Wikipedia

Talk:Islamic State/Archive 31

< Talk:Islamic State
(Redirected from Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/Archive 31)
Latest comment: 9 years ago by 65.94.43.89 in topic Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant occupation of Derna
Archive 25←Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33→Archive 35

Requested move 26 January 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago89 comments27 people in discussion
The following is a closed 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, and no real merit in relisting as none is likely to emerge because all parties are, on the face of it, right, to a greater or lesser extent. It is possible that ISIS may be the best of a bad bunch, but even that is fraught with problems (even if there is a certain poetry in ISIS sending so many to meet Osiris). It may be that in coming weeks one particular name will emerge, perhaps Islamic State, but that is not the consensus view now, at least as expressed here. Sorry, the problem remains, there is no quick fix. Guy (Help!) 22:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State of Iraq and Syria – or to ISIS (Islamist rebel group). ISIS is the most common English language reference to the group in reference to the Arabic title "ad-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fī al-‘Irāq wash-Shām". This title is also rendered into English as "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant", "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria", "Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham" or "ISIL" and is also represented as "Da‘ish" or "DAESH", the acronym of the Arabic title but ISIS remains in common usage.

Context A wide range of scholars and groups reject the use of the title "Islamic State" on the basis of the religious and political implications of the title. Reference can be made to other groups with Mohammedan based faiths ranging from nations to other rebel groups in conflict with ISIS, and a wide range or representatives in the international community. The group describes itself as "Islamic State". Ban-Ki Moon stated, "As Muslim leaders around the world have said, groups like ISIL – or Da’ish -- have nothing to do with Islam, and they certainly do not represent a state. They should more fittingly be called the "Un-Islamic Non-State" and Muslim leaders sticking to religious angles have described it as the un-Islamic State. With these two extremes of presentations I think that NPOV demands that we don't become a soapbox for either side and that a relevant rendering of "ad-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fī al-‘Irāq wash-Shām" be used. At one extreme I personally think that, in this context, questionable unqualified use of the title "Islamic State" has been made by news groups such as agency Reuters from early times. At the other extreme, notable Arabic news groups make sole use of terms such as ISIL, ISIS and Daesh. Another issue is that we already have an article on Islamic state. GregKaye 11:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I am more inclined to think Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham may be our best option for the title. "Syria" does not really 100% equate with "al-Sham", because it is the name of a country and used rarely in the English language to translate the Arabic-language word "al-Sham". So, Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham has an even greater advantage with regards to having a more accurate translation. Khestwol (talk) 12:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Legacypac why did you delete User:KazekageTR's oppose comment?
Edit conflict - I've just restored two comments, good catch. Legacypac (talk) 20:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Legacypac, "What has changed since then?" At that time a number of world leaders were making use of the designation ISIL. From what I have gathered, a number of them have moved to "Daesh". While references to "ad-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fī al-‘Irāq wash-Shām" remain relevant I believe that ISIL is less so. GregKaye 20:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
That would support a move toward Daesh more than a move toward ISIS. Legacypac (talk) 21:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Legacypac Perhaps, but as as mentioned in the OP: ISIS is the most common English language reference to the group in reference to the Arabic title "ad-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fī al-‘Irāq wash-Shām". Daesh now comes in a closer third place while ISIL comes in a more distant second. If this RM goes through then it seems to me that the article title will remain a stable representation of the three title presentations. The actual change is hardly more than cosmetic. GregKaye 12:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment there are plenty of groups known by their acronyms. ISIS has long been an extremely commonly used designation for the group. GregKaye 18:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose there are enough justifications for that the current name is the best one, please check archives for name change votings, BTW @Khestwol what exactly 'Neutral, but support move to "Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham' means mate it is somehting like 'definetly maybe' :D kazekagetr 18:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: A tremendous amount of time and effort has already gone into debating the name for this article. The current name seems reasonable. Once some time passes, and more systematic histories are written of the group, it will be easier to judge whether another name might be better. What we have seems to me good enough for now, and our efforts might be better spent concentrating on the content of the article rather than the title of the article. EastTN (talk) 19:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: I agree with EastTN, time could be better spent improving the article. The last admin suggested we take a breather and let the issue rest for a while. This will give time for another modality of RS, that being published books to come to the fro. In light of that, it will be interesting to see what name Jurgen Todenhofer uses in his book, seen as he is the only author, as far as I am aware, to have publicly stated his efforts of writing a book on the group. Mbcap (talk) 19:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Óppose Policy at WP:TITLECHANGES is applicable. The current title has been stable since August 2013 except for changing "in" to "of". There is significant consistency with use of ISIL across WP titles and articles and I can't see any value in moving from ISIL=>ISIS when they are only alternative translations of one word, both widely used in the real world. Big effort to change, no real value. Legacypac (talk) 20:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as the current title is a common enough name, and accurate enough. Moving will make it either less common or less accurate, and no move seems like a net win at this time. Dicklyon (talk) 05:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. "ISIS" is vastly more common than "ISIL," as you can see here. NotUnusual (talk) 13:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – For one thing, I'm really getting tired of these frivolous move proposals. Honestly, can you please just accept what we have, and stop making a mess after each subsequent move proposal fails? Per WP:TITLECHANGES, there is absolutely no reason given for a change. The present title has been here for a long time, and has worked well. It is the best possible translation of the Arabic, and using entirely English titles is preferred per WP:UE (i.e. I strongly oppose using "al-Sham"). Debate about the acronym is pointless. Many sources (such as the BBC) that translate the full name as "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" use "ISIS" as an acronym, so this move proposal won't change anything to that effect. Leave this alone. It is the best possible title. RGloucester — ☎ 19:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Whatever the BBC does, this article uses ISIL all the way through. I doubt you can change that without changing the title. The quotes all say ISIS, which is certainly jarring. NotUnusual (talk) 10:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
If you want to use "ISIS", then open an RfC on the usage of the acronyms in this article. There is no reason that one can't use "ISIS" and "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant", like the BBC does. That has nothing to do with the article title. I'd oppose such a proposal, regardless, as ISIL is simply better. RGloucester — ☎ 19:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Not the common name, nor is it an accurate translation of al-sham. Like the current title, it is used mainly by world leader and relevant stakeholders as opposed to the common name in reliable sources. Mbcap (talk) 01:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

* Strong Support for The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria - Even though I prefer the Islamic State v Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, per WP:COMMONNAME, The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is much more recognizable than The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria also satisfies WP:NPOV more so then just the Islamic State (Islamist rebel group). Arguments raised by GregKaye in the previous name change discussion illustrated this fact. ISIL is not only the least recognizable of the two, but the main body which uses ISIL, the U.S government is increasingly favoring 'Daesh' over ISIL [1]. The following points to support my contention:

Comment - Changed vote to no opinion. Only the Islamic State group (IS) is a viable and sustainable article name. StanMan87 (talk) 12:49, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
It is worth adding late comment that this view is here presented by an editor who has gone into length in presenting interpretations of Islamic doctrines on my talk page as found at User talk:GregKaye#Re: Full picture. StanMan87, the Jordanian air force write enemies of Islam on the bombs that they drop on this group in response to the groups public burning of a proclaimed Sunni Muslim, Jordanian prisoner of war. It is very clear that there are other extremely viable and sustainable names that can be used for the article. GregKaye 23:15, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

1.) By far the majority of English media institutions and influential organisations use the term ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria/Greater Syria/al-Sham) over ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant):

  • The Wall Street Journal:[2]
  • The Guardian:[3]
  • CNN:[4]
  • CNBC:[5]
  • Fox News:[6]
  • International Business Time:[7]
  • Bloomberg:[8]
  • Sydney Morning Herald:[9]
  • The Independent:[10]
  • New Statesman:[11]
  • National Review:[12]
  • The Nation:[13]
  • The New York Times:[14]
  • The Council on Foreign Relations:[15]
  • The Atlantic:[16]
  • Al-Arabiya:[17]

Note that many of these publications may use Islamic State in conjunction with the term ISIS.

Many former editions of articles from The Economist publication used ISIS before switching to just the Islamic State:[18]. Reuters, as well as others use the term Islamic State while also using the term ISIS:[19]

2.) Google statistics and trends: Show that ISIS is much more prevalent than ISIL [20]

3.) Google search results: Islamic State of Iraq and Syria 32,000,000 results [21] Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant 2,260,000 results [22]

For Google news search results, The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria also merits higher with 4,470,000 results [23] in contrast to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant with 50,200 results [24].

I don't know why this article was ever changed from the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant in the first place. Levant isn't an accurate translation for the Arab word Shām. Sham refers to an ancient greater Syria, and is used by groups like ISIS or al-Qaeda to refer to what is now modern day Syria much like the ancient term Khorasan which is used to define what is now modern day Afghanistan. For example, Abu Mohammad al-Adnani was born in Syria and yet is referred to as Abu Mohammad al-Adnani al-Shami. Also note that most of the facts I used above I copied from some of GregKaye's previous comments, so it is more his research. StanMan87 (talk) 07:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

StanMan87 -- You have raised some good points. I may need to reconsider. I also prefer Islamic State, nevertheless a progression towards a more policy congruent name would be worthwhile. I am going to do some searches myself and consider those already in your post before making any further comments. Mbcap (talk) 07:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Mbcap You have been consistently reminded of the concept of not stating opinion as fact. Reviews of previous RM discussions, despite repetitions reveal that a range of policy issues are addressed. The reasons we have discussions is to jointly develop policy based decisions based on a range of policy issues. The current discussion relates to a RM for Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State of Iraq and Syria 11:41, 30 January 2015 GregKaye 11:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
GregKaye, I stated that "I prefer" which I thought would have implied that it is merely an opinion. I made the comment to concur with StanMan87's preference and that is all it was. His post gave me a new perspective on the current move and also the way policy is applied, which has compelled me to reconsider, despite my initial opposition. Please consider that this is a learning curve for me. Mbcap (talk) 14:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Mbcap You expressed a preference for what you then (stating opinion as fact) presented as being "a more policy congruent name". Please do not assert unsubstantiated claims. I appreciate that you "made the comment to concur with StanMan87's preference" but, while he quoted one area of policy (in application amongst a variety of names that are all clearly recognisable), as you know, other important policy issues have also been discussed. I prefer what I regard to be these disruptive unreferenced and I think partisan assertions to stop. As you know I have tried at my utmost to explain this to you on a personal basis. Also of note is that the current RM is related to a move to the title Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. Points made in favour of the title Islamic State (islamist rebel group) were I think repeated to a level of disruptive rhetoric in the previous discussion and now, in a topic relating to a different move, the same arguments are I think being pushed irrelevantly yet again. GregKaye 08:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Greg Please concentrate on the current RM, rather than requesting I stop the alleged partisan assertions. It also does not aid to induce a collaborative spirit here, if one was to label others work as disruptive rhetoric. Please concentrate on the RM at hand and appreciate the points raised previously were a related, appropriate and a passing mention of a previous RM, and that is all it was. Mbcap (talk) 17:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Mbcap Do likewise and we will get on just fine. Please get the point here. Ambiguous claims such as regarding "a more policy congruent name" need substantiation for fear of otherwise fitting the description of "empty air". GregKaye 18:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
It is not appropriate for yourself to rehash old issues which have now resolved, in light of your empty air reference. Islamic State is the most policy congruent name and in the future, all related pages will be named as such. I made a passing reference to that. In the meantime I alluded to the fact that it would be no harm to consider a more policy congruent name if it is supported by policy, until the aforementioned action is undertaken. However, in light of RGloucester's comments below, I will be still opposing so that we can rename the page and all related pages to the obviously policy based "Islamic State (group)". I am trying to exert utmost effort to maintain focus on the current RM but you will not let the stick drop so I ask you to drop it please. Mbcap (talk) 18:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Mbcap You consistently neglect to ping the editors that you reply to. The use of the designation "Islamic State" has been viewed to be in violation of WP:NATURAL as well as with WP:NPOV, WP:SOAPBOX in its connection to the naming of a prisoner of war burning group that claims authority over the very faith of the man that it burned. Clearly there are strong policy arguments against the use of Islamic State and, despite the fact you are fully aware of these issues, you persist in dogmatic and I think partisan assertions regarding your personal interpretations of policy. Your arguments have recently been made at great and repetitive length and have been found wanting. It is not appropriate for you, in a proposed article title move discussion to a different title issue to make clearly unsubstantiated claims regarding the supposed superiority of arguments that had failed in the last discussion despite their extensive repetition. Please get this point. Your claim asserting some supposedly "most policy congruent name" flies in the face of the result of recent discussion and seems to me utterly devoid of substance. GregKaye 12:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Greg: I made a passing reference to Islamic State which I explained but you continue to discuss the issue. If we can get the issues down which are; 1)I neglect to ping editors that I reply to, 2)According to you there are clear policy arguments against the name, 3)I allegedly persist in dogmatic and partisan assertion regarding my so called personal interpretations of policy, 4)My arguments allegedly as of late have been repetitive and has left you wanting, 5)I should not discuss unrelated titles in a RM, 6)Previous arguments relating to "Islamic State" allegedly failed in the last discussion (please see NW admins closing statement), 7)I should get the point, 8)My statement about most policy congruent name seems to you as utterly devoid of substance. Is there anything else you want to throw into this basket? I want to discuss this RM so let me make it clear that I have read your post but I do not wish to discuss these things in the current RM. Please concentrate your efforts on the current RM. Mbcap (talk) 13:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Mbcap There has been a relatively succinctly presented RM which is mostly self explanatory and a considerable content dealing with your basket. 1) If you are replying to dialogue content not at the end of the thread it helps, 2) and according to a number of editors in the RM, 3) assertions are best left out if not substantiated, 4) there has been repetition yet a number of editors have been unconvinced, 5) This discussion is for a RM to The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, 6) I am well aware of NW's comments, 7) please, points made are not new, 8) claims need substantiation, If there is no substantiation it is just claim and opinion. Don't you think that is enough. There is not much effort to be made in the RM. It is just a proposal to which editors are welcome to make fair and substantiated comment. GregKaye 18:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Greg you need not have replied to the previous points as all I did was mostly sum up your points from your previous post. I guess we shall add another to the basket; a) claims need substantiation. Got it, anything else you would like to elucidate or is that all. Mbcap (talk) 19:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Mbcap   Thank you for your response. The last thing I want to do is add issues. GregKaye 07:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Note to closing Admin The Supporters seem to be split between the two different proposed titles. Editrs should also consider that this proposed change runs counter to the names of maybe a dozen related articles which all use Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant or ISIL in their titles. Those titles were debated by a lot more editors then have commented on this, the 10th formal move request in a few months here. I would think that a lot of editors are tiring on commenting on these move requests. Legacypac (talk) 05:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
It is rather clear cut which option is being supported. The title: Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. The acronym ISIS will used throughout the article and many of those articles related, to replace ISIL. I will personally comb through every single article that mentions ISIL and revert it to ISIS if the change goes ahead. It should never have been changed to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant in the first place based on WP:COMMONNAME. StanMan87 (talk) 07:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
StanMan87 Nothing is clear cut here. At this point there are five opposes and four supports (five if you count my nomination). The original decision to move was based on the existence of more references to Islamic State of Iraq and Levant than references to Islamic State of Iraq and Syria but this did not take into account the prevalent use of ISIS over ISIL. At this point, what is clear cut? However I would to the arguments that, as far as disambiguations go, "... of Iraq and Syria" is more readily understandable than "... of Iraq and the Levant". I would advise careful combing so as not to remove change direct quotes to "ISIL" or footnote references. Legacypac a common practice with non complicated RMs in which decisions are not clear cut can be for them to be relisted. GregKaye 09:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
No StanMan87, you will need to run each and every other article title through an RM before changing it - and that will likely result in some changing and others not and a real mess. Also consider that the UN and all 60 countries in the coalition against ISIL plus Iran and others all use ISIL or Daish to refer to this group - in fact I have not seen any country use ISIS officially. Many media orgs use ISIL too. We already determined the big 4 news services are not united around the term ISIS (above). And it is not clear to me which of the proposed names some editors are supporting when they say ISIS - do they mean ISIS or ISIS spelled out. Legacypac (talk) 09:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Legacypac can you cite this? It is acknowledged that there are arguments on both sides of this RM but, if it goes through, then I would think that there would be a clear precedent to change other article, category, template and other content to match. GregKaye 08:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
This RM has a low # of editors and no clear consensus, so it would make a poor precedent for a site wide change. All controversial title changes should be run through an RM. Legacypac (talk) 15:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment – All arguments about the acronym "ISIS" than "ISIL" being more common have no bearing on whether the title of this article should be "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria", which is a completely incorrect translation and a rather kibosh. As I provided above, the BBC consistently used the long form "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant", but used the acronym "ISIS". Sources that use "ISIS" do not necessarily support the use of "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria". Many sources refer to the group as "Islamic State" with the acronym "ISIS" as well. If people want to name this article "ISIS", that's a separate proposal. Regardless, it is obvious that "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" is not common, and is also a completely incorrect translation. If people want to use ISIS in the body of the article, no name change is necessary. Originally, the body did use ISIS, even with the title as it is now. However, an RfC on the matter supported changing over to ISIL, which is why we use that now. People can start a new RfC if they want. There is no argument for moving to "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" at this point in the game. Zero. WP:TITLECHANGES applies. Such a move would only result in myriad more move requests to "IS", "ISIS", "Islamic State", &c. Moving this article from one controversial title to another is not a solution to this problem, especially when the proposed title is an INCORRECT translation of a name NO LONGER USED by the group itself. RGloucester — ☎ 23:05, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
No, it is not a typo. BBC used that as their main style until they switched over to "Islamic State", at which point they changed over many of their old articles. You can see that the Financial Times does the same thing, and continues to use the long form of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant with the acronym "Isis". The Independent does this as well. British press, on the whole, prefer "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant". Some use Isil, and some use Isis. Some have changed to using "Islamic State" with "Isis" or "Isil". Regardless, it is clear that the acronym is not determined by the long form name. RGloucester — ☎ 03:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
'Levant' is just as much as incorrect as 'Syria' is. 'Levant' was only adopted becuase it is the closest thing that we can refer to Shām as, an Arabic word. It's a half-ass and lazy solution to a common linguistic problem. If you want to go for 'correctness' RGloucester , then that leaves you two options: Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham which is the most accurate and best translation that there is for this group but as you said, the term is no longer used anymore and you stated yourself you are not a fan of using the Arab word Shām in the title as it's the English Wikipedia. Then why is it we refer to Al-Qaeda as Al-Qaeda and not The Base? Because it is more common and more widely known? Because there official name is Al-Qaeda? As per WP:COMMONNAME, it is the most acceptable choice. Just like the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria is more recognizable than Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, as shown above. So then that leaves the Islamic State, the official and current name of the group which was voted with 5 in support (Including myself) and 4 against, including yourself. This name was also proven to be just as common as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant if not much more so by Mbcap and John Smith the Gamer. But you voted against the proposal. So now I am perplexed RGloucester . You obviously do not want 'correctness' as you are opposed to both of the names I have listed. Yet, at the same time you favor the name that is less recognized (as shown above, and in the previous change of name discussion), less common and therefore against WP:COMMONNAME. As for WP:TITLECHANGES, this policy was cited many times when I sought to change to the Islamic State (islamist rebel group). Allow me to quote: If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed. How long has this article been stable for? How many copious change of name requests have been initiated? How many previous names has this article been known by? This article is not stable at all.

A re-cap for you:
Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) ++Commonality|Recognition vs. -Accuracy.
Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) +Accuracy| vs. -Commonality|Recognition.
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) +-Commonality|Recognition vs. +-Accuracy
Islamic State (IS) +Commonality|Recognition vs. ++Accuracy StanMan87 (talk) 03:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

No, it isn't. We don't speak foreign tongues here. There is nothing accurate about mixing a foreign language with English. "Levant" is the most accurate term, the term that is most recognisable, and the term with the most historical gravitas. "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" is not more common. In the British and Irish press, it is almost never used: The Daily Telegraph, the Financial Times, the Daily Mail, the the Irish Independent, The Scotsman, The Guardian, the Daily Mirror. Sure, plenty of these use "ISIS", but they all use the long form "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant". I might be able to understand a move to "ISIS", but not at all to "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria", as it is a crap translation and not frequently used. I personally think there should be no change. It seems to be that you're just out to change the title, with no particular care for what title you get to. Sorry, read WP:TITLECHANGES. Please stop making a mess for no reason. This title is fine, it is common, it is an adequate disambiguation. Any title for this article will be controversial, and there is no reason to move this article to the worst of the available options, i.e. the defunct, incorrect, and uncommon "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria". RGloucester — ☎ 03:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
"Any title for this article will be controversial" Then based on what you have just typed, you should have been fine with the proposal to change it to the Islamic State (islamist rebel group) which was shown to be the current, correct and very much common alternative in that discussion. You are very inconsistent with your reasoning to oppose, oppose and oppose. StanMan87 (talk) 03:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
No, because I like consistency and stability. If none of the proposed titles are perfect, and all are controversial, the stable title that has been here for ages is the one that should stay, per WP:TITLECHANGES. Regardless, I strongly oppose the word "rebel" on WP:LABEL grounds. RGloucester — ☎ 04:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I'd just like to add that soon if not now the terms ISIL, ISIS and Daesh (acronymization of Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham) will become largely irrelevant as this group continues to spread outside its tradtional sphere of influence in Iraq and Syria to places like Algeria, the Sinai in Egypt, Libya and now along the Afghan-Pakistan border. Whether in violation of WP:NPOV or not, the term Islamic State (IS) will soon become the most and only viable alternative. Please keep this in mind. StanMan87 (talk) 03:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
If that's the case, there really are absolutely no grounds to move this to the proposed title, as it will only result in a succession of moves to nowhere. Of course, we know that your proposed title ("Islamic State") has been rejected numerous times, and will continue to be rejected without adequate disambiguation and attention to neutral point of view. RGloucester — ☎ 03:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Attention to NPOV? As per WP:TITLECHANGES, "discussing the appropriate title of an article, remember that the choice of title is not dependent on whether a name is "right" in a moral or political sense." I guess this overrides the neutral point of view/ethical/moral consideration. But I no longer care to waste my time anymore. I have argued my case. Soon I will stop editing Wikipedia in 1-2 months time after I see to some articles that need urgent attending to. You, I assume are in Wikipedia for the long term. This article will be your problem and issue, not mine. This article has been stuck in the past for 8 months. The group has a new name which is common and recognizable. These name changes are the consequence of that. There will be many others who will opt to change the article name, and perhaps better argue the case than I have tried to do. And as I said, all other alternatives will become irrelevant if the Islamic State remains and expands. So this article seems to be in a bit of a dilemma. StanMan87 (talk) 03:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Note NPOV doesn't come into it due to povtitle. Aside from POVTITLE, consider that no admin would make a change that violated NPOV, as even consensus doesn't override NPOV. POVTITLE doesn't violate POV. The article makes it very clear that few consider IS Islamic or a State. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 04:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I was not referring to "Islamic State". I was referring to the use of the word "rebel" in Mr Stan's proposal, which is an unacceptable word per the MOS section value-laden labelling. "Rebel" is commentary, as would "terrorist" or "islamist" be. Maybe one could use "organisation" or "group", but certainly one cannot tack commentary onto it. Whilst POVTITLE does exist, it only applies when a singular non-neutral common name overrides all alternatives, which is not the case here. It does not apply to parenthetical disambiguation, either. RGloucester — ☎ 04:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure "Rebel" is a contentious label, but (group) does work for me, and is shorter. However, I was not talking about parenthetical disambiguation. I was more trying to stop another "We can't call them IS as that's POV" discussion. I should have been more clear, but I wasn't very awake when I posted that. Most of the discussions we've had here on NPOV have been about limiting IS's influence on this article. Also, another single purpose account has edited this article again and reinserted material in a manner almost identical to an account that was permanently blocked under WP:DUCK. 1John Smith the Gamer (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Isis is a deity who retains worshipers to this day (Disclaimer; I am not one, although I know at least one). To conflate Her, even minimally, with this organization is disrespectful and inappropriate in the extreme. Furthermore (at the risk of appealing to authority, to my knowledge President Obama uses "ISIL" exclusively. *Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 20:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the correct title for this entity is overwhelmingly becoming simply "Islamic State", however much people try to emote about it and say they don't deserve the title. Whether it's primary for that topic is a matter for debate, but in any case the proposed move does not help anything at all.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - I am shocked that Wikipedia is using "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" to describe the Islamic State. It's inaccurate, not widely used, and a French colonial term rejected by the anti-colonial Islamic State. There appears to be a consensus here to redirect to somewhere else. I support redirecting to "Islamic State," but any other title is better than the current one. MiamiManny (talk) 13:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Per WP:COMMONNAME and pretty much what every one else has said. ISIS has the sources, it's what everybody calls them, and really, the only thing that ISIL had going for it is that the US government was calling it ISIL. Every other source in the world calls them ISIS, and that's what Wikipedia should call them too. Tutelary (talk) 01:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Just want to note that this is patently false. I provided tons of sources above. By the way, the proposal isn't to call this article "ISIS" or "ISIL", but "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria". Many sources use the full name "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" with "ISIS". See above. If you want to propose "ISIS" as a title, maybe people will support that. RGloucester — ☎ 23:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. I for one had never heard of ISIL outside of Wikipedia and was initially confused and thought it was another, similar group. I don't care what the second S refers to, as long as it's there. Antti29 (talk) 09:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I guess that means you don't read many news sources, since it is used by every British and Irish paper. RGloucester — ☎ 21:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Being Finnish, I don't read British or Irish newspapers. You, on the other hand, seem to read them all. Antti29 (talk) 07:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as nominator. I think that Islamic State of Iraq and Syria provides good, recognisable and natural disambiguation from the article on the Islamic state governance methodology. Another natural disambiguation might be Islamic State group which has common usage. However this still does not account for the fact that all previous Islamic states were groups and within contexts, for instance, of the Arabic article moving to the title Daesh, I think that an ISIS related title is appropriate. GregKaye 11:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
The present title provides "good, recognisable and natural disambiguation from the article on Islamic state", Mr Nominator (be careful, closer). It does so without using an incorrect translation that is not used by any British outlets, is outdated, and simply wrong. WP:TITLECHANGES tells us not to move articles from one controversial title to another, and that applies here. The present title is more correct, is widely used, and has been stable for months. The group in question does not even use the proposed title anymore, and most outlets do not use it either. British outlets never used it, and maintain "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant", and American outlets have largely adopted "Islamic State". This is really just the worst possible proposal I've ever seen. RGloucester — ☎ 21:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
You keep mentioning the BBC. At least online, BBC doesn't use "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant". If you look at the BBC special report on for Islamic State, you will see they use "IS" and "Islamic State" to refer to the group. Banak (talk) 21:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I didn't say "BBC" anything in my recent comments. Since you mentioned it, BBC previously referred to them as Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant prior to the changeover to Islamic State. This can be verified by looking at previous RMs, specifically this one, and also by comments above, where I address that issue. Here is an example of their usage, which consists of "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS)". BBC does not make the totality of the British press. RGloucester — ☎ 21:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I misread your earlier comments and I apologise. You only said the BBC used rather than uses "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant". Indeed, they do not make the totality of the British press, but are a part of it. Banak (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
What source? RGloucester — ☎ 05:02, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
@Davey2010: The proposed title is not "ISIS". The proposed title is "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria", which is neither commonly used nor an accurate title. If you support a move to "ISIS", I can understand. I too would support a move to ISIS, as that is genuinely the common name for this body, used by those that use the long forms "Islamic State", "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant", and "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria". "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria", on the other hand, is not a common name, as has been demonstrated by the evidence above. There is no reason why this article cannot be titled ISIS. No disambiguation is even necessary, given that it is a clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and that it already redirects here. RGloucester — ☎ 06:32, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Damn sorry that should've said "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria/ISIS" - "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" and "ISIS" are far more used than "ISIL" or "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant", Well I've noticed they are anyway. –Davey2010Talk 06:43, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
@Davey2010: "ISIS" is more common than "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" and "ISIL", but "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" is not more common than "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant". This is where it gets tricky, because sources that use "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" and "Islamic State" as long forms use "ISIS" as a short form, as I've demonstrated above. To sidestep this issue, I've proposed a move to ISIS below. Please comment. RGloucester — ☎ 06:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: Title the article ISIS

Noting that many people above say that "ISIS" is the common name of this entity, and noting that there seems to be support for moving this article to ISIS, I propose that we take a quick survey. Who thinks that ISIS should be the title of this article? I support changing the name of this article to ISIS. No disambiguation is required, as ISIS already redirects here. ISIS is undoubtedly the common name of this entity, used by sources that use the long forms Islamic State, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, and Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. The above proposal for Islamic State of Iraq and Syria is very misguided, as I've demonstrated above. WP:TITLECHANGES strongly discourages moves that will likely result in more move requests, and that's one that'll do it. A move to ISIS, on the other hand, is ideal. There is no denying that "ISIS" is the common name of the entity, and that "ISIS" is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of "ISIS". What's more, ISIS is the most natural title for this article, the one most users are likely to type into the search bar. It is also the most WP:CONCISE title possible. Let's move this article to ISIS and close the door on these constant moves. RGloucester — ☎ 06:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Support as proposer. RGloucester — ☎ 06:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Note to closer – I would argue that in assessing consensus in the above discussion, you should be careful to make the distinction between support for "ISIS" and for "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria". I would say that this discussion could be easily closed with a move to "ISIS", given that everyone here agrees that ISIS is the common name, but not to "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria". RGloucester — ☎ 18:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Note to closer - Everyone does not agree that ISIS is the common name. There are numerous opposes in the above discussion. ISIS is an acronym and should not be used. NATO is called NATO because that is the common name and is not known by any other name. Hardly anyone knows NATO is actually called North Atlantic Treaty organization. Islamic State is completely the opposite. Islamic State is the common name for this group with ISIS being used as the acronym in US media. In europe, they use the term ISIl but just like in US, Islamic State has become the common name. Moving this page to ISIS or even the name spelled out, will still keep the problem of unstable article title because no doubt there will be future RM's to move to Islamic State. Mbcap (talk) 18:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Comment, One thing that is clearly apparent and which, coincidently, is the core of contentions here, is that the group clearly do not have a clear, unanimously agreed designation and it all blew up following the groups proclamation of themselves as being "Islamic State". A variety of presentations of "ad-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fī al-‘Irāq wash-Shām" are made and, of all or them, ISIS and ISIL are the certainly the most common. Many Wikipedia's use a title such as "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" or the same ending ".. Iraq and Syria". Hindu Wikipedia uses ISIS and, at the centre of the storm, Arabic Wikipedia uses Daesh. The main reason for the move is due to the prevalence of the use of ISIS amongst sources and there certainly is an argument to cut straight to the change so as to make use ISIS as the actual title. GregKaye 22:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose, By my understanding of WP:NCA, is not primarly known by that acronym. Banak (talk) 23:43, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
It is primarily known by the acronym. You won't find people saying "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" or "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" did something, but that "ISIS" did something. In fact, this is a case where WP:NCA explicitly supports using the acronym. This is so true, in fact, that many sources only use ISIS, with no long form. For example, take a look at this NBC News article. The organisation is referred to as "ISIS", and nothing else. No long form is presented. The only mention of a long form is in quotation ("Islamic State"), but no long form is ever used in NBC's voice. RGloucester — ☎ 01:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Ariel ✡ 05:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "Islamic State" is the name the organisation prefers to use, and it is also the common name. Sure, much of the media often (but not always) abbreviate it, which is normal, but this should have no prevalence on the issue. Even then, such shortening seems to be most common in US-centric media, following the lead of its current administration.
    "Islamic State," two words used on 59,600,000 Google results, is quite the valid choice per WP:COMMONNAME.
    Furthermore, "Islamic State" is the tile of the French Wikipedia (État islamique (organisation)), the German Wikipedia (Islamischer Staat (Organisation)), the Spanish Wikipedia (Estado Islámico (organización terrorista)), the Italian Wikipedia (Stato Islamico), the Portuguese Wikipedia (Estado Islâmico do Iraque e do Levante), and the Russian Wikipedia (Исламское государство). There you have the six top non-Asian world economies. XavierItzm (talk) 18:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" as least problematic option, and it does cover the 2 countries where it is the de facto govt. of significant areas. "Levant" is a dated term, plain "Islamic State" is highly problematic, "ISIS" is possible, but we need a disambiguator, one way of doing so is to expand the initials. PatGallacher (talk) 21:20, 26 February 2015 (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.

Please Rename Or Move Or Whatever

"ISIL" is a the "new" name they are going by to justify expanding their war effort (and it is a WAR effort) into Israel. It is an anti-Semitic term. That certain members us the US and other governments likes this change changes nothing. They will go away in a few years. ISIS won't, and by referring to them by that name you've legitimized their intentions. "(I)f you choose to refer to this group as ISIL, you have basically rewritten the map of the Middle East and fallen into the trap of not recognizing the existence of Israel and also Lebanon. If you use ISIL you are then validating the Islamic totalitarian and jihadist claim that the modern day Jewish State of Israel is an occupation state and does not exist in the eyes of Muslims." allenbwest.com/2014/08/obamas-use-isil-reveals-true-allegiance-animus-towards-israel/ (Example above's source.)

History does not forget- Nor forgive- Those who defend Anti-Semites. Remember that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.247.180.54 (talk) 05:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Propose dropping "rebel" from lead

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

At present the lead reads:

based on the code:

  • ... is an [[Islamic extremism|extremist]] [[Islamist]] [[List of active rebel groups#Groups which control territory|rebel group]] that controls territory in [[Iraq]] and [[Syria]] ...

I propose that it can read:

based on the code:

  • ... is an [[Islamic extremism|extremist]] [[Islamist]] is an [[Islamic extremism|extremist]] [[Islamist]] [[List of active rebel groups#Groups which control territory|group that controls territory]] in [[Iraq]] and [[Syria]] ...

I do not know what the inclusion of the word "rebel" adds to the article in the context of the an existing reference to Islamic extremism and to a reference as being a group that controls territory. I think that readers will be able to deduce that 'SIL is not regarded as being a state and that the use of "rebel" is unnecessary and misplaced rhetoric. The text already describes it as being a "group"

Results in news were that:

These results may not necessarily describe 'SIL as specifically referred to as "rebel group", rebel or group but the searches may give some indication of related word use.

My main contention is in regard to sentence structure in that it, I think, unclearly mixes religion and politics. However, as this is something that the group quite literally does, perhaps this is not so inappropriate. GregKaye 09:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. The word "rebel" there is useful and gives an information to us about the group regarding the political context that helped to originate it. Much of its militants, on the territory of Syria especially, started as a group of rebels fighting against Assad's government in Syria, before they started to label themselves as Da'esh. Khestwol (talk) 12:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
But perhaps wording can be changed. Are you ok with "[Islamic extremism|Islamic extremist]] rebel group that controls territory in Iraq and Syria ..."? (I am not in favor of using the politically controversial term Islamist especially right there in the lede.) Khestwol (talk) 12:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Khestwol. I had previously presented the following search results above:

(isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND ("extremist" OR "extremism") gets "About 8,780 results" results in Books
(isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND ("extremist" OR "extremism") gets "About 15,600 results" results in Scholar
(isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND ("Islamist" OR "Islamism") gets "About 17,500 results" results in Books
(isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND ("Islamist" OR "Islamism") gets "About 17,900 results" results in Scholar

To these I can add:

(isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND rebel gets "About 11,800 results" results in Books
(isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND rebel gets "About 14,900 results" results in Scholar

It seems to me that your welcome suggestion, without taking a close look at all the search results, may be well supported. The Islamic extremism article contains prominent links to both Islamism and lesser mentioned topics such as jihadism. Ironically, when soapboxed in ~September last year for reference to be made to Islamic extremism instead of jihadism or at least for a footnote to be made the jihadism reference, this lead to me being taken to an inconclusive case at AN/I. Its funny how things turn out. GregKaye 14:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Lead section

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

The lead section is too long, and someone tagged it as such. Compare with the related article Al-Qaeda. Would anyone object to the movement of the paragraphs beginning "The group originated" and "The group grew significantly" to the history section (of contents, not to delete it)? Also, is it normal/encyclopedic to have "(See ISIL beheading incidents.)" in the text of the header? I'm also not sure we need all the paragraph beginning "The group gained notoriety" being in the lead section. Banak (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Also the lead seems to imply that Al-Nusra merged with ISIL. Banak (talk) 14:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
This is not the case, although al-Baghdadi "claimed" that this was the case. I thought that I had cleared this up in the lead, so if it isn't discernible, then someone must have reverted my edit. LightandDark2000 (talk) 04:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Banak, I agree and have no objection to these sections being removed. Frankly I find these sentences in the final paragraph particularly problematical and think they should be removed entirely: "It gained those territories after an offensive, initiated in early 2014, which senior US military commanders and members of the US House Committee on Foreign Affairs saw as a re-emergence of Sunni insurgents and al-Qaeda militants. This territorial loss implied a failure of US foreign policy, and almost caused a collapse of the Iraqi government that required renewal of US military action in Iraq." Gazkthul (talk) 22:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Anthem

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

Ummah when used without the definite article al- as in this case, is the Arabic word for "nation". See ummah. The current translation of "my nation" for ummati seems accurate. Khestwol (talk) 09:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC
However, there is no reliable source to confirm if ummati, qad laha fajrun is really the "national anthem". It is poorly sourced. Khestwol (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Inconsistent section headings

Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

These section headings are inconsistent:

1.3 As Islamic State of Iraq (2006–2013)

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

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

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

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

One difference is that the third name change was more widely rejected both in ~Arabic communities and internationally. GregKaye 11:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
That's a curious standard. Nowadays, people and organisations are always allowed to call themselves whatever they want; the politically correct stance seems to be that to call them otherwise is an infringement on their rights. It is not clear why an exception to this rule is to be made for the Islamic State, or why the "Arabic communities" you mention should have special veto power over anyone who wishes to call themselves whatever. XavierItzm (talk) 18:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Widely rejected - so we follow the sources. If you are here to promote the ISIL narrative which includes the name that is highly offensive to both muslims and every country in the world, try a different soapbox. Legacypac (talk) 08:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I notice the BBC, at least, seems to use Islamic State (IS), and other British newspapers also use the name (though they prefer ISIS), so the line that it's offensive is clearly not necessarily one we should accept. W. P. Uzer (talk) 09:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Agree with W. P. Uzer. Islamic State is the self-reference of the group and it is the internationally accepted designation. It is U.S.-centric to call them anything else, and it only happens because U.S.-media is following the lead of the U.S. government, which calls it by four-letter words.
See how the rest of the world calls it: "Islamic State" is the tile of the French Wikipedia (État islamique (organisation)), the German Wikipedia (Islamischer Staat (Organisation)), the Spanish Wikipedia (Estado Islámico (organización terrorista)), the Italian Wikipedia (Stato Islamico), the Portuguese Wikipedia (Estado Islâmico do Iraque e do Levante), and the Russian Wikipedia (Исламское государство). There you have the six top non-Asian world economies. XavierItzm (talk) 14:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

New EU Syria sanctions reveal regime collusion with Isis

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Khawarij

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

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

TMLutas It depends. How much weight does it get in reliable sources? Mbcap (talk) 19:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
A good start would be the page on Khawarij which has the following section:

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

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

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

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

also known as (in the lead)

Latest comment: 9 years ago18 comments9 people in discussion

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

Arabic media at least mostly refer to it is Da'ish or the long full name (from the English translation of which "ISIL" derives). "Islamic State" is a controversial name and commonly found in media (along with ISIS and ISIL) but not academic sources. See the long discussions which took place before as to why using IS as the primary name for the group has been opposed here. Khestwol (talk) 16:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment. I was not aware that RS now have to be "academic" in order to be included on the Wikipedia. Used to be Reliable Sources just had to be Reliable Sources, even if not academic. XavierItzm (talk) 19:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Khestwol: You say "See the long discussions which took place before as to why using IS as the primary name for the group has been opposed here." Never anywhere did I see Xavier suggest changing the primary name to Islamic State. It just looks like a suggestion to include it as one of the possible names. Dustin (talk) 21:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I am not sure why the lead does not read "also known as". Islamic State is the common name so it should read in the suggested way. Mbcap (talk) 21:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  • In fact, per WP:Alternative name, I believe that only "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" should be in the lead. A separate section should be created to explain the various names, their origins and their differences. This is what our AT guidance suggests, and it is the most intelligent thing to do. Cluttering up the lead is contrary to both policy and sense. RGloucester — ☎ 22:01, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Try reading the article. Section 1.1. 82.20.70.218 (talk) 15:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
WP:Alternative name actually reads "at least three alternative names". The lead has only two alternative names. I quote: "also known as Islamic State of Iraq and Syria or Islamic State of Iraq and ash-Sham". Therefore, the current guidance per WP:Alternative name is to add the third "also known as Islamic State".
Need a RS? Here is a BBC report from yesterday, referring exclusively to the "Islamic State" and to "IS" and absolutely nothing else.
Once upon a time, used to be the Wikipedia took the BBC as a RS. XavierItzm (talk) 14:56, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Ah, yes. Well, y'see... the BBC used to be a reliable source. But ever since England morphed into a metaphorical Titantic, the BBC has lost some of its old clout. Blame the youths.
Plus, they are making themselves look like a bunch of jerks by referring to them by that name anyway. So even more minus points for them for that. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 15:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Can you actually verify that the BBC is no longer a reliable source? Dustin (talk) 15:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
The BBC is frequently being accused of being non-neutral, typically by both sides of any debate against the other, e.g. left wing by right wing and vice-versa, pro Israel and pro Palestine. The use of the common-name Islamic State does not undermine the BBC's credibility at all. Notably, it refused to side with the British during the Falklands war. Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, BBC is neutral. Banak (talk) 15:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
The BBC has used "Islamic State" for ages. They don't have to disambiguate articles, though, so it's a different story. As far as alternative names, we have AT LEAST THREE. We have "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant", Islamic State of Iraq and Syria", Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham", "Islamic State", and "ISIS". We could of course also include "Islamic State of Iraq" and other formers names as "alternative names". Therefore all names that are not "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" must be removed from the lead per our policies. Get to it. RGloucester — ☎ 15:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
The policy you refer to is, of course, an imaginary policy in which the implication you read into WP:Alternative name (that once you get above 3 alternates only 1 name is permitted in the lead) is express. DeCausa (talk) 16:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
It is "recommended", and there is no reason not to follow the recommendations of our policies and guidelines. I'm sure you've seen many cases in your life where something has been "recommended", but was actually required. You might also look at MOS:LEADALT. RGloucester — ☎ 16:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Ah, so "get to it" because it's in policy is wrong is it?. It's in a guideline. And even then not a statement in a guideline, but a recommendation in a guideline. So, your indignant command to "get to it" because there is no possible alternative was nonsense. DeCausa (talk) 16:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
WP:AT, where WP:Alternative title is found, is a policy, and tells us to follow the recommendations of MOS:LEADALT. Get to it. RGloucester — ☎ 18:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Fiction. You're disappearing up your own rabbithole yet again. DeCausa (talk) 18:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Much appreciated.

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

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

I think that the stance we have taken is The trend generally representative of use in entirety. A trend I have seen is that when some "reliable sources" may use "Islamic State", when they interview people from a wide range of backgrounds, these people tend to use ISIL or ISIS. However, I would define them as centring more as a militia in prominence over definition as a "terrorist group". GregKaye 14:10, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
True enough. They have been around since the turn of the century, yes? Were they originally called ISI back then? Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 14:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Simplest way to find out is to read the article. Section 1.1. 82.20.70.218 (talk) 19:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Renaming of many subsidiary articles

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

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

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

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

Simon Elliot Re-Direct

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

50.252.249.155 (talk) 21:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)mpk40 [will reg.]

Map of influence of ISIS and terrorist groups associated with ISIS

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

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

If you mean maps like this, then no we shouldn't. Let's be clear, I'd be incredibly surprised if they controlled any territory in Europe. They are involved to some degree in Yemen, but I'm not convinced they hold much if any territory by themselves. They control some territory in Libya, and I believe that is actually controlled by them. They allegedly also operate in Lebanon and Afghanistan, but I've not seen any maps that show this, nor do I know how much of a presence they actually have there. Banak (talk) 18:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
There is already a pretty good map that shows it's claimed 'Provinces' and actual territorial control [25]. It does need to be updated with Khorasan (Afghanistan/Pakistan) though. Gazkthul (talk) 02:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Peer review and Core Contest

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

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

Not likely. The article would need to be stable, and this article won't be stable until events stop happening. RGloucester — ☎ 13:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Your efforts however are greatly appreciated. For instance I have heard many comments on things like the standard of English. I also think that the ".. diverse opinions" banner at the top of the page is well placed. GregKaye 14:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Has ISIL done any good?

Latest comment: 9 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

The article mentions that Welfare services are provided, price controls established, and taxes imposed on the wealthy. ISIL runs a soft power programme in the areas under its control in Iraq and Syria, which includes social services, religious lectures and da'wah—proselytising—to local populations. It also performs public services such as repairing roads and maintaining the electricity supply [26]. I'm sure some people in Eastern Syria consider this to be good, or at least better than Bashar Assad or the Free Syrian Army. Of course only Sunni Muslims who acquiesce to their rule benefit from this side of them. Gazkthul (talk) 00:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
While I think that a comparison between the larger Nazi Germany and ISIL is, if anything, insulting to the Nazis it can also be noted that the article on Nazi Germany has a small section on environmentalism. I think that if the group have done anything particularly notable then this information can rightly be presented in the article. I don't know if comparisons with the Free Syria Army are very fair and I suspect that it may be WP:CRYSTALballing to project the amount of groundwork that the FSA would be doing if it controlled the continuous extent of cities inclusive territories as is controlled by ISIL or how much ISIL would be doing if they where in the FSA's situation. I suspect that a clue to one difference between the philosophies of the two groups is found in the "free" of the FSAs title. While I think it fair to give clear representation to the criticism/condemnation ranged against this group I also think that a balanced picture of its activities must also be fairly presented. GregKaye 08:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I believe the question of this group doing anything good is irrelevant. We should just document the information on them and let the reader make their own mind up. Mbcap (talk) 17:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Mbcap I certainly agree. However after seeing the deleted talk page comment I thought it worth asking the question to find out if there might be relevant content that was being overlooked. I am glad that content of what ISIL is doing is in the article. It wouldn't be right for the article to be a polemic. GregKaye 20:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Oh it seems Gazkhtul has provided a citation from the Atlantic. I will look into it when time permits. Mbcap (talk) 20:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Mbcap I have more often than not been against censorship in Wikipedia in the form of deletions and collapsings of content etc. especially in cases where no reference/description is given to the content that has been deleted or collapsed. However I agree that the particular content presented certainly bordered on satire in the way that it might be read by a wider audience. Following an interpretation of a religion to the extent of enforcing half of a population to wear a full black niqab in places like Syria and Iraq is unlikely to be considered to be a "positive" thing in many people's interpretation. Sure modesty can be considered to be a form of bodily censorship but many may view that some behavioural issues can be taken too far. There is no getting it. When a group threatens that if people do not dress to a prescriptive norm that they will face "severe punishment" then other people will consider actions such as these to be extreme. GregKaye 18:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Unreferenced additions in Designation as terrorist organisation

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

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

I removed Iraq as it had no sources. XavierItzm (talk) 21:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I am still a bit woolly on what constitutes designation which I would argue best has official primary source confirmation. I had not realised that the Syrian reference came from a government news agency here. References are made to a "statement". It would be helpful if this statement were found. Perhaps there are links that an Arabic reading editor can follow. GregKaye 19:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant occupation of Derna

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islamic_State/Archive_31&oldid=1149968075"