Talk:Islamic State/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Israel

An editor has added Israel to the list of countries designating ISIS as a terrorist organization. That is the first time I have seen "unlawful" mean "terrorist". (See appended citation here). --P123ct1 (talk) 16:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC).

For purposes of discussion, where is this list? --Thnidu (talk) 20:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The diff in question is here.~Technophant (talk) 03:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The countries are listed in the Lead and in the designation box in section 13,Thnidu - it is not a "list" as such. The governments of those countries have each made a formal designation of ISIS as a terrorist organization (as you will see from the footnotes in the designation box), but Israel has only designated them as an "unlawful" organisation. There were discussions about all this which you will find much earlier on in the Talk page here and here.. Those countries do keep a list of the groups they have formally designated as terrorist organisations (click on the US citation, which is a good example - ISIS is about half-way down, as "Al-Qaeda in Iraq, I believe, one of its former names), but the United Nations does not keep such a list, surprisingly. Israel would be best added after the United Nations and Amnesty International in the first para of the Lead, saying that it has designated them as an unlawful organization. Hope this helps. --P123ct1 (talk) 21:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 Thanks. --Thnidu (talk) 22:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 Done.--Thnidu (talk)¿

To Thnidu: Do you understand the legal definition of an unauthorized organization in Israeli law? Before rushing to revert another editor's contribution in a few hours and without consensus, remember WP:ROWN. It may be a good habit to take a couple of seconds to verify what you are reverting, keeping WP:ROWN in mind. I can read more than English, and in a couple of seconds, I was able to verify that even the Israeli mfa and mod official sites designate the Islamic State as terrorists [1] [2]. Although I can revert your revert, I will give you the courtesy to do a search yourself and revert your own revert, and hopefully learn a good lesson in the process . Hope this helps. Have a good day, mate. Worldedixor (talk) 00:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I took a few more seconds to help you find an Arabic reliable source [3] and, since Google Translate is completely unreliable, I will help you with the translation of "صادقت وزارة الدفاع الإسرائيلية على اعتبار (داعش) حركة إرهابية" which basically translates to "The Israeli Ministry of Defense approves the designation of Daa3esh as a terrorist movement". Hope this helps. Worldedixor (talk) 00:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

looks as if we have been misled yet again by a bad translation from the Arabic. This time the original source for this edit was not in Arabic but already translated into English, wrongly! Thanks, Worldedixor.Restored. My mistake, Hebrew, not Arabic. --P123ct1 (talk) 04:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

There was no bad translation and the original announcement was made in Modern Hebrew not in Arabic. The reliable source provided by the informed editor, Hariboneagle927 (talk), who added Israel in the first place, was correctly translated into English when it said "On Sept. 3, Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon signed an order declaring Islamic State to be an “unauthorized organization". Worldedixor (talk) 04:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

According to this document from the Israeli Ministry of Justic. "Unlawful organizations/associations" is a term to designate terrorist organizations and financiers of other "unlawful organizations". According to this however, IS was already declared a "terrorist organization".--Hariboneagle927 (talk) 07:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, Hariboneagle927. You are an informed editor, and I enjoyed the accuracy of your edit and your welcome insight... Salamat. Worldedixor (talk) 07:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting that out, Hariboneagle927. Before this it was impossible for non-Arabic and non-Hebrew readers to tell those words in your citation meant formal designation as a terrorist designation. Your citation there should be added to your first for complete clarity on this point. --P123ct1 (talk) 08:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@Worldedixor and Hariboneagle927:

1. Thank you for providing a reference that makes it clear, in English, that the Government of Israel considers ISIS a terrorist organization, as Hariboneagle927's original reference (Ya'alon Designates Islamic State as Unlawful Organization) did not. I have replaced it with one you provided that does (Israel Moves to Declare Support for ISIS Illegal as Photo of Groups Flag Appear).
2. But I do not understand why, having found an appropriate reference, you decided it was my responsibility to edit it in. Do you understand that each editor is responsible for the verifiability of their own posts, rather than leaving it to the reader to research (including in other languages) the subtleties of foreign legal codes and translated terminology? P123ct1 understands this. In adding Israel to the table, Hariboneagle927 may have assumed that the equation between "unlawful" and "terrorist" would be obvious and would constitute sufficient citation. It is not and does not. --Thnidu (talk) 19:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Thnidu and Hariboneagle927, that citation now put in (which actually Hariboneagle927 provided!) is only second-hand evidence that Israel has designated ISIS a terrorist organization. I am now not sure this is enough. I think some first-hand evidence from the Israeli government might have to be found to make the edit stick. Perhaps Hariboneagle927 can help out with this. --P123ct1 (talk) 20:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome but I completely disagree with you. Unless an uninformed editor understands that unlawful organizations in Israel clearly include terrorists organizations, they should not just revert (Read WP:ROWN) especially when an editor doesn't understand non-English reliable sources which are expressly permitted per policy for time tested reasons especially in articles like this one where English RS, if any, are very hard to come by while non-English RS, like the Israeli mod and mfa, are easier. Other informed editors can assess new contributions better than them. I don't have time for misunderstandings. I ended up reverting you myself with my 1RR after giving you a "courtesy" time to revert yourself but you mistook this courtesy for something else, and that's your problem. The "oh, my mistake", "oops, I was wrong", "I am sawwy" and the uninformed reverts and what have you are getting old. This has already been discussed before so no need to rehash. The informed editors are the ones who end up cleaning up the mess and we get many (secret) Thank yous for our edits or P123ct1 says thank you and then removes it (I am not making this up... This is verifiable... see the history of this thread. I caught it by mistake).... which is not the norm in a civilized society but that's her style. In any case, this has all been fixed now and Israel is now correctly added as a country that has designated the IS as a terrorist organization. No need to dwell more on this... Worldedixor (talk) 20:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I will add the following: "Clearly, every editor is incompetent in some subjects, so it is important to know or discover your limitations. Respectfully pointing out to another editor that they do not have sufficient knowledge about the subject of an article or their command of the language of the subject is insufficient to challenge your edits should not be taken as an insult."Worldedixor (talk) 20:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

My stating verifiable facts is not a violation of policy. Worldedixor (talk) 21:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Crucial documents that are in untranslated Arabic or Hebrew are of not much use in the en.Wikipedia. --P123ct1 (talk) 22:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Tangential discussion, WP:NOTAFORUM

@Worldedixor:, how about this - please get consensus before adding potentially controversial material. If you get reverted don't revert back (potential edit warring), follow WP:BRD and take it to the talk page, BE CIVIL, and stop giving overly dramatic arguments as to why you are right and other editors are wrong.~Technophant (talk) 23:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC) How about this? Get your facts straight before you use something as a pretext to instigate me. Do you even know who added this content? Do you know who was reverted? Worldedixor (talk) 23:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC) No. The original diff wasn't included when this section was started. I took the liberty of adding it above. What I do see is misuse of the Talk page. Please take a look at WP:TALK. Worldedixor used yellow above to address me. Is that like flashing a yellow card? Too much in my opinion. Participating in this project is a privilege, not a right, and this privilege can be removed by community discussion.~Technophant (talk) 01:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC) Yes, misuse by you!... You were NOT involved in this matter, and I did not invite you... Just when I have said all I needed to say with verifiable facts, and moved on, you come back and throw smoke screens to cover your initial attack on me WP:PA when you did not even know who added this content, or cared enough to find out before you attack me!... You continue to use anything as a pretext to hound me even though I have repeatedly ignored all your incivility, personal attacks, removed all your comments from my talk page, and moved on away from you. My stating verifiable facts is not a violation of policy. Why are you attacking me for my highlight? Is using "highlight" not permitted per policy? If so, what rule prohibits it? I will then gladly remove it? If no, it stays and you lose your pretext to attack me. Also, isn't your "taking the liberty" to change a Talk page comment after other comments have been made a policy violation? Answer me and STOP instigating me... Finally, don't get involved in something that I have not initiated against you... MOVE ON as you were told by one or more admins... and do NOT "gang up" on me at every opportunity you can...Worldedixor (talk) 01:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Page name

I have no opinion on whether the name of the page should be Islamic State, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or anything else but I do find it odd that the page name does not match the initial use in the lead. --Khajidha (talk) 15:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I could not agree more. This has largely arisen because of long discussions on the Talk page about what the title of the article should now be which never result in a decision. Also inconsistent is the use of both IS and ISIS to describe the group in the Lead (and throughout the article). I have raised this and the inconsistency between the article's name and the infobox titles more than once, but it has always been ignored. This sort of thing injures Wikipedia's reputation as an encyclopaedia, in my opinion. --P123ct1 (talk) 16:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

al-Shams

An uniformed editor Ericl (talk) seems to think erroneously that al-Shams in Arabic means the Levant [4] which is wrong. His misinformation made this page [5] look odd in an encyclopedia. I am incompetent in correcting the name, and I recognize my limitations. So, before I ask for admin help, does anyone know how to change al-Shams which is wrong to al-Sham which is correct? Worldedixor (talk) 04:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

a simple spelling mistake. However, I was right and informed. al-Sham is indeed a an antique term for the Levant, which is is also an antique term in itself. ISIS is is an acronym for Islamic State in Iraq and al Sham, after all....Ericl (talk) 12:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Excellent!... Then please fix your spelling mistake on this page [6] and replace al-Shams which is wrong with al-Sham which is correct. Thanks. Worldedixor (talk) 18:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposing updated language for "Ideology and belief" section

Hey folks, as I mentioned above, I've drafted what I think is an improved "Ideology and beliefs" section, which both describes terms, and attempts to present things in a more coherent order than the current section. However, since there's some controversy related to these details, I've dropped my draft into my userspace so folks and review it and provide feedback. Here's the draft.

I know there's been some discussion of this section here before, and believe this still fits within the consensus acheived in those discussions, but please let me know if I've missed anything. I very much consider this a draft, and not a final version, so happy to discuss possible alternatives.

Very curious on people's thoughts here. Suomichris (talk) 23:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

A couple thoughts. The sentence There is disagreement over whether or not ISIS ideology is Sunni or not gives WP:UNDUE weight to this, as essentially all Governments, media outlets, academics etc. accept them as coming out of the Sunni tradition. Those who reject it are typically other Sunnis who condemn the group and (understandably) don't want it to be associated with their beliefs.

Yeah, I'm honestly not sure how to handle this—ideally, we'd find a piece which discusses the debate, and point to that, but I wasn't able to find one. In some ways, I feel like there's no WP:NPOV way to do this. Two parties say two different things, and their motivations in both cases could be seen as biased. Definitely open to suggestions from other editors on how to handle this. Suomichris (talk) 01:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Jihadist Salafists like ISIS believe that only a legitimate authority can undertake the leadership of jihad is incorrect, Salafists believe this, Salafist Jihadists believe in the notion of Jihad being an individual duty regardless of what Governments say, this is the main thing that distinguishes them from mainstream Salafists. Gazkthul (talk) 00:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, a see—removed "jihadist", so this should now be accurate. Suomichris (talk) 01:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Anyone else have thoughts or concerns about this draft before I implement? Suomichris (talk) 18:52, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

ISIS Is Attacking Women, And Nobody Is Talking About It - HuffPost headline

See [7]. Dougweller (talk) 16:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done Added to "Human rights abuse" section. --P123ct1 (talk) 18:52, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Israel (2)

The discussion on this was side-tracked by the long digression above; it can be resumed here. --P123ct1 (talk) 17:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The foreign minister of Israel referred to ISIS as a terrorist group. See here. Is that good enough? JRSpriggs (talk) 05:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

No, unfortunately. It can still only be classed as second-hand evidence. He does not allude to Israel having formally designated ISIS as a terrorist group, he only speaks of it as a terrorist organization. The United Nations similarly only speaks of ISIS as a terrorist group. It has never made a formal designation, which is why it is not included in the list in the Lead of the countries which have done this. --P123ct1 (talk) 17:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Until this matter can be resolved satisfactorily, I have removed Israel from the infobox in section 13. None of the citations suggested so far are solid enough, except possibly the Arabic and Hebrew sources mentioned in the discussion earlier, but they cannot be used in any case as they have no accompanying English translation. --P123ct1 (talk) 18:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

To: JRSpriggs (talk): I have already shared my informed arguments and translated a source from Arabic into English, and yes, your reliable source from the Israeli mfa is indeed good enough. I believe that what the other editor did, acting unilaterally, is incorrect and inconsistent with policy on many levels. I now recuse myself from this discussion to avoid WP:EW. Other informed editors, like you, can now deal with this "very obvious" matter.Worldedixor (talk) 19:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The document from the Israeli Ministry of Justice which Hariboneagle gave does not equate "unlawful" with "terrorist" at all. Read the heading of that document properly. --P123ct1 (talk) 19:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

There was no consensus as far as I could tell, therefore it was a simple revert, and a revert is always "unilateral" when no consensus is involved, ABC. I cannot spell out more plainly my reasoning for reverting than I have done. If there was consensus, can someone enlighten me how, please? There was certainly no consensus from me, as I made plain in the earlier diiscussion. --P123ct1 (talk) 19:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

(This is brought forward from the section "Use of bold text on talk pages" below) First, if one person disagrees with a proposed edit, there is no consensus, and I did not agree. Secondly, the document here that Hariboneagle and Worldedixor say proves that the Israeli law definition of unlawful organizations includes terrorist organizations does not do that. It says this in the heading,

"Certification of Designations of Organisations as Unlawful Associations Pursuant to Israel’s Defence (Emergency) Regulations (State of Emergency) (1945) and as Terrorist Organisations Pursuant to Israel’s Defence of Terrorism Ordinance (5708-1948)" -

(meaning, if you look at the whole document, "This is a list of organisations we regard as unlawful organisations and terrorist organizations")

and this in section 2,

"I submit this Certification to certify that certain organizations have been designated as Unlawful Associations by the Minister of Justice of the State of Israel under Israel’s Defense (Emergency) Regulations (State of Emergency) 1945 and/or as Terrorist Organisations."

(The highlighting there is mine.) It then goes on to list, separately, a number of unlawful organisations, and a number of terrorist organisations. That document it is simply a list of the organisations that the Israeli government has designated, in that particular certification, as unlawful organisations and as terrorist organisations, as even a cursory glance through it will show. It does not equate "unlawful" with "terrorist", or to put it in the way the two editors put it, the adjective "unlawful" there does not include "terrorist", they are treated as two quite separate things. --P123ct1 (talk) 23:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The Justice Minister of Israel, Livni, was expected to make a statement today. I think this news article is it: Livni calls for diplomacy with 'moderates' to help counter Islamic State.~Technophant (talk) 23:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

PS I should have added, if the other editors disagree with my revert, of course we can discuss it together and try to reach consensus. As has happened before when I have reverted, I was uncomfortable about stating something in the article that I thought wasn't accurate. Better to have it out than in, until we can agree on it. (If it had been the other way round, i.e. if I had seen a statement in the article that I thought looked dodgy, I would have added a "citation needed" tag, which doesn't look half so drastic as a straight revert!) --P123ct1 (talk) 00:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Details based on new AP and CNN refs

In Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Name and name changes, after this sentence

On 14 May 2014, the United States Department of State announced its decision to use "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" (ISIL) as the group's primary name.

Add the following,

A month later, The Associated Press said it "believed ['ISIL'] is the most accurate translation of the group's name and reflects its aspirations to rule over a broad swath of the Middle East"; CNN has noted that "part of the confusion stems from the fact that al-Sham has many meanings in Arabic."

Cite these two references as sources:

• Kent, Tom (June 17, 2014). "Is it ISIL or ISIS in Iraq?". Associated Press. Retrieved 2014-09-11.
• Sanchez, Ray (September 9, 2014). "ISIS, ISIL or the Islamic State?". CNN. Retrieved 2014-09-11.

—72.244.200.230 (talk) 15:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The second sentence appears to have been removed, and the first already has a reference. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 05:12, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2014

The name should be changed from "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" to Islamic State (Caliphate) on account of the fact that this group does not call itself the Islamic State of "Iraq and the Levant," just "The Islamic State". The word "Caliphate" prevents confusion between this specific terrorist organization from the concept of a nation being run on Islamic values. 2605:6000:9D83:D800:BDDF:BF51:FE6:56A5 (talk) 02:56, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

This has been discussed at great length. See discussions above, especially #Removal of 'Islamic' as anything actual and only as reference to the users, #New name, #POV, #Debunking 'Islamic State', #Revert of "Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi named as its caliph". --Thnidu (talk) 04:12, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

official website ?

Due to censorship , it is difficult to find official website and other official digital material( made by ISIS ). Some official sources should be listed ( with date , when they was valid ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4118:16:1:0:0:0:16 (talk) 16:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not aware of an official English website, nor have I heard of official Arabic website. The group uses various Twitter accounts to put out media releases. The links go to "notepad" type sites with multiple links to media sharing sites where the media is hosted. There's a jihadology website that collects these announcements from different groups. You can search the 'net for it.23:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

ISIS's media organization is the al-Furquan Institute for Media Production. We don't have any more details than this. --P123ct1 (talk)

Presumably due to US Government pressure, the IS presence on social media is constantly being banned, reestablished and banned again. You can find a lot of their video material on archive.org if you know what to look for, and the website mentioned in the above website also reproduces their releases for academic purposes. Gazkthul (talk) 23:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

2001:4118:16:1:0:0:0:16: The al-Furqan Media Institute produces DVDs, CDs and other material. See the section"Propaganda and social media" in this article on it and other outlets that would be useful to you. In saying we don't have any more details, I meant we have no website address for them. You could ask one of the editors Technophant who knows more about the al-Furqan Institute. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Probably they use TOR hidden server as official website.

Edit to para 2 of the Lead

I have grasped the nettle and attempted to solve (a) the contradiction described in #Successor or name change? and #Jamāʻat al-Tawḥīd wa-al-Jihād above and (b) the inconsistency between the "IS" and "ISIS" references in the Lead (i.e. before it referred to the group as both IS and ISIS without proper linking). It may not be the best wording, so if editors can think of a better way, or think I have made any mistakes, please change it or discuss here. The overall description of the group's history in para 2 now matches the description in the "Name and name changes" section. For comparison with later versions, this was my version:

"The Islamic State, still widely known as ISIS or ISIL, originated as Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad in 1999. This group was the forerunner of Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn—later commonly known as al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI)—a group formed by Abu Musab Al Zarqawi in 2004 which took part in the Iraqi insurgency against American-led forces and their Iraqi allies following the 2003 invasion of Iraq."

I leave it to others to judge whether subsequent versions are better. --P123ct1 (talk) 17:43, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

2013 Islamic State kidnapping of British aid worker

Draft:2013 Islamic State kidnapping of British aid worker is created and ready to go however User talk:G S Palmer is wanting community consensus approval for this article to be included. I emailed the functionaries 2 days ago for their approval in publishing this draft but have not received a reply. I started a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 115#2013 Islamic State kidnapping of British aid worker.~Technophant (talk) 21:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

This guy is now dead. Name is no longer withheld. JhonsJoe (talk) 00:21, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

JhonsJoe There's an odd situation playing out in the Village pump link above where I was not allowed to create the article with his name, instead I was allowed to post his information (with redirect) at 2014 ISIL beheading incidents. I requested a split.~Technophant (talk) 03:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

1RR Question

Technophant: I am unclear as to why you reverted my edit here. [8]. What is Gaz? and can you elaborate? Worldedixor (talk) 21:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm referring to Gazkthul and the conversation below from his talk page which I've copied below:~Technophant (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I still don't understand. Please, can you clarify in one concise and comprehensive response, after reading these RS [9] and [10] ?Worldedixor (talk) 21:47, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I think we should use "later commonly known as Al-Qaeda in Iraq" instead of ""later known as Al-Qaeda in Iraq" because the group did not refer to itself by this, it was just commonly used in western media.~Technophant (talk) 08:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Good point on what they called themselves. However, I am fully aware that not only western media, but globally in Arabic and other world media, by and large, also referred to them as "Tanzim al-Qaeda in Iraq". These are two of many Arabic and world WP:RS[11] where "وانبثقت الدولة الاسلامية في الأصل من تنظيم القاعدة في العراق" translates to "The Islamic State originally emerged from al-Qaeda in Iraq organization" and [12]. Feel free to verify and let's resolve this discussion based on logical agreement and reliable sources provided here and above. Worldedixor (talk) 09:26, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Why not just "commonly known as Al-Qaeda in Iraq"? That covers the West, the Arabic world and everywhere else, and shows it isn't an official name, and it doesn't contradict the description in "Name and name changes". The citation in a footnote in para 2 of "Name and name changes", an article from the Combating Terrorism Center by Dr Michael Knight, a Middle East specialist from WINEP, so a RS, says this:

There has never been an organization with the name “al-Qa`ida in Iraq.” This name, however, has referred to the fighters in al-Tawhid wa-al-Jihad, Tanzim al-Qa`ida fi Bilad al-Rafidayn, Majlis Shura al-Mujahidin, Hilf al-Muttaybin, the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) and now finally the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). During the first Falluja battle, these fighters fought under the name al-Tawhid wa-al-Jihad, under the command of Abu Mus`ab al-Zarqawi. Al-Zarqawi then declared his bay`a (oath) to Usama bin Ladin, and Bin Ladin accepted it in October 2004. At that point, the organization’s name was changed to Tanzim al-Qa`ida fi Bilad al-Rafidayn. This article refers to all these fighters as AQI.

That would back up "commonly known as Al-Qaeda in Iraq". --P123ct1 (talk) 12:36, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

In para 2 of "Name and name changes", Tanẓīm Qāʻidat al-Jihād fī Bilād al-Rāfidayn is translated as "The Organization of Jihad's Base in the Country of the Two Rivers". If "Qa'idat" means "al-Qaeda" (translated there as "the Base", which I understand is what "al-Qaeda" means) and the "Country of the Two Rivers" means Iraq (through which the Tigris and Euphrates run), then it is clear why the group was commonly known as "Al-Qaeda in Iraq", and why the subsequent groups (Mujahideen Shura Council and the ISI) were also known as "Al-Qaeda in Iraq", given the close connections of all three with al-Qaeda at that time. -P123ct1 (talk) 12:57, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, I agree especially, that I could not find one flag or picture or video for just "تنظيم القاعدة في العراق". So, after due diligence, that settles it. Now, even though the flow of the article is not smooth, it is more accurate. This discussion is resolved and commonly stays. Worldedixor (talk) 16:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done Have changed it to "commonly known as". That was my sentence (or rather my adjustment of Gazkthul's) and I know it doesn't flow very well, but at least it eliminated the contradiction between the Lead and the "Name and name changes" section. (See #Successor or name change?, #Jamāʻat al-Tawḥīd wa-al-Jihād and #Edit to para 2 of the Lead above.) --P123ct1 (talk) 17:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Suggest splitting older history sections to own pages

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Result of split proposal was to split the material.~Technophant (talk) 04:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

This article is now over 260kB long and needs to be split for readability (WP:SIZESPLIT) to be under the suggested 100kB length. I suggest that the first and most logical split should be the section on Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad (JTJ). This group was formed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in the aftermath of the Soviet-Afghan War in 1999. It takes up a big part of this article is an obvious choice to split back to it's own article. A summary section should be created, and a {{Main}} template should be placed the top of the section to link to the new page. The last known good version of the page before the merge can be viewed here. ~Technophant (talk) 04:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Support, the Tawhid wal-Jihad section could be split off with a minimal impact on the rest of the article. Gazkthul (talk) 07:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Support Have always thought the early days of ISIS had too much space devoted to it. --P123ct1 (talk) 08:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Support I tried to do just that, but they wouldn't LET meEricl (talk) 14:10, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Ericl, you have the right intentions by attempting this, however major changes like this need to be proposed and discussed first. ~Technophant (talk) 21:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

So I'm asking....Ericl (talk) 22:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Since there's no urgent need to split then this request should remain open for 7 days, then it will be closed and the split performed if consensus is there. If or somebody else wishes to start the summary section in a sandbox that would be a big help. ~Technophant (talk) 06:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

SupportAlso the History and Timeline sections could be usefully split off to one or two separate articles. GoldenRing (talk) 01:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Support This is a self-contained subject worthy of its own article. There are enough reliable sources to sustain its notability in its own right. The connection to ISIS should be in our article with the full treatment in a self-contained article on JTJ. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Split section Involvement in Iraqi Insurgency to Al-Qaeda in Iraq

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This section is historical in nature and stable, has relevance to the current page, but could probably be best be spilt to Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) or Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn. A summary section should be created, and a {{Main}} template should be placed the top of the section to link to the new page. The last known good version of the page before the merge can be viewed here. ~Technophant (talk) 05:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Support The Al Qaeda in Iraq page was merged into the Islamic State page only last year, which I supported at the time, but events and the page itself have evolved so that it could probably be split back into it's own article, with a summary left in this article. Gazkthul (talk) 04:51, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Split section to Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn instead

• Support this is actual name not given name. It's more encyclopedic and accurate to use this name. ~Technophant (talk) 14:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
• SupportAgree with Technophant.ChamithN (talk) 08:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn or al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia. I also suggest the split of Islamic state of Iraq section. 3bdulelah (talk) 14:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad revisions

I've edited the mass of stuff at Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad to remove redundancies and add the right content from here, and I think it now roughly stands on its own. There may be things missing or present that still need adjustment, but I think it is independent enough that you can start thinking about summary style on this end... checking carefully to make sure nothing's being lost. I am picturing that the oath of allegiance, death of Zarqawi, death of al-Masri, and repudiation by al-Qaeda are the main dividing lines that should be used to split the history into sections, each with its own article. Wnt (talk) 07:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Split of Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn

As it was decided above there's a consensus to split the content of Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn to it's own article. I've already copied the text here, set a Main template, and changed most of the redirects, and started to re-establish an infobox. What needs to be done is:

1. Create a summary of the content in this article.
2. Look through the various revisions of Al-Qaeda in Iraq to find useful text to reuse.
3. Rewrite new lead.
4. Fact check.
5. Review all redirects to see that they go to the proper place.

Thanks for all your help. Keep up the good work!.~Technophant (talk) 20:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

ISIS to ISIL

Someone has altered many - but not all - instances of "ISIS" to "ISIL" throughout the article, and has even altered quotations from citations, changing "ISIS" to "ISIL". Who did this? Such a large change should be brought to the Talk page for discussion and agreement first. The article is now a sad mess because of this. This article is getting from 60,000 to 160,000 hits a day at the moment. What impression is Wikipedia giving here? --P123ct1 (talk) 16:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I went through with this diff using wikiEd search and replace function change most of the instances of ISIL to ISIS. Changing this term inside references can cause big problems with broken urls. Can somebody please search through the revision history and come up with list of diffs where ISIS was changed so that the can be scrutinized for any inadvertent changes in citations?~Technophant (talk) 20:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for making those changes. Did you find out who had done this? --P123ct1 (talk) 21:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

One of the diff that changed ISIS to ISIL is here. I may have accidently changed some quotes from ISIL to ISIS which is a technical violation of our quotation principles. I agree it's a mess. The only thing I can think of is to print out all of revisions in color and compare them side to side. Or, or we copy the latest version into a sandbox, then revert to the last known good version, compare changes, then manually put back in the newer edits.~Technophant (talk) 00:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

At the moment the lettering "ISIL"/"isil" appears 34 times on the page.

The lettering "ISIS"/"isis" appears 277 times in the page (with a just a small fraction of this count applying within words like crisis")

This is grossly misrepresentative not least in terms of article title and translated text. This title is based on the previous Arabic name of ISIL/"ISIS" (الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام‎). I'd appreciate the guidance of editors with better knowledge of Arabic than me. With the help of Google translate, it seems that a translation of "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" is correct.[13] Google translate indicates 5 possible translations for "the Levant" (بلاد الشام, الشام, المشرق العربي, المشرق, الشرق الأدنى) and 4 possible translations for Syria (سوريا, سورية, السورية, السوري). That's two confirmations that "the Levant" is more accurate. Despite this it seemed that the term ISIS is being unfairly and inaccurately pushed. This includes a misrepresentative addition of a hatnote with links to disambiguation pages. This went against both alphabetical ordering and priority to presented a link to the Isis (disambiguation) page as "ISIS (disambiguation)" before the added link to Isil.[14]

This current situation is ridiculous. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. If "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" is accurate then this should be used.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 03:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

This has been discussed many times before. The current consensus is that ISIS is the preferred abbreviation in keeping with WP:COMMONNAME. Gazkthul (talk) 04:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

If the editor feels strongly about this, he should start a separate discussion and attempt to persuade other editors that he is right. This page works by consensus. I am concerned about the potential changes to the footnotes. There are about 15 footnotes with "ISIL". Each needs to be gone through, since there could now be broken links and readers will not be able to read the citations. The responsible editor needs to check his changes that Technophant may have missed and restore the original versions of footnotes and quotations, to save the article. --P123ct1 (talk) 06:13, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

@Gazkthul: Scanning through the archives I have not seen where this specific issue has been addressed except for an early discussion at Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/Archive_2#Name (ISIS/ISIL vs. "Islamic State") in the Lead and Body. I would be grateful to hear of discussions that I have missed. Obviously searches on all relevant terms: "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant", "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria", "Islamic State of Iraq and al Shams", "ISIS" and "ISIL" will all have relevance but it is worth noting that WP:Use commonly recognizable names refers to WP:Article titles. My argument would be that "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" is the most clearly relevant, used and accurate translation of the Arabic text and that MOS:ABBR most logically applies. Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:09, 15 September 2014 UTC

Removal of flags in infobox

Once again an editor has removed the flags, but according to WP:MOS, they are acceptable when the subject is military conflict - see 2.1.2. The Syrian Civil War article contains a large number. Should the flags be restored? --P123ct1 (talk) 17:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

• The subject is Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:22, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Who are heavily involved in military conflict in Iraq and Syria. --P123ct1 (talk) 17:11, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 Can you please include diffs when discussing edits? It makes evaluating and dealing with the issues so much easier.~Technophant (talk) 00:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I assumed everyone would know what was meant by "the flags". --P123ct1 (talk) 11:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Lead

My changes to the Lead have been reverted and this was my version. (Please note punctuation clean-up.)

"The Islamic State (IS) (Arabic: الدولة الإسلامية‎ ad-Dawlah l-ʾIslāmiyyah), formerly the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) (/ˈaɪsəl/) (Arabic: الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام‎) alternately translated as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) (/ˈaɪsɪs/) and also known by the Arabic acronym Daʿesh (داعش),[a] is an unrecognized state and a Sunni jihadist group active in Iraq and Syria in the Middle East."

This is a plain statement of fact and is adequate, IMO.

I removed "Global war on terrorism" from the second infobox, as "Participants in the Global War on Terrorism" suggests to me fighters against terrorism. (This has also been reverted.) From Wikipedia:

The War on Terror (WOT), also known as the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) is a term which has been applied to an international military campaign that started after the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States.

This resulted in an international military campaign to eliminate al-Qaeda and other militant organizations. The United States and many other NATO and non-NATO nations such as Pakistan participated in the conflict.[sic]

--P123ct1 (talk) 19:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Fresh new debate on consensus for the new title for the article

The article obviously needs a new title. It still carries the old and outdated title, so lets reach a consensus on that and change it already. I don't mind Islamic State (capital)...? --Midrashah (talk) 08:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I was very clear that the name should be The Islamic State and the Islamic State in the middle of the sentence as it is what the group call itself. However, this [15] presents valid arguments as to why we should not use the Islamic State. I apologize for the confusion, but I feel I needed to bring all good arguments into the discussion. As of now, I am no longer supporting the Islamic State. Worldedixor (talk) 07:26, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

That article is a brilliant commentary on the name problem that is troubling not only WP editors but the media in the West generally. Well done Worldedixor for tracking it down. Given that WP:COMMONNAME is the relevant guidance here - that the name should be the one commonly used by RS sources and the media and generally - I think everyone should read that article before commenting on what title they think this article should now have. -P123ct1 (talk) 09:44, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

For me the most important issue here is the urgent need to remove the old title. I dont mind it to be "The Islamic State" or "Islamic State", as long as we update it already. Lets get some consensus around here and move it to a new title --Midrashah (talk) 19:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Lead proposals: Edit opener and move content from second and third paragraphs to later in article.

Its long-winded but could the opener read:
The Islamic State (IS; Arabic: الدولة الإسلامية ad-Dawlah l-ʾIslāmiyyah) is a Sunni jihadist group, previously self-described: as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL /ˈaɪsəl/; Arabic: الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام also translated: Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, ISIS /ˈaɪsɪs/, with Arabic acronym: داعش Daʿesh); as Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn and as Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad.

Can remaining content from the second paragraph be moved to history?

Can content from the third paragraph be moved, perhaps to a new section on something like "growth" or early growth?

It just seems that the lead is currently unwieldy.

The opener currently reads:
The Islamic State (IS; Arabic: الدولة الإسلامية ad-Dawlah l-ʾIslāmiyyah), previously self-described as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL /ˈaɪsəl/; Arabic: الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام also translated: Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, ISIS /ˈaɪsɪs/, with Arabic acronym: داعش Daʿesh) ad-Dawlah l-ʾIslāmiyyah fīl-ʿIrāq wash-Shām). The group is also known by the Arabic acronym DAʿESH (Arabic: داعش Dāʿish). These names continue to be used colloquially.}} is a Sunni jihadist group in the Middle East.

I suggest cutting reference to "Middle East" on the basis that most readers will be able to work that out.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The Lead is not excessively long for an article of this size. The Lead is meant to summarise an article and the summary paragraph in the Lead on the history of the group is appropriate. You say "most readers" will be able to work out that the group is in the Middle East. (a) Wikipedia is for "all" readers and (b) any reputable encyclopaedia would include that information. The form the Lead takes has come after much discussion among editors and some careful decisions. The Talk pages will show that. --P123ct1 (talk) 15:44, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

My suggested opening sentence would provide all readers with a succinct and early indication of history. The clearing of text from the lead would also facilitate more immediate access to the TOC with all its links to the the article's history based contents. A move of the history paragraph to an appropriate section of text would avoid needless repetition and would hopefully facilitate a full presentation of content in a centralised location. I believe that this current proposal is new. Gregkaye ✍♪ 03:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I do not support any of those suggestions. The first sentence in particular is quite confusing. Who put in "previously self-described as"? Why not just "formerly"? Nearly all groups/institutions/organisations etc are "self-described". A Lead as I said is the summary of an article, so there is bound to be some repetition. P123ct1 (talk) 07:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• "Formerly" is incomplete. Opposition exists to an acknowledgement of "Islamic State" not least in a fatwa issued by imams and scholars based in the UK [16]. Another form of wording may suit but there should be an acknowledgement that terms such as the "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" and the associated "DAʿESH" remain current both in the Arabic world and elsewhere. I proposed and used "previously self-described as" as text above

The use of current wording is not the topic of the thread and is not a valid reason to reject proposed change. The proposed first sentence is as complicated as the history of the organisation. It is quite representative. Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

It is the vexed question that has troubled editors in this and the al-Baghdadi article: is it POV or NPOV to call the IS a caliphate and al-Baghdadi the caliph, when the legitimacy of these changes is so widely questioned in the Muslim world? I believe Wikipedia should not make judgments on events, but simply record them as facts. I can see there is another point of view, though, that doing so looks like endorsement.

Can someone explain - in simple language, please - why "previously calling itself" and " previously self-described as" is suitable wording? I miss the subtleties. I joke. I think the idea behind it could be better expressed. --P123ct1 (talk) 18:09, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The history of this group is quite complex and to have it distilled into one paragraph in the Lead is a good idea, especially as three sections of the history, on Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad, Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn and the Mujahideen Shura Council, have now been moved and have articles of their own. Best to look at the article globally before making suggestions for changes. --P123ct1 (talk) 20:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Rfc: Russian TV as a reliable source

Re [17], this "non-scientific" poll was originated on Facebook, the propagated on a bunch of non-reliable, newly created websites and non-official Youtube channels. Does the simple fact that RT published it make it "well sourced content"? Worldedixor (talk) 21:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The "poll" is utterly ridiculous, and the edit should be reverted Gazkthul (talk) 03:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I have always regarded RT as most definitely not a WP:RS. It is Russian-owned. But it is used as a citation three times in ISIS --P123ct1 (talk) 22:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I invite someone, preferably an admin, to help us find the exact provision in WP:RS or another rule to support your POV that I personally support. Worldedixor (talk) 23:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Just the Lead in the Wiki article on RT, which I hadn't actually read before, tells you the sort of reputation it has. --P123ct1 (talk) 00:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, let me get the ball rolling in this Rfc... content from RT cannot be used as WP:RS I this article unless it is also supported by another reliable source. Anyone opposed to this? Worldedixor (talk) 01:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm for using RTV, with attribution. Its all propaganda to some degree or another, fellas.. -- Director (talk) 02:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)]

It should not be used, full stop, in my opinion. The Wiki article on RT demonstrates, with back-up citations from reliable sources, that many regard RT as a propaganda machine: "RT has been accused of providing disinformation and commentary favorable to Russian foreign policy. The U.S. Department of State, Ukrainian journalists, English news reporters, former Russian officials, and former RT reporters have accused RT of being a propaganda outlet for the Russian government." Take note that even RT reporters make this claim. --P123ct1 (talk) 07:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

It is hard to disagree with this. So, unless someone who opposes comes up with a stronger argument than P123ct1's in the next few days, can we all have a consensus to treat RT as an unreliable source in this article and dismiss and remove content solely relying on RT's unreliable news, after making an effort to look for alternative reliable sources for the content to be deleted? Worldedixor (talk) 08:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Loads of discussion at RSN in the past about this source, eg [18], [19] and [20] all concluding no consensus. The key thing is I think who else has reported on this? If we can't find any reports on it in the usual media, then we shouldn't use it. Dougweller (talk) 10:22, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Before getting carried away with this, how noteworthy is this poll anyway? I agree with the first comment here from Gazkthul, tbh. --P123ct1 (talk) 15:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I reverted the poll blurb. We seem to be heading towards consensus towards not accepting content based on RT unreliable news after making an effort to look for alternative reliable sources. Let's give it a few days more to hear opposing arguments. Worldedixor (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I guess based on all these arguments, Fox News and CNN aren't reliable sources either. They have about as much credibility as RT. RT being Russian isn't sufficient to disqualify it as a reliable source any more than CNN being American qualifies it as a RS. RT is a major multinational news agency; deal with it. 119.18.0.66 (talk) 08:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Redirected from...

I saw the acronym DAISH in another site and wanted to know what it stood for, so I came to Wikipedia.

All I get is a redirect. Usually, the reason for the redirect can be found somewhere in the article, but not this time.

If it deserves a redirect, it deserves an explanation, no?

--Mfwills (talk) 10:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Mfwills, DAʿESH or Daʿesh is described in the lead and at one further point in the article. It is a commonly used acronym of the Arabic translated as "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant". Western media (and perhaps others) presents the term in a wide variety of ways. We may need to add the content to give people to search on. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done as: [21]. Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Another hostage

There is another hostage that is an American woman who can NOT be named due to privacy. On August 26, 2014, it was widely reported that ISIS demanded 6.6 million dollars in ransom for her.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/isis-demands-66m-ransom-26-year-american-woman/story?id=25127682

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/26/isis-ransom_n_5715461.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bkAfHTFl1s - "kidnapped a year ago while doing humanitarian aid work inside Syria" ISIS threatened execution of the woman unless they paid the ransom, or released a certain high profile prisoner. She was working at a hospital in the Syrian city of Aleppo. They demanded Aafia Siddiqui releaesed. The Sadiqqui family condemned the demands

one more ref:

http://abc13.com/news/isis-demands-$66m-ransom-for-26-year-old-american-woman/281509/MeropeRiddle (talk) 03:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

MeropeRiddle Thanks for bringing this up. I've emailed Oversight member User:Callanecc regarding this.~Technophant (talk) 04:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

MeropeRiddle Callanecc is part of WP:AUSC and was unable to help. I emailed the functionaries again regarding this issue.~Technophant (talk) 18:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

As an aside, no article at all mentions the person's name, and I found no evidence of any publication what so ever releasing it. MeropeRiddle (talk) 18:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)