Talk:Islamic State/Archive 40

Archive 35

←

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

→

Archive 44

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2017

ISIL had essentialy moved its headquarters to Deir ez-Zor, sos its headquarters arent really in Ar-Raqqah anymore. 100.17.19.172 (talk) 05:10, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. Please cite your sources, with due weight in mind. El_C 05:17, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2017

Change title to Islamic State - as discussed in the talk page, this is the most common non-acronym name and should thus be used under WP:COMMONNAME MillyMillMiller (talk) 01:51, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@MillyMillMiller: Please see the section at the top of this page that begins "This page was previously nominated to be moved." Despite a great deal of discussion, there has been no consensus for a move to Islamic State, which is actually the name of several different organizations and territories as well as the term for a specific type of government and is currently the page title of a disambiguation page. General Ization ^Talk 01:54, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2017

Could somebody add a space between the sentence and reference in "people,[62][63]where" within first sentence in the fourth paragraph?

173.73.231.193 (talk) 16:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Done Thank you for pointing that out! regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 16:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Delete "Neo-nazism" from ideology section

ISIS isn't neo nazi. Killing loads of people and being totaliterian doesn't make you a nazi. ISIS is an islamic fundamentalist group, not a racialist nazi group. This isn't at all correct. Lilahdog568 (talk) 17:55, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

• I'm looking into it. Drmies (talk) 17:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
• Thanks for pointing this out, Lilahdog568. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • ISIS is, in fact, a neo-fascist/anti-Semitic movement, thus “neo-nazi.”

I have tried several times now to rpesent links showing the “ISIS Is Fascist” allegation, but Wikipedia is refusing to allow those to be presented either. The best I “can” do is “maybe” suggest that googling “john-kerry-equates-isis-leaders-fascist-enemies-world” will get you the information in question (I did try). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.65.85.167 (talk) 00:43, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

"Islamic State" may be the most commonly used non-abbreviation of the organization

When searching "Islamic State" on Google, it seems in the news section for the most recently published stories mentioning "Islamic State" that it is the most commonly used non-abbreviated form of the organization. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 04:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Even though Islamic State (IS) is the most common rendition of the name, and WP policies support such a name change per WP:COMMON, WP:TITLE, WP:OFFICIAL and are supported by a plethora of reliable sources, it will never happen. The reason for this is because the majority of Wikipedia users who edit on this page hold POV (point of view) opinions and have thereby hijacked all discussions in regards to a name change. Even though they lack weight in their arguments, particularly in regards to Wikipedia policies, they simply constitute the majority here even though Wikipedia is not a democracy, and as such will always skew RFC's in their favour, which means they can always claim either A.) They have 'consensus' because the majority (over 50% of editors) agree with them (that's not even what consensus means, again per WP:DEM and WP:CON) or B.) They refuse to listen to reason and policy and hamstring the RFC so that no consensus is reached, which therefore means no progress is reached and nothing changes. In other words, we just stick with the same name we have now. There have been dozens of RFC's which have illustrated these points. Many Wikipedia editors have wasted their valuable time in arguing these points with policy on their side. The other side however usually says something along these lines "but but but it would offend muslims if we call it Islamic State so its WP:POV" or "but but but muh natural disambiguation" which don't hold water compared to the arguments used against it. So don't bother bringing it up :/ --Donenne (talk) 05:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

If you care about the title follow the talk page and post when a RFC comes up. It's tiresome getting these posts constantly except during RFCs, when it matters. Banak (talk) 23:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

But who is the one ultimately making the call? I assume an administrator or moderator or whatever, who has deep understanding of wikipedia policy, has to take a look at the discussion and determine what the consensus is, what substantive arguments have been made and how they match policy etc etc, and then make a decision to move or not to move. So are the people with actual authority just as biased as the aforementioned majority?Retardednamingpolicy (talk) 23:13, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Normally news organisations will qualify it as 'so called Islamic state' so as to avoid suggesting it has any legitmancy (which it doesn't) I don't think Wikipedia should wade into this wording battle. Just stick to whatever the US state department calls it (currently ISIL) Aguyintobooks (talk) 19:56, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

What's the US state department got to do with how Wikipedia names ISOSCELOUCHE? I find that an extremely confusing reply. Xmoogle (talk) 14:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The US Defense Department has officially replaced ISIL with ISIS as of February 2017 [1] Gazkthul (talk) 23:06, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I think Islamic State (IS) is looking like the best long-term name, as it fits the pattern of disambiguating political groups (which often have rather generic names) by their acronym. "Iraq and the Levant" is getting badly out of date.--Pharos (talk) 21:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

We've been through this discussion many times. See archives. Search counts for "Islamic State" capture ISIL, "so called" "terrorist group calling itself" and many unrelated topics. The group battling ISIL calls them ISIL or Daesh. Leave it alone. Legacypac (talk) 06:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support name change to, Islamic state, strongly, that is the desire, the groups position . Isil, daesh, levant are all silly, just call a spade a spade. It's well enough reported also. Islamic state. Govindaharihari (talk) 06:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

doubtfull declaration of the end ISIL

I`m talking about this particular http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant&type=revision&diff=788110716&oldid=788063593 entry, that claims ISIL to no longer be active as of 29.June 2017. This seems a bit premature to me. Just because Iraqi security forces take the place ISIL declared it`s caliphate and Iraq declares to Caliphate to have ended, doesn`t mean the group no longer exists/is active. --1234567891011a (talk) 17:15, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I reverted it.Retardednamingpolicy (talk) 18:26, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

aka Evil Losers - 05:27, 25 May 2017

This is not an official name, and should not be considered as one simply because the POTUS uses it once. 131.111.185.69 (talk) 07:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

On a more PROFESSIONAL note, "ISIL" is NOT an appropriate name. It is intended to discredit the legitimacy of Israel, thus justifying a destruction of Israel and the wholesale massacre of every Jew (and a lot of the Muslims as well). It is strictly anti-Semitic in nature, and Wikipedia, of all people, should NOT be supporting this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.65.85.167 (talk) 23:40, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

According to the article, ISIL is one translation of the group's Arabic name, Al-Dawla Al-Islamiya fi al-Iraq wa al-Sham. In that translation, notably used by the Associated Press, al-Sham is taken to mean the Levant.[2][3] I'm not entirely sure how that makes the term itself anti-Semitic, so you'll have to explain that in more detail. clpo13_(talk) 23:53, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I have attemtoped twice now to present the artivcels (WITH summaries, very kind of me right?), but Wikipedia keeps refusing to allow me to do so as "not constructive." I give up. In short, however, "Levant" means all of the region, thus nullifying Isreal. (And, could you remove the title "evil loosers"? it's "not constructive.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.65.85.167 (talk) 00:37, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that the United States of America having "America" in its name infringes upon the sovereignty of every state on the two (or one) continent(s). Likewise, having "Levant" in ISIL doesn't necessarily infringe upon Israel's independence, no matter the motive. Though ISIL's name may be that for that very reason, Wikipedia is no place to assume the truth. Also, as it is the literally translated name from Arabic, Wikipedia should use it, for the sake of neutrality, and for the sake of not censoring Wikipedia. Though it may be offensive, and probably is, Wikipedia is no space for verbal gentrification. alphalfalfa^(talk) 00:01, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:CIR

Some terrorist breaks with ISIL and declares he's the new caliph. An Unreliable source reports this and an editor declares Bagdadi replaced. [4]. This is not the first time this editor has inserted wildly inappropriate "info" in ISIL pages recently. WP:CIR and any more of this an ISIL topic ban is in order. Legacypac (talk) 01:57, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Qualifier for Islamic State article title

I have converted that RfC to a RM because most people do not want to have to take part in two discussions and if there is a different outcome between the RfC and the RM there will be discord and conflict. So use the RM above to decide the issue -- PBS (talk) 12:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

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

---

To help the above discussion, and to prepare for a concrete Move Request, let us consider which qualifier will be most acceptable. Applicable policy is at WP:TITLE#Disambiguation. My initial thoughts are:

• Islamic State (group)
• Islamic State (so-called)
• Islamic State (terrorist group)
• Islamic State (self proclaimed)

My own inclination would be for "group", though I'm not that bothered... Batternut (talk) 15:00, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

• I would oppose "group" because ISIL/IS really is not a group, but an actual proto-state that controls territory, has a functioning government, has laws, raises taxes, keeps an army that is far more than a mere militia and is extremely bureaucratic. I know however that people would probably run amok if anything containing "state" would be in the article title. So I support "Islamic State (so-called)" or "Islamic State (self proclaimed)". Applodion (talk) 21:27, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Some examples of "(group)" disambiguations include Lehi (group) (Yitzhak Shamir's old "paramilitary" organization), The O (political group) (a US Maoist group), and Anonymous (group), none of which have (yet) raised taxes or held territory. Neither "so-called" nor "self proclaimed" have not been used for disambiguation before, so are free of precedent. Batternut (talk) 12:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I have just noticed that the Arabic wiki article for these guys is "تنظيم الدولة الإسلامية (داعش)", which translates to "Islamic Country Group (Daesh)". Though entertainingly derogatory, the name "Daesh" carries a definite POV with it, which is why I do not suggest Islamic State (Daesh). Batternut (talk) 12:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

It sounds a little like you are POV pushing this change to further the Daesh agenda - ie don't want to use a degrogatory term in the title. Daesh is widely used in the middle east and france especially. ISIL is the English equivalent. So you need to add all the ISIS+ISIL+Daesh variations together as they are functionally equivilent terms to balance against the POV terrorist favored option. Legacypac (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Regarding this bunch of cut-throats, I hereby declare my POV - I don't like them, and am happy to see them kicked out of Mosul and elsewhere. Regarding the question at hand, the title of this article, I prefer direct speaking over a they who shall not be named type of approach; and I think sticking with the IS in Iraq/Syria tag is a bit unfair on the long-suffering Iraqis and Syrians, since most of the banditos shafting them and their countries are foreigners. Batternut (talk) 21:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@Legacypac: Re "add all the ISIS+ISIL+Daesh variations together" - I have done a little more research. (I know you like the stats, Legacypac ;-) Googling news search for terms "Mosul" and "Abadi" from 9th Jul 2017 - today - ie focussing on Abadi's declaration of Mosul's liberation. In summary, 64% of news sites are using just "Islamic State", 25% are not using "Islamic State" at all, and 11% are using both. I don't buy the "add all the ISIS+ISIL+Daesh variations together" argument anyway, but even doing so IS still has over double all the rest. (full data below). FYI "Islamic State of the Iraq and Levant"/ISIL is at only 4%. Batternut (talk) 15:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Data re news search for terms "Mosul" and "Abadi" from 9th Jul 2017 - today (~ 15:00 CET 12th July)

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=mosul+abadi&num=100&lr=lang_en&client=ubuntu&channel=fs&biw=1908&bih=928&source=lnt&tbs=lr%3Alang_1en%2Ccdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A7%2F9%2F2017%2Ccd_max%3A&tbm=nws Google news search (English language) for "mosul" "abadi" from 9th Jul 2017 - today (~ 15:00 CET 12th July) Ignoring multiple pages from the same domain, and domains with 7-digit Alexa rank) Subtotals (of 5): Islamic State 3, ISIS 1, (Islamic State & ISIS 1) Subtotals (of 15): Islamic State 8, ISIL 1, ISIS 1, Daesh 1, Daesh/ISIL 1, (Islamic State & ISIS 3) Subtotals (of 16): Islamic State 10, ISIS 5, Daesh 1 Subtotals (of 17): Islamic State 13, ISIS 2, (Islamic State & ISIS 2) Totals (of 53): Islamic State 34, ISIS 9, Daesh 2, Daesh & ISIL 1, ISIL 1, (Islamic State & ISIS 6) Percentage using purely "Islamic State": 64% (34 of 53) ISIS/Daesh/ISIL combined: 25% (13 of 53) (percentage using both 6/53 = 11%) (percentage using ISIL alone or in combo 2/53 = 4%) Alexa rank Global Name (abbreviation) url ------ ---- --- 96 so-called Islamic State (IS) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-40558836 153 Islamic State (IS) terrorist group http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2017-07/09/c_136430217.htm 491 Islamic State https://in.reuters.com/article/mideast-crisis-iraq-mosul-idINKBN19W0O4 602 Islamic State (ISIS) http://www.npr.org/2017/07/10/536392956/iraqs-prime-minister-celebrates-win-over-isis-in-mosul 865 ISIS http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/iraq-pm-abadi-arrives-mosul-declare-victory-over-isis-n781066 -- Subtotals (of 5): Islamic State 3, ISIS 1, (Islamic State & ISIS 1) 1,027 Islamic State group (IS) http://www.news.com.au/world/middle-east/iraqi-prime-minister-haider-alabadi-arrives-in-liberated-mosul/news-story/f3c0f69ea61229d1a78e3b6dbc67cd00 1,077 ISIS http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/07/09/iraq_celebrates_victory_over_isis_in_mosul.html 1,031 Islamic State http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/latest-state-tv-iraqi-prime-minister-arrives-mosul-48530611 1,258 Islamic State (IS) http://www.thehindu.com/news/g20-summit-mosul-liberation-burhan-wani-and-more-top-stories-for-today/article19245427.ece 1,997 Islamic State of the Iraq and Levant (ISIL) http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/07/mosul-170710160305183.html 2,116 Islamic State (IS) https://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/world/Iraq-PM-in-Mosul-to-celebrate-IS-defeat-556980 3,734 Daesh https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017/07/10/iraqi-prime-minister-haider-al-abadi-declares-total-victory-over-daesh-in-mosul.html 5,979 Islamic State (ISIS) http://www.nrttv.com/en/Details.aspx?Jimare=15512 6,638 Daesh (ISIL) http://english.almanar.com.lb/301123 1,118 Islamic State (ISIS) http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Mosul-Liberated-as-Islamic-State-Faces-Total-11275706.php 1,181 Islamic State http://www.marketwatch.com/story/iraqis-celebrate-impending-liberation-of-mosul-from-islamic-state-2017-07-09 1,928 Islamic State (IS) http://www.smh.com.au/comment/islamic-state-is-now-just-another-terrorist-group-competing-for-recruits-20170712-gx9n0z.html 6,140 Islamic State https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/mosul-iraq-prime-minister-haider-al-abadi-hails-victory-over-islamicstate-2jwx0qq86 4,821 Islamic State https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/07/10/iraqs-abadi-declare-mosul-victory 6,629 Islamic State (ISIS) http://theweek.com/5things/711053/iraqi-prime-minister-declares-total-victory-mosul -- Subtotals (of 15): Islamic State 8, ISIL 1, ISIS 1, Daesh 1, Daesh/ISIL 1, (Islamic State & ISIS 3) 17,388 ISIS http://www.rudaw.net/english/middleeast/iraq/100720174 10,638 Islamic State http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/the-conversation/sd-iraq-victory-in-mosul-20170710-htmlstory.html 15,342 Daesh http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2017/07/10/528062/headlines 29,058 ISIS https://www.outlookindia.com/newsscroll/trump-praises-iraqi-american-soldiers-post-isis-defeat-in-mosul/1097010/?next 33,669 Islamic State (IS) http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/en/originals/2017/07/mosul-iraq-abadi-isis.html 36,192 ISIS https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10654/mosul-iraq-challenges 36,912 Islamic State https://news.trust.org/item/20170710111929-aayw0 (Reuters) 31,409 Islamic State (IS) http://www.courant.com/nation-world/ct-iraqi-troops-mosul-militants-20170709-story.html 50,837 Islamic State https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/international/middle-east/150079-170710-iraq-s-pm-officially-declares-victory-over-islamic-state-in-mosul 62,647 Islamic State (IS) http://news.kuwaittimes.net/website/amir-congratulates-iraq-mosuls-liberation/ 66,474 ISIS http://www.localsyr.com/news/world-news/inside-the-last-battle-for-mosul/762256962 71,386 mythical terrorist (ISIS) https://www.dailypioneer.com/world/iraq-pm-declares-victory-over-isis-in-mosul.html 14,201 Islamic State (IS) http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/nationworld/ct-iraqi-troops-mosul-militants-20170709-story.html 16,279 Islamic State (IS) http://guardian.ng/news/iraqi-prime-minister-hails-victory-over-brutality-and-terrorism-in-mosul/ 47,551 Islamic State http://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/news/eu-hails-the-liberation-of-mosul-from-islamic-state/ 71,946 Islamic State http://www.centralmaine.com/2017/07/09/iraq-prime-minister-declares-victory-in-mosul/ -- Subtotals (of 16): Islamic State 10, ISIS 5, Daesh 1 153,249 ISIS militants https://www.newsbytesapp.com/timeline/world/8719/49506/battle-for-mosul-2 349,296 Islamic State (IS) http://www.caledonianrecord.com/news/world/iraqi-declares-total-victory-over-islamic-state-in-mosul/article_d320da20-5279-5683-b9ed-5664e9ef5e87.html 459,618 Islamic State http://ravallirepublic.com/news/world/article_2c30550a-4f55-58ec-a082-86474a8dc712.html 107,528 Islamic State http://www.waow.com/story/35842594/2017/07/Sunday/state-tv-iraqi-prime-minister-arrives-in-mosul-to-declare-victory 109,425 Islamic State (IS) https://www.ecns.cn/2017/07-10/264725.shtml 217,891 Islamic State (IS) http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/international/2017-07-11/battle-for-mosul-iraqi-pm-declares-victory-over-is-militants-as-us-warns-of-continued-threat/1685046 491,270 Islamic State (IS) https://www.cachevalleydaily.com/news/world/article_841e7376-dde0-59b8-b0fe-85634e59559c.html 109,571 Islamic State (IS) http://www.theday.com/article/20170709/NWS13/170709377 114,543 Islamic State (ISIS, IS) http://fox11online.com/news/nation-world/iraqi-troops-push-to-clear-last-mosul-ground-of-isis-militants 792,945 Islamic State (IS) http://www.stowetoday.com/news_and_citizen/news/world_news/al-abadi-tours-part-of-mosul-on-foot-under-heavy/html_cfb129fe-86e9-5bdd-a4a8-be9de2af48c0.html (hover to see) 255,018 Islamic State group (IS) http://www.morningjournal.com/article/MJ/20170710/NEWS/170719993 256,330 Islamic State http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=48505:iraqi-prime-minister-congratulates-armed-forces-for-mosul-victory&catid=115:middle-east 148,534 ISIS http://www.good4utah.com/news/world-news/inside-the-last-battle-for-mosul/762257192 860,399 Islamic State group http://www.redbluffdailynews.com/article/ND/20170710/NEWS/170719993 133,265 Islamic State (ISIS) http://wsbt.com/news/nation-world/iraqi-troops-push-to-clear-last-mosul-ground-of-isis-militants 932,326 Islamic State (IS) http://www.dudleynews.co.uk/news/15404921.National_news__Air_strikes_target_remaining_Islamic_State_militants_in_Mosul/ 312,227 Islamic State (IS) http://www.news-sentinel.com/news/us-and-world/the-latest-iraqi-pm-celebrates-in-mosul-but-battle-ongoing_20170709&profile=1029 -- Subtotals (of 17): Islamic State 13, ISIS 2, (Islamic State & ISIS 2) Ignored (Alexa 1M+) http://www.bromsgroveadvertiser.co.uk/news/15404921.National_news__Air_strikes_target_remaining_Islamic_State_militants_in_Mosul/ https://www.ruidosonews.com/story/news/world/2017/07/09/iraqi-pm-arrives-in-mosul/462658001/ http://redriverradio.org/post/mosul-has-been-liberated-isis-control-iraqs-prime-minister-says http://www.jewishvoiceny.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=18533:iraqi-pm-declares-victory-over-oppression-brutality-terrorism-as-mosul-is-liberated-from-is&catid=106&Itemid=772 Ignored (duplicate dom) http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2017/07/11/528164/Lebanon-Hezbollah-Nasrallah-Mosul-liberation-Daesh-terrorists-Middle-East http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/07/11/leader-al-baghdadi-reported-dead-after-loss-mosul http://abcnews.go.com/International/iraqi-prime-minister-al-abadi-declares-victory-isis/story?id=48532013 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-iraq-mosul-idUSKBN19V105 http://www.nrttv.com/en/Details.aspx?Jimare=15546 http://fox11online.com/news/nation-world/state-tv-iraqi-prime-minister-arrives-in-mosul https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-mideast-crisis-iraq-mosul-idUKKBN19W0NR http://ravallirepublic.com/news/world/article_f580233b-7ec7-5a8b-a70f-a213ed31dbbc.html http://www.nrttv.com/en/Details.aspx?Jimare=15494

Daesh is not derogatory - it was self used (until the declaration of the caliphate). Others used it is as a derogatory statement towards various people/groups, but it is just an acronym - the English ISIL is a direct translation of the four arabic letters. I would qualify Islamic State (group) - as long as the extent of their territory is in flux (as it is at present).Icewhiz (talk) 13:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

---

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

Requested move 18 July 2017

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

The result of the move request was: Technical Close. I have closed this RM as requested by the initiator of the RfC Batternut and because no other editor has raised an objection to me doing so since I stated I that would yesterday. Batternut has agreed not to use the RfC process to discuss the title of this article. As this is a technical close of an RM, and there has not been another RM in the last six months, there no prohibitions on an editor requesting an RM. PBS (talk) 15:27, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

---

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State (''to-be-decided'' qualifier) – See below this is relist of an RfC that I am closing because an RfC is the wrong process to request page moves. -- PBS (talk) 11:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Without a specific article title to discuss moving to, this Requested Move is incomplete. As OP of the RfC my intention was for discussion. I do not propose moving the article at this point. (PBS made this a Requested Move for his/her own reasons.) Batternut (talk) 12:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose evidently the proposer has no proposal and instead has engaged in process wonkery. This is also a vanishingly useless exercise given how many times such moves have been rejected (see top of page for a partial list). Legacypac (talk) 03:30, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
• OP withdraw - as OP, or at least the original OP, I withdraw this request. It has become a mess. Batternut (talk) 23:34, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

• Usually a RM is not closed on the request of the nominator if others have commented. However as this started as an RfC and was converted by me I am willing to close it as a "Technical close", providing no one who has participated in the Rfc/RM objects. However I will only do this if Batternut agrees not to initiate any RfC process on this talk page for the purpose of discussing the article title, but instead agrees to use the RM process in its place. -- PBS (talk) 11:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@PBS: Response here. Batternut (talk) 22:00, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support move to Islamic State. At present there is no need for a qualifier. Most RSes use IS for the past year+. There is no competing Islamic State as a standalone usage (not part of a longer name with actual state, and usually shortened to state name in usual use).Icewhiz (talk) 18:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

closed RfC
== RfC Move Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant to Islamic State (to-be-decided qualifier) == {rfc|pol|reli|rfcid=3E5F86A} I have close this Rfc because the correct process to use for a requested move is WP:RM -- PBS (talk) 11:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

This article should be renamed "Islamic State (to-be-decided qualifier)".

The time has come to accept "Islamic State" as the name of this organization. We should follow WP:COMMONNAME - common usage is now "Islamic State" typically with some qualifer such as "so-called", "self-declared", "group", "terrorist group" etc. Such usage is now between 4 and 10 times "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant", so the current title is very and increasingly outdated. This has been researched bountifully before, archived here (July 2015), again here (Jan 2015) and more recently here (Mar 2017), and see table "Google result counts" below.

Key objections from the past discussions (see "previously nominated to be moved" above) have included:

• "Islamic State" has other uses and is too generic: adding " (some qualifier)" deals with this.
• They are neither Islamic nor a State: policy WP:TITLECHANGES says "the choice of title is not dependent on whether a name is "right" in a moral or political sense.
• NPOV / wikipedia should not be a mouthpiece: how is the current title "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" less POV? It still contains the word Islamic, and imho the implicit suggestion that it is just an Iraqi/Levantine version of Islam and other Muslims need not take offence - that really is not OK particularly for the Iraqis, Levantines and Syrians implicated.
• Locals and much American media call them Daesh: that is an abbreviation of an Arabic name, which translates to "al-Dawlah al-Islamīyah fī al-ʻIrāq wa-al-Shām". This is the English Wikipedia, and should use English. If someone wants it to be Daesh, they can raise a separate RfC or move request.
• WP:TITLECHANGES "has been stable a long time" / WP:Recentism: the name change started 3-4 years ago, the current title has remained for that time, but has been out-dated for a large part of it; it is a mistake to confuse stability with simply avoiding recentism.

Batternut (talk) 11:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Google result counts (as of 4 Jul 2017)

search term	book results	news results (archives)	news results (past year)	scholar results
"Baghdadi" "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria"	about 1,390	about 11.5k	3,190	869
"Baghdadi" "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant"	about 1,320	about 4,080	439	741
"Baghdadi" "Islamic State" -"Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" -"Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" -"so called Islamic State"	about 6,420	about 99k	about 41k	about 3,200

Note that this is an RFC, not a move request - the qualifier is still to-be-decided (TBD). If the concensus is to rename, then a subsequent discussion can choose the qualifier.

Batternut (talk) 11:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

PS In this debate, while welcoming reasoned arguments, can we please avoid wp:Wall of text postings?

---

Daesh is already a redirect.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 21:29, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Support: as original poster, for the reasons I put in the RfC. Batternut (talk) 11:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support - They've branched out of the initial Daesh (from which the English IL were added). They should be "Islamic State (qualifier denoting they are a non-recognized state / non-state actor)" - as per accepted usage. It is also unclear, at this time, how long they will remain in control the land they still nominally hold in Iraq and Syria while they have established footholds elsewhere (Nigeria, Sinai, Libya, etc.).Icewhiz (talk) 12:10, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support: as original poster, per Batternut.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 21:26, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose and Speedy Close this has been discussed to death and nothing has changed except the amount of land they control. We even had a moratorium on move requests. Further this is not a real proposal because it is vague and does not specify the proposed name. There is no confusion about what we are talking about with ISIL. We have a page for Islamic state already (confusingly similar) and it is a widely rejected name. We would not call a country Republic or Democracy or Kingdom with no geographic or ethnic qualifier. Legacypac (talk) 21:43, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Due to different capitalization, I think a better analogy for your final sentence would be if a country were to call itself "DeMoCracy" or something like that. In which case, I would argue that the wikipedia article for that country would indeed be located at DeMoCracy rather than any other title with disambiguation added. Capitalization is sufficient disambiguation. Also, remember that hatnotes are possible– if this article were located at Islamic State, we'd obviously have a hatnote saying something like
    For the system of government, see Islamic state.
    . Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 03:03, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: At least until this is a defined proposed name, and I'll probably oppose it even then. ISIL remains in common use. I don't want to dignify this association of ragtag terrorists with anything like the proposed name. —Anomalocaris (talk) 05:37, 5 July 2017‎
• Support - Prefer no qualifier. Would move current article at Islamic State to Islamic Nationalism or Islamic State (qualifier). I have a lot of sympathy with the oppose folks here. Clearly they're right to make their points about RECENTISM and AMBIGUITY. That said, the WP:COMMONNAME argument is pretty overwhelming. Essentially all media from the past year using the term Islamic State does so in the context of ISIS. Secondly, I think it's important to remember that just as consensus can change, so too can COMMONNAMEs change. Languages and terminologies change. For those who make the WP:RECENTISM argument, I'd ask; how long do we wait before making this change? If after a another year Islamic State is the common name for the group, do we change the title then? Two years? Ten years? How long? NickCT (talk) 12:46, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
• Comment User:Batternut as the proposer I suggest you add to your text above the survey subsection you preferred choice. Please sign the addition so that Anomalocaris comment in this bullet pointed list continues to make sense. -- PBS (talk) 12:16, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Per any reading of WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NPOV that is even vaguely faithful to those standards (as well as WP:PRECISE amd WP:CONCISE for that matter). Look, I am totally sympathetic to the motivations of the OP/Supporters here; I've found myself dancing around the same kinds of issues with regard to ISIL-related articles when I've chanced upon them over the last couple of years. I personally moved the article "Military of ISIL" to Military activity of ISIL (after a consensus discussion) because I felt strongly that it was both highly inaccurate and deeply inappropriate to label the fighting force a legitimate military. But here the sources and the policies are just too strongly aligned against the proposal, and the move just runs to directly counter to our most basic policies on neutrality and verification. While I totally understand the urge to stick a qualifier in there to mark this extremist organization for what it is at work go, our encyclopedic policies tell us in absolutely explicit terms that we are not allowed to change a title based on whether it is "'right' in a moral or political sense". That guideline could not be more clear, and this is an utterly paradigmatic example of attempting to do just that, for exactly that reason. We have many articles on this project which adopt (as a principle of building an encyclopedia) the common name of a topic which may seem peculiar or even offensive to rational persons. But there are good reasons, in terms of encyclopedia building, to stick to them, even in those idiosyncratic occasions where it makes us blanch at the thought of going with the common name. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

On a side note of a procedural nature, I should note that WP:RfCs are meant to be presented in a fashion that is neutral to the competing views, whereas the OP in this instance has definitely and exclusively emphasized the arguments for their preferred approach, at length I don't think it's going to have much of an impact on the responses here, but it's something you'll want to keep in mind for future RfCs, Batternut. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:30, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

The same rules for a RM do not apply "Note: Unlike other request processes on Wikipedia, such as RfC, nominations need not be neutral." -- PBS (talk) 07:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

General procedural note: this was an RfC at the time I made my previous comment.Snow ^{let's rap} 07:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support move to Islamic State (with no qualifier). It's the common name used by lots of media outlets; disambiguation is not necessary as this article is the primary topic for "Islamic State" with a capital S. (There is precedent for disambiguating with capitalization alone; c.f. BlackBerry and Blackberry). Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 02:54, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Islamic State does get a lot of mileage in common media, but I don't think it's nearly as common as ISIL. (Batternut's search results above do not factor in a number of important variables, including but not limited to: A) The prolific use of the acronyms (ISIL and ISIS especially), B) the fact that the vast, vast majority of search results are not WP:RS and thus cannot be considered as part of the WP:WEIGHT of editorial decisions on this project, and C) the fact that Google's search algorithms take massive liberties with Boolean functions such as "do not include".)

Then there's the disambiguation concerns; unfortunately, I think the position that there is some precedent with regard to disambiguating via capitalization is a bit of a non-sequitor to the present circumstances. It's hard to imagine two topics that are more different than a blackberry and a BlackBerry, and confusion for our readers and editors in that situation is unlikely. On the other hand, there's a huge overlap in the topics you propose should have titles that are identical but for the capitalization of one word. ISIL named itself as it did specifically because its leadership views the group as an Islamic state, and models itself as such.

Maybe there's still a WP:COMMONNAME argument to support your approach and overcome the other concerns, but I for one would need to see more evidence first, in the form of an analysis exclusively of a large body of RS, not random Google searches that are subject to all kinds of potential misleading influences on the results. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:48, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

The last moratorium was in September 2015, it expired last year. Batternut (talk) 22:49, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

What has changed (since the last naming discussion) except the amount of land they control? WP:Recentism, a factor in the last full discussion, no longer applies to the new name. Batternut (talk) 23:11, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

No new names have emerged for ISIL since they tried to declare they ruled the world. No government has accepted or uses their preferred name. Some media abbreviate ISIL/ISIS to make shorter headlines. Our article has a huge section on why the world rejecxted their terrorist preferred name. So this proposal runs counter to the article itself. There are no new arguments for any name change except calling the terrorist by their preferred name - a name they will cut your tongue out if you refuse to use. Sorry I'm siding with all the governments in the world, the UN and Reliable Sources, not the terrorists. Legacypac (talk) 05:55, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Here's a Reuters piece from today I ran across - [5]. All "Islamic State". No ISIS, ISIL, or "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant". The use of ISIL/ISIS has mainly fallen out of use in the past two years - and users of ISIS/ISIL are usually POV-pushing the view that "Islamic State" is a terrorist organization. While they may indeed be such, it is not our place to make POV qualifications such as these. We should use the name they use to call themselves, and which is used by major international news orgs.Icewhiz (talk) 08:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Some Government usage stats (re the "I'm siding with all the Governments in the world" argument). Here are the results of some searches I hadn't tried before, showing relative usage of ISIL vs IS by inner circle nations of English speakers. It appears that "Islamic State" is pretty popular in the larger English-speaking governments of the world, even where official policy dictates otherwise:

Government usage Google counts (as of 5 Jul 2017)

search term	.gov + .mil	.gov.uk + .parliament.uk	.gc.ca	.gov.au	.gov.ie	.govt.nz	tot
"Baghdadi" "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant"	39	16	0	27	0	2	84
"Baghdadi" "Islamic State" -"Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" -"Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" -"so called Islamic State" -"Islamic State of Iraq"	50	27	0	25	0	16	118

Notes

Batternut (talk) 09:28, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Like all the Google stats before presented here - you can't show that "Islamic State" beats "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" or ISIS or ISIL or "group" because all these terms include the words "Islamic State" within them. Also Daish is short for ISIL/ISIS not "Islamic State" so we must count all versions of Diash toward the longer name. Legacypac (talk) 09:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Tch, learn what "-" does before a search term! Of course it is not simple as a quick search: typically authors use one term, but add "... also known as IS/ISIL/ISIS etc", spelled out or abbreviated; also the citing of sources introduces alternative terms. Quite tediously I have just been through all 60 results for site:gov "Baghdadi" "Islamic State" - to see which terms are favoured by US government authors, ie filtering out the aka ..., citations etc, and the other chaff Google finds. With that removed, the numbers are small, but perhaps better indicate US government policy (to use 'ISIL') and reality. My conclusion is that US government bodies definitely use "Islamic State", especially recently, though only half as much as simple searching suggests. That governments will be last to use this new name is no surprise.

year	Islamic State	Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant	Islamic State of Iraq and Syria	Daesh / Da'esh
2017	3	0	2	0
2016	4	9	3	1
total	10	20	9	2

Batternut (talk) 14:48, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Rfc to RM

I have closed the RfC and reopend it as an RM because the requested moves process is the best one to use for requested moves. This is for several reasons: Generally it is a shorter process so decisions are reached more quickly. It tends to attract more editors who have an interest and expertise in page titles over and above those who lurk around the talk page of a specific article. An RfC is less likely to attract such expertise. The process and closing of an RM is tailored made for moving pages. It includes a move review option for anyone thinks that the process had not been followed correctly. I have done this as an administrator under "Page restrictions" of the discretionary sanctions that operate on this page, and I will not be involved in the discussion or the close. If you wish to question this decision then in the first instance please leave a message on my talk page. -- PBS (talk) 12:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

---

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

Edit request

Asking for removal of recent edit by "Иван Гордиенко" - "Information waves with ISIS (ISIL)" makes no sense, neither the edit summary add a graph with information wave, no reference given. As his user name is in cyrilics he can be possibly connected with either islamic terrorists or perhaps even with intelligence/propagandist services of todays's fascist Russia.-2A00:1028:83BE:4392:B474:CCEC:70EB:59C (talk) 22:29, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done This largely seems to be refspam for a service that reports mentions of various key words in top Internet sites (nothing more nefarious than that). It added nothing to the article so I have removed it and warned the editor. General Ization ^Talk 22:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

(P.S. - I would caution against assuming that anyone with a Cyrillic name is a terrorist or a propagandist. General Ization ^Talk 22:47, 25 July 2017 (UTC))

Article length

Does this article really need 815 references? (Unsigned)

I'm going to look at content reductions / moving some sections to separate articles. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:17, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

we've done major spinouts, but significant content on those topics has creeped back in. If trimming, look at what is already covered in subtopics first and remove redundency. Legacypac (talk) 22:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Uygurs

The removal of this section [6] was a very good move. I happen to have a lot of knowledge about this group and I believe the entire idea that any meaningful number of Muslim Chinese are fighting with ISIL is a pure invention by Beijing to discredit and suppress these people. Please keep it out. I'm an unbias outsider to that conflict. Legacypac (talk) 01:52, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I would support keeping a paragraph on it, except all the references refer to individuals and not to there being a significant number of people involved. Due to the promotional/human-interest nature of the coverage, having 5 stories about 5 separate individuals implies only that there are 5 people involved, nothing more. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

an english language Chinese government owned news site put out the idea there were 3000 Uyger fighters with families living in villages in Syria fighting with ISIL. One of the more obviously false narratives. The odd Uyger fighter deserves no more prominance here then afforded a French or Belgian or UK citizen, who are far more common in ISIL ranks. Legacypac (talk) 02:04, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Opponents in Infobox

The current listed opponents in infobox are:

State opponents

Iran Iraq Saudi Arabia Syria Russia Turkey Lebanon United States

Which seems pretty random. The UK, France, Jordan, Canada, UAE and soem others have all done significant bombing. I Canada for instance has special forces on the ground, one of whom shattered the record for the longest kill shot in history. Lebanon, on the other hand, has very limited involvement even though ISIL hides out in some Lebanon valleys. Then you have countries like Libya, Philippines, Egypt, and Nigeria that are fighting ISIL branches at home. What about other countries that have suffered ISIL terror attacks? Is there some rational to the inclusion criteria here? What is the logic to the order? Should it be alphabetical or put Iraq and Syria at the top followed by other countries in rough order of scale of fight? Legacypac (talk) 02:16, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Israel

Why isn't Israel presented as an opponent to ISIS? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.86.71.29 (talk) 15:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Because ISIS never attacked Israel (on 25th April , 2016, ISIS carried an attack at an IDF unit and later apologised). Also IDF's medics provided health support — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.33.36.204 (talk) 19:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Someone claims ISIS was founded in 1999

"ISIL originated as Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad in 1999".

it's not confirmed or widely shared opinion. however it's presented as a fact, with no refs. it should be either removed or written in a way "...in 1999, according to an opinion of Joby Warrick".

by the way, any islamist organization pretends to be originating in past, referring themselves even into relatives of prophet Mohammad. we should not buy their claims without facts. 46.39.248.171 (talk) 21:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

BRAND NEW

AL BAGHDADI STILL ALIVE AND 46MIN NEWS FROM HIM TO BE PLACED

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/amp/isis-releases-recording-billed-abu-bakr-al-baghdadi-n805601 https://globalnews.ca/news/3774804/isis-new-audio-message-al-baghdadi/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.247.250.163 (talk) 21:41, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2017

Remove Wahhabism as an ISIL ideology. Saudi Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdul Aziz al-Sheikh, the kingdom's top cleric and descendant of Sheikh Abdul-Wahhab, said in August 2014 that ISIL is the "enemy number one" of Islam, and that,"The ideas of extremism, radicalism and terrorism ... have nothing to do with Islam, and (their proponents) are the enemy number one of Islam." The Council of Senior Scholars in Saudi Arabia, headed by the Saudi Grand Mufti, stated that takfir accusations, the act of declaring someone as kafir (non-believer), is something that only God can determine. They also stated that some Islamist movements are using takfir as an excuse to carry out killings, stressing that the values of Islam reject terrorism and extremism. References:

References

--188.53.63.78 (talk) 03:08, 5 October 2017 (UTC) 188.53.63.78 (talk) 03:08, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Partly done: Just because the Grand Mufti has (understandably) denied identification between Saudi Wahabism and ISIL does not mean that the group is not attempting to act on what they think Wahabism is. There are good, reliable sources confirming that connection so it would not be appropriate to remove it as part of their ideology. I have instead inserted a sentence about the denials to the section on ideology. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 12:00, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

why claim something you had nothing to do with

why would isis try to claim the attack in las vegas when they had nothing to do with it--Glasgowsmile (talk) 05:39, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Propagandist claims/deception are typical of terrorist and militant groups all over the world. Not only militants, to be clear. And the frequency of such made-up statements coming from ISIL and/or its affiliates or propagandist outlets (see Amaq News Agency) is likely to increase as ISIL territory shrinks progressively. --188.167.141.68 (talk) 18:59, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

IS area according to map

Westward point.

This map depicts IS as still holding an area south of Deir az-Zor that points westward towards Palmyra. However, this area consists entirely of sand and stones: it seems to contain no populated places, no roads, no military bases, no oil fields. Is ISIL still present in this area? Why would they occupy a sand pit with no strategic importance, while al-Baghdadi direly needs them to defend the last remaining cities? Steinbach (talk) 10:49, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Control of sand in Syria and Iraq has always been hard to pin down - these area maps (as opposed to actual population points) have always been somewhat unreliable. CRYSTALBALLING here, if IS recognize the impending defeat, they probably will seek to hide heavy equipment and fighters in the sand, while keeping operatives in the cities. This is not the first Sunni defeat, not the fir uprising.Icewhiz (talk) 18:48, 4 November 2017 (UTC)