Jump to content

Talk:Islamic State/Archive 36

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37Archive 38→Archive 40

Quranic justifications

@Mbcap: I read your edit summary. Sorry for not pursuing the thread regarding the issue. Could I have the link to that discussion? Mhhossein (talk) 13:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

MhhosseinThere was a discussion a while back about this where the justification section was trimmed down. It should be in the archives. I am bogged down with exams so apologies for not posting a link. If you find no consensus for it, please do revert the edit. Mbcap (talk) 14:32, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I wonder whether GregKaye can help with this. Mhhossein (talk) 07:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2015

The map for ISIS depicts ISIS as having control of Ramadi, yet they only fully captured Ramadi on the 17th. The description of the map says it is depicting ISIS as of 12 May. Revise the description of the map to say it is depicting ISIS as of 19 May or 17 May.

Austinharig (talk) 23:01, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to take advantage of this talk page section to request a separate edit - there's an awkward line in the article that's been bothering me for what feels like quite a while. The final line in the opening section (This territorial loss almost caused a collapse of the Iraqi government that prompted renewal of US military action in Iraq.) I feel ought to be changed to "The territorial loss almost caused a collapse of the Iraqi government and prompted renewal of US military action in Iraq." 24.163.57.88 (talk) 06:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Done I don't know who fixed the map caption, but it is an ongoing chore, as the map's author continually updates it at Commons, sometimes more than once a day (great job), but never changes the file name (which causes the article/caption to get out of sync.) I fixed the last sentence of the lede. Thanks both for pointing out these issues. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

PNG or SVG emblem?

The file http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Seal_of_the_Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant.svg is a clearer and scalable version of the somewhat blurry .png file that is currently used in the infobox. The wikimedia description of the .png even recommends that the .svg version should be used whenever possible. Plus, all other emblems in infoboxes seem to use the scalable versions. Stygmax (talk) 22:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

The use of this image was discussed in February at: Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/Archive 30#Emblem by Kathovo, Legacypac, Mbcap, Banak and LightandDark2000 and was removed. The last edit in the thread was a request to: "provide sources that corroborate the view that they use this emblem." It was re added by StanTheMan87 in a Revision as of 06:40, 6 May 2015 but I do not see how the inclusion of the image is warranted. GregKaye 04:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
It was mentioned in an article detailing a journalist's trip to ISIL-controlled territories. It stated that he had received ISIL's Seal on a letter (implying that they are still using seal), which authenticated their approval for his visit. LightandDark2000 (talk) 06:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Aside from that, the current version of the Emblem is more detailed and better formed (in terms of the shapes and the writings), so it should be used in place of the other version. LightandDark2000 (talk) 06:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
LightandDark2000 Was this a newly printed emblem, a usage of an old piece of stationary, something else? Where can we see the image? How is it notable?
Re: "the current version of the Emblem is more detailed and better formed" is this in reference to the original version of the emblem as presented by the group or the representation produced as Wikipedia installed fanart? In whose opinion is it more detailed and better formed? Where have you seen it? GregKaye 04:19, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Obviously, I'm referring to the original version of the emblem as presented by ISIL , as the closer to the original, the better. LightandDark2000 (talk) 06:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Can anyone please "provide sources that corroborate the view that they use this emblem" as discussed GregKaye 12:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
There is no source for this emblem. The emblem has the old name so I doubt there would be any credible source for this emblem. I have removed it. Mbcap (talk) 22:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Not sure how you define a source, but there are many, many images available online with that emblem clearly visible, see [2], [3] for examples Gazkthul (talk) 22:42, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree the emblem is visible but it is not the one we have on this article. On this Wikipedia article page, the emblem reads ad dawla islamiya fee iraq washam encased around the seal but the emblem in the sources you have posted are different all together and consist of just the prophetic seal. Considering this, I have no idea why the current unsourced emblem has been re-included on this page. Mbcap (talk) 01:56, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
From what editors are saying it may even be possible to develop a whole content on imagery used by the group. However, depending on images used, it may be difficult to pick one and to encyclopaedically say that this is their emblem in the way that we have done. GregKaye 04:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
related images were added in a Revision as of 01:08, 21 May 2015 by Illegitimate Barrister this time with use of File:Seal of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.svg instead of File:Emblem of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.png. Either way, this can work if images are representatively captioned. I have used: Emblem of Isil although, perhaps with the emblem reading ad dawla islamiya fee iraq washam, a direct indication of Daesh might be more applicable. Previous consensus was to use "emblem". GregKaye 05:41, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
No single source has yet been provided for the emblem or seal. If there is no source, we should delete the emblem. Mbcap (talk) 07:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. It would be helpful if an editor such as StanTheMan87 or Illegitimate Barrister could do so. There has already been too much edit warring on this article. GregKaye 21:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

The emblem has now been removed as no sources have been provided. Mbcap (talk) 14:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

"extremist terrorist group" is a biased description

Hi, I think judgement should be avoided when posting encyclopedic content. "extremist terrorist group" is a biased description. Whether we agree or not with their views. The "terrorist" description is used to lightly and usually towards a particular ethnic group. Best 190.130.237.75 (talk) 13:36, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

This is a valid point for discussion. I closed your edit request template, as we only post those for uncontroversial changes, or after a consensus has been reached.
At Wikipedia, (unlike some politicians or news media) it is best only to use the word terrorist when justified by the tactics or strategy (supported by reliable sources). We try not to let the article be swayed by whether we agree with their views.
In this case occasional use of the word is justified by the group's avowed strategy.
--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Alternatively we could state "extremist rebel group" because this wording was chosen in a consensus a few months ago. However, the current wording seems ok too. Khestwol (talk) 14:09, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

As far as groups around the world and groups within the general category of Islam are concerned, ISIL are fairly described to be extreme.

This was recently discussed in discussion at Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/Archive_32#Use of label --> "Extremist" where it was shown that extremist is a far more widely used description for the group than rebel or other descriptions. Since then someone must have placed terrorist into the description and, while I don't think we should necessarily pander to descriptions used in RS, I think that the usage is far from unfair.

(isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND ("terrorist" OR "terrorism") gets "About 32,500 results" in books
(isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND ("terrorist" OR "terrorism") gets "About 25,100 results" in Scholar

Terrorist is by far the most widely used description. It also seems to me to a fitting description for a group that has produced threat laden captive beheading, throat slitting, shooting and burning videos and for a group that has resurrected the practice of public crucifixion. GregKaye 13:45, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Of course it is a a biassed description that also happens to go against Wiki guidelines on attribution. Google searches do not make a distinction between reliable and unreliable sources. Also there are possibly 10-20 books on this group so the result of 25,000 just shows that we cannot take these google searches too seriously. I think it is quite rich that when Islamic State is by far the most commonly used term for the group, there is all this resistance against the use of the name as the article title but at the same time we have this constant soapboxing when something happens to be used by a portion of the media establishment. Mbcap (talk) 14:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
The only bias here is with a group that pushes people off buildings solely on the basis of their sexuality. The sources are from news, books and scholar. The "soapboxing" is by a group that claims to be "Islamic State" but makes war against and denounces Sufi, Shia and other Sunni groups. GregKaye 17:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Just to say I don't like either the word terrorist (such an abused term it's ridiculous) or the word extremist (tells you precisely nothing). --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 14:39, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

YeOldeGentleman would you describe ISIL as mainstream Islam? This is the description that is predominantly and very relevantly used by RS. GregKaye 17:24, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
@GregKaye: Well, I would not say they are mainstream, but this does immediately throw up the issue of what word to use to describe their extra-mainstream position within Islam. I mean, obviously the IS fruits are Muslims, but a term that actually gives the reader an indication of which lunatic strand of Islam they adhere to would be best. The fact that this strand of Islam is adhered to by a small minority of Muslims then tells you everything you need to know about how mainstream the IS fruity-loops are.
I mean, even Nazi Germany doesn't get described with meaningless terms like extreme or loaded ones like terrorist. Many, including me, would say that, for example, the Сheney Administration was, amongst other things, extreme and terroristic; but no one thinks about using such language on Wikipedia, even about that ghastly bunch of people.
Feel free to disagree with what I've said, of course. I'm always open to having my mind changed! --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 23:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
The words "extremist" and "terrorist" are very clearly defined and are widely and accurately used in description of this group.
Cheyney may, in some ways, have been a bit of a so to speak dick but I doubt if even he would have gone to the "extremes" of selectively choosing women who had been caught in adultery to stone them to death (while still giving permission for other women to be used as sexual slaves). "Insurgent" is another commonly used word.
(isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND ("insurgent" OR "insurgency") gets "About 6,360 results" in books
(isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND ("insurgent" OR "insurgency") gets "About 11,600 results" in scholar
GregKaye 23:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
If there are less than 20 books on this group, how are their 6,360 books? Mbcap (talk) 23:52, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Are you claiming bias here as well? GregKaye 06:11, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Just trying to advocate for the devil here, wouldn't it be more accurate to describe them as a extremist or radical (perhaps Islamist) militant group? It seems pretty clear that they are engaged in maneuvers to capture strategic objectives and hold them. They are, in many ways, a military force. This seems pretty distinct from the traditional terrorism of blowing things up to instill fear or advance an agenda. And let's be honest, there is no shortage of historical examples of militaries that did all of these terrible things to the people they conquered. The Khans make ISIL seem amateurish. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 02:33, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

As has been demonstrated in numerous previous discussions, the most regularly used descriptor for the group, which has been edited out of both the ideologies reference and the opening description, is "Sunni". GregKaye 06:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I fail to see the relevance. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 10:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
We are editing an encyclopedia. I don't see issue with the current and accurate descriptions used but some description needs to remain. We can't just remove stuff without presenting constructive ideas of what can remain. You are the only other editor to have done this. GregKaye 12:16, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
To refer to them as Sunni is perfectly fine. I don't think anyone is contesting that. I was trying to contrast the use of the word terrorist with the use of the word militant. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 18:39, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

This group has been variously described as militant, insurgent, Sunni, Islamist, Jihadist and Salafist, each of which is more precise in definition than extremist. Extremist is very ill defined, you will only have to look at the fiasco with the new law being introduced in the UK to appreciate that. Also these google searches need to be carefully looked at because there is no way there are 6,360 books on the group and that is a fact. There are only about a dozen books on the group. Serious academic publications do not use vague terms like 'extremist'. Take for example the recent publication by the Institute for the Study of War, "THE ISIS DEFENSE IN IRAQ AND SYRIA: COUNTERING AN ADAPTIVE ENEMY[4]", which compares IS to an insurgency but at the same time says it is different from an insurgency. Another example is the publication by the Brookings Institution titled, "From paper state to caliphate: The ideology of the Islamic State[5]" which refers to them variously as Salafist or Jihadi Salafist. I suggest we review the various sources and agree on a more precise and accurate descriptor for the group.

Based on your sources, Jihadi Salafist appears to be apt wording. It seems more specific and descriptive than either terrorist or militant. They both may be true, but there is a thin line between vague truth and meaninglessness. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 04:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Ideology of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant includes a section saying "global jihadist" - the term is also applicable to Boko Haram, Al-Shabaab and other groups who promote themselves as global jihad, and declare allegiance to ISIL. -- Aronzak (talk) 11:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The content mentioned presents: Ideology of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#A Sunni (Salafi) based ideology. I don't think that Wikipedia should be used to soapbox group supportive interpretations on jihad or to be drawn into used less commonly used descriptions. Jihad is commonly understood as being a doctrine of primarily spiritual and secondarily physical defence as a adopted by Muslims and arguably it is very far from application to many of the expansionist policies of ISIL. A concept of "waging a jihad" is an oxymoron. GregKaye 15:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment While I presume the complaint at the beginning of this thread was made in good faith, it is clearly misguided. Pretty much the entire world outside of radical Islam considers the group to be both extremist and terrorist. There is an ocean of RS sources confirming this. No obligation exists to refrain from negative descriptives in an article if they are unquestionably accurate. In this case I think suggesting that the group is anything other than extremist and terrorist would be so far off base and divorced from reality, that it could be fairly described as fringe. Beyond which it contradicts both WP:BLUE and WP:COMMONSENSE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Add a time event on may 2015

YPG advanced against Islamic State in northeastern Syria on Al-Hasakah region. They took more than 4000 km2. [1] [2]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 21:32, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.naiz.eus/eu/actualidad/noticia/20150527/los-kurdos-recuperan-al-ei-4-000-kilometros-cuadrados-en-el-noreste-de-siria
  2. ^ https://www.en.zamanalwsl.net/news/10133.html

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.147.254.133 (talk • contribs) 13:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 14 May 2015

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 17:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

– WP:CONSISTENCY with the main article Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant -- we have discussed the naming of the main article many many many times, so all subarticles should be consistent with the titling of the main article due to the extensive existing discussions, instead of trying to use a title that was rejected for the main article -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Support

Oppose

  • OPPOSE, because the full name is less common in usage in sources as compared to the more common acronyms "ISIL" and "ISIS". Per WP:ACRONYMTITLE. "Acronyms should be used in a page name if the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject (e.g. NASA; in contrast, consensus has rejected moving Central Intelligence Agency to its acronym, in view of arguments that the full name is used in professional and academic publications)." Per NASA. Khestwol (talk) 05:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose the current titles have high recognisability and are more readable than the proposed titles. There are some instances in which an additional "the" is warranted. This isn't one of them. We wouldn't propose a move such as List of U.S. Highways in Georgia → List of United States Highways in Georgia or John Kelly (U.S. politician) → John Kelly (United States politician) and that's with a country that is a state. Request speedy closure. GregKaye 06:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Current titles are easier to read and in fact whenever we talk about these subjects in real, we mostly refer the organization as "ISIL". OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose ISIS is still in use and ISIL is occasionally used, whereas the only full names being frequently used are Islamic State and Da'ish. Don't use an obscure name that lengthens titles, even if it would be slightly better for consistency. Banak (talk) 11:21, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose All per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:COMMONSENSE. Almost no one will be searching for these articles using the newly proposed titles. Also, as others have pointed out above, the proposed new titles are cumbersome and excessively long. If there are concerns for someone actually doing a search using one of these titles, this can be resolved with a redirect. Bottom line; if it aint broke, don't fix it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:24, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Since the articles are at titles invented by Wikipedians as descriptive titles, no one will be searching for them by the exact format used anyways, since they are titles created to describe their content. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 14:54, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • 65.94.43.89 Google trends demonstrates that searches are made in the sequence: 1st, "Isis" (way ahead of the rest) so, just so we can see other results in perspective the trend results without "Isis" are repeated here. "Isil" comes a strong second, then "Islamic State" then "Daesh". Anyone searching on "Isis" or "Isil" will find our main article at the top of their search lists and anyone searching on "Islamic State" (from which our title is disambiguated) or on "Daesh" will similarly find our main article high up in listings.
On various rationales relating to representation we have not opted to present "Islamic State" but to disambiguate to the historic name "Islamic State of Iraq ant the Levant". This works with the main title but in other titles there is a difficulty that the Islamic State ..." beginning of the phrase can get lost following the preceding words. An "... ISI..." content is a lot more accommodating on the eye and is, with the use of several terms, is still very searchable. GregKaye 18:16, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

See also WP:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_11#ISIL_categories for related discussion on category names. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment curiously Britannica use: "Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) (militant organization)" and so use both titles contents in their titling. GregKaye 17:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Doesn't matter Wherever they're at, the redirects will work. All these terms should be essentially synonymous by now, to the general English public and especially to anyone discussing renaming. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Counterproposal

– Per comments above. Per WP:RECOGNIZABLE, the proposed title "ISIL" has high recognizability. Even the article ISIL itself mostly uses "ISIL" rather than "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant". Per WP:CONSISTENCY, because many articles are already using "ISIL" in their titles. Per WP:CONCISE, "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" has 36 characters (including spaces), but "ISIL" has only 4 characters (i.e. I, S, I, and L). Per WP:COMMONNAME. "ISIL" is about 30 times as common as "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant". Google Search (-wikipedia) for "ISIL" gets about 22,300,000 results for "ISIL", but only about 755,000 results for "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant". (Note that our other options, i.e. "ISIS" and "Islamic State", refer to many other things besides ISIL, so their Google Search will get many results which are not about ISIL but other things. "ISIS" and "Islamic State" have been rejected on this talk page multiple times, so I am not including them here.) Per WP:ACRONYMTITLE. "Acronyms should be used in a page name if the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject (e.g. NASA; in contrast, consensus has rejected moving Central Intelligence Agency to its acronym, in view of arguments that the full name is used in professional and academic publications)." For "ISIL", both the conditions at ACRONYMTITLE's guideline, i.e. the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation, and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject, are easily fulfilled, because the full name "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" is not so commonly used. Per NASA, which is located at "NASA", not "National Aeronautics and Space Administration". Also, in Arabic Wikipedia, the article on ISIL is located at ar:داعش. Its title is using the native Arabic acronym داعش (DA'ISH) for ISIL, not the full Arabic name. Khestwol (talk) 07:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Survey (counterproposal)

Comment, in the comments on 65.94.43.89's proposal above, users have so far favored to use the acronym "ISIL" in the proposed titles, not the full name. So, what is their opinion regarding using the acronym "ISIL" in this title too, not the full name? Ping all the !voters there 65.94.43.89, GregKaye, OccultZone, Banak, Ad Orientem. Khestwol (talk) 21:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Stupid? Did you read anything written above and in the comments? On what rationale do you oppose? Khestwol (talk) 14:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
WP:TITLECHANGES, for one. There is no justification for moving a stable article from one controversial title to another. What's more, this group is not primarily known as "ISIL" by anyone. The full name is required. Please stop this pure disruption, which has no goal other than to harm the stability of the encylopaedia. RGloucester — ☎ 14:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
RGloucester, you have provided no rationale to oppose. Why is "the full name required", even when the article itself mostly refers to the group as "ISIL"? There is of course a justification provided above, hence your assertion to discourage a title change does not apply. Khestwol (talk) 14:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I only want to move towards a more recognizable, consistent, and concise COMMONNAME that is clear and unambiguous, and suitable per Wikipedia's guidelines. You are free to !vote, but please state your rationale and do not oppose because you WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT.
Please do not WP:PERSONAL attack me by calling this proposal stupid. Because it will only discourage our consensus-building process. Khestwol (talk) 15:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
It is very simple. The proposed title "ISIL" is not recognisable, as it does not adequately describe the subject. The subject is not known primarily by "ISIL", but by a variety of different names. In every case, the long forms are read out. Acronyms are useful in prose, but are not suitable for an encyclopaedic article title except in certain circumstances that do not exist here. RGloucester — ☎ 20:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Ok I have got your POV now. Though I disagree with you. The obscurity and extremely rare usage of the long name "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" reduces its recognizability. Please note that WP:RECOGNIZABILITY states The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize. "ISIL" fulfills this guideline easily. The acronym is much more common in usage, as per the evidence from Google Search provided above. "ISIL" is about 30 times as common as "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant". This automatically means the acronym is more recognizable to someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject. Khestwol (talk)
"Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" is indeed too long, which obscures its recognizability. As a result, "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" is not as much in use as ISIS and ISIL. As for "Islamic State" however, many users have disagreed in past discussions. Khestwol (talk) 22:20, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I was the editor that proposed Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → ISIS. While the proposed change has the advantage of increasing consistency while maintaining recognizability, I have recently also really recognised that editors search for the article under a range of terms such as "ISIS", "ISIL", "Islamic State" and, it seems, "Daesh". The proposed change may have effect with regard to some of the searchability of the main article. GregKaye 03:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
GregKaye, doesn't "ISIS" have the same sequence of letters and pronunciation though, as the ancient Egyptian goddess Isis? I think the two names "Isis" and "ISIS" are too similar and "ISIL" provides a natural disambiguation to avoid ambiguity. Khestwol (talk) 08:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Khestwol I personally see strengths in both options and think that yours is a very valid proposal. I certainly think that "Islamic State" is problematic for mainy issues regarding NPOV, international usages and a need for disambiguation but I think that "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" provides one suitable route to resolve these issues. "ISIL" would provide commonality in terminological use with other articles. I think that there are advantages either way. I have read the arguments that you have presented. GregKaye 09:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
GregKaye: Thank you! At least someone is supporting. Khestwol (talk) 12:14, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
GregKaye, so would you be happy if this article gets moved to "ISIL"? Khestwol (talk) 18:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
TY Khestwol, as mentioned I can see arguments both ways. However, with a bit of recent research, one of my concerns (relating to the formatting of the article's opener) has recently dissipated. I had thought that a change in title might have led to a potentially messy rewrite but a check across to the article for IBM indicated that this would not necessarily be the case. While I have no objection to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant I am also happy to support a move to ISIL. All the same I am very aware that this is, in Wikipedia terms, a fairly significant move to be bringing to consideration and think that it may be best to draw in contributions from editors who have contributed to previous RM discussions on this article to better establish consensus: pinging: @BD2412, In ictu oculi, DeCausa, Terror4us, P-123, Imc, and Gazkthul: GregKaye 20:31, 30 May 2015 (UTC) GregKaye 20:31, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
OccultZone: But earlier above you opposed moving article titles to use the full form. And here you are also opposing from using the acronym, and yet within the comment only referring to the group as "ISIL" rather than the full form? Khestwol (talk) 12:14, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, more common name. --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 05:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - IS is not known primarily by the acronym ISIL. The only move we should be considering is Islamic State. Mbcap (talk) 19:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Usage has clearly shifted. It seems fairly obvious now (it wasn't last time I posted on this) that "Islamic State" satisfies WP:COMMONNAME. It needs a disambiguator though as the name has a long and diverse history - so Islamic State (xxx) should be the title. What precisely the (xxx) is should be the focus of the debate, but it should be along the lines of (Islamist group). DeCausa (talk) 21:37, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Comment - no, more common in usage is "ISIS". Khestwol (talk) 21:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
No, more common usage is "Islamic State". DeCausa (talk) 21:48, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Here is why your rationale is wrong. Google Search gives about 109,000,000 results for "ISIS" AND ("Iraq" OR "Syria"), but only about 47,500,000 results for "Islamic State" AND ("Iraq" OR "Syria"). The later even includes hits such as "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant", "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria", etc, hence it should be kept in mind the real hits for "Islamic State" must be a lower number than that. And yet, "ISIS" is still, by far, more common in usage than the phrase "Islamic State". Khestwol (talk) 22:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
You've misled yourself. You've included in your searches periods when the other names were more common. No longer - usage has changed. DeCausa (talk) 22:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
But evidence doesn't back the assertions you make up. Khestwol (talk) 06:13, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Discussion (counterproposal)

Any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Lead sentence

The Lead states:

"The new name and the idea of a caliphate has been widely criticised and condemned, with the United Nations, various governments, and mainstream Muslim groups all refusing to acknowledge it."

What is "it"? The group, the new name and/or the idea of a caliphate? ~ P-123 (talk) 12:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

The new name (been nearly a year thought) has been criticized but I am not so sure about caliphate. Their idea of the caliphate maybe but the normative concept of a caliphate is accepted by traditionalist and orthodox Muslims. Maybe the sentence needs to be clarified. Mbcap (talk) 14:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it does need clarification. What about "refusing to accept the legitimacy of the group's claims", or is that still too vague? ~ P-123 (talk) 15:17, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
A very good point. "... refusing to accept the legitimacy of the group's claims" sounds good to me. Alternatively "it" be swapped for "them". GregKaye 19:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Propose merge from Penal Code of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

A stub that might be better incorporated herein. FeatherPluma (talk) 01:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the article does any harm being there. It provides a minimal but succinct summary which may, or may not, be expanded upon in relation to content of documented speeches etc. Certainly at present it doesn't amount to much. GregKaye 20:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Categorized as "Theocracy"?

It's true, of course, that they use religion to justify all their atrocities, and Baghdadi claims religious authority over all Muslims as caliph, but as far as I'm aware, very few if any of the people in charge can be considered clergy. Does a dictatorship being run by someone who claims that they're doing God's work automatically justify the designation "theocracy"? 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:C421:D27F:537:E61E (talk) 03:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The designation seems to fit the three sources given for the definition on Theocracy. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 06:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I guess they might be described as a "claimed theocracy" but similar might be said about other groups. It can certainly be debated whether any group is a true theocracy as a group governed by a god/God. I can also honestly say that I have not spent time in the presence of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi but, on the one recent occurrence that I know of where pictures have been produced, he has appeared in clerical type robes. GregKaye 11:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Think of a theocracy as a group governed by theology, not so much a group governed by a god or gods. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 22:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
What do you call a group governed a military? That's what I think of when I think ISIS. The New York Times seems to agree. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Daesh has members claiming to be imams, so they have a clergy of sorts. The biggest issue is whether or not the sources label it a theocracy. If they do, we do. If they don't, we don't. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. So, what do the sources say? 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:C421:D27F:537:E61E (talk) 00:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
The ISIL article is currently in Category:Proclaimed but largely unrecognised caliphates. I have placed this category into Category:Theocracies. The issue presented in the article is the group's claims to be caliphate. In lieu authoritative substantiation to declare it a theocracy then this direct reference should be removed. GregKaye 09:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
People really should stick with wikipedia Reliable Sources. So, here is the Boston Globe:
"Starting last fall, ISIS began imposing its theocratic rule over a wide swath of Syria, then quickly wrested control of the emblematic Iraqi cities of Fallujah and Ramadi. With the more recent attacks, it menaced the government in Baghdad; it also forced President Obama to reengage with a war from which he thought he had extricated the United States."
https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2014/06/28/the-surprising-appeal-isis/l9YwC0GVPQ3i4eBXt1o0hI/story.html XavierItzm (talk) 12:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Facts, not emotionalism

The statement "is an Islamic extremist terrorist group controlling territory in...." should be edited to just state "is an Islamic group controlling territory in...." for accuracy as "terrorist" is an overused term that is now vague and virtually meaningless. Lets stick to information, not inflammatory opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VulPecula (talk • contribs) 13:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Facts, it is sad to say, are facts. They have their behaviours and we are here to provide descriptive content. Please see the very recent discussion where exactly I think bias was overruled at #"extremist terrorist group" is a biased description. We stick with sources as per encyclopedic policy. Please read options as mentioned. GregKaye 19:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

The simplest thing to do is to refer to Wikipedia Reliable Sources. In this case, the BBC states simply:
Islamic State (IS) is a radical Islamist group
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29052144 XavierItzm (talk) 12:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Re: "The simplest thing to do is to refer to Wikipedia Reliable Sources." If that is what you say then please note that the most often cited description for the group as shown in reliable sources is terrorist. This has been demonstrated time and again. You are still picking and choosing your sources GregKaye 10:20, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Sources for the above statement statement? Here a canonical source is brought: the BBC's definition for "What is Islamic State?". This RS, by the way, resolves the issue raised regarding "Facts, not emotionalism". I am not sure what value the above statement, devoid of sources, adds to the discussion. XavierItzm (talk) 15:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree we need to present facts rather than presenting what is not fact. Please could someone define terrorist or extremist. Regardless we should not use such words in the lead at least because these are contention labels. Even if used we should provide attribution which is clearly not the case at the moment. I agree with XavierItzm that the BBC descriptor is better. Problem is editors come with these concerns about the contentious descriptor of 'extremist' or 'terrorist' but then leave the page after a while so it creates an impression that the current status quo is the consensus when in fact it is not if taken as a whole. Also for some reason the word terrorist has been slipped into the lead which is also a very contentious and absurd label. There was no consensus for the word terrorist. Why is it in the lead? Mbcap (talk) 23:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Your Tax Dollars at Work: A Grossly Oversimplified, Overtly Optimistic Situation Map

The stench of this page reeks, of Pentagon and CIA propaganda. One example which serves to underline my contention quite effectively: the accompanying situation map portraying steady Pentagon progress against ISIS, in the absence of none. How to lie with cartography for idiots, 101: Not only does your situation map fail, miserably so, to depict the current situation, in Iraq and Syria? The information your situation map conveys, is patently false! Over the course of several months, illustrated in gray 2-cell cartography located in the right-whel accompanying this page, the cartographer of your handy-dandy "ISIS situation map" has, from December of 2014 to June of 2015, erroneously assumed, perhaps a function of wishful thinking, a constant progression of force sweeping ISIS away, magically materializing to a warm, reassuring, ever diminishing area of influence ISIS is portrayed to control in Syria and Iraq when, in actuality, total urban area plus total population under ISIS "control" (e.g., as opposed to ISIS "presence") increased significantly throughout what's left of Syria and Iraq.-Previous unsigned comment by an anonymous user

So you believe the marks on the map are misleading, or the shading disingenuous? Unless you want rural areas to be somehow shown as such, I'm not sure what can be done. At any rate, you might want to mention this on the relevant module or image talk-pages, and please sign in future. Banak (talk) 11:37, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Hezbollah

You guys added it to the map! That's great! Puts things in perspective. --Monochrome_Monitor 05:53, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

1999 or 2003

The section Foundation of the group (1999–2006) begins

Following the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Jordanian Salafi Jihadist Abu...

and contains no earlier dates. This doesn't sound a lot like it goes back to 1999, should the section be renamed? I've already done it, this just explains why in case of dispute. SPACKlick (talk) 14:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Tawhid wal-Jihad was around since 1999.[6] It simply didn't get it's "big break" until the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. Gazkthul (talk) 22:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Hezbollah

reedit the lebanon map yo,Hezbollah controls the all land in the south of litani river. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.223.28.219 (talk) 13:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Please discuss Template talk:Caliphate#New template

Please discuss Template talk:Caliphate#New template--Peaceworld 10:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Lebanon in the map?

I find it strange for Lebanon to be on the map. Lebanon isn't in the war. Areas 'controlled' by Hizbullah aren't really controlled, it's more like 'protected' and this is how it has been since a long time. There is no conflict in Lebanon and I see the addition of Lebanon to the map as unnecessary misleading clutter. --Kuwaity26 (talk) 07:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

if Lebanon and Hezbollah are going to be on the map could someone desaturate the colors to be in line with everything else on the map it looks atrocious 24.163.57.88 (talk) 08:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I have misgivings about this map, but a voice or two every couple of days has appeared asking for it. RFC time like with the Israel issue? Banak (talk) 22:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - Is the Islamic State involved in active engagements within Lebanon and is there enough data to support a map? If the answer to both is yes then addition of Lebanon is worthwhile. If not then it should be left alone. Mbcap (talk) 02:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I like it. The Islamic state IS in Lebanon, as you can see from the map. --Monochrome_Monitor 05:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
The map, which by the way, still looks atrocious and like a bad ms paint job compared to Iraq and Syria. The colors are still offensively saturated. 24.163.57.88 (talk) 11:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
But then that applies to Saudi Arabia too. DAESH had engaged with the Saudi borders guard some months ago, and they're bombing and trying to bomb a mosque there every week. Does that mean Saudi Arabia too should be added to the map? --Kuwaity26 (talk) 07:28, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
No. They aren't holding ground in SA, but they are holding ground (albeit very minimal) in Lebanon. --Monochrome_Monitor 11:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. -- Orduin Discuss 23:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Russia

Please add information about ISIS activity in Russia. sources http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3134206/ISIS-opens-new-Europe-s-doorstep-Chechan-jihadi-group-15-000-fighters-pledge-allegiance-terror-horde.html http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/isis-europe-chechen-jihadi-group-pledges-allegiance-islamic-state-1507439 . Axakov (talk) 12:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Axakov, this is already in the article. It states "Some commanders of the Caucasus Emirate in Chechnya and Dagestan have switched their allegiance to ISIL." As of now there is no "activity" just the same claim that these people support ISIL. —МандичкаYO 😜 12:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Updated to reflect the new Wilayat announced for the North Caucasus Gazkthul (talk) 04:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Declassified DIA Report - Various media allege this is proof that the US knowingly facilitated the rise of ISIL

A Defense Intelligence Agency document declares that in 2012, the US considered the establishment of a Salafist organization in eastern Syria in order to further the downfall of the Assad regime.

Extracts from the declassified DEA document http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/05/newly-declassified-u-s-government-documents-the-west-supported-the-creation-of-isis.html

Various other sources, for instance http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article42026.htm

In light of the whole subject apparently being rather controversial, I would like to get some of your views before making an attempt to include this. Do you think this is legit and should be referenced? And if not, why not? 210.1.218.149 (talk) 11:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Neither of those strike me as remotely credible sources for such an exceptional claim. (One is a blog and the other is, well, this; it appears to be someone's private website, makes no claims to editorial control or fact-checking, etc.) That particular claim is clearly WP:EXCEPTIONAL, meaning it probably requires coverage from multiple established, reputable mainstream news sources before we can include it. See WP:RS for more details on what makes a reputable source. --Aquillion (talk) 07:21, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. There are plenty of reliable sources that have described how U.S. policies could have inadvertently created conditions conducive to ISIL's rise (the same could be said of Iraqi government policies, Syrian policies, Iranian policies, and any number of other factors, like drought), but this is quite different from claiming that the U.S. government wanted or planned for the establishment of a violent, transnational terrorist group. This article may be of interest.TheBlueCanoe 19:56, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
It has been on my mind for some time that this page may benefit from an exclusion of contribution from non registered users.
There is a huge difference between leaving a situation that had, with a variety of influences, developed the conditions for ISIL to evolve and the wilful "establishment of a Salafist organization in eastern Syria". GregKaye 12:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

It is quite possible that some blogs made a sensational misinterpretation of the document. It is hazardous for untrained people (like most of us) to interpret primary sources on controversial topics, especially this one that is largely redacted. Judicial Watch itself, that published the document[7] from its FOI request, concludes the opposite of the above quoted blogs.[8]. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Why are you two acting like this is so unheard of? Aquillion, I do not agree at all. For one, Washington Time blogs are not just "a blog". They are merely opinion instead of news. Quality opinion blogs are perfectly allowed. I don't know the other source but, since we also use US-owned Voice of America and Radio Free Europe, it's fair to use RT and Iranian state news as well. Second of all, this is not exceptional. Don't abuse that common misconception. The Iraq war was just as faulty. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 12:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

State offices and courts are now considered "factions"?

What's up with the table in the Designation as a terrorist organisation section? It defines courts and international organizations as "factions". Surely there's a more suiting word for them. GMRE (talk) 20:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why that column needs to be there at all. Surely Australia and Canada are sufficient, what does adding Attorney-General for Australia and Parliament of Canada actually add. Some of these names don't appear in the sources either, so there may be some WP:OR here. Gazkthul (talk) 22:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I think that column used to be called "legislative body" in an earlier version of the article. What sane person would change it to factions? GMRE (talk) 21:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

IS Map

First of all, thank you to whomever has been updating the map at the top of the article. I check in every other day or so to see how things have changed.

Is there anyone here with the expertise to combine these successive maps into a gif? I realize the image quality may have to be scaled back to make it a reasonably sized file, but it would be fascinating to watch the area progress in one animation. I have no idea how difficult this is to do. If I knew that much I would probably just try to make it myself. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 01:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I've seen animations on YouTube and one gif on reddit, but don't have the links to hand. Banak (talk) 07:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Adding Hezbollah to IS map

Is it possible to add Hezbollah to the IS map? Thousands of Hezbollah fighters are taking part in the Syrian civil war but its very unclear what part of the country they are controlling right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.84.124.225 (talk) 11:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd imagine it is almost certainly not possible, nor a good idea. They are on the same side as the Syrian Government.
  • The number of Hezbollah troops is disputed from a tiny number of advisors to being "pretty much the entire SAA". It's a major propaganda point for the rebels that they claim that only Hezbollah and Iran are left fighting them. Similarly the amount of ground that is controlled by whom.
  • They typically seem to have integrated into the Syrian Army to some extent, and therefore often don't fight alone.
  • It's likely to cause major edit warring because of the difference of opinions of the extent of the army, and pro-opp sources may call "Hezbollah advances" what the Syrian Gov calls "SAA advances".
  • When they're on the same side, it seems a massive waste to try to differentiate.
  • The map has already got a ton of colours. It's not even funny.
  • It's likely to cause the same shading colours as we got from splitting Al-Nusra from other rebels, because of their military cooperation.
  • There'd be a massive scramble to go over every single red dot and figure out what to colour it.
  • We'd need a ton of new symbols for the new colour, potentially unless we used blue.
Just my opinions, if I thought this were practical I'd be completely for it. But reality means, for me, this seems like an idea that wouldn't work out well. May I ask why you'd want to do this? Is it for the purpose of the effects this would have on the Lebanese module, or did you not realise they were included in the red colour already? Banak (talk) 22:17, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Hezbollah are involved in fighting in Syria, but they aren't exercising territorial control anywhere. Gazkthul (talk) 05:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Adding Lebanon military situation to IS map

http://up.wiki.x.io/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c9/Lebanese_insurgency.png/300px-Lebanese_insurgency.png Thoughts? It's just a matter of including Lebanon into the Iraq/Syria map, seeing as there is ISIS presence in Lebanon. I understand not including Nigeria and Libya, but I think Lebanon should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.148.113.212 (talk) 05:50, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I dislike the Lebanon map, because I believe it to be outdated and lacking in markers, as I've previously stated. However, we've previously had RFCs over map issues (notably Golan heights), so if you think enough people care, that might be the way to go. Previous changes also made a new file for changes to maps while discussion went on. Banak (talk) 07:34, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Map of all territories

I suggest the primary map display all the territory that IS controls including the 'provinces' in Nigeria, Sinai, Libya etc. instead of only the territory of Iraq and Syria. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 06:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Rename article

The name of the article should be changed to Islamic State. That is the name that they have officially adopted. They have expanded beyond "Iraq and the Levant", so to qualify the name with the names of those countries makes no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.239.161.170 (talk) 08:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Remove topics and words that glorify and give a sense of power to ISIL

I agree there should be a wiki entry for ISIL of course, information is necessary for research and reflection. I don't agree that the page should however contain information that in anyway eludes to it being a 'power' or 'state' or any other information that indirectly glorifies / shows the perceived strength of this small band of fundamentalists. Prospective joiners of ISIL will read this entry and may become seduced. All information of its 'leader' etc that in anyway shows it as a power or state should be removed I feel? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.188.57.213 (talk) 11:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

What you're asking is a form of censorship based on your personal political views. Wikipedia couldn't be taken seriously as a source of information, if it purposely had obvious propaganda in it. Also, they are obviously much more than a "small band of fundamentalists". GMRE (talk) 19:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Egypt and Nigerian insurgency maps

Could someone create a map for the Egyptian insurgency and expand on the Nigerian one? ISIL has started gaining territory in Egypt and the Nigeria map is very incomplete and outdated. 68.148.4.83 (talk) 23:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Adding Pakistan in the infobox (as list of countries IS has control / partial control)

Northern Pakistan towards Waziristan and Afghan border is under IS control and people in the region have pledged allegiance to the caliphate. Under the name of Wilayat (governorate): Khurasan. It stretches over the border with Afghanistan and into the Afghanistan.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MMXVI (talk • contribs) 08:03, 8 July 2015‎

I suggest we post a couple of sources for this one. What are the best ones? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Edit conflict: Reuters report of ISIL territory in Nangarhar Province, Afghanistan

A few hours ago, an IP added Afghanistan to the territories in the infobox. While I was updating the citation to the primary source from Reuters[9], Philg88 reverted the original (which cited Russia Today).

As a result of the edit conflict, Afghanistan is back in the infobox with the more reliable reference.

Has this first territory in Afghanistan been confirmed by other news sources? If not, I think we should remove it from the infobox (again) and give it a brief mention in the body of the article, perhaps in the timeline.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Well Reuters is a WP:RS, but no harm done from leaving it out of the infobox until more sources become available or unless additional territory is taken. I would suggest it be mentioned in the Khorasan Province section. Gazkthul (talk) 00:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Sure. While Reuters reports multiple POVs that the militant group in Nagarhar might be IS or might be merely "sympathizers"/"loyalists", and I notice that the territory is remote villages not major cities, I think we should be cautious in saying categorically that IS holds territory in a new country, in the way that an infobox listing does. I moved the incident to the Khorasan Province section. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Claims that Iraqis claimed to have shot down British planes?

When I checked the source for that it looked like some Iranian state run thing, not exactly the epitome of reputable. I'm not well versed in the ways of Wikipedia, so maybe this is considered acceptable? Seems like a pretty absurd allegation to me though. Just wanted to see if I'm the only one who thinks this way. Sorry for being a noob. AudreyTruong (talk) 07:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

We were all noobs once: welcome.
You are absolutely right: we don't (as a community) rely on such sources for such extraordinary claims. See for example Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/Archive 4#Alleged_Snowden_leaks.
A brief web search can't find a second independent source, so I deleted the section.[10]
--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I mean no offense, gentlemen. But honestly, for all of Iran's faults, did you really expect this to appear in any of the major media outlets, such as CNN, Fox, Reuters, Associated Press, Al Arabiya or the SOHR? Fars News just happened to be the first one to cover the story, while all the aforementioned agencies omitted it. Only the Australian National Review picked it up. But it's still an unreliable source, isn't it?
Please, none of "this is not a forum". After all, anybody of us could have edited it to say According to an Iranian state-run agency, Iraq claimed to have shot down..., but on the other hand, a source is a source, no matter where it originated from, to be honest.
Otherwise, I apologize for the inconvenience. LlegóelBigotee (talk) 16:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Lets leave out Fars News from the article. Fars News is a renowned joke in the middle east for having claimed an Iranian invented a time machine to actually running an onion news story. There is a large plethora of news sources we can use instead. Mbcap (talk) 11:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Honestly, I had no idea what the Australian National Review was until now. But the site presentation doesn't look very professional (ad at the top corner) and in their article they just quote Farsnews, so it's not really an independent source, but rather a political blog under the veil of a news outlet, it would seem to me. AudreyTruong (talk) 18:41, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Didn't this come up months ago? Banak (talk) 01:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

There've been some recent edits that I believe have cut too many links. Overlinking is a problem when it becomes distracting and makes the text difficult to read. But there are cases where links are particularly valuable. I would argue that these include infoboxes of various types and footnotes. In the first case they can turn an infobox (or a table) into a convenient navigational aid for the reader. In the second case they can make it very quick and easy for the reader to evaluate the credibility of a source. I would strongly urge that we go back to the prior practice of having flags in infoboxes link to the corresponding country, because it helps the reader quickly navigate between all of the various players. Operationally, that means going back to using template:flagcountry in infoboxes and tables instead of template:flagu. I would also strongly urge that in any citation template we link to the author and publisher whenever Wikipedia articles are available for them. Yes, links may already be available somewhere else in the article, but that doesn't necessarily help the reader who clicked on a footnote to see how credible the source is - they are much better off if they can click on through from the footnote to an appropriate article on the source. EastTN (talk) 14:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Timeline

Hi are we allowed to have a timeline as there is in the last section of the article? RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 10:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I propose name change from Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant to --------> Islamic State (IS) or Islamic State (group)

since it controls places outside iraq and the levant as well. Khaleejian (talk) 06:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Look at the many previous name change discussions at the topic of this page please. Also if you are concerned about accuracy, it should be noted that it is not a state (nor is it Islamic, according to RS). —МандичкаYO 😜 12:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - I suggest you start a discussion on what disambiguation to use for the name "Islamic State (....)". Then we can start an RM as a name change is long overdue. Mbcap (talk) 23:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
As this article is subject to arbitrary sanctions, and some people feel moving the article to "Islamic State" would violate NPOV, it would be wise to wait several months before doing an RM. There have been four failed attempts at an RM to Islamic State/Islamic State (disamb) since September. —МандичкаYO 😜 04:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
To be fair, the current page name is enormous POV. It was only used by Obama to indicate the ones they were going to fight, as they wanted to keep Syria out of it. Uninformed name changes are not an argument in support of them. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 12:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Bataaf van Oranje What are your thoughts on considering a name change? What name would you think more appropriate? Mbcap (talk) 14:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong support for Islamic State (IS) - But there needs to be disambiguation used in the title. For example, Islamic State (group), Islamic State (Islamist group) or Islamic State (IS). These are similar disambiguations used for the Khorasan Group.

In relation to Wikipedia policy concerning article titles, as per WP:COMMONNAME the Islamic State (IS) or Islamic State (ISIS) designation is by far the most recognizable. These top English-language sources see more use of the Islamic State (IS/ISIS) term than any other term for the group:
BBC- [11]
Associated Press - [12]
Vice News - [13]
Reuters - [14]
PBS - [15]
ABC - [16]
New York Times - [17]

I have only cited these institutions, becuase in my opinion, these are the most widely known and reliable English-language media sources. Media sources should be the ones used, and they will determine whether a term has broad recognition among people. You will find the trend to use the Islamic State and all its renditions such as Islamic State group or Islamic State (IS) as outweighing the usage of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant in most English-language sources.


The search results for Islamic State group:
Reuters - 13,300 results [18]
PBS - 25,200 results [19]
ABC - 6,553 results [20]
New York Times - 18,564 results [21]
NPR - 3,980 results [22]

The search results for the current term Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant were as follows:
Reuters - 941 results [23]
PBS - 690 results [24]
ABC - 3,331 results [25]
New York Times - 1,124 [26]
NPR - 87 results [27]

Also remember as per WP:TITLECHANGES, that " the choice of title is not dependent on whether a name is "right" in a moral or political sense." This relegates any feeble excuse that naming the group to the Islamic State (with a disambiguation) as being against morals and principles to be meaningless. The argument that it may offend or it is politically incorrect is therefore null-and-void on this Encyclopedia, and holds no water.

Google searches among the terms and the corresponding results figure:

  1. Islamic State (IS) comes up with 82,000,000 results - [28]
  2. Islamic State (group) comes up with 78,200,000 results - [29]
  3. Islamic State (Islamist group) comes up with 5,290,000 results - [30]
  4. The current name used in the article, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant only comes up with 1,310,000 results - [31]

Any attempt to counter this proposal will obviously be meant with the constant regurgitation of WP:POVTITLE. However, the current title is in violation of this very policy, as the intent on keeping this article from being named the correct title and more recognizable, as per WP:COMMONNAME is in order to ingrain a certain POV against this group, which violates the policy. At the end of the day, the current poposal is not only the groups official name, and therefore pertaining to WP:NPOVTITLE, but also to WP:COMMONNAME, as shown above. StanTheMan87 (talk) 17:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Per COMMONNAME a better case can be made for "ISIS", however both titles the ambiguous but concise "Islamic State" and the common acronym "ISIS" were rejected multiple times recently, in a short time period, for various reasons which can be found in the past discussions. Khestwol (talk) 19:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
The proposal is to change the name to "Islamic State" with an appropriate disambiguation. "ISIS" is not proposed, and quite frankly, that ship has already sailed. Using an acronymization of a groups former name as the article name is ridiculous. This is especially the case when the reason to refrain from using the proposed name is to dissociate the group from what it claims it represents in a bid to POV-push. I remind you per WP:TITLECHANGES, that " the choice of title is not dependent on whether a name is "right" in a moral or political sense." Also, "ISIS" has too many other connotations placed upon it, see Isis (disambiguation).
Google searches among the terms and the corresponding results figure. If we add in "ISIS" and the disambiguation of "group" or "Islamist group", we get this. However, adding in "IS" with the disambiguation of "group" gathers the most results:
  1. IS (group) comes up with 4,110,000,000 results - [32]
  2. ISIS (group) comes up with 137,000,000 results - [33]
  3. Islamic State (IS) comes up with 82,000,000 results - [34]
  4. Islamic State (group) comes up with 78,200,000 results - [35]
  5. ISIS (Islamic State) comes up with 41,600,000 results - [36]
  6. Islamic State (Islamist group) comes up with 5,290,000 results - [37]
  7. ISIS (Islamist group) comes up with 3,680,000 results - [38]
  8. The current name used in the article, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant only comes up with 1,310,000 results - [39]
Moreover, those sourced I cited still favor the term "Islamic State" and all its renditions such as "Islamic State group" or "IS" allot more than ISIS. If the title was to be changed to "ISIS", it would need to be "Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham" or "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" with the disambiguation of "ISIS" added in, e.g "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)".
Google searches among the terms and the corresponding results figure. If we add in "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria or Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham and the disambiguation of "ISIS", we get this:
  1. IS (group) comes up with 4,110,000,000 results - [40]
  2. ISIS (group) comes up with 137,000,000 results - [41]
  3. Islamic State (IS) comes up with 82,000,000 results - [42]
  4. Islamic State (group) comes up with 78,200,000 results - [43]
  5. ISIS (Islamic State) comes up with 41,600,000 results - [44]
  6. Islamic State of Iraq and Syria comes up with 29,700,000 results - [45]
  7. Islamic State (Islamist group) comes up with 5,290,000 results - [46]
  8. ISIS (Islamist group) comes up with 3,680,000 results - [47]
  9. The current name used in the article, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant only comes up with 1,310,000 results - [48]
  10. Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham comes up with only 597,000 results - [49]
This is a rough indication that the two terms associated with the acronym "ISIS" are not as popular as the proposed "Islamic State" name, and both the disambiguations cited. StanTheMan87 (talk) 07:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong support - I strongly prefer "Islamic State"; the main issue is that we are letting too much depend on politics. The fact that many prominent news outlets have recently used a new name is not enough to warrant imitation. "ISIL" is a recent, primarily Democrat American-term that U.S. President Obama first used in this speech:[1]

    In Iraq and Syria, American leadership – including our military power – is stopping ISIL’s advance. Instead of getting dragged into another ground war in the Middle East, we are leading a broad coalition, including Arab nations, to degrade and ultimately destroy this terrorist group. We’re also supporting a moderate opposition in Syria that can help us in this effort, and assisting people everywhere who stand up to the bankrupt ideology of violent extremism. This effort will take time. It will require focus. But we will succeed. And tonight, I call on this Congress to show the world that we are united in this mission by passing a resolution to authorize the use of force against ISIL.

    It has generally been seen as a political move to omit focus on Syria after the diplomatic "failure" with Assad in 2013. As he had promised not to have ground troops on Syria's soil, saying he was going to fight the Islamic State in Syria would likely garner a lot of criticism. My own country had an issue with the acronyms, and we have now long adopted Islamitische Staat ("Islamic State"). It takes the vital part of both "ISIS" and "ISIL" and can be used as a main article with perhaps the subarticles for IS in Syria and Iraq. I prefer "Islamic State" over "IS" for the simple reason that "IS" is far too generic.
Two very informative articles:
ISIS or ISIL? The debate over what to call Iraq’s terror group
‘ISIS’ vs. ‘ISIL’ vs. ‘Islamic State’: The political importance of a much-debated acronym
Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 23:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support "Islamic State" as AT - StanTheMan87 Thank you for helping this move forward. I personally think stand alone "Islamic State" is the best name but I am happy to go with disambiguation if there is some sort of consensus on what disambiguation to use. I have no preference for IS or ISIS for disambiguation, though an explanation by yourself as to which is more appropriate would be most helpful. Also I should mention that Google searches can be difficult to interpret and they also make no distinction between reliable and unreliable sources. Our considerations should be towards the name being used by reliable sources for the group post 29th June 2014 (post name change) and in that regard the use of "Islamic State" is significantly more common than the other names. Mbcap (talk) 02:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately Mbcap, a disambiguation must be used. We tried before to change it to Islamic State and the common point cited against us was that those of us in favor of changing it to Islamic State could not agree on a disambiguation. We had (Islamist rebel group), (Islamist group), (group) or just (IS). We need to reach a consensus on this and then, using credible and reliable English-language sources, some of which have already been cited, we can vehemently push for the name to change. They will be able to use nothing to oppose such a change. I personally favor either Islamic State (group) or Islamic State (IS) as these two terms are used abundantly in English-language media, and had the highest search results through Google. In some articles they are referred to as the "Islamic State group" [50] or "Islamic State (IS)" and then will be continuously referred to as "IS" for the rest of the article [51]. Google searches do not filter out unreliable sources, but it is still a rough indicator on which terms are more commonly used in the English language through the worlds largest search engine. StanTheMan87 (talk) 07:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
StanTheMan87 I understand. I would go for "Islamic State (IS)" because then we can us IS as short form for the rest of the article but then again because "Islamic State" is more concise, we may not need to use an abbreviation. Mbcap (talk) 12:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" (Isil) is not a recent term nor an American term nor an Obama term. It has been the standard long form name for the group in British usage from day one, before any western military involvement. You fellows need to stop now, whilst you're ahead. If you want to move the article, start an RM. Don't play little games here on the talk page for the thousandth time. The present title provides WP:NATURAL disambiguation, as specified by our article title policy, as "Islamic State" is ambiguous. RGloucester — ☎ 05:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
As per the cited sources above, it is now abundantly clear that "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" (Isil) is no longer the favorite or commonly used term by many reputable and credible English-language media sources. I have cited the major ones, I can cite many more if you wish in order to ram home this point. "Islamic State" and all the main disambiguations such as "group", "Islamist group" and "IS" outweigh the current title in use, and it has been like this for a long time. Once a disambiguation has been reached among those calling for the title to change, you will have absolutely nothing, no basis to prevent the name from changing. StanTheMan87 (talk) 07:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
WP:TITLECHANGES, for one. There's also the matter that WP:NATURAL disambiguation is always preferred to parenthetical disambiguation, meaning that any parenthetical disambiguator is secondary to the natural disambiguator currently used. Common usage is not the sole determination of whether we name an article a certain thing. Please see WP:NATURAL, which says "Natural disambiguation: If it exists, choose an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title. Do not, however, use obscure or made-up names". Even if the current title is not the most common, it is the most in line with our policies. RGloucester — ☎ 14:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
RGloucester, you can't possibly think the current title is a stable one. The fact that is has been in use for about a year for very poor reasons is not nearly enough to ensure its shaky status quo. Several times "no consensus" was assumed even though there has been a clear consensus from day one that "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" is far too POV. I do not know if you have any specific interests in this issue or if you are merely tired of it being discussed, but with an "almost moved" every two months there must be a good reason for our persistence (not that I had anything to do with any previous discussions, mind you). Read the two articles I posted and tell me what's wrong with them. I don't see why we need to alarm some sort of official authority group when TP goers are capable of discussing it. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 16:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Every title that involves this group is a "POV" title, which is exactly why WP:TITLECHANGES applies. Your repeated clamouring and "persistence" is only disruption, nothing more. You fail, once again, to recognise that the present title is a form of WP:NATURAL disambiguation, as specified by our policies. RGloucester — ☎ 17:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
You mean the WP:NATURAL disambiguation which states that the entity is the "Islamic State (of Iraq and the Levant)"? This used to be the case, until around 8 months ago where IS has expanded to locations around the world leading this "Natural" disambiguation to be worthless, in that it leads to ambiguity surrounding the groups presence. It's no longer a "Natural" disambiguation it is an ambiguation. StanTheMan87 (talk) 16:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Nonsense. WP:NATURAL disambiguation is specifically NOT parenthetical disambiguation. Please read the policy again. RGloucester — ☎ 00:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
RGloucester , you have failed to actually interpret what I had typed. The "Natural" disambiguation which separates the term "Islamic State" from the philosophical/Political concept of an 'Islamic State" is the phrase "of the Iraq and the Levant", that is why I typed "Islamic State (of Iraq and the Levant)", putting the "Natural" disambiguation into brackets for you. So I will repeat again: The phrase "of the Iraq and the Levant" which constitutes the "Natural" disambiguation you are ranting on about in the article title is worthless and meaningless now. It now leads to ambiguity surrounding the groups presence due to the fact it no longer confined to the regions of the Iraq and the Levant. It's no longer a "Natural" disambiguation it is an ambiguation. The only possible reason you keep maintaining this "Natural" disambiguation is therefore to POV push, just like how western politicians refer to it as "ISIL" in order to intentionally de-legitimize the group then if they referred to it as "Islamic State". Because your "Natural" disambiguation is therefore worthless, (this is shown due to the all the change of name requests launched on this talk page to change it to "Islamic State" with a parenthetical disambiguation), you have no case to keep citing WP:NATURAL as an excuse. StanTheMan87 (talk) 06:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the number hits appear to be skewed because of use of abbreviations; this does not seem to be taken into account. For example, if an article refers to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, they are going to use this ONCE in the story and the 12 other references will be referring to it as ISIL. Additionally, this search doesn't consider disclaimers; note the BBC here says they refer to ISIS as the "So-called Islamic State."[52] —МандичкаYO 😜 02:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support changing name to 'Islamic State'. This is the name of the group. DylanLacey (talk) 12:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
It is not the group in regard to references made by the majority of its many neighbours many of whom make similar claim to being Islamic (and yet do not kill journalist and aid workers etc. The name Daesh, a parallel to ISIL, is consistently and regularly used. GregKaye 05:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I want to remind all users that saying "support" or "do not support" is irrelevant here, and this isn't an RM request. Save it for when one opens. RGloucester — ☎ 13:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I thought we were jumping the gun. Banak (talk) 13:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
And when such a request opens, I am happy to just copy and past what I have typed here. StanTheMan87 (talk) 16:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Islamic State (IS) is neutral, well known and unambiguous. I agree that ISIS and ISIL are inappropriate as the group controls territory beyond Iraq and Syria/al-Sham/the Levant. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 06:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: There's no good reason to change the title and I oppose the change per WP:TITLECHANGES. Many reliable sources still use the term 'Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant'. By the way, some sources such as BBC are alleged to act so that the term 'Islamic State' is legitimized. Check sources such as 1, 2 and 3 to get the point. Mhhossein (talk) 14:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Your points for opposing have all been invalidated further up in the discussion. There are more reasons to change it than to keep the current title. The BBC is retaining using the term "Islamic State" and also in various capacities such as the preface "so-called" and "Islamic State group" [53], [54] as it is impartial, something this Encyclopedia should be as well. And yet people like you still have a POV to push. That is unacceptable, and has no place here. StanTheMan87 (talk) 14:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
@StanTheMan87: please take personal attacks seriously and consider that "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" is regarded as personal attack. However, no one can ignore the facts that still many sources use the original title for calling the group. You may find some more sources by a little search. By the way, “I have to say that I have a different view of what impartiality means to the BBC,” take a look at Criticism of the BBC! Mhhossein (talk) 12:30, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
@StanTheMan87: You regarded those who express their ideas (which are not the same as yours) here as POV pushers by saying: "Any attempt to counter this proposal will obviously be meant with the constant regurgitation of WP:POVTITLE". Mhhossein (talk) 12:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
@Mhhossein: Yawn, so your definition of 'many' sources is two, Al-Jazeera and The Independent (That is not an invite for you to post every single source you can find on the web using "ISIL"). Not saying these sources don't qualify as reliable sources, but they pale in comparison in terms of reliability and NPOV to the BBC, Reuters and the Associated Press all three of which use the term "Islamic State" in one capacity or another as cited above. I find it rather interesting that you criticize the BBC's reputation for impartiality, yet to "support" your point about maintaining the term "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" you cite Al-Jazeera, owned and controlled by the Qatari government (I emphasis the word control, becuase although the BBC is the national broadcaster for the UK, it is not controlled by the UK government in the way that al-Jazeera is by the Qatari government, Russia Today by the Russian government etc.) and The Independent, an opinionated newspaper with a clear political alignment and agenda. Frankly, this pretty much summarizes your argument on impartiality as a joke. Next, it is a fact you are a POV pusher. The reason for this conclusion is the fact that you cannot support your contention with any Wikipedia Policy. Not one. Lets go through the main WP when it comes to article changes, shall we?
1.WP:COMMONNAME - This policy supports the usage of the term "Islamic State" with a parenthetical disambiguation such as (group) or (IS). You may be asking, 'oh StanTheMan87, why oh why is this the case? Can you cite figures?' Well I sure can. I already had posted search results on the various terms with disambiguations using the Google search engine, the largest in the world mind you, and found that the term you favor is not in fact the most common term. The results are here, but they may have changed slightly as the search was conducted some days ago.
Google searches among the terms and the corresponding results figure:
  1. IS (group) comes up with 4,110,000,000 results - [55]
  2. ISIS (group) comes up with 137,000,000 results - [56]
  3. Islamic State (IS) comes up with 82,000,000 results - [57]
  4. Islamic State (group) comes up with 78,200,000 results - [58]
  5. ISIS (Islamic State) comes up with 41,600,000 results - [59]
  6. Islamic State of Iraq and Syria comes up with 29,700,000 results - [60]
  7. Islamic State (Islamist group) comes up with 5,290,000 results - [61]
  8. ISIS (Islamist group) comes up with 3,680,000 results - [62]
  9. The current name used in the article, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant only comes up with 1,310,000 results - [63]
  10. Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham comes up with only 597,000 results - [64]


But, I will do one better for you. Instead of just using the standard search through the entire Web, I will use the News section. This will make the results much more accurate, due to all the news reports concerning the actions and activities of this group, rather than just any term phrased the "Islamic State" (which could mean the concept of an Islamic State for example).
Google searches among the terms and the corresponding results figure:
  1. Islamic State (IS) comes up with 16,500,000 results - [65]
  2. Islamic State (group) comes up with 11,900,000 results - [66]
  3. ISIL comes up with 3,390,000 results - [67]
  4. The current name used in the article, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant only comes up with 51,100 results results - [68]
We see here that the terms you favor register with the least amount of results than the ones being proposed. Now, I know what you're thinking "But Google searches don't mean anything (Because they don't share my POV)" well not quite. Although it is only a google search, it is the largest search engine in the world and gives a rough (at the very least) indication over a terms popularity via search results. So, you fail WP:COMMONNAME. Strike one.
2.WP:NATURAL - The "Natural" disambiguation which separates the term "Islamic State" from the philosophical/Political concept of an 'Islamic State" is the phrase "of the Iraq and the Levant". The phrase "of the Iraq and the Levant" which constitutes the "Natural" disambiguation in the article title is worthless and meaningless now. It now leads to ambiguity surrounding the groups presence due to the fact it no longer confined to the regions of the Iraq and the Levant. It's no longer a "Natural" disambiguation it is an ambiguation. The only possible reason you keep maintaining this "Natural" disambiguation is therefore to POV push, just like how western politicians refer to it as "ISIL" in order to intentionally de-legitimize the group then if they referred to it as "Islamic State". Because the "Natural" disambiguation is therefore worthless, (this is shown due to the all the change of name requests launched on this talk page to change it to "Islamic State" with a parenthetical disambiguation, like this one) you fail WP:NATURAL. Apologies, I copied most of this text from a previous discussion becuase I just cbf typing out something fresh to be honest. Because the "Natural" disambiguation is no longer applicable nor relevant, this means a parenthetical disambiguation take precedence. Did I mention you failed WP:NATURAL?? Strike two.
3.WP:TITLECHANGES - Remember, "the choice of title is not dependent on whether a name is "right" in a moral or political sense." This relegates any feeble excuse that naming the group to the Islamic State (with a disambiguation) as being against morals and principles to be meaningless. The argument that it may offend or it is politically incorrect is therefore null-and-void on this Encyclopedia, and holds no water. I'm going to assume this is your only "reasonable" excuse to avoid referring to it as the Islamic State (IS) or (group), becuase you have no other points. Well, you're wrong. Strike three.
So you fail all three. And, I can tell you have a POV to avoid referring the article as "Islamic State" with a parenthetical disambiguation, becuase of two reasons: 1.) Your argument was extremely weak and simple to begin with when you issued your opinion and 2.) The details on your user page. StanTheMan87 (talk) 15:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

StanTheMan87 you have hit the nail on the head with the explanation. The overwhelming majority of news magazines also use Islamic State with references to the other names as well. On a related note once the RM is posted, is there a way to notify all editors who contribute to the other Islamic State articles on Wikipedia? It is important that we get full input from relevant editors on this one. Mbcap (talk) 02:02, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

That would be WP:CANVASSING, so NO! RGloucester — ☎ 02:11, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
RGloucester how is letting all editors on ISIL related articles know about an RM canvassing? What you call canvassing, I would call getting a broader consensus. Mbcap (talk) 04:04, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Editors that are NOT involved with these articles are more suited to determining the article title than editors that are involved, as they have some distance from the subject. That's the purpose of an RM, to draw uninvolved editors to the page. Selectively choosing to invite involved editors is canvassing. RGloucester — ☎ 04:10, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
"Selectively choosing to invite editors is canvassing", well you don't say. There was no mention of inviting people but only of letting "all" editors who contribute to ISIL related articles know of an RM, for example on the talk page. This could be a neutral notice to publicise the discussion. Mbcap (talk) 04:50, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
@StanTheMan87: My argument is based on the fact that we can still find major news oulets using the term 'Islamic state of Iraq and the Levant" or the acronym "ISIL" (I have to accept your invitation!). This is not the matter here to discuss but, to put in a nutshell, BBC is also said to be dependent on the government, an allegation denied by some characters. However, this does not change the status of its reliability as for The Independent and Al-Jazeera. According to the policy, search engine results are subject to certain biases and technical limitations and that makes us restrict the results to definite reliable sources and not to conduct to a total web search in the first step. The policy writes as such:

In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies, and notable scientific journals.

You may also add The guardian to the list which uses the acronym according to the 152,000 results found by Google (36,600 results for "Islamic State")! The telegraph seems to have used the acronym 215,000 times and the term 'Islamic State' only 14,500 times. Fewer hits was shown for the full name, because the sources use the full name for the first time and have the acronym in text when ever they want to repeat the term.
I'm not to undermine your effort to show the statistics but rather trying to let you know how unreliable the results may be. You may expand your search by trying other major news outlets. I tried CNN which have used 'ISIS' about 41,400 times while it had used 'Islamic State' 9,040 times. As for The Washington Post number of the hits are 75,700 times for 'ISIS' while it is almost a half, 35,000, for 'Islamic State'. Also, Similar results was found for The New York Times (check ISIS v.s. Islamic state). Let alone Fox News and some other sources. According to my findings, BBC had acted differently tending to use the term 'Islamic State' more than other terms. We see here that the terms you favor register with the least amount of results than the ones being used. By the way, we'd better still exclude number of the hits for 'Islamic state of Iraq and the Levant' from the 'Islamic state' results because they have overlap.
Needless to say that, according to naturalness, the title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles not what you argued above. The current title is precise, i.e., identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects while being consistent with the pattern of similar articles. Islamic state of Iraq and the levant and/or its acronyms are short and recognizable while not being vague to readers. Mhhossein (talk) 18:58, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
@Mhhossein: Why, oh why do you and everyone who oppose a name change continue to use the acronym "ISIS" as a defense for the popularity of the current title, "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant"? The two terms are not interchangeable. If you are to oppose the term change to "Islamic State" with a parenthetical disambiguation, either show facts and figures to support the acronym "ISIL" or 'Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant". You cannot avoid "ISIL", as it is the clearly the unpopular term and then retreat to "ISIS" to support your claim. You cannot have it both ways. Therefore what you have just cited above, all the search results for those various media institutions are null and void. Congrats.
No, the current title is not precise. You are foolish to think otherwise. The fact that the entity in question is no longer even confined to the area of Iraq and the Levant proves this fact. "identifies the article's subject"? Oh, but Islamic State (IS) is just so ambiguous that people might think we are talking about something else other than IS...? See the searches below concerning news and media outlets relating to the term Islamic State/IS vs. Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/ISIL. It's exactly what you did but instead of my searches being null and void as they are of the term/acronym I'm supporting in this discussion, yours are of a completely different term, "ISIS"! The acronym IS is just as popular as ISIS and more so than ISIL, and has unparalleled media exposure in the English language. So just drop it with the whole ambiguous stuff.
The search results for Islamic State group:
Reuters - 13,300 results [69]
Associated Press - 73 results [70]
PBS - 25,200 results [71]
ABC - 6,553 results [72]
New York Times - 18,564 results [73]
NPR - 3,980 results [74]
Agence France-Presse - 484 results [75]
Wall Street Journal - 302 results [76]
The search results for Islamic State (IS):
Reuters - 20,600 results [77]
Associated Press - 100 results [78]
PBS - 54,700 results [79]
ABC - 6,553 results [80]
New York Times - 35,301 results State IS
NPR - 6,280 results [81]
Agence France-Presse - 1005 results [82]
Wall Street Journal - 302 results [83]


The search results for the current term Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant were as follows:
Reuters - 941 results [84]
Associated Press - 1 result [85]
PBS - 690 results [86]
ABC - 3,331 results [87]
New York Times - 1,124 [88]
NPR - 87 results [89]
Agence France-Presse - 54 results [90]
Wall Street Journal - 201 results [91]
The search results for the current term ISIL were as follows:
Reuters - 5,100 results [92]
Associated Press - 12 results [93]
PBS - 720 results [94]
ABC - 659 results [95]
New York Times - 2,890 results [96]
NPR - 259 results [97]
Agence France-Presse - 2 results [98]
Wall Street Journal - 32 results [99]
Bear in mind that Reuters, Associated Press and Agence France-Presse are the three biggest news agencies in the world.
So there you have it. The Islamic State (group) and Islamic State (IS) term with a parenthetical disambiguation added in so as to not skew results and it is still more popular than the term "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" and "ISIL". You no longer have the excuse that not only "Islamic State (IS)" is less popular than "ISIL/Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" but that it is not as recognizable in the largest English media sources and news agencies in the world. These searches prove that. Not only that but among the Google searches, its fairly safe to say you have failed. Any attempt to deny these facts is now a sign of ignorance on your part. StanTheMan87 (talk) 16:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

First of all I should tell you that I aimed to show how uncommon the term "Islamic State" is in comparison with the acronyms and if there going to be name change there are other priored terms. So, please don't jump into unilateral conclusions such as Therefore what you have just cited above, all the search results for those various media institutions are null and void and You no longer have the excuse that... and regard them as your opinion, instead.

Secondly, why don't you pay attention to the notion that, clearly the full term of "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" gets less hits than many other terms only because most of the times it's used in title for the first time and and the acronym is used in text for next usages, a natural literal procedure. That does not prove the fact that the full term is no longer used by the sources. So, IMO, comparing the full term in the results with proposed title is wrong and has no value. To get the point you may easily compare results found for "United States of America" with the acronym "US" (with the words contact, visit, tell, email and call being excluded to avoid finding unwanted results). WOW! About 6,290,000,000 results for the acronym while it just found about 1,310,000,000 results for the full term.

Finally, IMO, your search results are really questioned and some of them are not valid. For example, "Islamic State (IS)" is not a valid search keyword. There's no sensible difference between that word and "Islamic search" "Islamic State". By the way, Why not having ISIS if the statistics support that?

@Mhhossein: Firstly, I should tell you that I aimed to show you how uncommon the terms "ISIL" and "Islamic State of Iraq and Iraq and the Levant" are in comparison with the term "Islamic State (group)/(IS)" with an added parenthetical disambiguation using google searches, and searches conducted on the largest and most impartial media sources in the English-speaking world.
Secondly, why don't you pay attention to the notion that, clearly the term "ISIL" gets less hits than the term "Islamic State (IS)" or "Islamic State (group)" becuase it is less popular?
Google searches and there results conucted on the following terms:
1.) Islamic State (IS) 15,900,000 results - [100]
2.)Islamic State (group) 10,900,000 results - [101]
3.)ISIL 3,230,000 results - [102]
4.)Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant 47,000 results - [103]
I used the news search results, as that will be more accurate. I used both terms you are defending, and they show up with less hits. I used the term "ISIL" which you claim is just so popular:
why don't you pay attention to the notion that, clearly the full term of "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" gets less hits than many other terms only because most of the times it's used in title for the first time and and the acronym is used in text for next usages...
and it still came up short. I used both terms I'm defending with a disambiguation added such as (group) and (IS), both of which are popular and common referrals to the group so that it's fair, instead of just using the terms "Islamic State" or "IS" on its own. No, of course "Islamic State (IS)" is not a valid search keyword. Of course. Because it doesn't fit your with your POV, so of course it is invalid. Because it shows that you are wrong, that what you are saying is wrong, that it is more recognizable than any term you are defending, so of course it is invalid. How convenient for you.
ISIS will not be used as the lone title because it is an acronymization. While the google searches showed it as having the highest number of hits, it has too many connotations upon it, see Isis (disambiguation). It is like me using the term "IS" which would have more hits than "ISIS". The two names used alongside "ISIS" which are the "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" and the "Islamic State of Iraq and Sham" register far less hits than "Islamic State (IS)" or "Islamic State (group)". These searches were already conducted further up. So for ISIS to have anything to do in the title it would have to be "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)" or ISIS (group) or "ISIS (Islamic State)". and "Islamic State (IS)" has more hits than "ISIS (group)", the most popular of the three. StanTheMan87 (talk) 07:39, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I think I explained why the full term, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, naturally gets less hits than other terms. While I agree with the fact that there are many identities other than ISIS which might may be mistaken with ISIL, according to the mentioned disambiguation page, I believe that when it comes to News most of them are ignoreable. Aren't they? Btw, I still believe that "Islamic State (IS)" is not a valid key search because of using a parentheses. Mhhossein (talk) 14:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if it gets less hits Mhhossein, it is the current article title, and therefore the one which will be contrasted to the other options which are "Islamic State (IS)" or "Islamic State (group)". ISIL also gets less hits. Case closed. Of course the Google search News results are ignoreable to you, because they show you are wrong. Classic case of denying/refuting or ignoring facts that don't suit your POV. This is why I cannot and do not take you seriously as a Wikipedia editor. Arguing with an an inanimate object like a potato could result in a better conclusion than arguing with you.
Here, now I am going to use the regular Google search results, and lets see what we get:
Google searches and there results conducted on the following terms:
1.) Islamic State (IS) 79,000,000 results - [104]
2.)Islamic State (group) 77,200,000 results - [105]
3.)ISIL 22,600,000 results - [106]
4.)Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant 1,280,000 results - [107]
You still come up short Mhhossein, you still come up short. I wonder what you will say this time. The searches are 'rigged'? They aren't actually real? Whatever your excuse is now, it's sure to be something hilarious. And Mhhossein, I don't really care whether you think "Islamic State (IS)" is valid or not. It honestly doesn't matter whether you think it is in fact valid or not. At all. The search results come up, both in the News searches and in the wider web search, referring to the militant group known as IS, and that's it. Case closed.
I will be looking to file a RM soon, now that I have teased out those who oppose this discussion such as yourself, and how weak the arguments presented by users like you are. Everything you have been typing has only allowed the argument shared by me and many other users, to become more sturdy. And I have now built upon it. Thank you for that, it will make things allot more easier when the real debate begins. Toodles :) StanTheMan87 (talk) 18:18, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
StanTheMan87: Waiting for a RM! Mhhossein (talk) 13:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Caution: For the second time I'm asking you to take Personal attacks cautions seriously. "You are foolish to think otherwise" is a clear insult. Mhhossein (talk) 14:02, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Second caution: Calling other editors "potato" is not a civil behavior and is a clear personal attack. This has been considered here. Mhhossein (talk) 13:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Strong support - As outlined by StanTheMan87 above, the common name in use is "Islamic State." Furthermore, in the English-speaking world, the use of names other than "Islamic State", to the limited extent that it happens, is usually centered in the United States; i.e., non-U.S. sources most often use the correct name Islamic State for the organisation that has taken over large parts of Iraq, Syria, and other places. Finally, it bears remembering that many of the other leading languages call Islamic State by its proper name, to wit:
    État islamique (organisation) (French Wikipedia),
    Stato Islamico (Italian Wikipedia),
    Islamischer Staat (Organisation) (German Wikipedia),
    Estado Islámico (Spanish Wikipedia).
    It is worth mentioning that these leading Wikipedias do have disambiguation for the generic term Islamic state vs. the Islamic State, either via capitalisation where the language is flexible enough to denote the fact or via the addition or via the word "organisation" if necessary. XavierItzm (talk) 03:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
@XavierItzm: Thanks for the information you presented on how the group is called in other wikis. I should tell you that the policy suggests to adhere to English reliable sources and we'd better search through out them. I already conducted a search through out the English major reliable news outlets to show how common the acronyms are. Mhhossein (talk) 13:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - The common English name is ISIS or ISIL, which is the initialism for the current title. Since using an initialism for a title is somewhat problematic, the current title is fine as is. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:31, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
@Rreagan007: I already presented a short survey on how common the acronyms are in various enlglish reliable news outlets which proves what you said. Mhhossein (talk) 13:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
? StanTheMan87 (talk) 17:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
P-123, why then do you oppose the proposition that the name change be from the lesser known and out-dated "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" term as shown above, to the term Islamic State (IS) or (group) term? StanTheMan87 (talk) 17:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Re: "whether we in the West like it or not." I do not think that we should so easily dismiss the majority views of the local and worldwide Sufis, Shias and the many Sunnis who do not share ISIL's agenda and who consistently use the name daesh. GregKaye 05:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Or whether Muslims who oppose their agenda like it or not. Same argument applies. We will never see eye to eye on what is and is not NPOV, Greg, :'(, but upholding NPOV is what it boils down to. ~ P-123 (talk) 12:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Use of the term DAESH or DAASH (the Arabic name for ISIL/ISIS/IS)

(Comment by 217.39.62.99 moved from above for clarity) Daesh came up with 5,520,000 results (end of June 2015) - [108] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.39.62.99 (talk) 08:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC) Google search for DAESH resulted in about 6,170,000 results (8 July 2015) 14.172.180.136 (talk) 14:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

"Daesh" will not be used, given its large irrelevance in western mainstream media and in English-language sources. The search results are still lower than that of "Islamic State (group)" and "Islamic State (IS)" so hence, through WP:COMMONNAME, it is an inferior alternative. The fact that it was also conjured up by those with an anti-Islamic State POV breaches WP:POVTITLE, and it is always used in a pejorative and derogatory manner. StanTheMan87 (talk) 14:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
"large irrelevance in western mainstream media ..." You haven't been reading the papers, or listening to PMQs - it is the most widely used term in Arabic discourse and they are neither a 'state' nor 'Islamic' [2] 217.39.62.99 (talk) 16:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
In Arabic discourse it has sure been the main term, but that has little importance here. Fact remains that they declare themselves to be the Islamic State. That's why many Western Muslims are angry at them for their own reasons. English-speaking media has always used a variation of IS or Islamic State and - even though this is an international Wikipedia - our titles are in English. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 16:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
It is ridiculous to assert that it is unimportant: recently, politicians from a number of parties and countries have proposed that it would be most appropriate to use of the Arabic name DAESH for the organisation and the BBC, for one, is reviewing the use of IS[3].217.39.62.99 (talk) 22:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  1. Fact: The term lacks the amount of recognition in the English-speaking world as "Islamic State" and all its renditions of "Islamic State group" or "Islamic State (IS). This is shown though the google searches, and undoubtedly, the searches conducted on each of the main English-speaking institutions as cited above for Islamic State (group/IS) v. Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Therefore, it fails WP:COMMONNAME. Also, the apparent fact that it is used frequently in Arabic media channels is irrelevant, given this is the English Wikipedia. Maybe if you hopped onto the IS page on the Arabic Wikipedia here [109] you could make that point.
  2. Fact: The term was created by those with an anti-Islamic State POV, based on a loose acronymization of its former name, The Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham. Due to the fact that it also sounds familiar for the Arabic word Da'ish which means 'to crush' or 'to trample, it is used exclusively in a pejorative and derogatory manner. This therefore contravenes WP:POVTITLE. In contrast the proposed term "Islamic State" with a disambiguation of either (group) or (IS) fails to express a POV, as this is the groups official name. We are not giving them a leg up, we are merely documenting the fact of the matter, however unfortunate that may be for you. You don't think it's fair, tough luck. It wasn't me nor anyone of these editors who chose to designate "Islamic State" upon this group.
Now, I am not sure if you are aware, but this is an Encyclopedia, not a Pro-NATO, Pro-CSTO, Pro-Western, Pro-Eastern or Pro-anything propaganda publication. This means that the article will not be changed into a term which is politically one-sided, with its heritage embedded in a clear POV. If you seem to disagree, then my advice is that Wikipedia just may not be the place for you, if you wish to espouse your one-sided views on matters of Encyclopedic discussion. Also the BBC has stated it will use the the term "Islamic State group", which is one of the name change options [110]. StanTheMan87 (talk) 14:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't know what the "correct" article name should be, and am not particularly bother about what is chosen. However, I'm pretty sure "the current name doesn't accurately describe the territory they control" isn't grounds for renaming it. Iapetus (talk) 16:47, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, you are right, it's not. However WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NATURAL, WP:TITLECHANGES are all grounds for renaming the article. And the proposed terms with a parenthetical disambiguation satisfies all three. The natural disambiguation embedded within the title "Islamic State (of Iraq and the Levant)", with the words in brackets being the disambiguation, are now irrelevant and meaningless. It is now an ambiguation. This is seen by all the constant name changes over the past 12+ months espousing the same stance, that the current name is irrelevant. The fact is the group has expanded outside of these territories and has officially changed its name and that there new name is far more recognizable in the English language media, as shown above in the discussion, all prove it. StanTheMan87 (talk) 18:18, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Wow! You 14.172.180.136 raise an unsuspected and rather valid point! Google translates the Arabic web page for Islamic State as "The organization of the Islamic State (Daash)" [تنظيم الدولة الإسلامية (داعش)]. Which means that, unless Google Translate is messing it up, the English page contains a huge falsehood, because it right now reads: "The group is known in Arabic as ad-Dawlah al-Islāmiyah fī 'l-ʿIrāq wa-sh-Shām, leading to the acronym Da'ish, Da'eesh, or DAESH (داعش, Arabic pronunciation: [ˈdaːʕiʃ]), the Arabic equivalent of "ISIL"."
I ask: if the editors of the Arab encyclopaedia call it the same as those of the Spanish, German, Italian, and French editors, i.e., the Islamic State, sometimes adding "organisation", then why is the English encyclopedia stating that in Arabic the thing is called something else? Or is Google mistranslating? XavierItzm (talk) 19:07, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
as per the opening search results having no validity. For instance the search on Islamic State (IS) could as easily come from a phrase such as "The so-called 'Islamic State' is a ..." ISIL and ISIS remain commonname and NPOV names for the group. We are not here to WP:SOAPBOX for a group that claims to have authority over all of Islam and yet actively prejudices against Sufis, Shias and non line towing and non extremist Sunnis. The group, as has been repeatedly commented by a vast number of commentators, is not representative of Islam. It presents itself as a state and yet the recognized states in the area of the groups activities are Iraq and Syria. If the group had called itself something like, "Sunni Extremist Polity" then this would have had accuracy. As it is Islamic State is ambiguous with every other group that has attempted to operate as an Islamic state. "Islamic State" of what? How? It certainly isn't within the general possession of Islam. The majority of Islam rejects it. GregKaye 04:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ [1]
  2. ^ http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/they-are-neither-a-state-nor-islamic-why-we-shouldnt-call-them-isis-isil-or-is-10353365.html
  3. ^ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3144257/BBC-review-use-Islamic-State-120-MPs-write-Corporation-calling-use-Daesh-terror-group.html
Greg to be honest your reply is a perfect example of WP:SOAPBOX. You are giving the the usual moral/political spiel about they don't represent Islam, this and that. Can we not just concentrate on building an article based on policy rather than editorialising? The sad fact on the ground is that Islamic State controls a vast stretch of land in Iraq, Syria and Libya. They also control ground in Lebanon and Nigeria, and according to some accounts also in Yemen, Egypt and Afghanistan. They can not go around calling themselves Islamic State of something because they reject the very idea of borders. Though that may be unfortunate, we can not simply ignore reality with constant rejection of wp;commonname and wp;titlechange applicability towards the name Islamic State. I appreciate that calling this group ISIL may have been proper a year ago when people thought the group would go away soon but it has metastasised and increased in territory over the last 12 months. The majority of reliable sources use the term Islamic State with some form of disambiguation. We should follow suite with haste as I am sure we will when StanTheMan posts the RM. Mbcap (talk) 06:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Mbcap to be honest one of the WP:PILLARS of Wikipedia is WP:NPOV. This is a group that claims authority over all of Islam and is rejected by the majority of it. They have presented a very startling claim in presenting themselves as the "Islamic State" full stop. This is something that has rightly raised major objections across both Muslim and governmental communities. Common name remains ISIS and ISIL and this is especially apparent in content presented by a wide range of the interviewees of news organisations. Governments use ISIL. Muslim communities use ISIL and Daesh. Interviewees of news organisations predominantly use ISIL and ISIS. Given this context, on occasion that news organisations do use "Islamic State", I have to wonder what they represent. I think the regularly edited Britannica has, as we have done, got it right. GregKaye 07:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Still debating this? All efforts to change the name to the preferred name of the terrorists and away from the name used by world governments and media have failed. Give it a rest already. Legacypac (talk) 09:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Lead cluttered

There are too many paragraphs. They should be merged to reduce to no more than four paragraphs per WP:LEAD. --George Ho (talk) 08:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

George Ho I think that in general the lead follows a logical structure and flow on a topic with a considerable amount of complexity but generally agree. As a stop gap response, of the nine paragraphs I think that the eighth and ninth might be merged. Perhaps some (I think) detail might be removed from the sixth paragraph. This would leave a sixth to eighth paragraph text that would read as follows:
"In April 2013, al-Baghdadi announced the merger of the ISI with al-Nusra Front and that the name of the reunited group was now the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). However, both Abu Mohammad al-Julani and Ayman al-Zawahiri, the leaders of al-Nusra and al-Qaeda respectively, rejected the merger. After an eight-month power struggle, al-Qaeda cut all ties with ISIL on 3 February 2014, citing its failure to consult and "notorious intransigence".
In Syria, the group has conducted ground attacks on both government forces and rebel factions in the Syrian Civil War. The group gained prominence after it drove Iraqi government forces out of key cities in western Iraq in an offensive initiated in early 2014. Iraq's territorial loss almost caused a collapse of the Iraqi government and prompted renewal of US military action in Iraq.
ISIL is known for its well-funded web and social media propaganda, which includes Internet videos of beheadings of soldiers, civilians, journalists and aid workers, as well as the deliberate destruction of cultural heritage sites. (para break removed). Muslim leaders around the world have condemned the ideology and actions of ISIL, saying that they have swayed from the path of true Islam and that their actions do not reflect the true message of Islam.
GregKaye 06:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Done as suggested, but I still think we shouldn't bore or intimidate readers with lengthy intro. The guideline says so. George Ho (talk) 06:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
George Ho I do not think we should have deleted, "After an eight-month power struggle, al-Qaeda cut all ties with ISIL on 3 February 2014, citing its failure to consult and "notorious intransigence." This is an important and one of the defining points in the history of group and it deserves mention in the lead. It also follows on from the previous sentence and this taken as I whole I would say is an important part of their history, something most readers would be interested in. Please could I ask you reconsider trimming in other areas. Mbcap (talk) 08:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I reinserted the sentence and merged more paragraphs. George Ho (talk) 08:51, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
We have the statement, "the leaders of al-Nusra and al-Qaeda respectively, rejected the merger" in the which provides a summary of the situation. GregKaye 09:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Alterations I'd personally support:
  1. "The group has been designated as a terrorist organisation by the United Nations, the European Union, the United Kingdom, the United States, India, Australia, Canada, Indonesia, Malaysia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Syria, Egypt, and Russia. "
  2. "The group originated as Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad in 1999, which pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda in 2004. The group participated in the Iraqi insurgency, which had followedafter the March 2003 invasion of Iraq by Western forces. In January 2006, it joined other Sunni insurgent groups to form the Mujahideen Shura Council, which proclaimed the formation of the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) in October 2006.
After the Syrian Civil War began in March 2011, the ISI under the leadership of al-Baghdadi sent delegates into Syria in August 2011. These fighters named themselves Jabhat an-Nuṣrah li-Ahli ash-Shām—al-Nusra Front—and established a large presence in Sunni-majority areas of Syria, within the governorates of Ar-Raqqah, Idlib, Deir ez-Zor, and Aleppo.[46] In April 2013, al-Baghdadi announced the merger of the ISI with its affiliate al-Nusra Front and that the name of the reunited group was now to form the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). However, both Abu Mohammad al-Julani and Ayman al-Zawahiri, the leaders of al-Nusra and al-Qaeda respectively, rejected the merger. After an eight-month power struggle, al-Qaeda cut all ties with ISIL on 3 February 2014, citing its failure to consult and "notorious intransigence".[33][47] In Syria, the group has conducted ground attacks on both government forces and rebel factions in the Syrian Civil War. The group gained prominence after it drove Iraqi government forces out of key cities in western Iraq in an offensive initiated in early 2014. Iraq's territorial loss almost caused a collapse of the Iraqi government and prompted renewal of US military action in Iraq."
Basically, I think there's too much history of the formation of the group in the lead. Compare to al-Qaeda. Banak (talk) 02:41, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Banak I think that the nations designating the group as terrorist should either be referenced as a number of nations or listed in full. In various articles I think that there has been a disproportionate emphasis on roles played by the US and Israel and a comparative downplaying of the roles of other nations. The UK were the first nation to declare the group as terrorist and, given that this is a group that claims to have authority over Islam, I think that it is extremely notable that countries such as India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Syria, Egypt, are also on the list.
All the other changes look good to me. Can I suggest one amendment as: "The group originated as Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad in 1999, which pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda in 2004. The group, later called the Mujahideen Shura Council, participated in the Iraqi insurgency, after the March 2003 invasion of Iraq by Western forces." GregKaye 10:10, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

The listing below presents the redirect namespaces that target ar:(تنظيم الدولة الإسلامية (داعش, the Arabic article parallel of en:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

  1. Daash (redirect page) ( links ) - 232 links
  2. Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (redirect page) ( links ) - 157 links
  3. The organization of the Islamic State (redirect page) ( links ) - 71 links
  4. organize the Islamic State (Daash) main title - 44 links (and here's a non Wikipedia based machine translation of the article title)
  5. Daash organization (redirect page) ( links ) - 18 links
  6. Islamic State (organization) (redirect page) ( links ) - 6 links
  7. Islamic State (redirect page) ( links ) - 5 links
  8. State regulation (redirect page) ( links ) - 4 links
  9. State regulation (Daash) (redirect page) ( links ) - 3 links
  10. The organization of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (redirect page) ( links ) - 3 links
  11. The organization of the Islamic state (redirect page) ( links ) - 2 links
  12. Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (redirect page) ( links ) - 1 link
listings of the redirects

The organization of the Islamic State (Daash)

  1. June 26 ( links )
  2. Wikipedia: Selected nominations ( links )
  3. Syrian civil war ( links )
  4. The repercussions of the Syrian civil war in Lebanon ( links )
  5. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi ( links )
  6. List of armed groups in the Syrian civil war ( links )
  7. Wikipedia: statistics / more visit from 1 to 100 (embedded) ( links )
  8. Ansar Bait al-Maqdis ( links )
  9. Talk: Organization of the Islamic State (Daash) ( links )
  10. Template: Fund the Syrian civil war information ( links )
  11. Template: country organizing the Islamic state data (Daash) ( links )
  12. The first battle of Tikrit ( links )
  13. Unloading of Mosul Christians ( links )
  14. Arabs siege eye ( links )
  15. The international coalition operations in Iraq in 2014 - until now ( links )
  16. Attack Deir ez-Zor (April-July 2014) ( links )
  17. Battle of Mosul (2015) ( links )
  18. Yemeni civil war (2015) ( links )
  19. Abu Omar Chechen ( links )
  20. Islamic State ( links )
  21. Rating: Daash ( links )
  22. Battle of Yarmouk refugee camp (2015) ( links )
  23. Islamic Union for the hosts of the Levant ( links )
  24. Brigade Vatmeon ( links )
  25. Battle of Ramadi (2014-15) ( links )
  26. Palmyra attack (2015) ( links )
  27. Kalamoon attack (May 2015) ( links )
  28. Battle of White Hill ( links )
  29. Template: Daash ( links )
  30. Wikipedia: nominations selected / Iraq articles ( links )
  31. Imam al-Sadiq mosque bombing in 2015 ( links )
  32. Attack Sousse 2015 ( links )
  33. Niger raid in 2015 ( links )
  34. List of terrorist incidents 0.2015 ( links )
  35. The flames of war ( links )
  36. Battle eye Arabs (June 2015) ( links )
  37. Sinai attacks July 2015 ( links )
  38. Yarmouk Martyrs Brigade ( links )
  39. Nairiyah bombing incident in 2015 ( links )
  40. The level of terrorism to Muslims ( links )
  41. Army of the Mujahideen (Syria) ( links )
  42. Battle Barn ( links )
  43. Template: Box Yemeni civil war information ( links )
  44. The bombing of Khan Bani Saad ( links )

Islamic State (redirect page) ( links )

  1. Sinjar ( links )
  2. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights ( links )
  3. Mosul Museum ( links )
  4. Hadi al-Amiri ( links )
  5. Abu Mohammad al-Adnani ( links )

The organization of the Islamic State (redirect page) ( links )

  1. The Muslim Brotherhood ( links )
  2. Othman bin Affan ( links )
  3. Wahhabism ( links )
  4. Mosul ( links )
  5. Hussein bin Ali ( links )
  6. Salafi ( links )
  7. Omar bin Abdul Aziz ( links )
  8. Sunnis and the Community ( links )
  9. Nineveh (province) ( links )
  10. Modern people ( links )
  11. Al-Shafi'i ( links )
  12. Ahmad ibn Hanbal ( links )
  13. Malik ibn Anas ( links )
  14. Abu Hanifa ( links )
  15. Arabs eye ( links )
  16. Barelvi ( links )
  17. Yahya bin Sharaf nuclear ( links )
  18. Shirk ( links )
  19. Ancestor (Islam) ( links )
  20. Virtual ( links )
  21. Saqlawiyah ( links )
  22. Ali ibn Abi Talib ( links )
  23. Schools Sunnis ( links )
  24. Four imams ( links )
  25. User talk: Kuwaity26 ( links )
  26. Caliphate ( links )
  27. Omar bin al-Khattab ( links )
  28. Ash'ari ( links )
  29. Punishment (banner) ( links )
  30. Deobandi ( links )
  31. Jerusalem Day ( links )
  32. Template: Sunnis ( links )
  33. Abu Bakr ( links )
  34. Prophetic tradition ( links )
  35. Wrote Sunnis and the Community ( links )
  36. Ahlehadeeth Movement Bangladesh ( links )
  37. Hisham Barakat ( links )
  38. Ahmed Bin Alwan ( links )
  39. The organization of the Islamic State (Daash) ( links )
  40. Salafist call in Alexandria ( links )
  41. Bilal bin Abdullah ibn Umar ( links )
  42. Anbar clashes ( links )
  43. Ansar Bait al-Maqdis ( links )
  44. Terrorism in Sinai ( links )
  45. Battle of Mosul in 2014 ( links )
  46. User :. Eghatemelmasry ( links )
  47. Talk: Organization of the Islamic State (Daash) ( links )
  48. Military operations against the organization of the Islamic State ( links )
  49. Spyker massacre ( links )
  50. User: supporter Abu Awwad ( links )
  51. Rishawi ( links )
  52. Ziad Khalaf Raja al-Karbouly ( links )
  53. Islamic Unity ( links )
  54. Portal: Current Events ( links )
  55. Gateway: Ongoing / Sports Events ( links )
  56. US sniper (film) ( links )
  57. Portal: Current Events / February 3, 2015 ( links )
  58. Egyptian hostages executed in Libya in 2015 ( links )
  59. February 2015 ( links )
  60. Abu Omar Chechen ( links )
  61. Islamic State ( links )
  62. Armed attack on a bus Karachi in 2015 ( links )
  63. Battle of Ramadi (2014-15) ( links )
  64. Talk: unloading of Mosul Christians ( links )
  65. Imam al-Sadiq mosque bombing in 2015 ( links )
  66. July 2015 ( links )
  67. Portal: Current Events / July 7, 2015 ( links )
  68. Portal: Current Events / July 9, 2015 ( links )
  69. Portal: Current Events / July 12, 2015 ( links )
  70. Portal: Current Events / July 13, 2015 ( links )
  71. Portal: Current Events / July 18, 2015 ( links )

The organization of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (redirect page) ( links )

  1. Tadmur Prison ( links )
  2. The attack on the newspaper Charlie Hebdo ( links )
  3. Daash ideology ( links )

State regulation (redirect page) ( links )

  1. Talk: Organization of the Islamic State (Daash) ( links )
  2. Mohsen mosque of Imam ( links )
  3. Trebil ( links )
  4. Egyptian hostages executed in Libya in 2015 ( links )

Daash organization (redirect page) ( links )

  1. Egyptian Air Force ( links )
  2. The organization of the Islamic State (Daash) ( links )
  3. Super Diab Tefah ( links )
  4. The first battle of Tikrit ( links )
  5. Unloading of Mosul Christians ( links )
  6. Military operations against the organization of the Islamic State ( links )
  7. List wars Egypt ( links )
  8. Moaz Kasasbeh ( links )
  9. Egyptian hostages executed in Libya in 2015 ( links )
  10. Egyptian air strikes in Libya (February 2015) ( links )
  11. Daash ideology ( links )
  12. Battle of Ramadi (2014-15) ( links )
  13. Template: Daash ( links )
  14. Imam al-Sadiq mosque bombing in 2015 ( links )
  15. Niger raid in 2015 ( links )
  16. Battle eye Arabs (June 2015) ( links )
  17. Battle Sarrin ( links )
  18. The bombing of Khan Bani Saad ( links )

Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (redirect page) ( links )

  1. Osama bin Laden ( links )
  2. June 10 ( links )
  3. June 29 ( links )
  4. February 3 ( links )
  5. Tuber ( links )
  6. Mosul ( links )
  7. Talk: Mosul ( links )
  8. Iraq's history ( links )
  9. Sunnis and the Community ( links )
  10. Jihad ( links )
  11. Nineveh (province) ( links )
  12. Abdul Rasul Sayyaf ( links )
  13. Sultan bin Bejad ( links )
  14. Islamism ( links )
  15. Tenderness ( links )
  16. Hani Sibai ( links )
  17. Abdullah Azzam ( links )
  18. Eastern Christianity ( links )
  19. Islamic State of Iraq ( links )
  20. 2014 ( links )
  21. Baghdadi (disambiguation) ( links )
  22. Salafi Jihadism ( links )
  23. The list of countries with limited recognition ( links )
  24. Christianity in Iraq ( links )
  25. Iraqi Air Force ( links )
  26. Wikipedia: User control specialist / Yemen ( links )
  27. Iraqi Army ( links )
  28. Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi ( links )
  29. League of the Righteous ( links )
  30. Abu Qatada ( links )
  31. Abu Musab al-Suri ( links )
  32. Doku Umarov ( links )
  33. Humvee ( links )
  34. Djurdjura ( links )
  35. Syrian civil war ( links )
  36. Shabiha ( links )
  37. Mosque of the Prophet Yunus ( links )
  38. Qassem Soleimani ( links )
  39. Yassin al-Haj Saleh ( links )
  40. Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb ( links )
  41. Ibn al-Khattab ( links )
  42. Template: theorists of jihad ( links )
  43. Template: Salafi Jihadism ( links )
  44. Hamed bin Abdullah al-Ali ( links )
  45. Abu Mohammed Joulani ( links )
  46. Solomon band fighter ( links )
  47. List of modern conflicts, the Middle East ( links )
  48. Chokri Belaid ( links )
  49. Omar Alhduca ( links )
  50. Ahrar al-Sham Islamic Movement ( links )
  51. Brigade Abu Fadl al Abbas ( links )
  52. Talk: Syrian crisis / Archive 5 ( links )
  53. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi ( links )
  54. Wikipedia: review new pages by subject / date / July 2013 ( links )
  55. Wikipedia: review new pages by subject / Syria / July 2013 ( links )
  56. User talk: Liwan ( links )
  57. The organization of the Islamic State (Daash) ( links )
  58. Boubacar Hakim ( links )
  59. Wikipedia: review new pages by subject / date / August 2013 ( links )
  60. Wikipedia: review new pages by subject / Syria / August 2013 ( links )
  61. Tahar Touati ( links )
  62. People's Protection Units ( links )
  63. Iraq war in Anbar province ( links )
  64. User: Nourhanne Samir / Stadium ( links )
  65. List of armed groups in the Syrian civil war ( links )
  66. January 2014 ( links )
  67. Portal: Current Events / January 2, 2014 ( links )
  68. Anbar clashes ( links )
  69. Ansar Bait al-Maqdis ( links )
  70. Portal: Current Events / January 29, 2014 ( links )
  71. List wars, Syria ( links )
  72. Terrorism in Sinai ( links )
  73. Portal: Current Events / March 7, 2014 ( links )
  74. March 2014 ( links )
  75. Talk: Libya Revolutionaries Operations Room ( links )
  76. April 2014 ( links )
  77. Dezo Doug ( links )
  78. Portal: Current Events / April 27, 2014 ( links )
  79. Portal: Current Events / May 4, 2014 ( links )
  80. May 2014 ( links )
  81. Libyan crisis ( links )
  82. Talk: rafallah al-sahati brigade ( links )
  83. Portal: Current Events / June 7, 2014 ( links )
  84. Portal: Current Events / June 13, 2014 ( links )
  85. June 2014 ( links )
  86. Portal: Current Events / June 14, 2014 ( links )
  87. Portal: Arab World / Event / 06 ( links )
  88. Battle of Tal Afar in 2014 ( links )
  89. Portal: Current Events / June 18, 2014 ( links )
  90. Portal: Current Events / June 29, 2014 ( links )
  91. July 2014 ( links )
  92. Template: Fund the Syrian civil war information ( links )
  93. The first battle of Tikrit ( links )
  94. Portal: Current Events / July 20, 2014 ( links )
  95. August 2014 ( links )
  96. Body guards Baghdida ( links )
  97. Portal: Current Events / August 14, 2014 ( links )
  98. Wikipedia: transport requests / Archive 14 ( links )
  99. James Foley ( links )
  100. Massacre Musab bin Omair Mosque ( links )
  101. Wikipedia: Statistics / Weekly Report / August 24, 2014 ( links )
  102. Wikipedia: Statistics / Weekly Report / August 31, 2014 ( links )
  103. Steven Sotloff ( links )
  104. Portal: Current Events / September 4, 2014 ( links )
  105. Portal: Current Events / September 13, 2014 ( links )
  106. Portal: Current Events / September 14, 2014 ( links )
  107. Portal: Current Events / September 19, 2014 ( links )
  108. Portal: Current Events / September 20, 2014 ( links )
  109. Portal: Current Events / September 23, 2014 ( links )
  110. Portal: Current Events / September 26, 2014 ( links )
  111. Wikipedia: Statistics / Weekly Report / September 27, 2014 ( links )
  112. A buffer zone ( links )
  113. Spyker massacre ( links )
  114. Portal: Syrian civil war / belligerents ( links )
  115. Portal: Syrian civil war / map ( links )
  116. The international coalition operations in Iraq in 2014 - until now ( links )
  117. Hit Aill process ( links )
  118. Karam attack hoppers ( links )
  119. Attack Deir ez-Zor (December 2014) ( links )
  120. Battle poet second gas field ( links )
  121. Desert Hawks ( links )
  122. Ashura process ( links )
  123. Attack Deir ez-Zor (April-July 2014) ( links )
  124. Kalamoon attack (June-August 2014) ( links )
  125. Battle of the process of ( links )
  126. The attack on the newspaper Charlie Hebdo ( links )
  127. I'm Charlie ( links )
  128. Amedee Coulibaly ( links )
  129. Arab Winter ( links )
  130. Helly Luv ( links )
  131. 2015 Sinai attacks ( links )
  132. Kenji Goto ( links )
  133. Kayla Moyer ( links )
  134. Orient ( links )
  135. Username: As / Talk Archive 82 ( links )
  136. Ahmed Rouissi ( links )
  137. The second battle of Tikrit ( links )
  138. Alan Hanning ( links )
  139. Cauthron David Haynes ( links )
  140. Yazidis persecution by Daash ( links )
  141. Battle of Yarmouk refugee camp (2015) ( links )
  142. Islamic Union for the hosts of the Levant ( links )
  143. Brigade Vatmeon ( links )
  144. Fastqm as ordered ( links )
  145. Wikipedia: Transportation / Archive 18 requests ( links )
  146. Front originality and Development ( links )
  147. Palmyra attack (2015) ( links )
  148. Battle of White Hill ( links )
  149. Wikipedia: Notification of administrative / recovery / archive 6 ( links )
  150. Wikipedia: Notification of administrative / Security / Archive 4 ( links )
  151. Template: Daash ( links )
  152. Imam al-Sadiq mosque bombing in 2015 ( links )
  153. Niger raid in 2015 ( links )
  154. Battle eye Arabs (June 2015) ( links )
  155. The level of terrorism to Muslims ( links )
  156. Battle Sarrin ( links )
  157. The bombing of Khan Bani Saad ( links )

Islamic State (organization) (redirect page) ( links )

  1. Talk: Organization of the Islamic State (Daash) ( links )
  2. Copenhagen 2015 attacks ( links )
  3. User talk: Ibrahim.ID/ archive 13 ( links )
  4. Talk: Organization of the Islamic State (Daash) / Archive 2 ( links )
  5. Talk: Organization of the Islamic State (Daash) / Archive 3 ( links )
  6. Username: As / Talk Archive 87 ( links )

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (redirect page) ( links )

  1. List of armed groups in the Syrian civil war ( links )

Daash (redirect page) ( links )

  1. Home ( links )
  2. Tikrit ( links )
  3. January 3 ( links )
  4. May 17 ( links )
  5. May 20 ( links )
  6. April 8 ( links )
  7. March 5 ( links )
  8. February 26 ( links )
  9. February 21 ( links )
  10. December 15 ( links )
  11. Mosul ( links )
  12. Yezidi ( links )
  13. Islamic State (disambiguation) ( links )
  14. Nineveh (province) ( links )
  15. Talk: Ahmadiyya (range) ( links )
  16. March 20 ( links )
  17. February 15 ( links )
  18. Template: current events ( links )
  19. Theocracy ( links )
  20. User: Tarawneh / test1 ( links )
  21. Islamic caliphate ( links )
  22. Talk: Islamic caliphate ( links )
  23. Al-Hadar ( links )
  24. Saladin (province) ( links )
  25. Iraqi armed groups ( links )
  26. Fallujah ( links )
  27. Kink ( links )
  28. Sinjar ( links )
  29. Raqqa ( links )
  30. Egyptian Air Force ( links )
  31. User: Jak / Home ( links )
  32. Harith al-Dhari ( links )
  33. User: MK / Home ( links )
  34. Gray ( links )
  35. Talk: Yezidi ( links )
  36. TV 5 Monde ( links )
  37. User: TheEgyptian / Workshop ( links )
  38. User: Mosque ( links )
  39. 2014 ( links )
  40. Peggy ( links )
  41. Winged bull ( links )
  42. Iraqi armed forces ( links )
  43. Death by burning ( links )
  44. User: Mohamed Ouda / Home ( links )
  45. Amiriyat al-Fallujah ( links )
  46. Cliff victory ( links )
  47. Iraqi Museum ( links )
  48. Yarmouk refugee camp ( links )
  49. Valley of the Wolves (series) ( links )
  50. User: Colors / Home ( links )
  51. Wikipedia: Change Home 2009 / Proposed 1 design ( links )
  52. User: Colors / Home 2 ( links )
  53. Wikipedia: Change Home 2009 / Proposed 2 design ( links )
  54. Wikipedia: Change Home 2009 / Proposed 5 design ( links )
  55. Iraq war ( links )
  56. User: AhmadSherif / Main Page ( links )
  57. Iraqi Army ( links )
  58. Mosque Imam Sadiq (Kuwait) ( links )
  59. User: Fares Unification ( links )
  60. Home (Mobile) ( links )
  61. User: Sharaf al-Din ( links )
  62. User: Khalid / Home Design ( links )
  63. User: Waso99 ( links )
  64. User talk: Mahmoudhamido ( links )
  65. User: Moh2010med ( links )
  66. User: Aplikasi ( links )
  67. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights ( links )
  68. Religion in Iraq ( links )
  69. Nouri Mosque (Mosul) ( links )
  70. Mosque of the Prophet Yunus ( links )
  71. Mosque of Nabi Sheet (Mosul) ( links )
  72. User: Mahmoudhamido ( links )
  73. Mosque of the Prophet Zarzis ( links )
  74. User: Trabelsiismail / propaganda ( links )
  75. Qassem Soleimani ( links )
  76. Portal: Current Events / Latest Events ( links )
  77. Wikipedia: Current Events / candidate / Fader ( links )
  78. Wikipedia: Current Events / candidate ( links )
  79. Wikipedia: helping new / archive / 10/2011 users ( links )
  80. Mosul Museum ( links )
  81. User: Ahmed Tariq Ahmed ( links )
  82. Abdel Basset Sarout ( links )
  83. Badush prison ( links )
  84. Valley Horan ( links )
  85. Abu Mohammed Joulani ( links )
  86. User: Pop2009jesus ( links )
  87. User talk: Mahmoudhamido / page components ( links )
  88. User: Mahmoudhamido / rear ( links )
  89. User: Mahmoudhamido / Sanadiki ( links )
  90. User: Mahmoudhamido / Oosmta ( links )
  91. User: Mahmoudhamido / my notebook ( links )
  92. User: Mahmoudhamido / my duties ( links )
  93. User: Mahmoudhamido / my signature ( links )
  94. User: HamidoBot ( links )
  95. User: Mahmoudhamido / Stadium ( links )
  96. Rafah massacre ( links )
  97. 1435 AH ( links )
  98. User: Shbib Al-Subaie / Home 2 model ( links )
  99. User: Mohaton / my notebook ( links )
  100. Mahmoud al-Hassani Sarkhi ( links )
  101. Nasser al-Wahayshi ( links )
  102. Ahrar al-Sham Islamic Movement ( links )
  103. User: Abu Khalid 2,013 ( links )
  104. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi ( links )
  105. User: Ziad / Home ( links )
  106. Confident Battat ( links )
  107. The organization of the Islamic State (Daash) ( links )
  108. User talk: Muhib mansour ( links )
  109. Abdul Qadir Saleh ( links )
  110. Anbar clashes ( links )
  111. Talk: 2 Geneva Peace Conference on the Middle East ( links )
  112. Ansar Bait al-Maqdis ( links )
  113. Terrorism in Sinai ( links )
  114. Safety gate crossing ( links )
  115. Iraqi-Saudi relations ( links )
  116. User: Ziad / Home 2 ( links )
  117. User: Ziad / Home 3 ( links )
  118. Super Diab Tefah ( links )
  119. Portal: Current Events / May 7, 2014 ( links )
  120. Portal: Current Events / May 9, 2014 ( links )
  121. May 2014 ( links )
  122. Portal: Current Events / May 26, 2014 ( links )
  123. Talk: Ansar al-Sharia (Libya) ( links )
  124. Mohammed age (media) ( links )
  125. Battle of Mosul in 2014 ( links )
  126. Men Naqshbandi Army ( links )
  127. Vian Dakhil ( links )
  128. Abu Mohammad al-Adnani ( links )
  129. Unloading of Mosul Christians ( links )
  130. User: Shbib Al-Subaie / Home Page 3 model ( links )
  131. User talk: Mohamed Ahmed Abdel-Fattah ( links )
  132. Siege of amirli ( links )
  133. Houthis seize power ( links )
  134. Mehdi Aeran ( links )
  135. User talk: Moatasem Alagbara ( links )
  136. Military operations against the organization of the Islamic State ( links )
  137. COB Speicher ( links )
  138. Mariam Al Mansouri ( links )
  139. Tomb of Suleyman Shah ( links )
  140. User: Shbib Al-Subaie / Model Home 1 ( links )
  141. Incirlik Air Base ( links )
  142. Free Dawa Party ( links )
  143. User: Sadiqbassam / Stadium ( links )
  144. Spyker massacre ( links )
  145. User: Alfaris88 / test ( links )
  146. User: Alfaris88 / test2 ( links )
  147. User: Shbib Al-Subaie / Home 4 model ( links )
  148. Peace Brigades ( links )
  149. People crowd ( links )
  150. User: Mustapha.096 ( links )
  151. User talk: Ahmed Alsaedi97 ( links )
  152. Iranian interference in Iraq in 2014 ( links )
  153. User talk: supporter Abu Awwad ( links )
  154. Portal: Current Events / December 24, 2014 ( links )
  155. Rishawi ( links )
  156. Moaz Kasasbeh ( links )
  157. User: Yassin Usta / main page ( links )
  158. Portal: Current Events ( links )
  159. Arab Winter ( links )
  160. Mia Khalifa ( links )
  161. User talk: Hshamalsahra / Talk archive 2 ( links )
  162. John jihad ( links )
  163. Sofiane Chourabi ( links )
  164. User talk: The catty ( links )
  165. Talk: Syrian civil war ( links )
  166. Brigades of Imam Ali ( links )
  167. Orient ( links )
  168. Portal: Current Events / February 15, 2015 ( links )
  169. Egyptian hostages executed in Libya in 2015 ( links )
  170. Egyptian air strikes in Libya (February 2015) ( links )
  171. Wikipedia: nominations selected images / Rawa (Iraq) 17.jpg ( links )
  172. User: Khaled / 2015 proposed design / Home ( links )
  173. Mohsen Saeed Hussein Khaddour ( links )
  174. SITE Intelligence Group ( links )
  175. Dome bombings ( links )
  176. Wikipedia: User control specialist / Kazakhstan ( links )
  177. Intellectual terrorism ( links )
  178. March 2015 ( links )
  179. Hand Yathrib ( links )
  180. Glutinous (magazine) ( links )
  181. February 2015 ( links )
  182. The second battle of Tikrit ( links )
  183. Attack the Bardo Museum in 2015 ( links )
  184. Badr mosques and Alhchoc Sana'a bombings ( links )
  185. Portal: Current Events / March 20, 2015 ( links )
  186. Wikipedia: nominations selected images / acceptable / 11 Photo Archive ( links )
  187. Storm packets process ( links )
  188. Military intervention in Yemen ( links )
  189. Conquest Army ( links )
  190. File: John jihadist. Jpeg ( links )
  191. Environs of Jerusalem ( links )
  192. Gateway: Hold 2010 ( links )
  193. Gateway: Hold 2010 / Introduction ( links )
  194. Azwaip Salah al-Din ( links )
  195. Abu Azrael ( links )
  196. General Military Council of the rebels Iraq ( links )
  197. Daash ideology ( links )
  198. Abu Ala Afri ( links )
  199. Talk used: Mervat Salman / Archive 07 ( links )
  200. List of wars in which participated Bahrain ( links )
  201. Wikipedia: Transportation / Archive 18 requests ( links )
  202. Armed attack on a bus Karachi in 2015 ( links )
  203. Battle of Ramadi (2014-15) ( links )
  204. Qudayh bombing in 2015 ( links )
  205. Talk: bombing Qudayh 2015 ( links )
  206. Aldaloh incident ( links )
  207. Palmyra attack (2015) ( links )
  208. File: Abu Amer Aldaasha. Jpg ( links )
  209. Anoud bombing in 2015 ( links )
  210. Abdul Jalil Arbash ( links )
  211. Brigade Castle ( links )
  212. Mohammed Hassan Al-Essa ( links )
  213. Hadi Al-Hashem ( links )
  214. MSE ( links )
  215. Theocracy of evil ( links )
  216. Iranian religions ( links )
  217. Qayyarah West Air Base ( links )
  218. Portal: Current Events / June 17, 2015 ( links )
  219. Wikipedia: transport requests / Archive 19 ( links )
  220. Wikipedia: Notification of administrative / Security / Archive 4 ( links )
  221. Wikipedia: Notification of administrative / Remove protection / Archive 3 ( links )
  222. Portal: Current Events / June 18, 2015 ( links )
  223. Sanaa mosque bombings (2015) ( links )
  224. Sylvie (series) ( links )
  225. Tal Afar, the military airport ( links )
  226. June 2015 ( links )
  227. Imam al-Sadiq mosque bombing in 2015 ( links )
  228. Battle eye Arabs (June 2015) ( links )
  229. User talk: Taher2000 / Archive 4 ( links )
  230. User: Yassin Usta / Stadium ( links )
  231. The bombing of al-Ha'ir 2015 ( links )
  232. The bombing of Khan Bani Saad ( links )

The organization of the Islamic state (redirect page) ( links )

  1. Battle of Mosul in 2014 ( links )
  2. User: Freshsyria / Stadium ( links )

State regulation (Daash) (redirect page) ( links )

  1. Talk: Organization of the Islamic State (Daash) ( links )
  2. Talk: Organization of the Islamic State (Daash) / Archive 2 ( links )
  3. The bombing of Cairo July 11, 2015 ( links )

This information I believe to be relevant as it represents a response to the group in question from users of the language that, generally speaking, have the greatest familiarity with Islam.

Among over 500 redirects, only 5 come through the Arabic equivalent of a redirect "Islamic State". Note this is a redirect not a title.

Only six of the redirects come through the Arabic namespace equivalent to "Islamic State (organization)"

Approaching half of the redirects come through "Daash" or "Daash organization"

The rest of the redirects either come via a derivation of "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" or something similar to "Islamic State group" as used by associated press.


My issue that I have consistently presented is that, in September and October 2014 when Reuters (I contest) arbitrarily plunged into use of the terminology "Islamic State" as reference for the group and certain other reporters and news agencies followed, they did not have any significant understanding as to what the fuck they were doing. Their interviewees made predominant use of terminologies such as ISIS, ISIL and sometimes Daesh and yet, against the flow of widespread usage, some agencies adopted unqualified usage of "Islamic State" in their references.

I personally think that the Arabic speaking world are likely to have a better idea in regard to suitable approaches to handling Islamic issues than western media groups. I also contest that Arabic Wikipedia may be a suitable source of information on Arabic approaches to the issue although I do not doubt that other Arabic sources may prove to be useful in similar ways.

As far as I am concerned the only suitable titles for the article are "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" as has been historically used, "Islamic State group" as widely used by groups like AP, "ISIS" or "Daesh". Also for reason of following the example of Arabic Wikipedia, I do not think that anything other than WP:NATURAL disambiguation would be appropriate.

GregKaye 20:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

As per WP:COMMONNAME.."Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." What the article is called on Arabic Wikipedia is not relevant to us, as they will be using Arabic-language reliable sources, rather than English-language ones. Gazkthul (talk) 22:59, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I have often quoted the very same text myself in my regular work at WP:RM and yet, on this one issue and on the basis of review of various recorded and quoted comments by otherwise regularly reliable sources, I think that various sources have wholly unreliable. The people interviewed use "Islamic State" relatively rarely. On this basis and on this one topic, I contest that secondary sources have been in actuality reliable in their representation of their own source materials. These source materials have come from Islamic representatives both in and out of the Arabic speaking world as well as from both governmental and non governmental organisations. Anyone spending time with news reports will see that intreviewes will frequently refer to ISIS and ISIL. In many cases, even when an interviewer begins by talking about "Islamic State", an interviewee will respond with comment in regard to "ISIS" or "ISIL". This is something that I have been listening out for and I do not recall hearing an interviewer begin with mention of a term such as "ISIS" with the interviewee responding with mention of "Islamic State".
The sources, I contest, have failed to represent their own interviewees in English and I suspect, on the basis of the evidence form Arabic Wikipedia, that they have almost completely failed to represent source content coming from Arabic speaking areas.
In this case in which WP:COMMONNAME arguments are, in any case, inconclusive I think that we should be cautious in the way we proceed. I am also working from the belief that we can fairly present content presented by people in general and not just from journalists.
In similarity to comments regarding news interviews and similar, following news articles which that have not used the arguable commonname of "ISIS" and which have instead used "Islamic State" and "IS", if there is a blog, respondents will still frequently respond with reference to ISIS, ISIL and even Dash.
I think that on the basis presented above that there is a valid argument that, on this issue, there is cause to evaluate the source materials that we use. The topic relates to Islamic issues and, in this context, I think that Islamic viewpoints deserve special consideration. GregKaye 08:35, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Is this meant to be related to the RM? If so, why is it in it's own section? Banak (talk) 13:48, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Banak The thread was intended so as to provide background information that I thought was relevant in relation to appropriate article name choice.
We have previously had RMs submitted proposing page moves to the namespaces:
  • Islamic State three times
  • Islamic State (Organisation)
  • Islamic State (islamist rebel group)
  • The Islamic State
  • Islamic State (organization)
In departure from the examples provided by the Arabic redirects, none of the proposals have offered a natural disambiguation from Islamic state.
It also occurs to me that disambiguation is tricky. All Islamic states have been formed of groups of people and have had their own forms of organisation. They may variously be interpreted to have been Islamist but, in each case, with a specific persuasion of Islamism. Militant group is a commonly used description for the group and, arguably, previous Islamic states might potentially be described as being militant.
We currently use the disambiguation Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant but, on the basis that the group has a few proportionately very small representations in other parts of the world, some editors find this a problem. Back in September 2014 I suggested an option as Islamic State (Iraq and Levant) here). This title has the same level of specification as Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant but may be charged with having the same perceived difficulty relating to the group's relatively minor operations in locations like Sinai and Libya. This was also proposed before my view on NPOV in regard to the group's name had more fully developed.
As has been presented in the recent RM there is considerable use of:
and it can also be noted that
gets significant usage and, ironically, the BBC currently tops the list for this usage. In comparison
is less commonly used.
I still contend that ISIS (and synonyms) remain commonname but, if certain editors see it necessary to drag us through another RM procedure, perhaps one of the mentioned titles could be considered. These titles fit in with:- the example given within Arabic speaking community; with the example of news groups like AP and with the common use of qualification being given in news articles along the lines of the regularly used "so-called Islamic State". GregKaye 16:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Bruce Jenner and Islamic State

Bruce Jenner declared he now has a new name, and the Wikipedia immediately renamed his page. The Islamic State declared a year ago its name is Islamic State, and the Wikipedia does not use the name "Islamic State", which is used, for example, by canonical sources such as the BBC.[1]

References

  1. ^ www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29052144

---XavierItzm (talk) 15:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

(Note: I edited the above post per WP:TPG#Fixing format errors to fix some formatting errors. No content was changed or removed. For details see respective edit sums. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC))

"Islamic State" is not a living person. Please see the biography of living persons policy. RGloucester — ☎ 22:11, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
The biography of living persons is bandied about to justify instantaneous renaming of transexuals on their say-so; apparently, absent a Common Sense Policy on Names of Theocratic Organisations, Wikipedia must continue using obsolete names for them? XavierItzm (talk) 10:20, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
We have plenty of policy on organization names and we have been following it just fine. This post is not even remotely on topic. Legacypac (talk) 09:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Funny that, because as of now, the name of the article does not represent either the common name nor the self-designated name. XavierItzm (talk) 22:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Infobox country

Is it a country? Is there any international recognition? In my eyes this box could cause a misunderstanding. -- 88.76.97.147 (talk) 14:08, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

ISIS is not a state. This should be changed to use {{Infobox war faction}}. Jmj713 (talk) 17:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

ISIS is a state, since it controls a territory and a people, and has political authority, thus having all three attributes of a state. So, on Wikipedia, ISIS should be treated like all states and thus Infobox Country should be on the article about ISIS. Faunas (talk) 23:09, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

ISIS is not a state. Jmj713 (talk) 23:45, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Just because John Kerry says so does not mean it's not. Government officials have other reasons for saying ISIS is not a state other than simply stating fact, such as their government not wanting to recognise ISIS as a state. Faunas (talk) 17:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, that article states that ISIS now rules over a territory and a people, two prerequisites of being a state. If you want to go with authorities, Foreign Policy states that the rise of ISIS paralels the rise of the Soviet Union in an important way: both were seen as mere terrorist gangs before being recognised as states, while always having a territory, a people and political authority. In territories it controls, ISIS also has courts and police forces and applies its own laws (which are said to be based on Sharia, but that's another story), so it has political power; this, plus its self-legitimization as a caliphate, gives it political authority. Thus, it is a state, independently of recognition by other states. Faunas (talk) 18:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
What is a "state"? Does ISIS have a centralized government that maintains a monopoly of the legitimate use of force? Iapetus (talk) 16:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
It used to be a Infobox Political Organization which suited it well. ISIL fails key elements of statehold and is not a state. Wiokipedia reflects sources, it does not make judgements and go ahead of sources declaring a new state in the world. Legacypac (talk) 09:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Updated to infobox war factionG8j!qKb (talk) 09:30, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Infobox War faction or country?

Should the info-box for this article be for the militant faction the Islamic State group are or the internationally unrecognized state they claim to represent? Thoughts? --Ritsaiph (talk) 11:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

A militant faction infobox will be much less disputable. Khestwol (talk) 18:17, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I prefiers the infobox War faction. More neutral. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposing a moratorium

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
A duplicate thread. I overlooked the other discussion. --George Ho (talk) 23:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Whether RM succeeds or fails, we need a moratorium to prevent more RMs. Shall we take a break for two or three years? --George Ho (talk) 18:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Other editors have favored a one-year moratorium, but 2 years will also work. Khestwol (talk) 19:48, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
No, that's absolutely outrageous. Can you point to any other articles that have a 3 year block on them? Gazkthul (talk) 22:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I should have said move-protection. Sarah Jane Brown is move-protected for one year by moratorium proposal. George Ho (talk) 23:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh wait. This article is already move-protected, but that doesn't stop nauseating RMs recently. George Ho (talk) 23:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
We already had a discussion above on having a moratorium. Mbcap (talk) 23:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

On six occasions, in a context that can be viewed in the recent RM and in contemporary edits on this page, I asked a question of Mbcap in the following two forms: "To what extent exactly are you (if this is what you are doing) saying that the groups choice of the contracted name "Islamic State" is unrelated to their claim of being the state of all Islam? Please answer", and "To what extent do you think that there is a relationship between the group's self proclamation as "Islamic State" and their claim to be the state for all Islam?"

Since this time I've rechecked content on the main page in the section on "Name", the text states that on the same day, specifically, "On 29 June 2014, the group renamed itself the Islamic State and declared it as the worldwide caliphate". It is my view that it is a fair contention to consider there is a link between the two issues but open this thread for general discussion.

GregKaye 19:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you are asking here, but the change of name and dropping of Iraq and Sham occurred when they declared themselves to be a caliphate, and thus were no longer confining themselves to the geographical area of those two countries.
According to Abu Mohammad al-Adnani [111]: "Thus, he [Baghdadi] is the imam and khalīfah for the Muslims everywhere. Accordingly, the “Iraq and Shām” in the name of the Islamic State is henceforth removed from all official deliberations and communications, and the official name is the Islamic State from the date of this declaration. We clarify to the Muslims that with this declaration of khilāfah, it is incumbent upon all Muslims to pledge allegiance to the khalīfah Ibrāhīm and support him (may Allah preserve him). The legality of all emirates, groups, states, and organizations, becomes null by the expansion of the khilāfah’s authority and arrival of its troops to their areas." Gazkthul (talk) 23:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Gazkthul Thank you. This text, I think, could hardly make the association clearer between the group's declaration that "the official name is the Islamic State" and the group sourced claim that "it is incumbent upon all Muslims to pledge allegiance" to the leader of the proclaimed state. I appreciate your answer. GregKaye 03:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
The conflation is real, having the name as Islamic State is in no way, shape or form endorsing the claim that the group makes. POVNAME says,"... Sometimes that common name includes non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (e.g. the Boston Massacre or the Teapot Dome scandal). In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper noun (and that proper noun has become the usual term for the event), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue." That is the crux of the matter. Mbcap (talk) 22:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Mbcap, and now for the seventh time of asking "To what extent do you think that there is a relationship between the group's self proclamation as "Islamic State" and their claim to be the state for all Islam?"

Can you cite your claim that "having the name as Islamic State is in no way, shape or form endorsing the claim that the group makes"?

Please leave it to other editors to decide the issues and cruxes related to matters. There are various arguments that can be fairly presented in regard to editing choices. Other editors can decide between them. This group has questioned practices, is widely described as "extremist", wages war against other Muslim groups, and yet, without qualification and without any further specification, presents itself as "Islamic State". GregKaye 02:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Greg Gazkthul has quite aptly answered your question from the mouth of the group itself. Your constant need to have a debate about the claim is a testament to your desire to waste peoples time. Mbcap (talk) 13:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Mbcap On seven occasions at talk:ISIL you have accused me of or otherwise insinuated a practice of conflation and, on overlapping occasions, of the practice of WP:SOAPBOX and, if that was not enough, of "vomit inducing" and "disgusting" practice etc. I have consistently asked you to cite references and specific edits to enable fair reply and you have consistently refused. Have ordered me to answer a question of yours but have consistently refused to answer a question of mine which specifically related to our accusations and this despite your comparatively cordial Dr. Jekyll type recent reassurance on my talk page, "You are my colleague and I will always attempt to give an answer to points that you raise.".
Now you reiterate that the issue of conflation still stands and yet you refuse to enter dialogue on the topic. You delivered personal attacks and have made a continued stream of accusation. The result has been that my questions have been directed to you. GregKaye 19:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

New Map

This page needs a new, updated map. It was last updated July 1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:32a6:1100:c867:264d:ef83:1231 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 24 July 2015

I've updated the iraq and syria joint map, I'll look into doing the one involving Lebanon too. Banak (talk) 22:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Currency used by ISIL?

I had noticed the website on coins used by ISIL and they mint 10 and 20 fulus in copper (10 and 20 grams), 1, 5 and 10 dirhams in silver (2, 10 and 20 grams) and 1 and 5 dinars in 21k gold (4.27 and 21.25 grams). Price ranges from 5 cents for 10 copper fulus to about $700 USD for 5 gold dinar. Take note that metal prices fluctuate over time. Ryan (talk) 03:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Not a state, can't issue currency, no one would accept it anyway. Legacypac (talk) 09:13, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Ahistoric. Incorrect. Privately issued currencies have been used for hundreds if not thousands of years. Here, go read the Wikipedia article on currencies not issued by states. Jeez. XavierItzm (talk) 08:42, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Adding Turkey to the map

Following the escalation of Turkish involvement such as the events of 24th of July would it be an idea to shade southern Turkey on the map?

(Thanks to those who are updating the map - I usually check every day or so to see where the lines have shifted)

ISIL doesn't control any territory in Turkey, so that would be unnecessary. DylanLacey (talk) 14:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Neither is controlling territory in each other, nor is there much active fighting between the two. Jordan has a better justification for inclusion than turkey, in my opinion. Banak (talk) 19:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

"an attempt to slight Israel"

MiamiManny added to the Name's section the claim that Glenn Beck has criticised the term ISIL as "a backhanded attempt to slight Israel". The source given [112] writes “They changed their name because they started saying, ‘We are bigger than this. We are bigger than Iraq and Syria. We are Iraq, Syria, and Levant’...I don’t know what that means, but, believe me, the President does… What that means is: They have designs that go from Iran through Egypt. There is no Israel.” which seems to me really stupid and borderline nonsensical. I tried to find other sources on the claim, but ended up removing it entirely. Gazkthul (talk) 02:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Glenn Beck. No more need be said. Thank you for removing it. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 02:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Questionable sources

I'm worried about the article's use of some very, very questionable sources. Neoconservative lobbying groups like the Washington Institute for Near East Policy can't honestly be seen as good sources. Lobbying groups are some of the least reliable sources. It's not a governmental agency despite its name. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 21:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Actually, they and similar entities provide far more in-depth and detailed analysis than you are going to get from just about any other source given in this article, regardless of their politics. Do you have specific references in this article you consider inaccurate or controversial? Gazkthul (talk) 23:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't like WINEP either, but they do count as RS. Where their analysis is cited in the article, and you disagree with what they have said, you are within your rights to put in another RS that gives a different interpretation. That's the cool thing about Wikipedia, after all: all standpoints welcome! --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 02:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islamic_State/Archive_36&oldid=1257151164"