article titles. Suomichris (talk) 14:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

TY Suomichris It is a good point about article titles and I have withdrawn my proposal for Daash above. The thing that was on my mind is that the the topic of Daʿesh/Daash might develop to a point where it warrants an article in its own right but this may be thinking too far ahead. Would people be in agreement on the consistent use of Daʿesh then?

I just did a search on "Islamic State" AND Dāʿesh which merely got "About 3,480 results".

with similar results for "Islamic State" AND Da3esh getting "About 3,180 results".

The search on Daʿesh got "About 62,800 results" and, if people are happy that this fits the MOS criteria, is this something could be used consistently.

On the same basis how does this amended the proposed opener as: The Islamic State (IS); (Template:Lang-ar ad-Dawlah l-ʾIslāmiyyah), previously self-described as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL); (Template:Lang-ar - Arabic acronym: داعش  Daʿesh)...

Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the general Misplaced Pages reader will be far less bothered by how it is spelled and pronounced than why it is used pejoratively, what its pejorative meaning is it carries and why it is disliked so much by ISIS! This remains a mystery despite Google searches. --P123ct1 (talk) 19:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Dāʿesh as a word has no meaning in the Arabic language. Some uninformed journalists just parrot that it has a pejorative meaning.Worldedixor (talk) 20:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

RS sources back it up in "Name & name changes". Examine them. That's my last word on it. --P123ct1 (talk) 21:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

1 more cent from moi... I am aware of MOS's guidelines and its common errors. However, Dāʿesh (not Dā'esh) can only be pronounced Daa3esh... Dāʿish may be pronounced Daa3eesh by most readers, which is wrong! Worldedixor (talk) 21:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Worldedixor, you seem to talk a lot of cents and with value greater than you let on. I am guessing that Daʿesh is better than Daʿesh. Good enough as a compromise between accuracy and standard journalistic output? Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:45, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Why thank you, Gregkaye. Worldedixor (talk) 19:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Propose the consistent use of Daʿesh in article

Can we use a consistent spelling? Daʿesh? Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

That would be my vote, yes, as it conforms to the MOS. Suomichris (talk) 18:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Gregkaye and Suomichris as a good compromise between accuracy and standard journalistic output. Worldedixor (talk) 19:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

@Suomichris: @Worldedixor: and others, I just looked back at some archived pages of this talk page and found: "DĀʻiSh". I know Worldedixor prefers the use of "e". How applicable is a regular presentation such as DAʻeSh or DAʿeSh (DAʻiSh or DAʿiSh) or similar in comparison to Daʿesh? I also wondered about a format such as XXʻXXx or XXʿXXx.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The "i" can be mispronounced by many. I see no justification for a capital A in the middle of the word. Perhaps DAʿESH because its an acronym, but we would be given three Latin capital letters to one Arabic letter (ش). I think 'Daʿesh is the best compromise. Hope this helps. Worldedixor (talk) 12:17, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Another argument for a capitalisation of DAʿESH is a commonality with ISIL and ISIS. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

As I predicted, this decision didn't last long. It has just been changed again! --P123ct1 (talk) 11:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

And again. :{ --P123ct1 (talk) 12:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 17 September 2014

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

The result of the move request was: No consensus for the move, I think that Labattblueboy's arguments are the most persuasive, followed by P123ct1's. The the other opposes are not base on the Article Title policy. -- PBS (talk) 19:12, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

As closing administrator, I suggest that new requested move for this article not be made for at least three months from the date of this close as it may be clearer in the new year what if anything is the common name, because enough time has been spent discussing the naming issue in the last month in which there has been no consensus to move, while consensus can change, it is unlikely to in the short term. -- PBS (talk) 19:12, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

From some of the other comments it is clear that this is considered to be a non-NPOV issue as well, so I suggest that if this is to be raised in future that the editor raising it has a look at Macedonia naming dispute, then search of "requested move" on Talk:Republic of Macedonia and read Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (Macedonia), it will help such an editor to phrase such issues based on guidelines and precedence. -- PBS (talk) 19:12, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

For future reference, "Stats for the month" are useless as they are constructed in the way there were below. For a start, raw counting of Google hits is not acceptable measure -- it is usage in reliable sources that mattet (see use commonly recognised names). Also a technical point, (assume that the pair represent the box in a Google search): Searches can be done on an unique string of words for example (and only articles that contain that sting of words in that exact order will be returned), but search for will return all or the previous hits as well as many more because it is a subset of the first search, so it is necessary to qualify the search by excluding Levant using a minus sign and because "Islamic State" will also throw up traditional usage of the phrase, it is necessary to screen for that as well eg PBS (talk) 19:12, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State (Organisation) – Although I am loath to bring this subject up again, it has been 2 months since the last requested move was closed with no consensus reached. I am renewing this discussion as the title Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant is being used less and less in favor of Islamic State, which the group formally named themselves on 29 June 2014.

Contentious article names should follow Misplaced Pages:COMMONNAME. Misplaced Pages does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article. If the name of a person, group, object, or other article topic changes, then more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change than in those before the change

I have surveyed what terminology English Language WP:RS are using and have found that Islamic State has become increasingly common:

The Telegraph Five reasons why Islamic State will be hard to destroy

The Guardian We do not know where Islamic State hostages are being held, UK admits

The Independent Islamic State: Is prospect growing of US being drawn into another ground war in Iraq?

BBC: Turkey mulls 'buffer zone' against Islamic State

Al Jazeera: The genesis of the Islamic State group

Time: Diplomacy Is the Way To Beat the ‘Islamic State’

AFP Hagel: Islamic State 'beyond anything we've seen'

Reuters: Qatar regulates charities after Western concern over Islamic State funding

Washington Post: Iraqi commanders expect widening U.S. airstrikes against Islamic State positions

Wall Street Journal: Life Inside the Islamic State Home Base of Raqqa, Syria

Recently some of the most prominent holdovers have also officially adopted the name Islamic State:

Associated Press: Now we say ‘the Islamic State group’ instead of ISIL

New York Times: Reconsidering What to Call an Extremist Group

Based on the above, I argue that the balance of English-language reliable sources has shifted in favour of Islamic State and propose we follow this lead. I have added organisation in parenthesis to distinguish from Islamic state. It may be useful in future to split parts of the article into Islamic State (State) similar to the French wiki model. I am not suggesting a change to our use of ISIS/ISIL as many of the above sources continue to use these abbreviations rather than the more accurate IS. Gazkthul (talk) 23:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• 'This topic has been discussed four times... since the Islamic State was declared at the end of June. As the same points tend to get repeated in these discussions, perhaps it would be an idea for editors to have a look at them before responding so that they are not gone over too much again. --P123ct1 (talk) 00:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Support/Oppose: Who supports the proposition that the name should be changed from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant to the Islamic State (organization)?

Support: The name "Islamic State" seems to be gaining favour in the media, although ISIS and ISIL are still being used. Perhaps some statistics could found showing the name usage now. (This was done in earlier discussions and media name usage will probably have changed again since the last time this topic was discussed.) --P123ct1 (talk) 08:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose It is still too early to decide on a name change, especially as there is growing pressure to split the article into two (see discussion at #94 here), one of which would have to be called "the Islamic state/State". --P123ct1 (talk) 15:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

This article here is a very good commentary on the name problem that is troubling not only WP editors but Western media generally. It is not very long. It isn't mentioned there, but apparently even the BBC are dithering about what to call this group now! --P123ct1 (talk) 08:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Stats for the month

• "Islamic State" gets "About 1,060,000 results"

"Islamic State" gets "About 12,200,000 results" in news

• "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" gets "About 41,500 results"

"Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" gets "About 16,200 results" in news

• "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" gets "About 128,000 results"

"Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" gets "About 17,200 results"

Results retrieved via "cut and paste" from beneath Google's unhelpfully positioned drop down menu.

Never-the less my !vote is

• Oppose, as NPOV nonsense. For instance, a government such as the British government has the option to declare themselves as "Government". This particular institution is described as the UK government but, even if it were to declare authority, for example, over all peoples descended from Germanic tribes such a reference would still be unhelpful in an encyclopaedia. While the term "Islamic State" is not in as wide usage as the term "government" I personally think that there are NPOV issues in regard to ISIL/ISIS describing themselves in this way. I also think that "organisation" fails. There are many more issues involved than just that. I think it is fine for the article to present the group as claiming the name "Islamic State" and this is exactly what the article does.
  

Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Just to put you in the picture, Gregkaye, in nearly every discussion there has been on this, editors have been reminded about WP:COMMONNAME (which Gazkthul has quoted above), which means using the name most commonly used by WP:RS reliable sources, regardless of other considerations. I am not saying this is right or wrong, just passing it on. --P123ct1 (talk) 11:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Very true but with the name space Islamic state occupied the choice is between Islamic State (Organisation) (with Organisation in parenthesis) and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

WP:Use commonly recognizable names states: "Misplaced Pages prefers the name that is most commonly used" and, as well as mentioning WP:RS issues also mentions that "such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural". The numbers clearly support "Islamic State" but I am not convinced that "(Organisation)" provides a significantly more natural description than Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

My argument is that the use of the words "Islamic State" naturally lead to the question, "of what?"

But then again I've just thought of somewhat similar situations regarding the names United States and the United Kingdom. I believe that, in the first case, the main reason why the "of America" has fallen out of currency is that the people of the United States only constitute about a third of the population of the Americas. In the second case reference is made, at least for the rest of today, to a specifically United Kingdom and with reference to a specific monarch.

"Islamic State" uses an Islamic terminology that is otherwise used to describe all things Islamic and applies it to a smaller subsection of Islamic people. The only parallel examples of this that I can think of is the application of Semitic terminology to the Jewish subsection of Semitic peoples within Anti-Semitic terminologies and the use of American terminologies to citizens of the United States. I have long disputed the validity, helpfulness and descriptive application of this type of linguistic approach. Such terminologies don't necessarily belong to individual groups and certainly not without good justification. (This is POV). Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Choosing the most appropriate name has proved very tricky for all sorts of reasons and there has never been real consensus. Have you tried looking at those links of earlier discussions! Good to get your view registered. --P123ct1 (talk) 14:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

TY. I've only really taken a serious look at Move request - 6 September 2014, currently on this page above. A lot of issues are mentioned with WP:Use commonly recognizable names definitely being an influential topic.

Another problem though is that an Islamic state is a type of government and thus a type of organisation. We aren't given much if any differentiation. Islamic State (Iraq and Levant) may still be questionable (at least according to arguments presented) but offers one alternate differentiation. (edited with additions) Gregkaye ✍♪ 00:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose A recent article by Adam Taylor summarized things nicely for me in that he showed that the name has extremely fragmented use. "From the start, exactly what to call the extremist Islamist group that has taken over much of Syria and Iraq has been problematic. At first, many called it the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). However, due to differences over how the name should be translated from the Arabic, some (including the U.S. government) referred to them as ISIL (the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant). To make matters more complicated, the group later announced that it should simply be called the "Islamic State" – a reference to the idea that the group was breaking down state borders to form a new caliphate. A number of media groups, including The Post, the Associated Press and, eventually, the New York Times, adopted this name, while others stuck with ISIS and ISIL." There has also bene a notable amount of media coverage on the simply fact that there are multiple names floating around. This only becoming more complicated as the term "Daesh", which is prominent in Arabic is getting increased use in English.. I also find the search method for concluding Islamic State as the highest hit count extremely problematic as all the contested titles contain those words--Labattblueboy (talk) 13:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

That's why I included a survey of the English Language media sources that have switched to the use of Islamic State to argue that it fits the criteria of WP:COMMONNAME. Gazkthul (talk) 00:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose – There is already an ongoing discussion above, and this ought be closed speedily. Regardless, I do not think it is worthwhile to change the name now per WP:TITLECHANGES, as this is simply a mire of too many names and too many disambiguation problems. RGloucester — ☎ 13:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - The article's title should not be "Islamic State" at all because it holds pejorative connotations against muslims and legitimate Islamic states. Possible names include Al-Baghdadi Caliphate Movement or some other more representative title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.217.255.4 (talk) 08:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - Often the media uses "the so called Islamic State" with good reason. They claim power over all muslims worldwide. They are neither Islamic (according to most religious and government leaders - Rouhani just hammered this point in a UN speech for example) or a State (no state will recognize them, fail Montevideo test). Calling your organization something crazy does not rename the organization. For example I can't start "The Catholic Church" and expect anyone to call my creation "The Catholic Church" Legacypac (talk) 18:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments

• Comment This source (used in the article) listing the UK proscribed terrorist organisations says "The UK does not recognise ISIL’s claims of a ‘restored’ Caliphate or a new Islamic State." I wonder if this has something to do the opposition to the name? If you do a search for the term "islamic state" in that document there's 17 other groups that in one way or other described as trying to establish an Islamic state.~Technophant (talk) 01:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Alternative name

Hi We could name the article Islamic State (Middle East). The name of the arabic page is not important. --Panam2014 (talk) 23:39, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Panam2014: This is being discussed. Please add to earlier Talk page #98 "Requested move". --P123ct1 (talk) 07:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

It is a bad idea to call this Islamic States (Middle-East) since Middle-East carries geographic connotations and so is not via media and offends muslims and other groups due to legitimating the terrorist group's propaganda. Suggesting the Al-baghdadi's terrorist movement is a state, Islamic, an organisation etc is not good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.217.255.4 (talk) 08:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Panam2014, I'd suggest that the least problematic alternate/compromise name might be Islamic State (Iraq and Levant). It still leaves me a little cold as I think it panders to the groups unjustified claim of authority over Islam and yet a question remains as to the extent to we should ignore the equivalent panderings of the English media and their undeniable preference for "Islamic State". There are arguments both ways.

I don't see names like Islamic State (organisation) and Islamic State (militant group) as being very helpful as they give no certain differentiation from other Islamic States that have gone before  add: or, indeed, that may come in the future. / See: Islamic State (disambiguation). Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

What about Islamic State (formerly Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant)? Couldn't be any clearer than that. --P123ct1 (talk) 13:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The biggest issue is that of "Islamic State". It's an odd one as its possible to feel ethically wrong either when supporting or opposing the title.

Beyond these issues, Islamic State (formerly Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) certainly scores high on as a specific reference to the group but, for me, "formerly" presents an issue of the relegation of "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" as a formerly used name. Two associated options might be: Islamic State (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) or Islamic State (previously calling itself the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant). The first title just presents two names without explanation while the second option, while making use of the same non-dismissive link as is currently used in the article, has 13 words.

I think that the most applicable part of the guidelines from Category:Misplaced Pages naming conventions is Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (political parties). This focusses on either location or formation date. A group history of rebrandings and leadership changes may add further difficulties of the date option. For me any suitable reference to "Iraq" and "Levant" will also give a reasonable representation of the last Arabic name in the groups complex history and I also think that these words have significance in relation to WP:UCRN. That's as far as I have got. Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I still cannot see what is wrong with "formerly" the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The group chose to change its name on 29 June this year from that to "Islamic State". It is a fact, full stop. Doesn't an encyclopaedia record facts? P123ct1 (talk) 16:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The group chose to change its name from the Arabic (الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام‎) name that it adopted in 2013 to a shortened Arabic name that they prefer now. Arabic and other language medias continue make significant use of of references to the 2013 name. wikt:formerly presents a meaning that is wholly in the past and, in this case, it is inaccurately used. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Islamic State (formerly known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant)? --P123ct1 (talk) 16:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

ISIL itself could be another possible title and, I know that we have just been discussing the within article use of ISIL/ISIS, but in reference to an article title WP:UCRN becomes applicable.
ISIS is also up for consideration.
The use of this type of title could gets around moral objections related to "Islamic State of what?" type issues. Other moral issues might include consideration of the poor woman in the States who pleaded with media outlets not to use her name in this connection but Google stats also coldly weighs into the encyclopaedic argument.
Acronym title formats work for the likes of the BBC, HIV/AIDS, IBM, NATO, and a wide range of others. Perhaps it can work here too.

• "Islamic State" gets "About 4,570,000 results"
• ISIL gets "About 28,000,000 results" with results including those of the likes of Intersil Corp.
• ISIS gets "About 227,000,000 results" note that this will include a number of references to ancient Egyptian religion and a significant number of other organisations and people etc. as partly referenced at Isis (disambiguation). There is also a potential issue here in that "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" is less accurate than "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" but the article currently makes reference to "Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham"

Curiously:

• ISIS got "About 62,900,000 results" with dates "1 Apr 2013 - 'Today'"

while

• ISIS got "About 1,380,000 results" with dates "Before 1 Apr 2013".

Its still a lot of hits. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Problems with this Article

Dear All,

I have noticed some problems with this articles and think fixing them is important given the possible traffic this article may get as military action in Iraq and Syria escalates.

1) The time of events and history sections are confusing. These should be one section. 2) The group is not a "jihadist group". Jihad is a religious duty for muslims and this group is engaged in persecuting and murdering muslims as well as various non-muslim religious minorities. 3) The article is bias and furthers ISIS propaganda. Re-terming the article in terms of a movement is more appropriate. The group has labelled itself "Islamic State" to attempt to assert political and religious authority over all muslims. Misplaced Pages has no interest in supporting this assertion and doing so is biased and not via media. 4) The article is becoming far too long. There is a lot of interest on this at the moment and so a lot of editors, but there is too much content for this topic. It is not in the reader's interest for there to be a billion pages.

That is about it. Please try to address as may be the case. I cannot, since the article is "locked".

Regards, 131.217.255.4 (talk) 08:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

131.217.255.4: Thank you for your comment. There is a proposal to reduce the size of the "History" section here and this will probably happen soon. I also have questioned why the 2014 timeline should be duplicated in this article, now that it has been transferred to a new article of its own here. --P123ct1 (talk) 11:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

To 131.217.255.4: If you want to participate in editing this article (which is semi-protected), you should choose a user-id and password and register. After four days of editing, you will be allowed to edit semi-protected articles. I disagree with your desire to whitewash Islam by trying to claim that the actions of ISIL are contrary to the will of Muhammad as conveyed in the Qu'ran. JRSpriggs (talk) 11:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

131.217.255.4 I was particularly interested in what you said at: 2) "The group is not a "jihadist group"..." I am not sure of the extent to which the actions of the group can be justified under any interpretation of Jihad. See: http://www.justislam.co.uk/product.php?products_id=2 for one article on "What Jihad IS NOT!" Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The article reflects descriptions by reliable sources. These sources describe claims and counter-claims; and we have both in the article. We don't do original research to single our sources that accord with our findings. I appreciate your point of view but we must defer to reliable sources. Jason from nyc (talk) 23:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The idea of including the last 30 days of the 2014 timeline was my idea and is discussed above (#Timeline and History sections). The idea is to have about 30 days of the most recents events viewable here, however the information is actually in the timeline article, and clicking the edit tab opens an editing window for that article. I think the entire timeline (2003-2014) or just older timeline (2003-2013) should be also on split page as well with a link to it from this page. A proposal to reorder the sections is above (#Sequence of article sections) and there's another proposal to allow Ip users to edit the article with pending revisions (#Questioning semi-protected status) which can be closed and requested. As far as bias, I think there needs to be more information about the soft power campaign and local governance. I found an article here, which along with the Vice documentary gives a rare (albeit biased) view into what everyday life is like in occupied territory. ~Technophant (talk) 00:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that more info on governance would be desirable. I have put some in the Governance section and I see some is in the Guidelines for civilians section. I suggest moving the latter into the former. We use The Atlantic article in both sections. The sources have more details on governance. Jason from nyc (talk) 01:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done --P123ct1 (talk) 17:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Problems with this article? It is now being influenced too much by the personal views of editors. Bare facts are being twisted and magnified. I am not saying from bad motives. But neutrality is important in Misplaced Pages. I understand this is a common problem in Misplaced Pages. Fortunately, this page seems to have escaped it until recently. --P123ct1 (talk) 12:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Jihadist or similar in lead!?

In light of criticisms of Islamic authorities in regard to the groups activities I have swapped Sunni Jihadist for Sunni Insurgent in the lead. I certainly don't think it is fair just to declare them jihadist without citation and without statements regarding who says what. In what Islamically legitimate ways are the group "struggling" and should this label be placed on the groups scholars, the groups leadership, all the groups members? How do some of the groups more controversial actions fit in with the concept of Jihad?
Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye: Once again, Misplaced Pages should not judge these things. That is for historians and commentators, whose views can be reported in the right place ("Ideology and beliefs"). Misplaced Pages must adhere to NPOV, especially in the Lead. The subject you raise has been discussed on the Talk page more than once, for example here. The Lead should not be cluttered up with footnotes; editors have been trying to cut down on their number (see Talk page discussion #27). Footnotes are for the section where their jihadism is described, in the "Ideology and beliefs" section. --P123ct1 (talk) 23:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye:I think you are reading too much into the term Jihadist, reliable sources use it to describe Islamic State (as well many other organisations from al-Qaeda to the Taliban) therefore we do to. What is or isn't Islamically legitimate is not Misplaced Pages's place to decide. Gazkthul (talk) 02:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

A google of ISIS jihadist gives 9.3 million hits. A google of ISIS insurgent gives 484,000 hits. Jihadist is used in a broad range of publications including The Guardian, CNN, the BBC, and the New York Times. From the context it is clearly used in the martial sense and not in a general sense of striving. Incidentally al-Qaeda jihadist gives 2 million and al-Qaeda insurgent gives 7 million while Boko Haram gives 3 million hits for both combinations. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The lead should summarize the article. We use jihadist more often than insurgent. It is more specific than insurgent. And given the successful establishment of governance in eastern Syria and the possible establishment of rule over Western Iraq, ISIS has gone beyond the insurgent stage in some areas. The word jihadist better summarizes the article. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Insurgent is beginning to look outdated; events have moved on so fast since June. I agree that the Lead should use the term jihadist as that is how they are commonly described. Whether they can legitimately call themselves jihadists could be discussed in "Ideology and beliefs" - see my new outline for this section here. --P123ct1 (talk) 15:44, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

In comparison the article on al-Qaeda states later in the lead that: "It operates as ... a radical Wahhabi Muslim movement calling for a strict interpretation of sharia law and jihad". If substantiated then it is certainly warranted to document any of Islamic State/..'s claims of being a jihadist group, its advocacies of jihad or anything that it actually does. Its also fair to report on interpretations of various outlets of it as being an jihadist group. However, when interpretations of Jihad vary, I don't think it right to directly label them as being jihadist. I don't believe the killing of innocents as being legitimately in tune with Islamic law or jihad and, if anything, we should quote experts on these matters. I agree with other editors that the word insurgent is outdated but think that value references to topics like Jihad need to be qualified. Several wordings can be used including "Sunni group" or "group predominantly composed of Sunni Muslims". Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

To Gregkaye: The problem is the definition of "innocents". People who you, I, and most others consider innocent are not considered innocent by strict Muslims because those innocents have rejected Allah as understood by the strict Muslims. JRSpriggs (talk) 13:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye, with all due respect, I believe your objection to stating that ISIS is jihadist is because the converse doesn't hold. The converse would state that jihad must be what ISIS does and as you point out it is a much broader concept; even in the sense of "lessor jihad" most interpreters object to ISIS behavior. This problem is true for every categorization of ISIS. ISIS is Salafi (but not all Salafists are like ISIS). ISIS is Sunni (but the converse is obviously false). ISIS is Wahhabi influenced but so are others who reject ISIS. ISIS longs for a caliphate but so do others who reject self-appointed upstarts. You can put ISIS in many categories that they would share with others who reject and repudiate the path ISIS has taken. The sources overwhelmingly categorize ISIS as jihadist and I believe we must too. Obviously further qualification is absolutely required as we have an obligation to provide a full description. Jason from nyc (talk) 00:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

@JRSpriggs: I would like to see evidence that the imams and other muslims beheaded by ISIL were any less "strictly Muslim" than the murderers that killed them. Should we also call them Jihadist? Declaring ISIL to be Jihadist prior to a discussion on the topic is taking sides. There are many Muslims that fit the literal description of Jihad that would not kill journalists and civilians etc. In fact notable opposition exists.

3. By murdering prisoners of war, journalists and civilians, including mosque imams who refused to endorse their campaign, and by enslaving the women and children of their opponents, ISIS has violated international agreements such as the Geneva Conventions and conventions on slavery that everyone, including Muslims, have signed up to. God says in the Qur’an, “Believers, fulfil your covenants!” (5:1)

4. The IS persecution and massacres of Shia Muslims, Christians and Yazidis is abhorrent and opposed to Islamic teachings and the Islamic tolerance displayed by great empires such as the Mughals and Ottomans.

5. Based on all of the above: IS is a heretical, extremist organisation and it is religiously prohibited (haram) to support or join it; furthermore, it is an obligation on British Muslims to actively oppose its poisonous ideology, especially when this is promoted within Britain.

from: http://www.aobm.org/fatwa-on-the-so-called-islamic-state-formerly-islamic-state-in-iraq-syria/

The article's first paragraph described the group as "Jihadist" with the problem that the second paragraph then went on to presents descriptions of the group as being "a terrorist group" "designated as a foreign terrorist organization" that the "United Nations and Amnesty International have accused the group of grave human rights abuses".

Yes Jason from nyc, the point is that Jihad does represent a wider concept. The lead as it stood failed to represent it.

Readers would be forgiven in thinking, oh, so that's what Jihad is. The text of the lead was unacceptable in context that it is very possible for a reader to read just a portion of an article. We would be giving an inaccurate/incomplete view of the broad concept of Jihad.

"islamic state" "jihadist" gets "About 2,560,000 results"
"islamic state" "extremist" gets "About 2,890,000 results"

Claims of the group as being Jihadist or comments on references made in the media (and perhaps in other places) to the group as being Jihadist might well be placed with the groups declaration as being a caliphate as also mentioned in the lead.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 05:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

This is just the nature of categorization. It’s epistemologically necessary that different concretes subsumed in a general category will be different. Saying that French are Europeans doesn’t mean that French are Greek or Estonians. The fact that all French are Europeans doesn’t mean that all Europeans are French. That's the converse. When stating the Europeans is the genus of French that doesn’t imply that this is the only way to embody that genus. This is just the nature of categorization. Sources overwhelmingly use “jihadist” as the genus for ISIS without implying that the term applies to others in the same way. We should follow the sources as Misplaced Pages is supposed to reflect the sources. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Instead of "Sunni insurgents" one could say "jihadist extremists." This gives a differentia of extremists to distinguish ISIS jihadists from others. This would be an improvement even if the word "extremist" is vague. By the way I get five times more google hits of ISIS with jihadist than I get with ISIS and extremists. It's clear that jihadist is the descriptor of choice of reliable sources with other qualifiers depending on source. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done "jihadist extremist..." as per suggestion. This may concur with western sources but may follow a path of error.

http://wikiislam.net/Lesser_vs_Greater_Jihad

"The two forms of Jihad in Islam are sometimes explained by apologists as follows:

• Lesser outer jihad (al-jihad al-asghar); a military struggle, i.e. a holy war
• Greater inner jihad (al-jihad al-akbar); the struggle of personal self-improvement against the self's base desires"

Militant claims of jihad have a theological context

Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I really don't think the distinction in "jihadist extremists" will mean much to readers. To most people all these al-Qaeda-related groups are seen simply as "jihadists", their extremism being taken for granted. "Jihadist extremists" will probably look like a baffling tautology to them. The Lead is really not the place for hair-splitting of this kind. --P123ct1 (talk) 19:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Ideology and beliefs (3)

@Mhhossein and Jason from nyc: et al: Going by the comments on the Talk page recently, this section is becoming very controversial, as I suspected it would. The nature of the group’s ideology and belief system is being as hotly contested among editors as it is in the Muslim world! As there is so much controversy about it in the Muslim world, I think it needs to be covered quite as much as what is agreed upon, and should therefore be kept in the same section. It is probably best divided into subsections dealing with different aspects of the controversy, backed up with citations. The first subsection could state what is generally agreed about their ideology and beliefs and the last could have general statements from the Muslim world criticising their beliefs, such as the long letter with all the signatories recently published, now at the end of the section. The main thing is to keep to a structure, as the section is already becoming muddled without one, with some new edits being thrown in piecemeal throwing out what order there was. I haven’t kept up with this, but categories so far could be (a) are they really jihadists? (b) are they Wahhabists, and if so what kind of Wahhabists? (c) are they Kharijites? Are there others people can think of? --P123ct1 (talk) 14:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

So far editors' discussions on ideology and beliefs are in "Ideology and beliefs" and "Ideology and beliefs (2)" earlier in the Talk page, this one on Wahhabism here, this one on jihadism here, and this one here which also mentions jihadism. Can we try and keep all discussions on this subject in one place, please, and not have them scattered about, as that makes them difficult to follow properly. --P123ct1 (talk) 14:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The are two separate issues. The reaction of the Muslim world should obviously be in the article including the ideology section. Wiki allows and even demands attributed opinion. Disinterested commentary and study is preferred when reporting this opinion as it is a secondary source that has singled out this opinion as significant. We should be careful about stating assessments in Misplaced Pages’s voice and particularly careful about taking the side of one denomination, current, variant, or practice. I see a previous suggestion that criticisms of the ISIS ideology should be in a sub-section. I’m neutral on that. But the criticism is growing. The recent inclusion of the important open letter goes beyond name-calling and cites principles. It was signed by 126 Islamic scholars worldwide (with the conspicuous absence of Saudi Arabia.) This helps our criticism sub-section. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

@P123ct1: I'm in agreement on having subsections. But this issue is, as you said, very contested and we should not let every sentence be introduced here. Other parts of this article depend on the news mainly and some how we're going to have a different section here. I strongly recommend to include the main ideas and criticisms which are backed by several groups. Ideas by merely a single clerk usually does not qualify to be here (exceptions may exist regarding very famous political and religious characters). Ideas and criticisms would better have a rational reasoning if they are going to be stated as a fact, or they should be stated just as an expression by an individual. I'm willing to cooperate in enhancing this section, as I made this section before to enhance the quality of the article. Mhhossein (talk) 10:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

That is what I meant by "It is probably best divided into subsections dealing with different aspects of the controversy, backed up with citations". Meaning: Aspect X (jihadism, or Wahhabism, etc) described neutrally, backed up with "A said this (about it)", "B said this (about it)" (more if necessary), with citations to back up their statements. For example, "It is said they are not true jihadists. A and B say this about it (with citations)." Each subsection should not, must not, be long. We don't want an essay on the topic. This section would be dealing with opinions rather than facts, obviously. As there are so many opinions, I think they need to be covered - the controversy out there is notable, IMO. It could almost be seen as a "controversies" section:- "Ideology and beliefs": (1) outline of generally agreed characteristics, not disputed by Muslims and others (2) controversies among Muslims and others over what their beliefs really are (3) general Muslim criticism of their ideology/beliefs, for example the letter with all the signatories I mentioned earlier. The sentence in the ISIS article

Other critics of ISIS's brand of Sunni Islam include Salafists who previously publicly supported jihadist groups such as al-Qaeda, for example the Saudi government official Saleh Al-Fawzan, known for extremist views, who claims that ISIS is a creation of "Zionists, Crusaders and Safavids", and the Jordanian-Palestinian writer Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi who was released from prison in Jordan in June 2014.

would not add much to a section of the sort I have outlined, as it is really just a mention of two names that have criticized them. --P123ct1 (talk) 12:51, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

There do not necessarily have to be "subsections" dealing with each aspect, but I think it is important that the controversies should be dealt with separately, as far as possible, otherwise there would be a danger of the whole section getting into a muddle again, the way it is now. --P123ct1 (talk) 15:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

@P123ct1: according to Misplaced Pages:UNDUE such views should not be presented. this is in accordance to what I said before. For presenting different views we should not pay to minority views. To support my claim, I'd like to use these sentences from Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources and undue weight:

We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Misplaced Pages aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties.1

So, we'd better be careful about this issue. Mhhossein (talk) 11:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't know the extent to which differing views are minority views; it is up to more knowledgeable editors to decide that and keep description of controversies in proportion. It could mean the section is very short! My main concern was that whatever is said, it should be put down methodically in the way I outlined. --P123ct1 (talk) 12:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

If a minority of experts express detailed analysis that doesn't contradict the vast majority of reliable sources but further elaborates the topic, that shouldn't be considered "undue." Experts are a minority. Most writers on the subject (and most of our sources) are not experts. They are secondary sources as they should be and they often don't provide the depth that an encyclopedia requires. Undue has to do with a minority that goes against the majority of reliable sources. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

@Jason from nyc: Being secondary is not enough, the sources should also be reliable with it's specific definition. By the way, I believe that who made this group is not a matter to be discussed here. It is not related to the "Ideology and Beliefs". Mhhossein (talk) 07:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Their ideology and beliefs can't be discussed without saying "who made them". Influences are all when it comes to matters of belief. And if there are serious disputes among Muslims about what their beliefs really are, they cannot be ignored in a section called "Ideology and beliefs". --P123ct1 (talk) 13:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

@P123ct1: Don't mix them please! I think in this section we should discuss where their thoughts (ideology and beliefs) are originated from. This matter is brought in the first three paragraphs in a dispersed form. I don't find any motivations for the sentences of discussing who made them to stay here. OK : ISIS ideology is originated from group A and He acts like group B. It is OK because it is clearly stated the belief and ideology is a mixture of A and B probably. Not OK : ISIS is said to be made by C, others say it is made by D ! it's not OK because you can't make any relationships between the ideology and beliefs of ISIS and C. ISIS, of course, may have completely different beliefs and ideology from C or D. That's why we should move or remove some of the sentences. A new section might be required. By the way, what is that serious dispute? Mhhossein (talk) 18:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: I haven't touched the section except to copy-edit it! I am on shaky ground owing to my lack of knowledge and now think my subsectioning suggestion was a bit over the top. I thought the serious disputes were about whether they can be called Wahhabists and whether they are really Kharijites, but maybe that isn't a serious dispute. It still think those two things deserve a mention, however brief. They are both covered already and maybe that is enough - only I am surprised that the Wahhabist paras have been left so prominent, as I thought there was big controversy over this even among editors. You did say their ideology and beliefs are very contested, so perhaps those criticisms could be added at the end, in a separately headed subsection. Could you perhaps reshape this section, which is still a bit muddled in sequence, as you were the original author? I don't want to give you the task if you are not willing; I just thought you might be the best person to do it. If I reordered it I might give the wrong emphases. Then once on paper, as it were, you could sort out any potential disagreements with Jason from nyc, who like you obviously knows more about this subject than I do. This method, putting a draft into the article first and then adjusting it with the consensus of other editors, has worked well for other parts of the article. Do you agree with this approach, Jason from nyc? --P123ct1 (talk) 19:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

link to this article should be added

Definitions of terrorism - should be added as the article maintains that several different bodies have designated ISIL as terrorist and this clarifies that and why some do not call them terrorists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.190.195.225 (talk • contribs) 07:27, 28 September 2014

"So-called Islamic State"

This phrasing is used as has been noted by @P123ct1: in Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#French distinction between the organisation and the state itself "The media put their finger on it when they call it the 'so-called' Islamic State, which unfortunately Misplaced Pages can't do!" and by @Legacypac: in Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Requested move (amended link) "Often the media uses "the so called Islamic State" with good reason. They claim power over all muslims worldwide".

"So called Islamic State" gets "About 234,000 results"

While we can't speak in Misplaced Pages's voice on these issues I am wondering where and how it may be possible to quote sources. Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I think there has to be a limit to how much this article (as opposed to the media) qualifies its descriptions, "so-called Islamic State", "caliph" and "caliphate" used in inverted commas, "jihadist" now being questioned, "which previously called itself the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" - the list is increasing daily. --P123ct1 (talk) 11:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 we can neither speak in Misplaced Pages's voice to directly describe a "so-called Islamic State" nor can we directly declare them to be jihadist. Both situations require value judgements. As I mentioned in Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Jihadist or similar in lead!? "If substantiated then it is certainly warranted to document any of Islamic State/..'s claims of being a jihadist group, its advocacies of jihad or anything that it actually does. Its also fair to report on interpretations of various outlets of it as being an jihadist group. However, when interpretations of Jihad vary, I don't think it right to directly label them as being jihadist."

Related reasoning to this is presented in content by Muslim scholars presented below. The earlier form of the lead presented the group, in Misplaced Pages's voice, as being jihadist and, two sentences later, quotes the UN and media in calling them a terrorist group. Many readers may well have stopped there and this unqualified flow of information was unacceptable.

See Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Jihadist or similar in lead!? for jihad related discussion.

I have mentioned the media coverage describing: "So-called Islamic State" and have queried: "where and how it may be possible to quote sources".

Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

At the moment the article makes no mention of "So called Islamic State" despite use being propagated by Imans.

Here are some references:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/13/term-islamic-state-slur-faith-david-cameron

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/multimedia/archive/01091/Fatwa_on_ISIS_1091394a.pdf

http://www.aobm.org/fatwa-on-the-so-called-islamic-state-formerly-islamic-state-in-iraq-syria/

http://www.mcb.org.uk/leading-islamic-centres-condemn-so-called-islamic-state/

Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

"notinmyname"

This is a recent campaign that seems to have rapidly gained significant prominence.

"notinmyname" gets "About 888,000 results" (This search up to 29/08/14 got "About 105,000 results")

http://www.activechangefoundation.org/portfolio-item/notinmyname/

"Non-Islamic Non-State"

"Non-Islamic Non-State" This is from a reported comment by Ban Ki-moon: http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/09/economist-explains-19

Are you saying there should be a section in the article where criticisms like this can be dealt with? I can see an argument for it. There perhaps should be a new section dealing with the questions now being raised everywhere about the legitimacy and actions of the new caliphate. I thought you were suggesting the article should start using "so-called" Islamic State! --P123ct1 (talk) 11:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

On the use of "jihadist", I agree with earlier comments, fine to use in the Lead as it is a common term for groups of this sort. Objections can be dealt with elsewhere in the article, as I said. --P123ct1 (talk) 12:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I was hoping just to ask the question regarding inclusion. (Wariness by a number of editors to the use of "Islamic State" is, to some extent, validated by recent criticisms and disputes over the use of the short form of the name. I also predict that there may be criticisms of associations between the organisation and jihad. Certainly, if a cite-worthy content is found then I agree that associations between the group and jihad might be criticised under "Ideology and belief" so on this point I agree). Can we please leave Jihad related discussion for the section on Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Jihadist or similar in lead!? or other new section? Its not the topic of this thread.

Current criticism and/or disputes relate specifically to the use of the name "Islamic State". I think that this could fit following Index of names and History of names perhaps under "Disputes regarding use of names". Other suggestions welcomed. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking that as well, that it could be covered in a subsection of the "Names" section. However, it would seem a bit odd to have all that precede the history of the group and the rest, as this controversy over the name is comparatively recent. Perhaps as I said there should be a section dealing with all of the recent and growing criticism of the IS and this name controversy could be a subsection of that. --P123ct1 (talk) 13:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC).

I agree about the specific focus of the sub-topic. 'Objections to "Islamic State"' or similar in names? A section following History perhaps in conjunction with 'Designation as a terrorist group'? Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

No, important as the topic is, I don't think it should be given as much prominence as that. There are more important things about the group, evidenced by the new sections sequence, I think.--P123ct1 (talk) 16:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Moon's comments reflect my view that ISIL is not islamic and not a state. Mind you they are more islamic than any Christian and more a state than most rebel groups, but dressing up like Santa and giving gifts does not make you Santa. The use of caliph is particularly inappropriate - I would expect some evidence and generally acceptance of decent from the prophet before that title gets applied. I think we need to emphasize the "so called" type qualifiers and the critics and stick to acronyms to give balance to ISIL claims.Legacypac (talk) 17:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

A good thesis on the use of various words for political purposes http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/what-if-islamic-state-didnt-exist-2101625642 Legacypac (talk) 17:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea not refer to them in the article (except in the Lead) as "Islamic State" but simply as "IS". That would be a good way of dealing with the problem of WP seeming to endorse the establishment of the caliphate and an Islamic state. Perhaps the words caliphate and caliph (except in the Lead) should always have quote marks around them in the text, for the same reason. --P123ct1 (talk) 18:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I like that solution, with the modification to use ISIL as that fits with the article title.Legacypac (talk) 18:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree it is time to move to ISIL in the article. --P123ct1 (talk) 20:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

BACK TO THE TOPIC : ))
I'm still wondering about the possible placement of a criticisms section. Looking at the TOC I was wondering if this section might go well next to "Propaganda and social media". At present the order of sections goes:

7 Territorial claims

8 Governance

9 Human rights abuses ...

10 Propaganda and social media

11 Finances

12 Foreign fighters

13 Equipment

14 Timeline of events

There may be a number of ways to sequence this. Place Criticism after 10? Title? subtitles? Gregkaye ✍♪ 19:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Once a criticisms section is started, it will be easier to see where to put it and whether even a criticisms section will need to be broken up. I foresee that some of it would be better in "Ideology and beliefs", for example. --P123ct1 (talk) 06:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposed move from "ISIS" to "ISIL" in the article text

The previous consensus (reached earlier this year, I believe) was to use "ISIS" in the text, on the grounds that "ISIS" then was the group's common name. I have noticed more use of "ISIL" recently, but cannot quantify it. Who supports a change from "ISIS" to "ISIL"? It would be more consistent with the article's title, if nothing else. Earlier discussion of this is here and here. --P123ct1 (talk) 20:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Support - --P123ct1 (talk) 09:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Support - especially instead of "Islamic State" which is a very problematic name. Legacypac (talk) 20:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - I don't believe that this abbreviation is more common than ISIS, and there would be a disconnect with the use of ISIS on many other articles that would need to be changed also. Gazkthul (talk) 02:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Digging through UN Security Council documents like the al-Qaida Sanctions list, I found the UN is using "ISIL" consistently and long after the group shortened the ir name. A recent example: Legacypac (talk) 03:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Support, the accurate translation of the 2013 name is the same as the article title Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. We should use ISIL with consistency to both accurate translation and article title used.

incidentally the parallel article ar:الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام gives a machine code translation that reads: "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant , known for short as Daash , which calls itself now an Islamic state only .." Gregkaye ✍♪ 06:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

An editor has changed some instances of "ISIS" to "ISIL" without the consensus from other editors needed for this change. I have reverted the changes until a decision is made on which acronym to use in the article. --P123ct1 (talk) 07:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I was the editor who you reverted manually. I'm not upset, just confused as your edit seems to go against what you were advocating, which is consistency. Watching CNN tonight they had ISIS in the graphics over commentators and generals saying ISIL consistently. Strange situation. Legacypac (talk) 09:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

You miss the point. The consensus view of editors as a whole is what counts, not the view of an individual editor. Consensus has not been reached yet. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the action to revert at this stage was optional but I certainly give it support. We have a discussion regarding best use of terminology between ISIS (with more usage in media) and ISIL (according to better English translation and consistency with article title). It is a topic that has been previously raised with this and the last instance being at P123ct1's initiation. It can also be helpful in a talk page discussion to give notification that an action has been { {done}}. Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Neutral Weak Oppose Either is respectable. As I understand it, "Syria" in ISIS is greater Syria and not the current nation-state that was created by Western division. Thus, Levant, the L in ISIL might be better to capture the wider aims of ISIL. However, they've only captured territory in Syria and Iraq, so ISIS is respectable as well. Both are used by sources. My "weakness" stems from a preference for waiting until one emerges as dominant in the sources. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Jason from nyc. I think that, if we could rewrite recent word usage, the 2013 name may have been better rendered as the Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria. This would have given the acronym ISIGS and which would arguably have been a more understandable terminology. The groups name went from reference to Iraq to reference to Iraq and greater Syria/the Levant and now, without giving any public declaration of actual territorial ambition, they have dropped geographical reference altogether. As reference to the 2013 name we are left with a choice between ISIS and ISIL. Arabic sources prefer Da'esh as a clear anagram of the 2013 name. ISIL is the most accurate parallel. Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Let me remove my opposition. It's a judgment call and those who support it here have done hard work kicking this article into shape. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support – Can we please have some sort of consistency here? We're using "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" as the title of this article, at present. Until that changes, we should use the accompanying abbreviation, which is "ISIL". Discussions about the article title can be had elsewhere. Right now, at the title that this is at, it makes sense to use ISIL. RGloucester — ☎ 16:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the views of any opposers should be underestimated. There may be an argument that ISIS still is the group's WP:COMMONNAME, or at least more common than ISIL, which under that guidance would mean that ISIS has to stay. --P123ct1 (talk) 18:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:UCRN is a section title within WP:AT and applies to article titles. For the time being we have one of those. Another part of WP:AT is WP:CRITERIA where the issue of consistency gets mentioned. Again this is an article title issue. Certainly when we look at other encyclopaedias like Britannica that make consistent use of single renderings but reference to WP:RELIABLE relates to the content of sources and not to their methodologies. I don't know of any guideline that directly applies to this situation and think that Jason from nyc got it right. It's a judgement call. Gregkaye ✍♪ 19:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It is a "judgemental call". However, this is an article title concern. There have numerous proposal about moving this article to numerous titles, including the full-length version of ISIS. All of these have failed so far, and given this, it makes sense to be consistent. If we're going to make a judgement call between ISIS and ISIL, which are both used fairly commonly, it only makes senses to use the one that matches the title of our article. RGloucester — ☎ 20:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Quite a few editors have weighed in on now in this thread. And all previous attempts to move the article name to ISIS have failed. I am not opposed to ISIS as an alternate name used in the article just think we need to get off protecting ISIS from being standardized to mostly ISIL. So do we have consensus yet? Legacypac (talk) 21:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

What we have is a proposal (dated: 20:13, 29 September 2014) with three supports and one oppose and this can be viewed in a context of a Misplaced Pages editing force that has seen the creation of 22,657,167 named accounts. In context ...few editors have weighed providing, at best, a limited view of "wikt:consensus". Its 5 editor contributions over 2 days and any S to L changes made at this stage would certainly be WP:BOLD. I'd suggest waiting a little longer and even then changes would be made at risk as WP:consensus can change. Also the view of P123ct1, as proposer of the issue, is important here. Gregkaye ✍♪ 06:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

If you look at the names, so far it is five for and one against the move from ISIS to ISIL. I sense lukewarm interest from other editors. But as Gregkaye says probably best to wait a little longer to guage consensus. Whatever consensus is reached it should be recorded here, so that if objections are raised by other editors if the vote goes to ISIL, they can be pointed to a clear decision by editors who participated in the "vote". --P123ct1 (talk) 09:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

5:1 sounds more like consensus. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye has already started changing "ISIS" to "ISIL". In the absence of further "votes" or comments since the last count of 5:1, I think it is it is safe to assume there is now CONSENSUS to move from "ISIS" to "ISIL" in the text of the article.

Please be careful about global changes. (a) Quotations must obviously not be altered. (b) If "ISIS" in footnote wikitext is accidentally changed to "ISIL", it could break the links and then readers won't be able to call up the citations. --P123ct1 (talk) 20:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Good point on quotes and links. We have consensus and we shall apply it to this and related articles on the basis of consistency. Further enforcing that there is true consensus, the article was just moved from 2014 military intervention against ISIS to 2014_military intervention against the Islamic_State of Iraq and the Levant based on an RfC that ran for a month and reached nearly 100% agreement. Legacypac (talk) 21:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages's reputation

The recent change in the Lead infobox titles is incomplete. The new titles "Islamic State" to "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" are now inconsistent with the Arabic name and transliteration beneath which remain as "Islamic State". Of the many instances of "ISIS" in the text, some but not all have been changed to "ISIL", so the text of the article is now inconsistent (exactly the same thing happened a week or so ago and had to be straightened out). What kind of impression does this leave with readers? Inconsistencies and inaccuracies of this kind damage Misplaced Pages's already doubtful reputation for accuracy and reliability. --P123ct1 (talk) 09:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I changed the infobox so the English name matched the article title. I did not feel comfortable changing the arabic as I can't read it. Hoped someone would fix the arabic quickly. RS use both ISIL and ISIS which we explain in the first couple lines. If you want consistency, let's let the infobox match the title. I don't see this as a reputation issue since CNN use actively using both ISIS and ISIL at the same moment (verbal vs graphics). Legacypac (talk) 09:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The CNN isn't WP. No good following the standards of others. Another problem is that "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" clashes with "Caliphate" in the infobox. He is "caliph" of the Islamic State, not ISIS! --P123ct1 (talk) 13:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 I agree with the linguistic inconsistency here yet the both titles, "Caliph" and "Islamic State", are called into question. A Caliph is quite literally meant to be a successor of Mohammed. Arab and Muslim communities reject the groups self-declared title "Islamic State". Members of "Islamic State" can claim "we belong to a Caliph". This does not mean that other people cannot still correctly state that "ISIL, ISIS, or Da'esh etc. claim to be a Caliph". Both are linguistically correct. However, I guess similar issues were considered in Arabic Misplaced Pages. The Arabic article has a lead that says: "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant , known for short as Daash , which calls itself now an Islamic state only" and still have an infobox that presents "Islamic State". Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

It gets worse. The Lead now has two infoboxes contradicting each other, one headed "Islamic State" and the other "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" and the Arabic title "Islamic State" still remains in the "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" infobox. Just minor details of no importance to editors, of course. Readers just have to shake the kaleidoscope and take pot luck with the results. --P123ct1 (talk) 08:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

How much longer are we going to avoid calling the Islamic State the Islamic State?

All of the awkward politicking of Western politicos aside, how much longer are we going to avoid calling the Islamic State the Islamic State? As already demonstrated, the mainstream Western media has taken to acknowledging IS as the Islamic State or the "so-called Islamic State". There is, as of now, no organization anywhere in the world calling itself either ISIS or ISIL. No such entity exists. Both monikers are sustained by people in the West who don't want to entangle themselves with the burden of fighting such an inconveniently declared entity. In light of its common name, and inconvenient factuality, it's long past time we make the move, even if it's with a qualifier such as (terrorist group), (insurgent group), or the such. If a band is called "The Greatest Band in the World" or a political party is called the "True Patriot Party" we identify them as such according to COMMONNAME and the facts. Why not here? GraniteSand (talk) 09:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Have you ever looked at the Talk pages to see what other editors have said about this? This subject has been discussed many, many times since the Islamic State was proclaimed. --P123ct1 (talk) 09:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I have. This subject is dynamic and, unfortunately, prone to the predations of a small group of interested editors. GraniteSand (talk) 09:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages actually does use the name Islamic State quite a bit. Legacypac (talk) 09:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

And the article should be so appropriately titled, as per our policies. Yes? GraniteSand (talk) 09:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Which it is - many RS currently refer to these guys as spelled out or acronym ISIL or ISIS including the UN Security Council. See previous discussions. Legacypac (talk) 09:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Au, contraire. Trending reliable sources cite this group as the "Islamic State" as already demonstrated in this thread. As a current subject prone to both WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RS there is no sustainable reason not to adjust accordingly. There is no organization in the world called either ISIS or ISIL. GraniteSand (talk) 09:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the trending you claim. I haven't seen much change in the last few weeks. ISIS, and to a lesser extent ISIL, seems to be used in the RS just as much as before. DeCausa (talk) 09:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Previous entries here have demonstrated that drift but more importantly, without getting into Google metrics, the AP has settled on Islamic State group and organizations such as the Guardian and the Economist have made note of the politicking in refusing to use IS as well as acknowledging it's correctness. These results with a couple minutes on Google. GraniteSand (talk) 10:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

This has all been discussed before. As has the irrelevance of whether or not there is "politicking". We simply reflect usage for good or ill, we don't WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. DeCausa (talk) 10:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

And I'm saying the previously used information is perishable and the conclusions are now wrong. The intent of political sources is not without consideration in regards to weight and neutrality, as defined by non-political sources. We have policies in place for this and the policies suggest we should change the title. We are a dynamic and tertiary resource. GraniteSand (talk) 10:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The sources tend to use Islamic State for the de facto state created by the group called ISIS/ISIL. The French wikipedia has two articles and if we need to do that at some point I'd argue for Islamic State for the nation. That's assuming this becomes the commonly used name. East Germany became the commonly used name for the German Democratic Republic. The self-proclaimed official name may or may not become the commonly used name. Let's wait. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

http://www.activechangefoundation.org/portfolio-item/notinmyname/ - an Islamic voice on the matter Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

There are a lot of "Islamic voices" who have something to on the matter, including the group in question. Crowd sourced political/ideological statements have no weight as reliable sources. GraniteSand (talk) 22:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• A new train of thought has just arrived being stationed at Alternative name. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources now using the group's official name, "Islamic State", include the Economist, as well as The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, The Associated Press, and The Guardian. GraniteSand (talk) 22:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Those RSs have been quoted unnumerable times in previous Talk page discussions on the group's common name. It was agreed they all use "Islamic State", but in conjunction with "ISIS". Much Talk page discussion now is mere repetition of past discussions. --P123ct1 (talk) 11:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

aL-Qaeda joining ISIL?

There are some news reports suggesting this, but things appear very fluid. Already I'm seeing al-Qaeda deopped from the opponants and added to the supporters, which does not seem justified just yet. Legacypac (talk) 10:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

You mean al-Qaeda franchises are supporters, surely? I thought al-Qaeda proper was still very much an opponent. --P123ct1 (talk) 21:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Map of ISIS controlled areas (again)

Further to this thread earlier, I wasn't sure what was finally stopping the change to reflect uninhabited areas. I raise it again now because with the bombing campaign, maps of the ISIS areas have been widespread in the media. They are almost always in the spider web style and not showing the large uninhabited areas as coloured in. This gives a very different impression and we seem to be an outlier with our map. Given that the map needs to reflect RS isn't there anything that can be done? DeCausa (talk) 10:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Could the country boundaries be marked in as well? The maps in the media always show them. Essential information, I would have thought. --P123ct1 (talk) 11:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Here's 2 typical examples: from the BBC and from the New York Times. DeCausa (talk) 11:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

This has been discussed before, but here is my thoughts. Is it fair to show empty desert 100% surrounded by ISIL controlled roads and towns as controlled by the Govt when there are likely no Govt troops there? Cause that is exactly what the spider web maps suggest. No other map I've ever seen outside of ISIL maps follows this spider web design. Legacypac (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

But "outside of ISIL maps" is exactly the point. I'm not saying which is better; the point is if the RS are representing ISIL maps this way then we should be reflecting that. Presenting a non-typical map is WP:UNDUE. (And I'm aware this was discussed before, I linked to the last discussion. But that was inconclusive.) DeCausa (talk) 19:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I just searched "map of isil controlled areas" with Google as an image search. Try it - my count of the first 30 results is 25 block style maps outweighing 5 spiderweb style maps. Other searches and counting further down the page would likely yield similar results. Legacypac (talk) 21:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Do it without all the blogs etc and include ISIS and Islamic state. Almost all the high quality RS in recent weeks are using spider web style. DeCausa (talk) 21:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I did a image search without knowing what the quantifiable answer would be - and got a clear one. I just tried with ISIS and IS got the same general results. Lots of big name RS using block maps - BBC, Fox, DailyMail, ABC.net.au and so on. Can you quantify your statement more concretely? Legacypac (talk) 22:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The so called spider web maps you cite merely connect the various cities together with lines. They do not reflect the fact that ISIS controls and operates in the various desert areas we have coloured in on the map. They actually have controlled many of these areas prior to their major offensive against fallujah in December of 2013 for example see here ]XavierGreen (talk) 02:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I think that the style of map is a POV issue. Traditionally states have their territory marked by the territory they have formal control whether or not they occupy it. For example Canada or Australia would look very different if the spider type maps were used. So I suspect that the use of spider maps originate from the US military/convert/diplomatic sources. The issue of what reliable sources to use has in this conversation spanned maps up to a year old (which are ancient history). I suggest that the survey is restricted to maps in reliable sources over the last 3 months (to roll over as the months progress). The spider maps are more useful if one wishes to understand what is going on the ground (as in Syria the more detailed maps seem to intertwine the different powers in the country), but their use is unusual for showing who controls what in such conflicts. -- PBS (talk) 12:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Revamping and reduction of timeline

I renamed Timeline of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant events in 2014 -> Timeline of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant events and included all entries from the renaming in April 2013 to the present. I also moved the other timeline entries before this to Islamic State of Iraq#Timeline. This clears up clutter in the main article. There may an entry or two that isn't copied that could be applied to previous groups removed in this diff. The latest (~30 days) of events from the timeline are still transcluded into this article. If they weren't users would be putting them in this article and the main timeline article would not be maintained.

I also mentioned above that this article should be moved from C to B class and considered for Good Article or even Feature Article nomination. There's been a lot of hard work, and even some innovations on how to present so much information. I would also like to propose reusing and revamping the Leadership table now in at Islamic_State_of_Iraq#Leadership to help keep track of the known leadership of ISIL. Most leaders have their own articles which is good.~Technophant (talk) 22:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Nice idea - I cleaned the list up by sorting all the dead/capture from the likely living. Only problem with a table is we know only maybe 2 active names and little about them... Legacypac (talk) 22:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Good work, Technophant. Gazkthul (talk) 22:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank goodness. Thanks to Gazkthul and Technophant the article is now down to a reasonable size. --P123ct1 (talk) 12:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Footnotes (2)

Would editors please not leave bare URL footnotes when they make edits.

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, the link will be broken and readers will be unable to read the citation.

The last long backlog has only just been cleared by editors, but the number is starting to go up again. --P123ct1 (talk) 08:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The war faction infobox is out of hand

There are two infoboxes at the start of the article, the first based on {{Infobox country}} and the second based on {{Infobox war faction}}

These pose several problems in their current form. I think the first 2 problems are very serious.

1. The war faction infobox has grown enormous in scope, covering at least 4 conflicts, and listing military and political opponents and allies all across the globe. It no longer summarizes useful information for the reader. It has instead become several lists with nothing but offsite references to explain it. A reader can no longer navigate it. How do they know whether an ally or opponent is political or military? How do they know whether an alliance existed in the current conflict, or in one of several previous conflicts? Some of the entries are not even mentioned in the body of the article.
2. They span many screenfuls down the right-hand size of the page. On mobile devices, they dominate the top of the article. Tablet and smartphone users have to scroll dozens of pages to get to the table of contents and the body of the article. Mobile readers may never have the patience to find the best work of this article's editors.
3. Editors are confronted with many pages of template code before they can find prose they can read or edit. This is a bad experience for new editors. Even though the page is semi-protected, we should still welcome potential new editors with something that is easy to edit.

I thing that the war faction template was originally designed to be useful to summarize a faction in a single conflict, rather than extend to the entire history of a political and military organization.

I suggest that we start working to fix it. Should we make a first step? Lets delete the second infobox, and work its contents into list sections in the article. (Some of these should eventually become prose sections, and perhaps even lists in themselves. Perhaps as a later step we can add a few more highlights to the main infobox, even if it means customizing the template for this article.)

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

This sounds generally sound to me. The first template is a perhaps edited version of one of the templates found at: {{Infobox country}} and maybe there are extra categories there that can absorb some other information.

One difficulty for computer/ large screen users, is that there is a long lead and lengthening TOC while the first infobox is comparatively short. One of my earlier suggestions was for the content of the third and fourth paragraphs of the lead to be distributed into later text. This would give readers more immediate access to the TOC which would also have benefits for small screen users.

Alternatively, not all of the second box need be deleted. Sections are: active -dates; Ideology ...; Leaders ...; Headquarters .. ; Area of operation; Strength ...; part of al-Queda; Originated as ...; Allies ...; Opponents ...; Battles and wars ...;

Sections that I think would be worth moving include the last three (big sections). Other sections like Leaders are duplications of main article content. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I just wanted to check that information transfers well.

Iraq based opponents

 Iraq

• Iraqi Armed Forces
• Iraqi Shia militias
• Iraqi Turkmen Front

Sunni Iraqi Insurgents

Iraqi Kurdistan

It does and columns can be easily applied :) Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

It must be borne in mind that the Lead to any article should be a summary of the article, which this Lead now is. If anything is removed from it, it will no longer be a summary. The Lead is of reasonable length for an article of this size. The problem here is the ridiculously long second infobox, not the Lead, and it is the second infobox that needs dealing with, not the Lead. Reshaping the article to suit the needs of mobile phone users is crazy. The best solution is obviously to give the second infobox information its own section, as suggested, perhaps as lists complete with its flags, or is there some WP policy/guidance that prevents it? Or look at the Syrian Civil War article to see how the same problem is dealt with there. --P123ct1 (talk) 13:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The TOC is collapsible, btw. --P123ct1 (talk)

 Done! at least to a point that gave me satisfaction :)
the TOC now reads:

11 Finances
12 Equipment
13 Support

13.1 Foreign fighters

13.2 Allies

14 Opposition

14.1 Front line opposition forces

14.2 Multinational coalition (US lead) opposition

Actions taken were: to move Equipment above Foreign fighters to link with Finances; to add title Support; to move Allies from infobox; to add title Opposition (used to be opponents but I wanted to counterpoint support); To change to title front line opposition forces from whatever it was and add Iraq, Syria and Lebanon listings here (Perhaps the Kurdish forces could be moved up to here); to move multinational yader yader title changing to opposition from opponents and inserting listings from infobox; placing lists in two column format. That's all folks. Feel free to edit away. :)

The infoboxes now neatly (just as I planned honest) reach down to just about the same depth in the page as the end of the TOC. (I still favour more editing out from both lead and infoboxes but not to the point of being that bothered). Gregkaye ✍♪ 19:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye After all your hard work I am now wondering about the wisdom of having the allies/opponents in a section so far away from the first page! I notice there is a lot of white space on the first page, in the TOC (s.2.2.1 could be two lines) and between the first infobox and the TOC. Could a single or double column with the allies/opponents be fitted in there? If you look at the first page of the Syrian Civil War article you will see the sort of thing I mean. If the only way would be by removing some of the Lead, please forget it, for as I said above I am very against that! --P123ct1 (talk) 11:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 Wow, the Syrian.. page looks good. I really don't have an opinion on positioning and it wasn't that much work, just a few shifts about (but thanks also for your copy-editing). Split column infoboxes would be one option. The option of moving the info to a higher position also sounds great to me. Perhaps, as a section composed of names, it could even follow directly on from the names section - or perhaps follow History or Designation as a terrorist organization. I think the next three headings go well as a unit (Analysis, Ideology and beliefs and Goals) and they are followed by 7 Territorial claims, 8 Governance, 9 Human rights abuses. I'm not fussed on where to place the new insert so don't necessarily wait for my opinion.

Section headings of the moved content might read:

Allies and opposition

Allies

Opposition: based in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon

Opposition: multinational coalition (US-led)

That last section currently reads "Multinational coalition (US-led) opposition" but I wanted to get "opposition" either consistently at the beginning or end of the header.

The sub-heads represent the three double columned lists with the last list being the longest.

This "Opposition: multinational coalition (US-led)" section has further sub titles:

Military operations in or over Iraq and/or Syria, Supplying weapons to ground forces, Other State Opponents, Other Non-State Opponents, Iranian Kurdish fighters

I think the section on Foreign fighters is best left as following the sections on Finance and Equipment as this typically deals with smaller scale gains rather than organisational support.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye So there is no way the information could be put in a double/single column beside the other infobox as suggested, then? That would be preferable. --P123ct1 (talk) 15:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I thought perhaps after names but I've got no strong opinion. Suggestions welcome from all. Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it looks good as it currently stands. Gazkthul (talk) 23:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

TY. An advantage of current configuration is a connection between of section "Foreign fighters" and "Allies" which was my original motivation. However, P123ct1 is right to note that information has moved from the top of the article virtually to the bottom. The question relates to reader priorities, either to know how things got to the current situation or to know how that situation currently stands. Gregkaye ✍♪ 02:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I have moved the section up to come after "Designation as a terrorist organization" as a more appropriate place for it. --P123ct1 (talk) 11:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

One the of problems is that with the mobile view current/old mobile view has the subheading "As Jamāʻat al-Tawḥīd wa-al-Jihād, Al-Qaeda in Iraq and Mujahideen Shura Council (1999–2006)" being way too long, which forces the width of the TOC to be too wide to fit side by side with the infoboxes. I tried adding {TOC limit|2} which limits the Table of Contents to only headings that have "==" level, however there's a problem with how this works with Common.css and does not change the mobile view. So I shorten the heading to "Early incarnations (1999–2006)" and now the TOC fits side-by-side with the infoboxes as seen here. The ideal solution would be to limit the mobile view to only the first level headers, but how? The help desk might be able to help.~Technophant (talk) 00:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I saw that there was an issue with not being able to set the {{TOC limit}} in mobile view so I posted it the Village pump and created a bug report. If we can set the mobile TOC limit to 2 (only == level headers) then it will create a slimmer shorter mobile TOC. ~Technophant (talk) 03:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Salafi jihadism and/or jihadism

The articles "Infobox war faction" (the second infobox) presents the group's ideology as Salafist jihadism while the recently agreed wording of the main lead reads jihadist extremist. I'm just wondering if there is a consistency issue here and whether we should use one or the other. I'm not particularly bothered which is used but saw the anomaly and thought I'd raise it.

• ("Islamic State" OR ISIL OR ISIS) AND ("Salafi Jihad" OR "Salafi Jihadism") gets "About 48,400 results"

• "سلفية جهادية" ("الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام" OR "داعش") gets "About 537,000 results" - for "Salafi jihadism" ("Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" OR "Da'esh")

• ("Islamic State" OR ISIL OR ISIS) AND ("Jihad" OR "Jihadism") gets "About 19,000,000 results"

• "جهادية" ("الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام" OR "داعش") gets "About 7,710,000 results" - for "jihadism" ("Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" OR "Da'esh")

Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:03, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

United Nations designation of ISIS/ISIL as a terrorist organization - section 3

The United Nations has recently been added to the information box in section 3 as an organisation which has designated ISIL/ISIS as a terrorist organization. In August this year there was long discussion on the Talk page and elsewhere about whether editors could use the same sanctions list document now cited here to support the UN's inclusion in that infobox. The Talk page discussion is zurose arch 4 here and here, and after taking the question to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard WP:RSN here, where the opinion was that that sanctions list document could not be used to support a such a designation by the UN (see discussion there) editors decided that this document was not sufficient back-up. It is a sanctions list, and unlike the other formal country designation lists cited for other countries in that box. We could not find a statement of any kind by the UN, official or otherwise, saying it had designated it as a terrorist organisation - an editor on the RSN didn't believe the UN kept a designation list - the nearest to it was a handful of UN statements where it refers to them as a terrorist organisation, which it not the same thing. Hence the reason why the wording about the UN in the Lead appears as it does. Anyone who wishes to respond to this please look first at the discussion on the RSN. --P123ct1 (talk) 16:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

That was a short discussion in which no one seems to have looked at where the cited UN Security Council list came from. says the list came from this UNSC Resolution http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/1267(1999) which says "Recalling the relevant international counter-terrorism conventions and in particular the obligations of parties to those conventions to extradite or prosecute terrorists, Strongly condemning the continuing use of Afghan territory, especially areas controlled by the Taliban, for the sheltering and training of terrorists and planning of terrorist acts, and reaffirming its conviction that the

suppression of international terrorism is essential for the maintenance of international peace and security, Deploring the fact that the Taliban continues to provide safe haven to Usama bin Laden and to allow him and others associated with him to operate a network of terrorist training camps from Taliban-controlled territory and to use Afghanistan as a base from which to sponsor international terrorist operations," and so on...

and many related resolutions including 2083 (2012) which says in part:

"Reaffirming that terrorism in all its forms and manifestations constitutes one of

the most serious threats to peace and security and that any acts of terrorism are criminal and unjustifiable regardless of their motivations, whenever and by whomsoever committed, and reiterating its unequivocal condemnation of Al-Qaida and other individuals, groups, undertakings and entities associated with it, for ongoing and multiple criminal terrorist acts aimed at causing the deaths of innocent civilians and other victims, destruction of property and greatly undermining stability, Reaffirming that terrorism cannot and should not be associated with any religion, nationality or civilization..."

1. http://www.un.org/sc/committees/1267/

I could go on, but we need to look at the clear Security Council Resolutions calling these people terrorists and authorizes the maintenance of the list referenced. It can't be any more clear that the UN Security Council has designated everyone and every organization on the list as terrorists. Legacypac (talk) 01:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I just reworded the page to make it more clear.

Note

Legacypac (talk) 01:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac The discussion on the RSN was lengthy. Only one of your links there works. Can you fix so we can see what those docs are? --P123ct1 (talk) 06:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The editors who participated in the RSN failed to do any meaningful research, and hardly trump the UN Security Council. Let me make this really clear. Read http://www.un.org/sc/committees/1267/ where you will find all the data in supplied links. UN Security Council designated Bin Laden and associates as terrorists in RESOLUTION 1267 (1999) and established a Committee consisting of all Security Council members (point 6 in Resolution 1267 (1999)). In accordance with that resolution and subsequent resolutions, the committee created a list now called the "Al-Qaeda Sanctions list". It is a very detailed document. AL-QAIDA IN IRAQ got added to the sanctions list, and is now called ISIL on the sanctions list. If you read all the Security Council Resolutions linked in the first paragraph of the http://www.un.org/sc/committees/1267/ you will see the evolution. Each resolution is very clear that the listed people and orgs are terrorists. For example 1526 (under which AL-QAIDA IN IRAQ got added) says "participated in the financing, planning, facilitating and preparation or perpetration of terrorist acts or in supporting terrorist acts" "Reiterating its condemnation of the Al-Qaida network and other associated terrorist groups for ongoing and multiple criminal terrorist acts..." For some reason the UN site does not support linking to specific resolutions, I'll fix the article link. Legacypac (talk) 15:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

we need another sister EL

Wikinews:Category:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
199.119.232.212 (talk) 16:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• EL? Gregkaye ✍♪ 20:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • External links199.119.232.212 (talk) 21:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

English language reliable sources using"Islamic State" since declaration of name change

The trend since the official name change has moved toward "Islamic State", the official name of the subject of the article. Here is a preliminary listing of English language reliable media sources who are using Islamic State. Feel free to add to the list as it inevitably grows. The dynamic nature of the subject, along with abiding by WP:COMMONNAME, WP:RS and WP:NPOV, is making the continued use of the outdated ISIS or ISIL increasingly untenable. GraniteSand (talk) 23:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Most of the examples listed below are discussing the name, so cannot be used as examples of current usage. Samples need to be taken from regular RS reports on the activities of ISIS. I would imagine that most sources are still using "Islamic State" and "ISIS/ISIL" interchangeably. The Guardian article listed there, a regular report, not discussing name usage, has 29 instances of "ISIS" and 6 of "Islamic State". For as long as RS sources use both, "Islamic State" and "ISIS/ISIL", it won't be possible to say "Islamic State" is now the common name. Twitter and blogs, which appear in that list, are considered questionable sources by WP:RS. "Islamic State" is certainly not NPOV PC for some, which is exactly why there is all this reluctance to use plain "Islamic State" in the media and this article. --P123ct1 (talk) 07:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Without going against WP:NOTAFORUM, I still can't understand how calling them Islamic State (their name) gives them "legitimacy" and isn't NPOV, while calling them Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (their old name) doesn't. Gazkthul (talk) 08:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

It can be looked at both ways. Calling them "Islamic State" in the article can be seen as NPOV because all that does is reflect what the group have renamed themselves as, i.e. a fact, and WP records facts. It can equally be seen as POV, because merely using the name in the article looks like endorsement of the highly-disputed legitimacy of the caliphate/Islamic State. The opposing viewpoints obviously account for why editors disagree so much over this, but as you say these are asides since this thread is about RS practice and this article reflecting it. --P123ct1 (talk) 09:47, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

@P123ct1 This paragraph is perplexing. That's exactly why they are reliable sources for common usage. These reliable sources are discussing the proper naming conventions of the subject of the article since its change and are agreeing upon "Islamic State". In an instance where the common name is not easily discerned because of the common interoperability then we establish there is no established common name and use what reliable sources tell us is the correct name, which the below sources assert is "Islamic State". Additionally, your use of "political correctness' as a litmus for usage here is extremely concerning and suggests that you are either wholly unfamiliar with our policies and mission or are editing here with an agenda not aligned with our mission. In fact it's reflective of much of the unnecessary and obstructive obfuscation surrounding this issue. GraniteSand (talk) 23:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

You fail to grasp the simple point I was making about NPOV/POV (and being PC). It was a statement, not a view. Also, I did not like to say it when commenting on your examples, but I, too, thought they were biased. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

You're right, I don't understand what you're saying. Still, I would like to know more about how you think Political Correctness fits into this discussion. Could you elaborate? GraniteSand (talk) 07:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

PC is not a "litmus" for anything and I did not suggest it was; again, I was simply making a statement. If you search "PC-ness" in these threads, you will see how I think it fits into the discussion. btw, I added a few words in my last main comment, which I hope makes my point clearer.  :) --P123ct1 (talk) 16:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Sources

• Note most sources also take note of the political nature of the hesitancy to use the groups actual name.
• The New York Times
• BBC
• The Economist
• Reuters
• The Guardian
• The Washington Post
• The Associated Press --Adds qualifier "group" which is an excellent idea, i.e. Islamic State (group)
• NPR --Uses qualifier "self-declared" and ISIS for shorthand after the lede
• Washington Times
• International Business times --With qualifier (group)
• USA Today
• Voice of America and Foreign Policy Magazine

Even amongst these specific links:
BBC: "'ISIS' seems to be the most ubiquitous name"
The Economist - article title: The many names of ISIS (also known as IS, ISIL, SIC and Da'ish)
The Guardian - article title: US to directly arm Kurdish peshmerga forces in bid to thwart Isis offensive
Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:20, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I've read them. I fail to see where you're taking that, though. GraniteSand (talk) 22:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

You have? You are quoting select references that clearly use references like ISIS; that can demonstrate the use of ISIS and not "Islamic State" in the title and that can state: 'ISIS' seems to be the most ubiquitous name. You know that RS use a variety of names yet you still present the single option, 'English language reliable sources using "Islamic State"'. Gregkaye ✍♪ 02:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

First result in a search for Islamic State this AM is http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/01/islamic-state-language-isis - titled "Why there’s no such thing as Islamic State". Many other articles using the term similarly qualify the use. Counting results for "Islamic State" will include all results for spelled out ISIS/ISIL etc so don't assume that a count of search results = common name.Legacypac (talk) 15:58, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Correct, search results are inherently misleading and practically worthless in this context. We must assemble reliable sources speaking on the subject since the name change and determine common usage among those reliable sources. The list above demonstrates such sources doing just that. GraniteSand (talk) 22:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

ISIL/ISIS/"Islamic State"

"Islamic State" is the morally corrupt name of a morally corrupt group. It has all the ambiguity of stating "Government" or similar while suggesting a large yet specific sphere of influence.

• ISIL gets "About 28,000,000 results" with results including those of the likes of Intersil Corp.
• ISIS gets "About 227,000,000 results" note that this will include a number of references to ancient Egyptian religion and a significant number of other organisations and people etc. as partly referenced at Isis (disambiguation). There is also a potential issue here in that "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" is less accurate than "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" but the article currently makes reference to "Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham"

Curiously:

• ISIS got "About 62,100,000 results" with dates "1 Apr 2013 - 'Today'"

while

• ISIS got "About 1,380,000 results" with dates "Before 1 Apr 2013".

Its still a lot of hits.

• "Islamic State" gets "About 59,800,000 results"
• "Islamic State" got "About 18,700,000 results" with dates "1 Apr 2013 - 'Today'"

while

• "Islamic State" got "About 3,460,000 results" with dates "Before 1 Apr 2013".

Another repeatedly mentioned problem with the the groups self-designated title is that there is already a Misplaced Pages article on Islamic state. I have mentioned a potential but personally unfavoured use of Islamic State (Iraq and Levant) which also has the advantages of avoiding the arrogant ambiguity of the self-edited title. Islamic State (group) provides zero disambiguation from other Islamic States that have either come before or which may appear in the future. That title may have use in the context of a news outlet dealing solely with current events but it has no place in an encyclopaedia.

Acronym title formats work for in connection to articles such as: BBC, HIV/AIDS, IBM, NATO, and a wide range of others. The format can work here. Arabic and Muslim communities reject the use of "Islamic State". WP:COMMONNAME indicates that: Misplaced Pages prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural.

• site:www.nytimes.com/ "ISIS" gets "About 220,000 results"
• site:www.nytimes.com/ "Islamic State" gets "About 29,200 results"

Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye Is this a new Talk section or a continuation of GraniteSand's that he opened? Probably best to avoid subsections in Talk discussions, I think. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. The GraniteSand's thread is disjointed by use of the Sources subheading and I did what I thought best to preserve chronological continuity. I'll move: ISIL/ISIS/"Islamic State" to a level 2 heading.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregkaye (talk • contribs) 10:44, 2 October 2014

Yes, I guessed that is why you had done it! To continue, most of those statistics lump all sources together and it is only the RS sources that we are interested in when looking for the group's WP:COMMONNAME. Global stastistics of that kind won't help especially as ISIS and ISIL refer to other entities as well. Even statistics for "Islamic State" in an individual RS source are no good without a comparison with its use of "ISIS/ISIL". Can you find any more breakdowns for RSs of the kind you found for the NYT? An assessment of the group's common name has been attempted innumerable times on this Talk page in the last few months and each time failed miserably. A proper breakdown of individual RS sources would be needed to come to a sensible conclusion. So far in discussions it has been random sampling, anecdotal evidence and impressions none of which are satisfactory. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

GraniteSand, you were aware of the prevalence of the use of the names ISIL and ISIS as per information presented at Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#Alternative_name and this awareness is demonstrated by your 1 October edit of your thread at: Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#How_much_longer_are_we_going_to_avoid_calling_the_Islamic_State_the_Islamic_State.3F. Never-the-less you still presented a single option title as at: Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#English language reliable sources using"Islamic State" since declaration of name change. Are these not examples against WP:NPOV? Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're asking me. GraniteSand (talk) 23:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

GraniteSand, I made a statement. You are also well aware of previous statements statements made regarding the prevalence of the use of ISIL/ISIS. You also quoted a range of articles several of which did not even mention Islamic State in their titles some of which even made statements such as: 'ISIS' seems to be the most ubiquitous name. You know that RS use a variety of names and of the prevalence of the use of acronym based titles and yet you still presented the one sided: English language reliable sources using"Islamic State".

Its not good. Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

WP has a word for editors with an agenda. --P123ct1 (talk) 14:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

@Gregkaye After all that verbiage I'm still unclear what your question is. @P123ct1 No need to be passive aggressive or snide. If you have an accusation to level then, by all means, do so. Still, I would suggest that it would behoove you to be more concise and unambiguous than you have so far. GraniteSand (talk) 08:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Manners forbade, but I will say it straight: I think you are a POV-pusher. Your examples were biased and selective and designed to put across a point of view which the evidence does not support. I bow out from this now. --P123ct1 (talk) 09:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

GraniteSand, You have everything you need to understand my meaning. You knew of the existence of multiple options and you presented one. This is not a balanced or fair approach to take. I don't know what word P123ct1 had in mind but I think that biased, selective and manipulative apply. Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@Gregkaye Wow, where to begin? We don't treat search engine results as a reliable source when extrapolating facts, especially when attempting to gauge the notability or veracity of subject or terms, across the project. Even if we did, your metrics are wrong. You're using search parameters more than a year outside the Islamic State's name change. Additionally terminology searched provide inherently unreliable results as ISIS and ISIL both contain "Islamic State" and many articles talking about the proper or preferred use of "Islamic State" include the former terms for context. These search results are categorically worthless.

Your objections to the title change based on existing articles is a technical issue easily fixed by disambiguation pages and is not an excuse to make a move otherwise compliant with policy. Your push for an acronym title is misguided and your corresponding search results for the NYT are as erroneous as the previous search results, for much the same reason. You'll notice that the overwhelming preponderance of sources using "ISIS" use so as a shorthand, only after identifying the group as it's full former name, in the lede. This is not true of your examples.

To reiterate the policy on Misplaced Pages article titles: "If the name of a person, group, object, or other article topic changes, then more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change than in those before the change." The subject has changed its name and the way in which we determine usage is by compiling reliable sources who have spoken on the subject since the name change. We don't use loose search results or complain about perceived moral slights, which brings me to my last point. You're leading objection to the use of "Islamic State" as being morally corrupt raises concerns about your paradigm in editing this article. Your angry and unsolicited characterization of the subject of the article as also being morally corrupt, while probably correct, also raises concerns about your state. Both suggest that, in this space, you may be driven more by animosity than a desire to build an article based our core policies. Combined with antagonistic declarations on your user page characterizing religion in general as being an inevitable contributor to insecurity, grief, and insanity leaves me in doubt that you can edit here fairly and without bias. You may want to consider recusing yourself, or even just taking a break, from editing here. GraniteSand (talk) 22:52, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Wow. Gregkaye has made a number of major, useful and objective edits to this page - more than most have in the past week. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

A good reason not to use Islamic State

According to this BBC article quoting a woman in Mosul "They will cut your tongue out even if you call them Isis - you have to say Islamic State." Legacypac (talk) 20:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't follow your logic. Could you expand on that? GraniteSand (talk) 22:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

"Isis" in their minds means the pagan goddess. Nonsensical - but what do you expect from a bunch of mentally defective terrorists? HammerFilmFan (talk) 00:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

(Pagan? That's POV. The Egyptian religion had a great belief in such concepts as "truth," "justice," and "order" Belief systems held that people would be judged according to the weighing of their souls. Modern religions typically say that people are judged according to adherence to a specific creed. For most people this means that, if you are born into the wrong family, you're screwed. The Egyptian belief may be considered to be relatively fair in comparison. Gregkaye ✍♪ 18:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC))

One way of looking at this is that using "Islamic State" for ISIL bows to the desires of the terrorists. In examining COMMONNAME we need to look at what RS call it - and not just the news media headlines. (I continue to update this list)

UN - consistently uses ISIL in Security Council documents.

US - Govt and Obama consistently using ISIL. Extreme proof: http://www.defense.gov/home/features/2014/0814_iraq/

Canada is using "The so-called Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant’s (ISIL)" or just ISIL.http://www.international.gc.ca/media/aff/news-communiques/2014/09/15a.aspx?lang=eng

AU PM Tony Abbott said at the UN Security council "To use this term is to dignify a death cult; a death cult that, in declaring itself a caliphate, has declared war on the world," he told the Security Council. Perhaps the realisation is now dawning for all peoples, all cultures and all faiths that it can never be right to kill in the name of God. Countries do need to work together to defeat it because about 80 countries have citizens fighting with ISIL and every country is a potential target."

UK PM Cameron uses the term ISiL https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4HDt9PUkeI

France using Daesh

EU The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has adopted a resolution to combat the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, or ISIL, to establish peace and stability in conflict regions. http://www.aa.com.tr/en/news/398838--pace-calls-for-governments-to-stand-up-against-isil

Russia Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has called for the involvement of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the campaign against the Takfiri ISIL terrorists operating inside Syria and neighboring Iraq. “Iran of course should be part of the efforts to fight ISIL, because Iran is a strong opponent of this group,” Lavrov said http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/09/28/380328/russia-urges-iran-role-against-isil/

Gulf/Arab states usually use Daesh from everything I've read.

That covers the major part of the English speaking world and a few other key players. Legacypac (talk) 01:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that any news organisation that has reporters in front-line regions of Iran, Iraq or Syria can necessarily be considered a reliable source. Sources continue to use a variety of references to the group but remember, this is a group that have been known for killing reporters and for killing people that make reference to Daesh and now ISIS as well. Gregkaye ✍♪ 03:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Would it not be a good idea to keep all discussion on this topic under one heading, instead of having it scattered about in different sections? It would make the discussion much easier to follow. --P123ct1 (talk) 07:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

@Legacypac Oh yes, you're right. All those governments utilize the alternate/outdated name. All those governments are also in direct and declared conflict with the Islamic State, a conflict that extends to naming conventions. Independent reliable sources such as the New York Times and the AP have both characterized the listed nations' naming conventions as part of a wider propaganda campaign. Note too that the official apolitical broadcast outlet of the United States uses their actual name "Islamic State" while the political arm of the US government uses "ISIL" which is rejected by independent sources. GraniteSand (talk) 07:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

It is not an outdated name when it is commonly used to refer to the entity. For an older example Nazi_Party was not their official name, but kind of but not really an acronym. Same with Tory or Republican or KKK - not that these groups are related of course. And ISIL and ISIS are hardly rejected by independent sources. Lots of organizations like the UN Security Council and media worldwide use ISIL, even Fallon uses it. Legacypac (talk) 10:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Force for Good

I think Misplaced Pages could be a useful vehicle here, and maybe list some of the various international muslim communities that have condemned ISIS. For example, in the UK there is "not in my name" campaign by British Muslims. Perhaps this information could be placed near the top, so its prominent. This wouldn't be manipulative or untruthful, but it would be useful for people to have this information spelt out to them clearly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.43.249 (talk) 01:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is an encylopaedia, not an arm of the media or an information service. But a section dealing with criticisms of the Islamic State has already been proposed and this could go into that. --P123ct1 (talk) 07:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC) (See next section --P123ct1 (talk))

If I add this will it be considered breach of the 1RR? I don't f'ing understand how that procedure works. Could someone else add it in my name please. Thanks. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 12:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

To Why should I have a User Name?: If it has been at least 24 hours since you last edited the article, then you should feel free to edit it again. Even if your edit is construed as a reversion of someone else's edit, that would not be a violation of 1RR which limits you to one reversion per 24 hour period per affected article (i.e. articles on the Syrian civil war). JRSpriggs (talk) 13:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Why should I have a User Name? On an earlier Talk page I drew up this guidance on what a revert is, as I think most of us have been baffled about this rule at some stage. Dougweller, the admin on this page, seems to have approved that list. --P123ct1 (talk) 14:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

No I agree that its not an arm of the media etc, but I think its noteworthy to include that many Islamic organisations have condemned this action. The fact that it will also be of humanitarian benefit is just a very positive additional benefit of having such a section. Just without the criticism section, people reading up on ISIS may have the false conclusion that this is supported by the majority of Muslims, so information by omission of such a sensitive nature is all the more crucial in this instance - especially when it seems that a large part of ISIS campaign is to cause a Muslim/non-Muslim divide; would be a shame for wikipedia to play even a small role in propagating that :)

Thanks for the civilised discussions here btw - I've already had a mod that I fell out with on a previous article come to my page and lay down the law regarding this, so thankfully you guys are seeing the bigger picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.43.249 (talk) 15:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

87.115.43.249 You will have seen I opened a new section (see next discussion) after your first comment, because I agree that the Muslim opposition to ISIL is a very important topic to cover. I foresee this new "Criticism" section will grow fast, now that Muslim communities and the international community are voicing their criticisms more and more loudly. Unfortunately, I cannot see where this new section could go in the article to give it more prominence. The history of the group and what is doing now naturally has to be covered first, including the human rights abuses, to explain the contents of the "Criticism" section. This is why it comes fairly low down in the article. There was certainly no intention to "bury" the information. --P123ct1 (talk) 18:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

No that's excellent, and I don't think anyone was intentionally burying this information (sorry if I sounded accusatory at all - was not my intention!), I just felt it was an important inclusion for the purpose of balance which led onto the wider reasons I mentioned.. Thanks again for the discussion and the edit. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.43.249 (talk) 18:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

No, you weren't accusing, but I have been accused of it by another editor, hiding the controversy over the name. Nothing was further from my mind. --P123ct1 (talk) 09:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

New section: "Criticism of the Islamic State"

I have opened a new section called "Criticism of the Islamic State", as it seemed time for one after all the recent outspoken criticisms from various governments and the Muslim world. I have moved into it some text from other parts of the article. Please feel free to change the title or move it to a different position in the TOC, as I don't think either are ideal but couldn't think of better alternatives. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

An editor has already removed the subsections I put in, "From the Muslim community" and "From the non-Muslim world", on the grounds that this is divisive - which is fine - but it seemed only logical to me to have the criticisms under those separate headings. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I felt free not to divide the world between 'us' and 'others'. Thank you. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 11:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Is there a better way to handle the information in that section in an orderly way? Any ideas are welcome. --P123ct1 (talk) 11:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The edits to restore any doubt about the applicability of the name "Islamic State" are not constructive. Calling an organization "Islamic State" is incredibly inappropriate: 1. Very offensive to the vast majority of Muslims world wide 2. Not the name used by any known State actor (see list above) 3. Is like naming an organization "The Government" or "Republic" or "Kingdom" with no geographical or ethnic context. It is totally illogical. 4. Many people feel that the organization is neither Islamic or a State and definately not both. 5. The vast majority of media sources qualify the term - and so should we. 6. Multiple move requests to "Islamic State" for the article have failed, yet people keep changing the text. Legacypac (talk) 12:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Putting this important information that no nation recognizes the name they want to use deep down in the article is not NPOV, it is hiding the facts. It belongs in the Lead where I inserted it before, perhaps with more detail in a section of the article. Legacypac (talk) 13:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I did voice misgivings about the position of the new section, partly for that reason. I think a sentence or two in the Lead about the name dispute and dispute over the legitimacy of the Islamic State/caliphate (which is really what the name dispute is about) and more detail on it in "Criticism of the Islamic State" placed more prominently in the TOC - though how that can be done without upsetting the flow of the article I can't see at the moment. Perhaps worked into the "Names" section, which is right at the beginning? The most important thing is that whatever is said about this must be said neutrally, or it will flout WP:NPOV, one of the WP:FIVEPILLARS which are the foundation on which WP is built. --P123ct1 (talk) 13:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I put a new sentence, the last in the lead, to cover it, immediately after the sentence about the group renaming itself. It is factual, not POV, and fits with the fact they picked a new name. Their chosen name is a declaration of war on the rest of the muslim world, not some trivial thing Misplaced Pages should just swallow without presenting that 99% of the world rejects it.Legacypac (talk) 13:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

WD P123ct1 and Legacypac for work on this. Digression: I view the content with referral to governmental and religious sources to have a far higher moral standing than the actions of groups such as reuters that for some inexplicable reason seem to have chosen to use the term "Islamic State" in virtual exclusion to all others. I find it incomprehensible, an example of "RS" POV? Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps they took the view, "This is what they call themselves now. We should as well, and not get into the politics of it." Seems reasonable. --P123ct1 (talk) 16:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

No I think the media is shortening a long name they don't understand to save ink. That and pure laziness. And like another editor suggested, maybe protect their reporters from being separated from their heads. If this group called itself "The Catholic Church" and the leader the "Pope" would Misplaced Pages use those name? Legacypac (talk) 16:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac I agree with you, it should not be trivialised. My overriding concern is WP:NPOV, and if it makes it look as if I minimise some things, that is unintentional. We had a very similar discussion about using the word "terrorist" in the Lead some time ago. It is not what is said, it is how it is said that counts. --P123ct1 (talk) 14:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Slovenia is not supplying weapons

Please remove Slovenia from list of countries providing weapons. Slovenia is not helping by military means. It was listed on the list of countries in coalition against IS without even being informed.

Sources: http://www.sta.si/en/vest.php?s=a&id=2054912 http://www.noodls.com/view/907F12D3539A0A4E278BE6F2EE86B49EBCD99185?9269xxx1411980751 http://www.24ur.com/novice/slovenija/pahor-zgladil-nesporazum-glede-uvrstitve-slovenije-na-seznam-koalicije-drzav-proti-is.html http://www.siol.net/novice/slovenija/2014/09/mzz.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.103.141.64 (talk) 11:43, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Deleted the flag and bad ref. Thanks for the heads up. Legacypac (talk) 14:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Territory seized and controlled by ISIL

A tricky technical point has arisen. How is land seized and controlled by an unrecognised state described? The Islamic State is described as an "unrecognized state" in the Lead. How should the land it claims for its new caliphate be described? Is the correct description "occupied territory"? --P123ct1 (talk) 16:16, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Good question. The term "unrecognized state" is actually linked to Lists_of_active_separatist_movements and ISIL is on the List_of_active_rebel_groups#Groups_which_control_territory so "controlled" and "occupied" or "occupied territories" seems reasonable. ISIL is the largest rebel army controlling the largest geographic area and population, and the only one spanning two countries in the world right now (Eastern Ukraine being a possible exception). Perhaps we should change "unrecognized state" to something better - I've almost done that already but fear a revert war. ISIL is (correctly) not on the List_of_states_with_limited_recognition but the term unrecognized state suggests that they should be. I can't come up with a better term other than terrorist organization Legacypac (talk) 16:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Reworking the Lead

(new heading to attract attention to this continuing discussion)

Legacypac So far the article has "ISIL-controlled territory". Probably safest to keep to that, I think, for consistency if nothing else. There was some discussion about "unrecognised state" edit some time back, which I don't remember, so probably best not to edit it without putting it to the Talk page first. I have no view on what it should be. It is already called a "terrorist organisation" in the Lead, of course. Btw, I was going to add a sentence before yours at the end of the Lead and run it into yours this way:

"There has been much debate worldwide about the legitimacy of these moves, and no government and very few Muslims will acknowledge the name "Islamic State" owing to its far-reaching political and religious authority implications."

I wanted to get in that there is this debate about the legitimacy of what ISIL has done. Is that okay by you? --P123ct1 (talk) 17:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't like that change because unlike many things that are debated, all parties (except ISIL, a handful of terror groups that have pledged to them, and some media organizations) reject the name. I don't think your addition says anything more than what is there now, just with more words. I remain open to discussion though. Legacypac (talk) 18:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Much of the widespread criticism of the group from Muslims and the international community is about the legitimacy of the Islamic State and the caliphate. Their rejection of the name "Islamic State" is a part of that wider criticism. Your wording covers the name rejection, mine shows what it stems from. Simples. But I'm not fussed, my edit can stay out. --P123ct1 (talk) 20:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah I see what you are driving at - maybe we can wordsmith something stronger to that point. There is plenty to criticise. Maybe the name issue should be a subheading along with beheadings and sexual assaults and kidnapping kids (which might be missing) etc. Might want to rename the section. In the lead we could say something like

"ISIL's very existence and nearly all its actions are viewed by the international community as a threat to peace and security. No government and very few Muslims will acknowledge the name "Islamic State" owing to its far-reaching political and religious authority implications." Someone else want to take a crack at this? The only thing they have done that anyone other than their terrorist brothers would approve of is fighting Assad. Legacypac (talk) 04:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

That end para has been replaced by a wonderfully woolly one from an editor who is probably oblivious of this Talk page discussion. The sentence does not hang together properly and makes no logical sense. --P123ct1 (talk) 06:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Ya, I fixed it some, along with the first paragraph which someone unhelpfully again took out the self declared part. Below is where it stands at the moment. Maybe with a little more editing to the first and second paragraphs we can cut the last paragraph of the lead?

The self-declared Islamic State (IS; Template:Lang-ar al-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah), which previously called itself and is internationally known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL /ˈaɪsəl/) or the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS /ˈaɪsɪs/; Template:Lang-ar al-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fī al-ʻIraq wa-al-Shām) and by the Arabic acronym Dāʻish (داعش), is an unrecognized state and a Sunni jihadist group active in Iraq and Syria in the Middle East. In its self-proclaimed status as a caliphate, it claims religious authority over all Muslims worldwide, and aims to bring most Muslim-inhabited regions of the world under its political control, beginning with territory in the Levant region, which includes Syria, Jordan, Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Cyprus, and part of southern Turkey.

The group has been described by the United Nations and the media as a terrorist group, and has been designated as a foreign terrorist organization by the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, Turkey, Indonesia, and Saudi Arabia. The United Nations and Amnesty International have accused the group of grave human rights abuses.

(3 history paragraphs then)

Due to ISIL's claim that it holds a certain "supreme/ultimate" political and religious authority over all others, no government, and in fact very few Muslims worldwide will acknowledge the "Islamic State" name, or its apparent aspirations to such a domination over all others. Therefore Arab countries and Muslim media outlets typically tend to refer to the group simply as Da-ish or ISIS while the United Nations and nearly all Western nations use the acronym ISIL.

1. The group is widely known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), alternately called the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and the Islamic State of Iraq and ash-Sham (referring to Greater Syria; Template:Lang-ar al-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fī al-ʻIrāq wa-al-Shām). The group is also known by the Arabic acronym DAʿESH (Template:Lang-ar Dāʻish). These names continue to be used.

1. Ferran, Lee; Momtaz, Rym. "ISIS: Trail of Terror". ABC News. Retrieved 14 September 2014.
2. "داعش تعلن تأسيس دولة الخلافة وتسميتها "الدولة الإسلامية" فقط دون العراق والشام والبغدادي أميرها وتحذر "لا عذر لمن يتخلف عن البيعة". Arabic CNN. 29 June 2014. Retrieved 31 July 2014 (Google translation available.). {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
3. "Isis rebels declare 'Islamic state' in Iraq and Syria". BBC News. 30 June 2014. Retrieved 30 June 2014.
4. "What is ISIS? — The Short Answer". The Wall Street Journal. 12 June 2014. Retrieved 15 June 2014.
5. "Security Council concerned about illicit oil trade as revenue for terrorists in Iraq, Syria". UN News Centre. 28 July 2014. Retrieved 17 August 2014.

Legacypac (talk) 21:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the Lead as it stands up until the last para should be disturbed, as there is a flow there. More importantly, that last para, on criticism of the group's aspirations and its name, I think follows on smoothly from the para before about the establishment of the caliphate, since it is describing how the world has reacted to that event - it continues the chronological sequence. To work it in earlier wouldn't make sense, because the criticism follows that last event. In a way, the last para is "And this is what the world said", as in that game of "Consequences" if anyone remembers that!

So in other words, my view on the current shape of the Lead is "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". The real task is to fix that last paragraph. --P123ct1 (talk) 23:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I heard English/American speakers (for example Obama and several analysts) pronounce the IS/ISIL/ISIS acronym as 'eye sa' or 'eye saw', why is that? Bever (talk) 16:25, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I've not heard that yet (but I am a native english speaker and it might sound different to your ears). World leaders are saying ISIL almost exclusively pronounced 'eye sole' or pronounced out 'eye es eye el'. But you gotta see this clip from Fallon for the correct pronunciation. Legacypac (talk) 17:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Copy of letter sent to British Broadsheets and Reuters

Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:18, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

WD, Gregkaye. Those are exactly the kind of intra-RS results that I thought would be more helpful than random surveys by editors, to guage name usage. Who did this survey? You say "Copy of a letter", but I see no letter. The results are quite revealing, aren't they? Is it possible to do this for some American RSs? --P123ct1 (talk) 18:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Well done indeed - reuters.com the fount of news everywhere, has signed on to "Islamic State" regardless of what the UN or any country calls them. Legacypac (talk) 19:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I guess I need to improve my letter writing skills. I did the searches, wrote a summary, looked up some addresses and sent it off. Gregkaye ✍♪ 19:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Brilliant! Can you do some for US RSs? These are the best kind of results to help guage usage. --P123ct1 (talk) 21:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

TY - I'm not familiar with the term - sounds good tho . Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC) @P123ct1:

Disruptive edits

User:Atifabbasi8 has first brought a money unit from an unreliable source and without sources invented two 'official languages' and later when I removed the so-called official languages has come back to revert that and passing by to remove a citation needed tag without any explanation. Therefore they have made use of not reliable sources, addition without sources, removal of a tag without explanation and a violation of the 1RR rule. Which admin is going to warn them and who is going to revert their disruptive edits? Thanks. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 18:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I wonder how long Jihadi John and other fighters will be willing to fight if their pay comes in ISIL dinars? I reverted it Legacypac (talk) 20:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Now this https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant&diff=628242520&oldid=628242261 edit is inappropriate, needs to be reverted. Not discussed on the talk page. Legacypac (talk) 20:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Lol! To quote an admin: "The beauty of Misplaced Pages is that anyone can edit it. The tragedy of Misplaced Pages is that anyone can edit it." --P123ct1 (talk) 21:32, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Gave editor a 1RR block. Dougweller (talk) 11:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Spain is supplying weapons to the Iraqi Army

According to this news article, Spain's contribution to the Coalition is to give weapons to the Iraqi Army, among other material, and the use of Spanish bases by NATO allies. Spain also may send advisors:

http://www.abc.es/internacional/20140924/abci-espana-coalicion-internacional-201409231842.html

I'd have updated the article myself, but I am not an expert on Misplaced Pages and I don't know how can I do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felino123 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Felino123, according to that news Spain is ready to provide (sell) arms to Iraq. Good for them, in these times of crisis. As far as I know, there is no limitation for arms sales to Iraq, so they are only announcing themselves as a provider; that is not much of a help to the coalition indeed. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 16:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Flames of War

I think the section "Propaganda and social media" should be updated with info about the hour-long ISIS' propaganda movie in English called "Flames of War", mentioning the English-speaking American-accented terrorist who narrates.

Sources:

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/09/19/world/meast/isis-flames-of-war-video/

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-release-flames-of-war-video-warning-obama-of-attacks-troops-could-face-in-iraq-9737621.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2759299/ISIS-releases-Hollywood-style-propaganda-video-response-US-plans-deploy-troops-Iraq-threatening-fighting-just-begun.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2762864/Does-ISIS-U-S-jihadist-ranks-Masked-man-American-accent-star-ISIS-latest-propaganda-film-Flames-War.html

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/isis-releases-flames-war-blockbuster-style-propaganda-film-1466428

The full video on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XZ3ovDxhw4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felino123 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I have not done any personal work on section "Propaganda and social media" and think it would be worth considering similarities or differences between this video and those that have gone before. The beginning of the video places significant focus on "lies". Not mentioned here was the original excuse for the second invasion of Iraq being on the basis of "weapons of mass destruction". At the other extreme, even in Misplaced Pages, I felt the need to add this: Talk:Muslim#Honesty. I think truth and honesty, responsibility and the representation of identity can clearly all be casualties of both war and religion. I don't provisionally think that we should place too much focus on accusations but would prefer to support emphasis on representations of proven wrongs of any of the groups involved. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Designation as a terrorist organization

Someone has added France, Germany, Poland and Denmark to the countries which have designated ISIL as a terrorist organisation - in the Lead, though not in the infobox in section 3 - but this edit mysteriously does not appear in the Edit Summaries. I have had to remove these countries as no citations were provided. Could the editor provide citations in support of their edit, please? It would be best to put them here on the Talk page to be looked at first, as there has been quite a bit of difficulty over the suitability of citations for some of the countries in section 3. A designation of this kind is a formal government process and quite different from a country simply saying that it regards a group as terrorists. --P123ct1 (talk) 18:36, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

"self-declared" caliphate, there is no caliphate ever that wasn't "self-declared" and without muslim opposition exept in muhammad life

every caliphate after muhammad has fighted against other caliphates all the centuries untile the last caliphate of the 20th century. so there is no real reason for that line of "self-declared" other than the will of the writer to make the islamic state look less legitimate than other caliphate while there is no any logic nor religious differences between them.

by the way i am far from being a supporter of them, i am atheist. --109.65.50.252 (talk) 21:38, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Bravo. That historical truth (if such it is) should put an end to this "self-declared" nonsense (apologies to editors).

--P123ct1 (talk) 23:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

(Bravo for being an atheist or... :)? Sorry for my late entry. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 14:54, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

An interesting article on an actual Islamic interpretation of khalifah is found at http://islamic-world.net/khalifah/definition.htm Various objections can be raised against the ISIL claims of Caliphate. The article has long had words such as claimed in connection to Caliphate and this concurs with questions related to ISILs representation of Islam as raised by Muslims worldwide. Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The first para of the Lead is becoming comical now, fairly bristling with its qualifications. Why can't Misplaced Pages just report on the facts in the Lead, and deal with the qualifications in the body of the article, showing there exactly why there are these objections to the facts? I opened the "Criticism" section with just that in mind. If I was reading this article for the first time, on reading the first para I would think either (a) "Why are they so hesitant?" or (b) "Come on, spit it out!" --P123ct1 (talk) 12:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ This is a digression - the main thread resumes below
Comment on digression: Well saved. My reply concerns more general issues which should have personally marked as a digression had I thought it through. Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 From my perspective the trouble is that, for various reasons, we are sticking with an outdated article title. I also appreciate that I've contributed a significant influence in maintaining it. In Arabic they may have a bit more use of the full title with a general preference for Da'esh but in English ISIS, Islamic State and ISIL are the prevalent terms. Given that our title goes against the grain I think that the qualifiers "self-declared" and "which previously called itself" at least help to explain the situation. In regard to the rest of the content I think that there are strengths in showing caution, fools rush in and all that.

It would certainly be more comfortable if there was a situation where we could dispense with the current plethora of qualifying statements but my view is that the responsibility lies with the group and for them to sort themselves out. I think that it is as much the situation as anything that is unsettling. Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

My problem with the qualifiers is that they seem to me to fly in the face of facts - he was appointed caliph, they did establish a caliphate, they were previously known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, whether we like or not! Qualifications and objections can be dealt with in the "Criticisms" section - which I fear may become ginormous at this rate" :) --P123ct1 (talk) 17:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ :the "terms" for the legitimacy of caliphate(along with "the Pledge of Allegece of 'the People'" which basicaly can be everybody, anybody or nobody according to the situation) as this article claim:

"

1. The defence and maintainance of religion

2. The decision of legal dispute

3. The protection of territory of Islam

4. The punishment of the wrong doers

5. The provision of troop for guarding the frontiers

6. The waging of Jihad againts the Kafir Harbi

7. The organization and collection pf zakat

8. The payment of salery and administration of public fund

9. The appointment of competent officials

10. Personal attention to the detail of the government

"

and the "terms" for being a caliph:

"

1. He must be a man.

2. He must be knowledgeable in Islaam, and be able to make independent decisions if necessary.

3. He must be just, have good morals, and be trustworthy.

4. He must be physically able (non-handicapped), spiritual, brave, and helpful to protect the Ummah against its enemies. His eyes, ears, tongue, and body in general should be in working condition.Today, for example, an artificial limb could be used to offset an otherwise crippling injury.

5. He must be politically, militarily, and administratively experienced.

6. He must be from The Tribe of Quraish because they used to be the leading tribe, the majority.

"

abu bakr al-baghdadi and his caliphate didn't fall from those terms which are mostly too subjective and general like "he must be just, have good morals, and be trustworthy"(like killing people in the name of imaginery being is justice and moral...) and are pretty pointless even without the fact that according to this article if the khalifa already seized power and "meet his responsibilities under Islam" he should be just accepted as khalifa and it is haram to fight against him.

so basicaly the difference between "real caliphate" and "self-declared caliphate" are 100% subjective.

the only reason for the resistance for a caliphate today in the arab world is because that caliphates today will damage the arab nationalism and imperialism by destroying "arab nationalities" and goverments which form what we call today the "arab world".

and the US and other western countries doesn't want that those goverments will fall so they need to delegitimize and demonize the islamic state before they launch an attack on them in order to defence the good old goverments which they know and prefer over the islamic state.

and of course both the arabs and western countries need to seperate the "extermist terrorists" in the islamic state from other "real caliphates" which the moderate muslims can't renounce. --109.65.50.252 (talk) 14:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not from NYC but I agree with the reasoning of Jason from nyc. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 14:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Jason from nyc: (a) The plain fact is that he was appointed caliph, on 29 June 2014, and WP can only report facts, per NPOV. (b) You say RS sources say he is self-appointed, which is true, they do, and you imply WP can follow those sources, adopt the same view and can directly call him self-appointed (as the Lead does). RS sources call ISIS terrorists. But WP cannot say that directly, it can only report that others call them that, (following WP:NPOV), hence the careful "terrorist" wording in the Lead that editors thrashed out some time back. Does not the same argument apply here? Can WP call him self-appointed in its own voice, just because RS sources do? That is my objection to WP saying directly in the Lead, or anywhere for that matter, that he "is self-appointed". Following the same argument as was had over "terrorist", WP can only report what RSs and others have said, not say it in its own voice. Following RSs to find WP:COMMONNAME is quite different; that is about name, not facts, and the one time it is justified to follow reliable sources. That is how I see it anyhow. Sorry to be so purist about it! :)--P123ct1 (talk) 16:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure I follow. We say "self-proclaimed" in the article as a fact. We're not saying the NYT (for example) reports IS is a "self-proclaimed" caliphate. We say IS is a "self-proclaimed" caliphate in our own voice. We're not saying it is a caliphate in our own voice nor are we saying the NYT acknowledges it is a caliphate. We and they report how IS sees itself. Now is it in fact a caliphate? First let me remind everyone that I argued above that IS is in fact a state. I wrote much of the "Governance" section showing it is a functioning state. I even argued that there should be a separate Wiki article on the state. I could argue that it is in fact a theocracy. But a caliphate? The facts don't support that. If al-Bahdadi declared himself emir and IS an emirate, that might be considered a fact. But a caliphate is like a super-state and many an emir hesitated to declare such a vaulted status until their power was sufficient. al-Baghdadi is arrogant but without sufficient power he is met with sizable contempt. We'd best try to agree on more humble claims as facts in WP voice before we use the description caliphate without limiting qualifications. Are we close to agreeing or far apart? Jason from nyc (talk) 22:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

"criticism by over 120 Islamic theological leaders worldwide" we are talking her about religion with pretty simple rules and story, it isn't a deep and accurate science which can have multiple opinions with only one correct opinion. islam like any other religion is a story which is subjected to POV and assumptions about fictional and inaccurate events. those islamic leaders are leaders not because of some knowledge and didn't got their opinion about the islamic state from some "research" of the quran or something like that, they are religios leaders but also a political one who gain there status and authority with not less politics as with knowledge about islam.

so if they had some "theological claim" against the islamic state legitimacy of being "real caliphate" we all could her about that, especialy the muslims scholars who wrote the article i quoted before.

the article i quoted before also have strict defenition of "caliphate" so there is no need to demand from the islamic state to fit into the unrealistic image of a caliphate of some people. there is simply no religious differences between the islamic state caliphate and other caliphates which had existed just some decades ago in the 20th century so there is no need for acting like there is. the "self-declared" is nothing more than a PR act of making the reader to believe in some non-existing theological differences between isis and other caliphates while islamic scholars just simply can't provide any of this. --109.65.50.252 (talk) 22:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

When you say there are no differences between IS and other caliphates, I'm not sure which ones you have in mind: Rashidun (632–661), Umayyads (661–750), Caliphate (929–1031) of Córdoba, Abbasids (750–1258), Fatimids (909–1171), Ottomans (1453–1924)? Jason from nyc (talk) 23:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The three possible reasons for a discrepancy in the use of references are: 1, there is a difference in topic between the articles; 2, this article has got its referencing wrong and 3, the other article topics may have got things wrong. Hat tip to editors above for investigation into issues. The question is whether we can speak in Misplaced Pages's voice in this article and declare them a caliphate. If other articles need adjusting then that would be a different problem. Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

To me "self-proclaimed" suggests a point of view, it implies dispute over legitimacy. The simple fact is that they proclaimed a caliphate and appointed al-Baghdadi as caliph, full stop. That fact should be reported accurately and neutrally by WP, as per NPOV. It really isn't complicated. --P123ct1 (talk) 09:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

We do say "they proclaimed" themselves a caliphate. The question is does proclaiming yourself one make you one. You seem to think so as you argue below in the "Mr. Smith" example. Caliphate isn't just a name. If I proclaim myself a genius and make it my middle name, I don't become one. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Jason from nyc: The Lead says "they proclaimed" a caliphate and in the same breath says "in its self-proclaimed status as caliphate", to be accurate. Former is neutral, latter is not. The point is that WP should make no judgments and just record facts: they "proclaimed a caliphate". Whether proclaiming one makes it one is an interesting question, but it is none of WP's business to dwell on sophistries like that. It's chop logic. --P123ct1 (talk) 15:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

You wouldn't say, "He calls himself Mr Smith", you would say "His name is Mr Smith". The former suggests there is some doubt about his name. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

That is no answer and misses the point. Everybody calls them terrorists, nobody denies it. But WP cannot say it directly, per NPOV. There were long discussions over this, which is why the Lead "terrorist" references are carefully worded as they are. It is rightly said indirectly, as in "X, Y and Z say it". It is the same with legitimacy. Of course everyone disputes it, but it can only be reported by WP, not said in its own words. I simply cannot believe this very basic NPOV principle isn't recognized. --P123ct1 (talk) 11:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree on "terrorist." But there are some things that can be said in WP voice. I'd argue that neither "terrorist" nor "caliphate" are. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Can see I'm getting nowhere. Time to move on, I think. The main thing is that any words in WP's voice should be value-free and strictly reports. --P123ct1 (talk) 12:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Your work is vital here but we'll have to "agree to disagree" on this issue even if I don't quite see how we disagree. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

(i am 109.65.50.252) jason, i think you should tell us more about your reasons and answer few question like

1.how you differ "self-declared" caliphate from "real" caliphate and what isis needs for being "real" caliphate?.

2.do you believe in islam and god mandate for any kind of "caliphate"?.

3.do you want to keep refering them as "self declared" caliphate cause that what you think they are or cause you fear that refering them as "real" caliphate will help their PR?. --Wheels of steel0 (talk) 16:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

(i am GREGKAYE, "caliph" of my own existence and supreme commander of my fridge.

I am also not a number and, like many of the editors here, I additionally have interests away from the ISIL article).

As I was the editor that noticed the removal of the previously used "claimed" references in the infoboxes and who replaced them with the self-declared type texts I feel at ease to attempt to answer those intrusive questions of yours.

1) I'm not to sure. I checked and discovered things like a caliph was meant to be a "successor" and that immediately set off my integrity alarm. Theologically speaking I am not sure if any of the later Caliphates are real, legitimate or even possible. These are questions that are up for debate.

2) f**k no, not that it matters. Belief is no issue in regard to the analysis of scriptural/theological mandates of anything. If anything disbelief may have significant advantages in regard to the development of rational interpretations of texts. As far as belief is concerned my personal conviction is that we would be better off with Isis, "... ideal mother and wife as well as the patroness of nature and magic. ... friend of slaves, sinners, artisans and the downtrodden," who "also listened to the prayers of the wealthy, maidens, aristocrats and rulers.."

3) I want to state the facts to every extent that I am able. Fear? I fear for people on both sides of this unnecessary, shitty conflict who will lose loved ones, liberty, life, health and hope. I fear for an attitude that may say we can lose a life because we can just breed more. I fear for morality. I fear for what it tells people when innocent aid workers get murdered. Gregkaye ✍♪ 18:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

"intrusive"? what is intrusive in asking somebody why he think in a certain way?.

anyway if you aren't sure about if the islamic state is different from former caliphates it obviously means that the editors should reffer to them as any other caliphate if they didn't notice any difference themselves.

i know that ISIS are "extremists" and fanatic "terrorists" and that it look like their declarations shouldn't be taken seriously, but at the end this is exactly what muhammad and the caliphates was: "extremists" who killed and conquered in the name of imaginary entity, this is the meaning of "caliphate". and the only "difference" that can be pointed is the mandate of god for those action to the former caliphates and the lack of it to the current caliphate of the 21th, this is why i asked jason if he believes in islam and in the right by god for the estublishment of the former caliphates. --109.65.50.252 (talk) 23:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Not that I really want to prolong this, but while we (Jason from nyc and self) both agree "caliphate" can't be used in WP's voice, we clearly have a different view on what calling it a caliphate outright (or al-Baghadi caliph) - as in "they proclaimed a caliphate" - actually means. It's the old POV/NPOV dilemma, of course: are those words NPOV (objective, as I think), or POV, because that looks like endorsement? I know I've been upbraided for bringing up PC-ness, but I do think a lot of the hedged-about wording in the Lead makes WP look as if it is trying to be PC and follow the world's opinion rather than be objective, though Gregkaye made a good point when he said we inherited a bad situation in this article (with names) and have to do our best. Anyway, I'm rabbiting on now, so no need to respond! --P123ct1 (talk) 15:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• Beyond theological interpretations, legitimate and typically structurally related descriptions of governments include -

by Power structure: Confederation, Federation, Hegemony, Empire, Unitary state

by Power source: Autocracy, Authoritarianism, Despotism, Dictatorship, Totalitarianism, Democracy, Direct democracy, Representative democracy, others, Monarchy, Absolute monarchy, Constitutional monarchy, Oligarchy, Aristocracy, Military junta, Plutocracy, Stratocracy, Timocracy

Other: Anarchy, Anocracy, Kritarchy, Particracy, Republic, Theocracy

Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Animated GIF showing territorial evolution

We should have an animated GIF showing the territorial evolution of this group over time, similar to this one for the Rashidun caliphate here:

It wouldn't be that hard to do, we could just blend all the maps we've posted so far as slides, adding dates in the corner as show. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 23:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

God help us all if ISIL sees that kind of success. People keep debating what color the desert should be on the maps ... Legacypac (talk) 08:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I am sure that they are not short of statements regarding any areas progress that may have been achieved. Success is an interesting word. Some of them will regard their own military deaths as signs of success. I don't personally have an opinion one way or the other with regard to the inclusion of these maps. We are not here to Censor and one advantage of publishing the time framed maps is that it might provide a clearer indication of ways that historical incursions into the related territories may have fucked up. ISIL HAVE HAD a rapid expansion which I believe has slowed and in some places been reversed but the actual nature of the facts is an irrelevance. I don't see an intrinsic problem with maps. "God", however, may be a different story. It may be argued that he or she has caused enough problems already. Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Can anyone help with a personal question?

Videos and propaganda by Islamic extremists that I seen have tended to describe the United States as America. What are the ways/ is the way that the UK is described?

Thanks

Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

cn tag in Lead

An editor reasonably attached a "citation needed" tag to the last para of the Lead which has been removed here, with a cryptic edit summary: "remove cn tag - it is a negative statement, please provide evidence otherwise". What does this mean? It makes no difference whether it is a negative or a positive statement, it is quite a strong statement which needs backing up. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I removed it. There are 190+ countries in the world. None have recognized the "Islamic State" which is why we call it an unrecognized state. It's been recognized by a bunch of terrorists though. Since there seems to be some uncertianty I'll insert this ref

1. http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/security/2014/07/syria-iraq-isis-islamic-caliphate-global-recognition.html#
2. http://www.allgov.com/news/top-stories/islamic-state-isis-may-not-be-a-recognized-nation-but-it-controls-a-population-larger-than-ireland-140816?news=853987

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs) 19:41, 7 October 2014‎

I've updated the last paragraph of the lead with a well cited one. There were so many cite and other tags in there you would think it what we wrote was all lies. I don't mind the alternate wording in use either, but worked off line with what was the wording when I grabbed the text for sandbox. Legacypac (talk) 20:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

An RM to ISIS?

Obviously it would just be a request which could then be debated but I thought it best to check provisional views. Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:07, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

No. Please stop. There is no need to be constantly debating the title. Leave it well alone. We've had enough move requests already. RGloucester — ☎ 17:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

See my comment when making the last RM close. I suggested that there is a moratorium on requested moves for 3 months (until the new year). There comes a point where continual debate over the name of an article becomes DISRUPTIVE and I think that now there have seven requests this year with four requests in the last two months, and many other sections taken up with discussions about the name, that point has been reached. It becomes disruptive when editors time is taken up in endless debates over the name, when the limited time that editors have can better be spent improving this and other articles. Consensus can change, but it is unlikely to change in such a short period, so wait until after the new year then if an editor thinks that usage in reliable sources justifies a request then make one. In the mean time If I think that editors are being disruptive over this issue then I will take administrative action under the general sanctions that apply to this page. -- PBS (talk) 18:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

How about this disruption on other related articles where people are complaining about changes of "Islamic State" to ISIL? Legacypac (talk) 20:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

LOL. You ask a question. You get an answer. However, as Legacypac may be indicating, There can be problems related to the use of titles and content "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" and "ISIL" when the most commonly used terminologies used elsewhere are "ISIS" and, unfortunately, "Islamic State". Gregkaye ✍♪ 20:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

It all depends on which newspaper or tv network you watch. If you go to the primary sources ((like UN Security Council resolutions, acts in Parliament/Congress) things become very clear that ISIL is the name. Legacypac (talk) 21:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Please remember that the change from ISIS to ISIL was done with the consensus of editors here. I made a note of it on the Talk page at the end of that discussion especially, so that editors did not subsequently try to say it was never decided. (See #15.) --P123ct1 (talk) 21:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The difference between ISIS and ISIL is mostly the semantic navel gazing. The actual issue is whether or not to use the group's real name. Moratoriums on dynamic conventions make no sense. As reliable sources shift so must we, that's what we do. I'll be putting together an RfC on the subject in the next week or so as more and more independent and third party reliable sources make affirmative declarations on the proper use of the group's actual name. GraniteSand (talk) 22:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

That's essentially forum shopping, fellow, and an attempt to push a WP:POV. Two RMs only recently closed on this matter. There is no need to hold another one for at least a month. As far as I'm concerned, there is no such thing as a "real" name. The present title is not so grievously wrong that we need a new RM every five minutes. Please find a different great wrong to right. RGloucester — ☎ 23:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

No thanks, I'll right this one. As for forum shopping? I don't think so. You should reread that linked material; forum shopping is the constant reintroduction of the same material or the dispersion of duplicate material to disparate venues. As the body of reliable sources has substantially changed in the past couple of weeks to reflect changed conditions this is not duplicate material. In fact, it's a very dynamic subject. I'll be listing the RfC at interested projects and here. Feel free to participate. GraniteSand (talk) 23:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

This page, and related pages are filled with debates and proposed article moves on exactly what you want an RFC for. The issue is closed per consensus on ISIL and/or ISIL fully spelled out. See Admin PBS comments above. Legacypac (talk) 00:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Closed? I see no binding arbitration on a move for this article. You must be thinking of something else. GraniteSand (talk) 05:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Editor User:GraniteSand just needlessly reverted a cleanup of Syrian Civil War to go back to Islamic State and ISIS exclusively. The editor's comments above and this revert fails to follow consensus and may indicate intent to edit war. None of the articles need that. I would strongly urge not continuing the battle over names. Legacypac (talk) 05:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

"Needlessly" and "cleanup" are both loaded and without adequate explanation. I would suggest that my edits up to this point "indicate" a desire to follow the lead of reliable sources. If you have any example which demonstrates otherwise please produce it. GraniteSand (talk) 06:46, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Your statements in this thread seem to indicate a plan to do exactly what you have been warned not to do - attempt to change the article name. Volumes of evidence have been presented already. The revert of my edit seems to be retaliatory and/or to prove your point rather than to improve the article. Rather than get into a battle over this, I put it to the edit warring notice board for uninvolved assistence. Please try to be constructive and respect consensus over names. Legacypac (talk) 07:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. There is an unaccountable obsession with the name. It has dominated discussions for too long and is wasting editors' time. --P123ct1 (talk) 08:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Warned? You seem to be under the impression that there is some sort of binding resolution in play. You're wrong. The article title in question should be changed because it's wrong according to our policies. Still, this is tangential to the article you've linked to. I've made changes that revert the passages to the sources to which they are attributed. That the sources undermine your assertions is adverse to your position, not mine. GraniteSand (talk) 08:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Apologies to editors

I have messed up a revert I tried to do. I tried to revert and in the process reverted to a much earlier version of the page! Don't know quite how it happened. I have made a list of editors' missing edits and am putting them back in. Sorry! --P123ct1 (talk) 20:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

You need to be dragged off to ANi, sanctioned, called nasty names everywhere for sweeping undiscussed edits and placed in stocks so we can throw rotten tomatoes at you. Good job on the major cleanup - obviously a lot of thought and effort went into it. Cheers Legacypac (talk) 21:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I haven't done many yet! There are 13 to do! Doesn't help that the UTC has "jumped" an hour since I started the clean-up. --P123ct1 (talk) 21:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Finished. I hope I haven't left anyone's edit out! --P123ct1 (talk) 22:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac: Was it you who industriously put all those citatations in the last para of the Lead? We are supposed to be reducing footnotes in the Lead as much as possible, so they would be better going into the same sentence in the "Criticism of the "Islamic State"" section. There was a discussion in the Talk page archives about this here. I hope the editor who drastically edited the Lead (which is the revert I was trying to make originally) has taken note of my edit summary, where I said edits to the Lead should be proposed on the Talk page first. I would imagine this editor is oblivious of all the careful discussion that has gone into the Lead wording. :{ --P123ct1 (talk) 22:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes because the lead was filled with cite needed and dubious tags. While I don't like all the refs there either, some editors can't be bothered to check the article for the refs. Legacypac (talk) 23:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I did not notice you had edited the lead while I was preparing the one with cites. However the problem is the same.Legacypac (talk) 23:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

It wouldn't have been an edit by me, but a restoration of another editor's. Hope I haven't messed up again! --P123ct1 (talk) 23:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Things are ok at the moment, but we should watch it. I deleted the what tags in the first paragraph. I did not dig deep enough to find who added the tags originally but you restored them before I deleted them. The article explains that the group is Sunni and Muslim, we don't need to prove that in the lead right? Legacypac (talk) 00:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I was not criticizing at all; those citations were badly needed, though best in the body of the article. But I don't think a citation is needed for Sunni Muslim, for as you say the article deals with this. I restored the edits without considering them, so some may have been unnecessary. --P123ct1 (talk) 07:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Lede could use some trimming

The discussion of its history alone is as long as some ledes. --BoogaLouie (talk) 01:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

An editor just inserted this in the last paragraph of the lead, with a source behind a paywall. I'd like to see some quantitative data to back up this claim.

"As of mid-September 2014, many of the most prominent English-language news media groups, including the BBC, New York Times, The Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, Reuters, and the Associated Press used the name the "Islamic State", while others stuck with ISIS and ISIL." I think that we have found a variety of terms used in the English media.

Legacypac (talk) 04:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The Lead is becoming rather long. I am wondering if the last para on names really belongs in the Lead; perhaps it should be added to "History of names". It won't lose prominence, as this is the first section of the article. I don't think the extra edit is needed at all. --P123ct1 (talk) 07:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Iraq articles
• High-importance Iraq articles
• WikiProject Iraq articles
• C-Class military history articles
• C-Class Middle Eastern military history articles
• Middle Eastern military history task force articles
• C-Class Syria articles
• Mid-importance Syria articles
• WikiProject Syria articles
• C-Class Arab world articles
• Unknown-importance Arab world articles
• WikiProject Arab world articles
• Unassessed Crime-related articles
• Unknown-importance Crime-related articles
• Unassessed Terrorism articles
• Mid-importance Terrorism articles
• Terrorism task force articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles