Talk:Islamic State/Archive 34

Archive 30

←

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

→

Archive 40

Why Nigeria?

Why is Nigeria included in the list of territories controlled by ISIS? It is Boko Haram who has swore allegiance, but that means this fact also? RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 12:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Boko Haram swore allegiance and ISIL accepted and so now the portions of territory they control are effectively under ISIL control. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 3 Nisan 5775 12:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Swearing allegiance to and being are not necessarily the same thing. I think that the current interpretation is likely but is not certain. GregKaye 12:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Nigeria is NOT in any 'list of territories controlled by ISIS', don't make or see a problem where there is none. --Corriebertus (talk) 18:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The very first sentence of the article erroneously posits that ISIL controls territory in Nigeria. I'm fixing it. TheBlueCanoe 02:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

It is not erroneous. Boko Haram pledged allegiance to ISIL and ISIL formally accepted said pledge. Thus, the territory controlled by Boko Haram is now under ISIL control. DylanLacey (talk) 04:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

According to the cited references, BH say they will obey orders from IS. However, is there any evidence of them actually doing so, or is this just a statement of intent / bluster? Unless we have a reference to say that IS is actually directing BH operations, I'm not sure it's accurate to say they actualyl control territory in Nigeria. (Also, the article currently says that this alliance gives IS "an official presence in Nigeria, Niger, Chad and Cameroon". However, I can't see a statement to that effect in any of the cited sources, and I don't think an alliance should be eeen as the same as "an official presence", which to me implies IS having troops/commanders/political officers on the ground). Iapetus (talk) 13:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

At this stage it's bluster, done mainly for propaganda purposes. There is no evidence of actual operational links between the two groups. Also, for what it's worth, Boko Haram does not control much territory anymore. They might remain an effective guerrilla group for some time, but they've been driven from the towns and population centers.TheBlueCanoe 23:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

It is not erroneous! ISIL spread to Libya in the same manner. Plus, the last time I heard anything, the Boko Haram still controlled small sections of Nigeria, specifically a few villages and a forest. Anasaitis (talk) 23:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

No. ISIL does not control territory in Nigeria. Please read the sources on this; at best it is a symbolic alliance. Look, even if we were talking about real states, alliances are not tantamount to controlling other states' territory. NATO countries have a collective self-defense agreement, but that does not mean that Poland controls territory in Iowa.TheBlueCanoe 14:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Illogical title

The title is illogical considering the group holds territory in five nations. Isn't it time to rename it? The current title is misleading. 84.13.148.26 (talk) 00:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

If you wish you start yet another RFC on this. The rationale of those who opposed previous attempts to change this name was because this was a former name, and they did not wish the Wikipedia to change to the current name based on policy or their own feelings. One argument was that they haven't succeeded in changing their name. I was for the change to "Islamic State ({some clarifier})". Also the countries are what five Iraq, Syria, Libya, and I'm guessing Yemen and Nigeria? Banak (talk) 01:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Banak. Furthermore, I'd add that out of the major Western wikipedias, only the English one keeps an obsolete, baseless name; the other languages accurately reflect reality: * French Wikipedia (État islamique (organisation)),* German Wikipedia (Islamischer Staat (Organisation)), * Spanish Wikipedia (Estado Islámico) ,* Italian Wikipedia (Stato Islamico). XavierItzm (talk) 11:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

i absolutely agree that the name needs to be changed to Islamic State, rather than ISIL or ISIS islamic state is almost universally used in the media, both television, online and print now (albeit sometimes preceded by so-called)

i also really think the article needs to better reflect what IS actually is it isnt a terrorist group, and it isnt an extremist rebel group holding territory

i think a better paragraph for the leader would be something like

The Islamic State is an unrecognized state and an international Islamic religious-political revolutionary movement. In its political aspect, it seeks to overthrow established governments of Muslim countries, which it views as apostate tyrants and seeks to unify all Muslim-majority territories into an Islamic caliphate. In its religious aspect, it is a Islamic revivalist movement which seeks to return the practice of Islam to that of the Prophet Muhammad, the sahabah and the salaf. It holds territory and functions as an unrecognized state in Syria, Iraq, Libya and Nigeria, where it has established systems and structures of governance. It has operations or affiliates in Lebanon, Egypt, and other areas of the Middle East, North and West Africa, South and Southeast Asia. On the 29th June 2014, in a speech entitled 'This is the promise of Allah', the spokesman of the Islamic State, Shaykh Abu Muhammad al-Adnani announced the restoration of the caliphate and said that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, had been elected by Ahl al-hall wal 'aqd (أهل الحل والعقد), which signifies the people of authority and influence in the Islamic State shura council, to be Amir al-Mu'minin Caliph Ibrahim. As a caliphate, it claims religious, political and military authority over all Muslims worldwide and that "the legality of all emirates, groups, states, and organisations, becomes null by the expansion of the khilāfah's [caliphate's] authority and arrival of its troops to their areas".

this accurately reflects the reality of the islamic state and its aspects which are both political and religious many informed people have compared IS in its revolutionary aspect to the Bolsheviks , so there is no doubt it really is a revolutionary movement and unrecognised state rather than a terrorist organisation or rebel group — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.94.46 (talk • contribs) 14:43 UTC, 12 April 2015‎

As far as I know, unrecognised states should have defined and known territory, should be able to establish relationships with other countries as a county-to-a-country, and should be recognised by at least one recognised state. Also 'SIS is a terrorist group. I suggest reading the definition of terrorism^{Oxford Cambridge}. The article introduction or lead should summarise the article, this isn't doing it.--Kuwaity26 (talk) 08:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

IS is a revolutionary movement, and terrorism is just a revolutionary tactic terrorism can be used by people with both good and bad intentions eg mandela like i said, consider the bolsheviks their goal was worldwide socialist revolution and they continued to push that throughout, it didnt stop them actually being recognized as a state IS has all the functions of a state, a permanment populaton, government, it does have the ability to enter into relations (see negotations between turkey diplomats) and most scholars consider war to be a 'relationship' the only slight issue it has if we are going by the declaritive theory of statehood is the 'defined territory' lets not pretend that people here refuse to give IS the designation of 'unrecognized state' only because it has a slight issue with defined terrority people here are hurting this project with their prejudice against IS

To help you understand the difference between a revolution (islamic state) and terrorism, here is a good article http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/confusing-a-“revolution”-with-“terrorism” A quote from the article- These groups, and very specifically ISIS, have stepped from terrorism into revolutionary movements. That is to say, they are busily engaged in the process of seizing territory, establishing a form of governance, implementing a new ideology, and brutally putting an end to opposition and the old regime.

IS is not a terrorist organisation, it is not a rebel group, or even a rebel group holding territory, it is a de facto unrecognized state and revolutionary movement That isn't a pro-IS opinion, it's a neutral, objective fact as very well explained in the article I linked, which I suggest everyone here reads http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/143043/audrey-kurth-cronin/isis-is-not-a-terrorist-group Another article here, the title explains it all, not a terror group

87.244.94.46 (talk) 01:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

In the sidebar the color used in the key for the area controlled by the Syrian Kurdistan forces appears not to match the color used for that area in the map itself

In the map in the sidebar, the keys to the colors for the separate areas controlled by Iraqi and Syrian Kurdistan forces are confusing. At first, judging by the relative darkness of the two shades of yellowish green in the key, I thought that it was the case that, strangely, someone had reversed the two, which would ridiculously have the larger area to the northeast as the area controlled by the Syrian Kurdistan forces. Comparing with the high resolution map didn't work because all of the colors in the sidebar map seemed darker than the same colors in the high resolution map.

I was only able to decide more precisely what the situation actually was by enlarging the sidebar on two separate pages, so as to be able to bring close to each other the color shown in the key and the color it referred to on the map itself. Doing so finally made it clear that the color shown in the key for the color on the map of the area controlled by Iraqi Kurdistan forces is probably correct but that the color shown in the key for the color of the area controlled by Syrian Kurdistan forces is quite a bit darker than the color actually used for this area on the map itself. I do not have any idea how to correct this situation, but I must repeat that, to one looking at this map for the first time, trying to understand, using the colors given in the keys, which Kurdistan force controls which area is quite confusing. Wikifan2744 (talk) 17:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

@Wikifan2744: my bad, I'll sort out the key. Was trying to fix problems with the colours looking too similar per a request, didn't update the key. I can't update the map for a little while, however, a minor bug has caused a massive headache. Banak (talk) 18:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

"The Islamic State"

1. "Un-Islamic State" is not the name of the entity this article concerns itself with, notwithstanding if it is a state, or if it is Islamic in nature, self-declared or otherwise. Referring to the entity as such is loaded as it is an inherent ideological statement, and thus reference to the entity as such should be removed from the list of this entity's names. This expression got removed from the article soon after the edit request was posted. Issue 1 is no longer under dispute.

2. As the entity claims territory outside of Iraq and al-Sham as within it's scope, and has demonstrably been active outside the geography that is Iraq and al-Sham, I believe clarification is needed on why the entity should not be referred to by it's primary self-designation. In the event of further expansion by the entity, it is assured that the present method of primary referral will quickly become outdated. In any case, a refusal to refer to this entity as "the Islamic State" can also be considered loaded, as it is also an inherent ideological statement, seeking to specifically denounce a certain attribute of this entity (more so than it is denounced as an entirety.)

Sapiocrat (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Sapiocrat Declaring the group as "Islamic State" i.e. a state for Islam, in condition that the group only finds a section of Sunni Islam as acceptable, is also misleading and loaded. The wording "Islamic State ..." is presented in the article title". The redirect Islamic State group is functional. GregKaye 12:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

GregKaye Yet, we call it the "Islamic State" of Iraq and the Levant anyway, not the "Sunni Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant"; the sole source of that name is their past self-designation, not what we deemed correct to call them. I do not comprehend the grounds on which we refuse to refer to them by their up-to-date self-designation. Furthermore, the concept of Jihad is not a concept isolated to Sunni Islam, the Shia sect has the concept as well. The fact of the matter is, this entity is jihadist, and it's target is a pan-Islamic, post-nationalist world. What justification do we have for not calling it as it defines itself and its own goals? Where we differ is, I do not think it is still an ideological statement if I call it with its self designation; because it is no longer MY statement, it's theirs. You don't see Turkey renaming the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) to something to the tune of Kurdish Terrorist Organization of the Turkish South-East, which reflects the state opinion infinitely more accurately; there is no better authority on this entity's name but themselves, and yes, it is "official." Whether their name is representative of what they are is another, entirely separate and relative issue. Sapiocrat (talk) 14:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Sapiocrat, The group could have called itself "Islamic State for people adhering to our interpretation of Islam" or similar to previous states and groups claiming to be states, they could have called themselves "Islamic State of X region". Examples of this are:

• Islamic State of Azawad
• Islamic State of Qadian
• Islamic State of Waziristan
• Islamic State of Indonesia

(There are also a number of other Islamic states that, only dependent on theological interpretations, actually are so but which do not include the title in their names.

As it is Baghdadi's group has ambiguously been called "Islamic State" which I interpret raises the question of what? They claim to be the Islamic State for all Islam but with this Islam being according to their interpretation. While many describe the "Islamic State group" others use Islamic State (as well as ISIS, ISIL and Daesh). The argument is that when Islam represents a significantly prevalent belief/set or beliefs and practices, is misrepresentative to present one group as ambiguously the Islamic State. GregKaye 15:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

GregKaye Islamic State [of the World]; it is the definition of jihad: a worldwide Islamic caliphate, they are not being ambiguous, they are being extremely precise. Sapiocrat (talk) 15:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

You hit the nail on the head as to what the "Islamic world" finds objectionable. GregKaye 23:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

On this Talk page there has been more hot air on this than any other aspect of the group. They call themselves the "Islamic State". Would you quibble over the name of any other group/institution/organization/body/state/country/person and say they must not be called by their name? Censorship gone mad to refuse to. 82.20.70.218 (talk) 20:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Re 1: where in the article does Wikipedia list "un-Islamic State" as one of the group's names? What point is being made here? 82.20.70.218 (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

That got removed soon after I posted this edit request, so there is no issue there. We're debating point 2. Sapiocrat (talk) 22:32, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Lets just wait a while, I say a few months, then we can have another RM where no doubt the page will be moved to Islamic State which has become the common name. We can move the current Islamic State article to another disambiguated name. It makes no sense to leave the "Iraq and the Levant" part. They now have territory in Nigeria, Libya, Yemen, Iraq and Syria, not to mention their presence in other countries. They cannot really call themselves Islamic State of anything, because they are not confined to a single area. In their ideology it would not be allowed for the Caliph to ever have a permanent stop to the expansion of the borders. Why would you call yourself Islamic State of a specific area when you intend to take over all of Saudi, Lebanon, Egypt, etc, etc. Mbcap (talk) 21:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

You rase a fair point, Mbcap. For instance, the Spanish wikipedia recently moved from "Estado Islámico (Organización Terrorista)" to just "Estado Islámico," i.e., the official name of the group. XavierItzm (talk) 23:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

XavierItzm Please quit your selective references. You do not raise a fair point. Here is the full list of Wikipedia references to the group inclusive of a great many references to "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" and increasing use of Daesh, ISIS and ISIL.
Transliterations to make it easier for certain foreign scripts added by Discuss-Dubious (t/c)

af Islamitiese Staat (in Irak en die Levant)
ar داعش [Da'ish]
arz داعش [Da'ish]
av ГІиракъалъул
ва Шамалъул Исламияб Пачалихъ
az İraq Şam İslam Dövləti
be_x_old Ісламская дзяржава
be Ісламская дзяржава Ірака і Леванта [includes "Iraq & the Levant"-Discuss-Dubious (t/c)]
bg Ислямска държава в Ирак и Леванта
bn ইসলামিক স্টেট অব ইরাক এন্ড দ্য লেভান্ট
br Stad Islamek bs Islamska Država
ca Estat Islàmic
cdo Iraq gâe̤ng Levant
Ĭ-sṳ̆-làng-guók
ckb دەوڵەتی ئیسلامی لە عێراق و شام
cs Islámský stát
cy Gwladwriaeth Islamaidd
Irac a'r Lefant
da Islamisk Stat
de Islamischer Staat (Organisation)
diq Dewleta İslami İraq u
Şam de el Ισλαμικό Κράτος
en Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
eo Islama Ŝtato de Irako kaj Sirio
es Estado Islámico
et Islamiriik (organisatsioon)
eu Estatu Islamikoa
fa دولت اسلامی عراق و شام
fi Isis (järjestö)
fo Islamski Staturin
fr État islamique (organisation)
he המדינה האסלאמית hi आईएसआईएस
hr Islamska Država Iraka i Levanta
hu Iraki és Levantei Iszlám Állam
hy Իրաքի և Լևանտի իսլամական պետություն
id Negara Islam Irak dan Syam
ie Islamic State it Stato Islamico
it Stado Islamica _{Just to end a complaint Discuss-Dubious (t/c)}
ja ISIL
jv Negara Islam Irak lan Syam
ka ერაყისა და ლევანტის ისლამური სახელმწიფო
ko 이슬람 국가 (단체) [incl."(organization)"]
ku Dewleta Îslamî
ya Iraq û Şamê la Civitas Islamica in Iraquia et Levante
li Islamitische Staot (in Irak enne Levant)
lo ລັດອິດສະລາມອີຣັກແລະເຣເວນທ໌
lv Islāma valsts min Nagari Islam Irak
jo Syam ml ഇസ്‌ലാമിക്ക് സ്റ്റേറ്റ് ഓഫ് ഇറാഖ് ആൻഡ് ലെ…
ms Negara Islam Iraq dan Syam mt Stat Iżlamiku
my အစ္စလာမ္မစ်နိုင်ငံအဖွဲ့ (အိုင်အက်စ်)
mzn داعش
ne आइएसआइएल
nl Islamitische Staat (in Irak en de Levant)
nn Den islamske staten Irak og Levanten
no Den islamske staten Irak og Levanten
oc Estat Islamic
pa ਇਰਾਕ ਅਤੇ ਅਲ ਸ਼ਾਮ ਵਿੱਚ ਇਸਲਾਮੀ ਰਾਜ
pl Państwo Islamskie
pnb اسلامی راج ps د عراق او شام اسلامي دولت
pt Estado Islâmico do Iraque e do Levante
ro Statul Islamic
ru Исламское государство Ирака и Леванта
scn Statu Islamicu (Gruppu tirrurista)
sc Istadu Islamicu de Iraq e Levante
sh Islamska Država Irak i Levant
simple Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
si ඉස්ලාමීය රාජ්‍යය
sk Islamský štát (militantná organizácia)
sl Islamska država Iraka in Levanta
sr Исламска Држава sv Islamiska staten
sw Daish
ta இராக்கிலும் சாமிலும் இசுலாமிய அரசு
te ఇస్లామిక్ స్టేట్ ఇన్ ఇరాక్ అండ్ ది లెవంట్
th รัฐอิสลามอิรักและเลแวนต์
tl Islamikong Estado ng Iraq at Levant
tr İslam Devleti (örgüt)
tt Ğıyraq häm Şam İslam däwläte
ug ئىراق ۋە شام ئىسلام دۆلىتى
uk Ісламська Держава
ur عراق اور الشام میں اسلامی ریاست[+ Iraq & Al-Sham-Discuss-Dubious (t/c)]
uz Iroq va Shom Islom Davlati
vi Nhà nước Hồi giáo Iraq và Levant
xmf ერაყიშ დო ლევანტიშ ისლამური სახენწჷფო
yi אייסיס
zea Islamitische Staete in Irak en de Levant
zh_classical 達伊沙
zh_min_nan Iraq kap Levant I-su-lân-kok
zh_yue 伊拉克和黎凡特伊斯蘭國
zh 伊斯兰国

GregKaye 00:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Let me complete the list as some may have been left out:
* French Wikipedia (État islamique (organisation)),
* German Wikipedia (Islamischer Staat (Organisation)),
* Spanish Wikipedia (Estado Islámico) ,
* Italian Wikipedia (Stato Islamico),
Selective? Sure, just happen to be four largest Schengen countries. Cheerio, XavierItzm (talk) 08:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

XavierItzm Yes everything I have seen of you, I think, indicates that you are selective. My edit which had content cut directly from the wikipedia data, contains the French, German and Spanish references. I do not know what happened to the Italian but I presume it was a glitch. Please also think about placing your posts in chronological order. I could similarly place all the references to Isil, ISIS, Daesh and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/Syria in Bold. Did you take a good look at my content before you made your assertion? Please strike your fallacious and defamatory content. GregKaye 16:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Wow, those are some pretty serious accusations and outside of the "assume good faith" rules around here. Funny the long list of provided on 00:24, 1 April 2015 is selective as no Italian and no Spanish "Stato Islamico" (translation: Islamic State) and "Estado Islámico" (translation: Islamic State) references were linked. Looks like someone may have selectively chosen to avoid major Wikipedias which use the official name! XavierItzm (talk) 21:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

XavierItzm: 3 of the Schengen countries you are looking for are listed as "de" (German), "es" (Spanish), and "fr" (French). Italian is missing. Hope it helps. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 02:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Yay, the Spanish was Dutch-sounding from inception until it got revised at 02:37, 3 April 2015. So, what did it say from the beginning of time in the long list above until a fix just few minutes ago? Ah, yes: "es Estado Islámico et Islamiriik (organisatsioon)" Somehow I doubt any of the 405,000,000 native Spanish speakers out there have much of a clue what the words "et" and "Islamiriik" and "organisatsioon" are. But hey, people wanted to call that "Spanish" before it got fixed, what can one say? By the way, thanks for fixing the other editor's errors and omissions. XavierItzm (talk) 02:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I though it was just me who thought it was Dutch-like, but it is this Wiki: [et.wiki.x.io/wiki/Islamiriik_(organisatsioon)] Maybe it is Estonian? Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 03:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

et is te ISO 639 code for Estonian

XavierItzm You are familiar with my comments as I have raised them with you as we have discussed issues of selective reference on your talk page. Your expressed view was "If one stays away from US-centric media ..." The Arabic media (that predominantly use "ISIS", "ISIL", "Daesh" and a full blown rendition such as "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant") is just one portion of the media that use these terms and is hardly U.S. centric. Added to this you continue to WP:SOAPBOX your selective "Islamic State" and other repetitiously presented references by stylising them with bold format. We can honestly do without the POV push. GregKaye 14:23, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

These are some pretty serious, albeit completely spurious, accusations, once again repeated. Please note all my edits have been fully supported by blue-chip WP:RS such as the BBC, The Telegraph, The Guardian, and other leading, reputable sources in the English language. The fact that the BBC, on its definitional page regarding "What is Islamic State?" may mention facts that may make some squirm is no grounds to censor the British Broadcasting Corporation out of this Wikipedia entry. XavierItzm (talk) 21:52, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I still don't comprehend why this was ever at dispute. Sapiocrat (talk) 23:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

There are a great number of references to ISIS, ISIL and Daesh. Selective references that editors may push on these talk page may push "Islamic State" but a range of usages are apparent. When "Islamic State" is used it is often used with qualification. GregKaye 00:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

As you can see from my transliterations, there is not a lot of consensus for a solitary name yet. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 00:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Discuss-Dubious As you can see from my previous arguments, the need for a consensus, and this debate, is what I do not understand. Plus, an easier explanation for the "lack of consensus" you purport to find through your transliterations is the fact that foreign language Wikipedia are also afflicted with the same issue the English article is, or that THEY themselves look to the English Wikipedia for guidance on the name, as it is by far the biggest, and presumably the most up-to-date. As far as the ENTITY IN QUESTION is concerned, ISIL no longer exists. It is called the Islamic State. What consensus are you seeking? Sapiocrat (talk) 14:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, your explanations make sense. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 17:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Of course it exists. There is a group that calls itself Islamic State and which many others call by names such as ISIL. Sapiocrat, as I am sure you appreciate, it is called Islamic State by itself and many others (many of which use "Islamic State group"). It is called ISIL, ISIS, and Daesh almost exclusively by just about every government in the world, by a large contingent of Muslim populations, by a large section of the media and by a large section of the people that the various media outlets interview. The group exists and the only difference relates to the names by which it is described. Please do not WP:ASSERT. A less POV title to this thread could have been a more even handed ""Islamic State" or "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant"" ping also Discuss-Dubious GregKaye 14:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Adding the version with the word "or" would be too long. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 03:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Greg The policy you linked me to quite blatantly says do not assert opinions. The entity in question calls ITSELF the Islamic State (or rather al-Dawla al-Islamiya); this is FACT, not my opinion. Not ISIS, ISIL, Daesh, or whatever else the other actors, or the media calls them: THAT is the assertion of an opinion, and the reasons behind it are immaterial. Thus, please, make the name of the page compliant with WP:ASSERT. Also, please do not WP:ASSERT. Sapiocrat (talk) 14:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Greg The title of the section is in quotation marks for a reason. Sapiocrat (talk) 14:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Sapiocrat Your statement was "ISIL no longer exists". GregKaye 14:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Greg Greg, my statement was that ACCORDING TO THE ENTITY IN QUESTION, ISIL NO LONGER EXISTS. That is also a fact... since they have stopped using that name. Sapiocrat (talk) 14:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Sapiocrat I really goofed there and am extremely sorry for any possible offence taken. You don't need me to say this but what you said was quite fair. GregKaye 15:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Greg No worries, man. None taken, just trying to make sure I'm understood. :) Sapiocrat (talk) 15:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

So is there any consensus yet for changing the name of the article to Islamic State? In this article on 16th April by BBC they call it Islamic State, in the entire article it is only refered to as Islamic State and abbreviated IS http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-32333630

Islamic State is what they call themselves, and they are universally refered to by that name by ever major newspaper, news website, TV Channels etc Just today they killed 33 people in jalalabad in Afghanistan This is clearly an international movement

Islamic state in Iraq and levant is incorrect in everyway and needs to be changed

87.244.94.46 (talk) 23:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

It's controversial, so shouldn't be done unilaterally. I think WP:RM#CM covers how to start a move request. Banak (talk) 23:39, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I requested the move, hope you'll support it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.94.46 (talk) 00:29, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Concerns re: sourcing and wording critical of article's subject

Use of word "extortion"

This word is used five times in the article It is loaded word and violates neutral point of view IS is a state that levies taxes , like any other state When a truck driver wants to operate in a western state, he has to pay road tax, he has to pass toll booths and pay for the use of the motorway To refer to IS doing such things as extortion disguises the reality which is that levying taxes to pay for services to the people is a perfectly reasonable thing to do It may seem like a small thing but it is actually a serious violation of NPOV and this word should not be used The article could do with a lot of small changes like this to make it more balanced

Furthermore, a section should be put in about levying of religiously mandated zakat tax, along with jizyah from christians

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.94.46 (talk • contribs) 22:57, 11 April 2015‎

In various of the other situations the government may have been less likely to have killed, for instance, friends and family members of the truck driver or imposed various restrictions on liberty. If the group changed then things would be a lot more balanced. This is an unelected, religiously motivated group that has taken control of territories often by force in the context of resistance, is depriving students of general education across a wide syllabus while enforcing time consuming syllabuses of religious education on select individuals and also demands money so as to fund these activities. GregKaye 06:38, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Finances

I think it's been widely reported by now that The mosul central bank was not in fact 'robbed' and the money remained there for withdrawal by citizens, so references to this and other so called robberies need to be removed. In any case that money was theirs by right I also object to using the word stolen or looted for artefacts sold by IS Who owns these artefacts if not the iraqi people of the islamic state? They are owned by the Iraqi people of IS and are theirs to rightfully sell if they so wish This is again a neutral viewpoint issue and is to do with people refusing to recognise the political legitimacy of the islamic state as the representative of iraqs Sunnis and insisting on damaging this article by their bias — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.94.46 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 12 April 2015

Have you read previous contents on this? There is an insurgent group that has taken control of various properties that hold items of the cultural heritage of Iraq and, in this case, the world. It is nothing less than the dismantling of culture and history as well as being an insult to anyone with any interest in the origins of the human race and where we come from. The actions of coalition forces in not securing museums upon invasion was also, IMO, crazy but what Isil does in the wilful destruction of culture is detestable. (This is the first time that I have not added an "I think" qualifier to one of my statements in a long time). Its abhorrent, hateful, loathsome, abominable, repellent, repugnant, repulsive, revolting, disgusting, distasteful, heinous, reprehensible, offensive and contemptible. This is world culture fallen into the hands of ignorant or otherwise wilfully destructive vandals. GregKaye 06:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

General tone of article + criticism of IS

There is an awful lot of description of the islamic States ideology and activities by journalists, politicians etc The problem is that they are opinions and frequently biased or misinformed

Why on earth should we take the opinion of a journalist about what IS believers when we know exactly what the ideology of IS is through its propaganda I think the article needs to state the ideology of IS as they see it , which is verifiable sourceble fact quoted from their documents rather than have dozens of opinions from misinformed people which serve to mystify and obscure rather than clarify

This article really needs a big clear up

I also think another article should be created for criticism of IS There is certainly an awful lot of it, enough to fill another article and that will allow people to add as much criticism as they like to the other article

This article should really be about the islamic state, not about other peoples views on it This article should represent the facts about IS and the facts about what it believes, from its own sources, not about what other people think about it or what other people think IS thinks

87.244.94.46 (talk) 16:09, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. Everything is judged by an outside perspective. Claims made by IS itself are no basis for an objective article. No state or organization is a reliable source about itself. ♆ CUSH ♆ 02:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

BTW, Wikipedia should disable IP-users from editing this article and its talk page. ♆ CUSH ♆ 02:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

In my view this is unnecessary. I don't mind the article being semi-protected. Protect the talkpage? Overreaction, especially when users such as 82.20.70.218 are trying to improve the article. In addition, if we have any RFCs like we have had a few for move requests, we would be blocking IPs from contributing to them as well. Banak (talk) 02:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Building the article on ISIS' view of itself is not an improvement. 87.244.94.46 reads more like an islamist ISIS supporter. ♆ CUSH ♆ 09:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

That's clear as day, but that doesn't change anything. Not allowing IPs to discuss changes is not necessary. It's not as bad as you think. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 12:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Is it? They objected to the controversial sentence in the lead. Are you sure you're not talking about 87.244.94.46 rather than 82.20.70.218? Banak (talk) 16:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Just to pont out that the former IP recently removed that comment, which may tell you much that you need to know. Reverted him. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we have one disruptive IP. No that's not all we need to know. Other IPs contribute, most of whom help. Banak (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Great that you understand! Cheers, _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

@IP- Can I have you read the first sentence of the NPOV page? NPOV is actually all about sources.

All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

Italics are used for emphasis. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 12:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

As far as the idea of bias in sources goes, read the linked paragraph (from the NPOV page). We should attribute ideas to sources and thus be within policy. Read this as well. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 13:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

Yes, I've read it and this article fulfills none of it Sources are given undue weight which deserve none, the proportion of negative opinion and non-IS opinion is overwhelming, and all sources are by their nature biased against IS How can only opinions, entirely negative ones, represent all the significant views Isn't how IS sees itself a 'significant view'? I would have thought in an article about IS it would be the most significant and deserving of the greater proportion of coverage

87.244.94.46 (talk) 16:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

No publication made by ISIS or ISIS-supporters is a reliable source. ♆ CUSH ♆ 17:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes it is

All you have to do is preface it with 'according to IS publication dabiq' etc Or 'according to IS itself'. It's not a case of bias when you are simply reflecting what they stated. 87.244.94.46 (talk) 23:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

That would be Original Research. And please sign your comments. ♆ CUSH ♆ 07:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

No wonder so many articles on wikipedia are rubbish when it's editors refuse to ever put anything in simply citing 'original research' or 'reliable source' This article will continue to read like american propaganda until IS is allowed a voice via quotations from its own publications and if your reason for denying IS a voice about itself on its own Wikipedia page is your prejudice against it, better to just say so than chant wikipedia doctrines 87.244.94.46 (talk) 18:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

@Cush: Actually, we have guidelines on using sources as sources on themselves, which isn't necessarily original research.

**The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim.

• • It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities).
    

• • It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject.
    

• • There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. [i.e. fabrication]
    

• • The article is not based primarily on such sources.

From our verifiability page: Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. We prefer secondary sources everywhere else possible, and we never really grant exceptions to other things. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 20:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

In fewer words, you trust ISIS. ♆ CUSH ♆ 05:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

In fewer words, we are allowed to use their words as a source, not use it as the basis of an article, which the IP will not like, because we are always to base articles on third-party sources. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 20:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not a matter of trust when you are simply stating what they said they believe in their publication. But for what it's worth I have never known them to lie, whereas any accusation made against them is frequently made up.

I would be wary of spin in their propaganda.

I'll give you an example, ISIL statements relating to the death of one hostage implied an ability to distinguish between different airstrike participants using F-16s at 35000-something miles above. Considering that this was during a time when Jordan joined the coalition, the idea that they were somehow able to identify it as Jordanian makes the diagnosis a bit suspect. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 20:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Well that was just 2 days afterr Jordan started a blitz of strikes after they burnt kasasbeh So even if the couldn't be sure, not unreasonable to assume it was jordan after they had significantly increased their frequency of bombing at that time Why would they imply it was Jordan if it wasn't anyway? It would be even worse if it was actually an American akrstrike that killed the American girl! And no better if it was a saudi one etc. 87.244.94.46 (talk) 02:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it probably would have been a dreadful irony had a US airstrike been involved, but it would probably not have been likely to inflame as many tensions at that time if it was identified as the others besides Jordan, rather than simply "an airstrike by the enemies of the Islamic State" or something like that. Either way, Wiki rules don't allow us to base articles entirely on first-party sources for other articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Discuss-Dubious (talk • contribs) 03:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Need for removal of treatment of civilians section

The first half of this section is spurious allegations from bad sources which do not clarify anything factual about IS treatment of civilians The rest is westerners complaining about shariah law

It needs to be accepted that in reality the citizens of IS, that is sunni muslims, are treated very well and not subject to any problems The only people who face punishment are criminals who commit crimes, just like anywhere else

The section should be replaced with a short explanation of shariah law, which IS implements None of this rubbish about 'interpretations' or 'variants' or 'strains or strands', shariah law is shariah law and it doesn't vary, so any idea that IS is implementing an 'extreme' form of shariah is rubbish, it is the shariah as it has always existed for 1400 years and will always exist without any change

This whole article has a lot of these weasel words, isn't there a wikipedia policy against that ?

87.244.94.46 (talk) 13:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there is WP:WEASELS, though this probably should be on a different section of our talkpage. Banak (talk) 15:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

We do not need to remove the section because of third-party sourcing (you don't like any third-party sources). The best option here is to show how Sunni Muslims are treated in the group's territory and show what data is inaccurate. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 21:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

"allegations of saudi arabian support"

This section certainly deserves much more fleshing out, and, it would seem, the Iraqi allegations of US support deserves some objective treatment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.252.249.155 (talk) 22:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Find us a reliable source for the last one. But, yeah, we can do the first one. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 18:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

On the question of alleged U.S. support for ISIL, I think this sentence is problematic:

"Rand Paul, the junior Senator from Kentucky, accused the US government of allying with ISIL in the Syrian Civil War by arming their allies and fighting their enemies in that country."

Paul's point was not that the U.S. had actually allied with ISIL - that was said for dramatic flourish. His point was that, by supporting and training members of the FSA who subsequently allied with or joined ISIL, the United States had inadvertently and indirectly provided support to ISIL. This is not the same as deliberate collusion or direct support, but the way it's phrased in the article conflates these two concepts and gives readers a misleading impression.TheBlueCanoe 23:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

agree with above, this sentence needs changing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.94.46 (talk • contribs) 12:40, 12 April 2015 UTC

It's done. There may still be a larger problem with the whole section, but that's another discussion. TheBlueCanoe 12:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

ISIS is a state

ISIS is a state, not an "Islamist rebel group that controls territory in Iraq and Syria". If Northern Cyprus is a state, and the Donetsk People's Republic, then so is ISIS. It purports to be a state, it controls territory, it has an army, and it has a rudimentary form of government. It seems to me that there is no justification for not describing it as a state. This is an entirely different matter to whether it should be allowed to continue exist. To pretend that it is not a state is like pretending that Adolf Hitter was not the ruler of Germany.101.98.186.134 (talk) 05:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Donetsk is classed as a state? That's odd. Regardless, as it's in the middle of active fighting for the territory as the civil war is going on., it shouldn't be considered a state. I think this is stated on list of sovereign states' talk. Donetsk is also listed as a rebel group. Banak (talk) 10:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

'SIL is neither recognised as a state by the international community, by academia or by reliable sources. This has been extensively discussed in previous threads. It would be appreciated if editors would check through previous threads on topics before presenting proposals. I think that this case again raises the issue of potentially requiring editors to register and login b4 editing this talk page. To describe groups like Boko Haram and 'SIL as states is quite far into the realm of original research and, I think, POV. GregKaye 08:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources do not recognise the possibility of Islamic State being "an unrecognised state" so we have to wait to see if and when reliable information points to the contrary. Mbcap (talk) 09:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The contrast between the lede on Northern Cyprus and the one on the Islamic State is significant. "Northern Cyprus [...]is a self-declared state that comprises the northeastern portion of the island of Cyprus. Recognised only by Turkey [...] Northern Cyprus is considered by the international community as part of the Republic of Cyprus."
It seems to me that as soon as one single state recognises the Islamic State, the lede here will have to be harmonised to that of Northern Cyprus. However, if it hasn't happened yet, it might be premature to acknowledge that the Islamic State is yet one, even though it clearly meets all other criteria, including the collection of taxes. XavierItzm (talk) 16:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

It fails as a state on multiple fronts, including no international recognition, all territory seized by arms, no acceptance by the population it controls, active fighting, no stable territory etc. Legacypac (talk) 08:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Disagree. You cannot claim a state is not such just because "all territory seized by arms". England, for instance, is a state, and yet it was all seized by arms. Just ask William the Conqueror. Iran was also seized by arms by a Muslim cleric from its previous ruler, the Shah, and many today regard it as a legitimate state. Bottom line is, The Islamic State is a perfect state except for international recognition. XavierItzm (talk) 14:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

XavierItzm There are a great number of politicians and academics that will consider views as to whether "the armed group", as the UN describes it, is classified as a state. This is not something that you or anyone else can push. There is no source justification for considering it is a state and yet there is a seemingly unanimous view to say that it is not. GregKaye 12:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC) strikes added GregKaye 17:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Greg I wrote the Islamic State is already a perfect state except for international recognition. I.e., I wrote that it is not a state. It will not be a state until at least one established state recognises it. When that happens, the encyclopaedic thing to do will be to harmonise its entry with that of Northern Cyprus. XavierItzm (talk) 15:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

XavierItzm apologies for my earlier misreading/understanding of your content. I was also unaware of the content of List of states with limited recognition#Criteria for inclusion which certainly mentions two options, either to satisfy the declarative theory of statehood, or to be recognised as a state by at least one UN member state. I don't know if you can help with a guide to the rational for the second case or on what it is based.

The self-declared "Islamic State" does not itself consider the validity of any other state.

I do not know of any other situation in which international views have been put more clearly to say that the group is not a state.

If we go by the mentioned declarative theory then we find that a state has to have a defined territory. How is this possible with a group whose whole creed denies the existence of borders. This is a warring group that shows no signs of wanting peace and, perhaps, would only be declared a state by a state that had become its puppet. I doubt that it would come to this but don't personally think that Wikipedia should advocate shotgun statehood. I would also be interested to know when the declarative theory or statehood was itself first declared. In any case I don't think that your comparisons to nations like England carry any weight. The "the land of the Angles" has long been "the land of the Angles" with a largely consistent population no matter who was in charge and which has not, as in the unstable nature of the ISIL situation, suffered consistent "ethnic" cleansing. This group would need to be able to sit down with stated borders and a stable population to have the possibility of even being considered as being a state on an international basis. Otherwise I think that Ban Ki-Moon's interpretation of an 'Un-Islamic Non-State', echoed across the Arabic world, carries. GregKaye 20:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The original Bolsheviks of 1917, led by Lenin, Stalin, Bubnov, Zinoviev (Ovsei-Gershon Aronovich Radomyslsky), Kamenev (Rosenfeld), Sokólnikov (Brilliant), and Trotsky (Bronstein) were not much for borders either; they fully expected the Socialist International to take over the world. The Soviets in fact took over half of Europe when they had the chance and otherwise fought proxy wars until their bitter end. Didn't they use to say that borders were a Capitalist construct? Never did anyone refuse statehood recognition to the Socialists just because they are expansionist. Likewise, the Islamic State is a perfect state but for the fact it has yet to be recognised by some other state. XavierItzm (talk) 21:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

While the entity is not a qualifying "state" under the constitutive theory of statehood, it satisfies every requirement set forth in the declarative theory of statehood, including "the capacity to enter into relations with other states". (See Sovereign state for elaboration.) Jean-Jacques Rousseau, in The Social Contract, considers "war" a "relation between State and State." It is a matter of fact that a multitude of States have engaged in open warfare against this entity. Whether war constitutes a bilateral relation aside, it is a matter of fact that this entity, on an institutional level, has at least dealt with Turkey (and has thus far respected the sovereignty of Turkey), whereby said dealings resemble relations more than they resemble lack thereof. Recognition by a recognized state is one way of attaining statehood, it is not a requirement. Sapiocrat (talk) 16:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the clarification; makes perfect sense. From a strictly pragmatic POV, however, isn't it true that in the ignorant media and public imagination, the established ideas of Grotius, de Vitoria and other other founding fathers of international law have been usurped by the UN political process, which will reject statehood for whatever the five real powers of the Security Council deem politically unacceptable? XavierItzm (talk) 12:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Unrecognized state

A better classification would be as an unrecognized state, in the sovereign and Weberian sense it is undoubtedly one. I also looked for some media reports that confirm this:

• How ISIS Governs Its Caliphate (Newsweek): "Throughout the captured grounds of Syria and Iraq, ISIS is showing every indication of building a functioning state out of the prevailing chaos."

• ISIS: Everything you need to know about the rise of the militant group "ISIS is putting governing structures in place to rule the territories the group conquers once the dust settles on the battlefield. From the cabinet and the governors to the financial and legislative bodies, ISIS' bureaucratic hierarchy looks a lot like those of some of the Western countries whose values it rejects..."

• Is the “Islamic State of Iraq and Syria” a Real Country Now? (Salon): "some terrorism experts...suggest that the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria—the militant group that took over the city, is coming close to actually being the “Islamic State” implied by its name."

CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Baathist (non-religious) origins?

A recent article be Der Spiegel claims that the group was started by Baathists who only use Islam as a propaganda tool. --CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

ANI thread editors here may be interested in

See Do we have a Daesh (ISIL) sympathizer?

Ian.thomson (talk) 23:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring complaint

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.

---

An AN/EW report about violation of WP:1RR at this article. See WP:AN/EW#User:Nulla Taciti reported by User:Khestwol (Result: Restriction for one week) if interested. Khestwol (talk) 10:51, 20 April 2015 (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 19 April 2015

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: Not moved (snow closure). NW (Talk) 14:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

---

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State – Islamic State is what they call themselves, and is now the way they are called by all news media including BBC etc without reference to isis/isil. It also reflects the international nature, since they exist in Egypt, Libya, Nigeria, lebanon, yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan as well as iraq and Syria. And those are only their official provinces and affliates, many other groups have expressed support and allegiance. So to refer to them being in Iraq or syria is not accurate , they exist internationally. This change is long overdue, I hope you'll all agree 87.244.94.46 (talk) 00:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Support per WP:COMMONNAME: "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used". Note WP:DIFFCAPS means the article at Islamic state would not have to be moved. Will list evidence below in next section to avoid taking up too much roomBanak (talk)

Diffcaps is a bad naming scheme. Other articles include Islamic State of Iran, Islamic State of Afghanistan, Islamic State of Pakistan, Islamic State of Azawad and of course Islamic State of Iraq. This isn't a simple change, you would need to fix dab pages on other articles. -- Aronzak (talk) 04:04, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Fixing any (main space) links to Islamic State, not sure if that is what you mean. Banak (talk) 07:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

First 10 Google news search results for "Iraq" - Banak

First 10 Google news search results for "Iraq" Slate article "ISIS" used in article summary, 3 times in article. "So called Islamic State" Used once. "Da'sh" Used once plus 3 times ina quote. "Islamic State" used 9 times without qualification. daily mail article IS used in url, ISIS in title and summary "The Islamic State group" ISIS x2 and in one caption "Islamic State" unqualified x3 Fox News article ISIS in title and URL Islamic State used 5 times ISIS used once in the article USA today article Islamic State used 6 times BBC news article 4 uses of Islamic State 4 uses of IS Links on page to further BBC articles use Islamic State except 1 for ISIS and 2 for IS. Telegraph article Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant used once ISIL used 12 times National review Islamic State used once ISIL used once NYtimes article No mention of Islamic State by any name. mediaite article No mention of Islamic State by any name. rudaw.net "Islamic State" used once. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banak (talk • contribs) 01:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

First 10 google news reports for "Syria" - Banak

First 10 google news reports for "Syria" bbc news article Somehow doesn't refer to Islamic State at all. NPR ISIS in title/headline "the self-proclaimed Islamic State" in lead the Islamic State in leading caption 5 uses of "ISIL" the guardian "Islamic State (Isis)" used once ISIS used twice further. BBC again] "the jihadist Islamic State (IS) group" Islamic State used in caption IS used in another caption IS used 7 further times foreignpolicy Islamic State used twice Washingtonpost the Islamic State used once. cnn No mention of IS. NY times "the Islamic State, also called ISIS or ISIL" "the self-described Islamic State" "the Islamic State" twice more. ibtimes article "the Islamic State group" twice al "the extremist Islamic rebel group known as ISIS" "the Islamic State" "ISIS forces" in caption ISIS once more in article. Banak (talk) 01:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose The proposed title is just pushing POV while NOT being used frequently by sources. By the way, per WP:TITLECHANGES we'd better not to move this stable title and concentrate on the article itself instead. We had many such long threads before which were not ended with consensus. Mhhossein (talk) 02:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
• Strong Support It is absurd that Wikipedia is using the term ISIL, which is not descriptive nor in common usage nor is it used by the organization in question. The use of "ISIL" is an effort to push anti-Israel POV because Israel is part of the Levant. If editors are uncomfortable with the accurate term Islamic State, then "ISIS" would be the second best option simply because of common usage. MiamiManny (talk) 20:19, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose do a Google news search for ISIL in just the last 24 hours, it's used by hundreds of outlets, and used by the US DOD. Unless ISIL falls out of common usage then there's no need to move the article on ideological grounds. -- Aronzak (talk) 03:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per the 6 previous similar move requests ; This organization is not the only Islamic State, and Islamic state is a completely separate topic for which title case entry is possible. Plus "(The) Islamic State" properly means the Caliphate, and that properly means the first caliphate, not any modern entity. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:14, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment renaming it to Da'esh or similar would be much better, since that term is not used in English to mean any other entity, is used in English and many other languages, including Arabic. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
    • No, it wouldn't. Da'esh is nowhere near the WP:COMMONNAME. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:22, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose It honestly seems to me that this submission was either made without reading the previous RMs or that it is extremely tendacious inclined. Selective information from a previous RM is supplied, which hardly implied support, without direct reference being given to those RMs to allow readers to see challenges to information presented. It is a POV name. The Jordanians write "enemies of Islam" on various bits of their ammunition. They are opposed by a great proportion Sunni, Shias and Sufis and only represent a variant of the Sunni based Salafi Jihadic doctrine. In comparison there are Islamic states whose status of being Islamic states has been relatively uncontested. GregKaye 06:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. An Islamic state means a caliphate. It's true that Da'esh represents itself as a caliphate, but it's not the primary meaning of the term. The trivial difference in capitalization is not sufficient to distinguish these senses, either; because "The Islamic State" represents itself as an Islamic state, a reader with no prior understanding of the topic could get very confused. Moreover, nothing has really changed since the last move request, all of three months ago. Unless some urgent problem requires that the name of this article be changed, new move requests should probably be discouraged. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 06:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Groups' self-naming is disputed by Muslim World and their 'stateness' is disputed. kazekagetr 10:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Aronzak, it is not on ideological grounds, it's on grounds of self-designation, a wiki rule, common name, a wiki rule and on accuracy, also a wiki rule Gregkayelkaye, it is not a point of view issue at all. What is point of view is you opposing it despite it fulfilling all the criteria of wiki rules It doesn't matter whether or not it is an islamic state This article page title says it is an islamic state in Iraq and levant You've already given it the designation islamic and state! So why not remove the iraq and levant to indicate it operates worldwide and is not called ISIL anymore! It really is silly that you allow your hatred of them to cloud your judgement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.94.46 (talk) 12:41, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose, wikipedia should not become a mouthpiece for ISIL ideological propaganda about themselves. Khestwol (talk) 12:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. While several names are in common usage, ISIL best fits the bill as the WP:COMMONNAME. It's also what's used by international oganizations such as the UN (though some governments, especially European ones, are moving toward Da'esh).TheBlueCanoe 12:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Khestwol, maybe you think BBC is ideological propaganda since they use exclusively Islamic State and IS? The blue canoe, a ISIL is only used by U.S. govt who are obviously got a conflict of interest there, and international organisations are controlled by US Their choice of ISIL is actually an ideological one Whereas international news media like BBC, who are required to be independent and neutral, use islamic state I just cannot understand why you think calling them islamic state justifies them anymore than ISIL does? Do you think by continuing to use ISIL you can actually stop it becoming a worldwide caliphate by the force of language? When they call themselves islamic state, and it is the most common name used by news media I.e reliable sources, any opposition can only be on grounds of bias against them which is not beneficial for wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.94.46 (talk) 13:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

87.244.94.46 As was rightly pointed out by Mhhossein, of course it is a POV issue. If they had called themselves something along the lines of "Islamic State of Salafi Jihadist extremists" then, while being of concern, would arguably have been an acceptable Wikipedia title. As it is they have self-designated as "Islamic State" while purporting to be the state of all of Islam. This is unacceptable.

Please don't attempt to polarise this as an U.S. issue. Throughout the Arabic and Persian speaking world government officials predominantly use Daesh in speaking of the "armed group" as it is described by the UN. Representatives of other governments predominantly use ISIL, ISIS and Daesh. Please note that a variety of News outlets present the group in a variety of ways. Even on the BBC, a group that has long been known to be careless with ethics, regularly include some qualification in their references to ISIL. As has been rightly supported by the responses above the main issue here is WP:NPOV as one of the WP:PILLARs of Wikipedia. Then news sources have a very high if not predominant usage of ISIS and ISIL and, when they do use "Islamic State.." it is often in the context of using texts such as "Islamic State group". What franchise of Caliphate do you think ISIL would represent? GregKaye 15:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

We already have this page called the ISLAMIC STATE of Iraq and the levant all the dropping of Iraq and levant does is clarify that the are not geographically limited to iraq and the levant The same Arab governments, that torture and murder their citizens? The same Saudi Arabia that does exactly what IS does, just ignoring a few islamic rulings so they can keep arabia in one family? Are you really saying that their use of daesh means anything? As far as I'm concerned IS are in complete agreement with quran and sunnah and are a legitimate caliphate according to islamic law, so that is no reason not to name them such, but you probably guessed that already :)

I'm sorry, but your only arguments are that you don't like them calling themselves islamic state, just like Obama doesn't like it, so refuse to allow them to self-designate themselves so, which is ridiculous considering that many news organisations DO use islamic state..

I really can't see how this violates neutral point of view, wikipedia is not taking a leap by referring to them as islamic state when BBC does so and most others... Wikipedia is not conferring them any legitimacy when it calls them islamic state, just as the BBC is not declaring their legitimacy when they call them that There really is no reasonable argument for not changing the title 87.244.94.46 (talk) 16:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

So, how about a ban for 87.244.94.46 ? ♆ CUSH ♆ 16:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• I'd support a topic ban per WP:SPA, given edit warring. -- Aronzak (talk) 18:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

87.244.94.46 None of what you say makes Isil seem any better. All you are doing is demonstrating that issues of deep concern, religious persecutions, deprivation of education across a full possible range of subjects etc. are performed in other locations in the name of Allah than just as is done to extremes in Isil controlled territory. All you are doing is highlighting that other abuses are conducted in the name of various Mohammedan doctrines as are performed to greater extents by your armed group.

It changes nothing. There are believers in Quran based doctrines that I know that can say As-salamu alaykum and mean it. Isil don't represent greater Islam. They are not a state. Isil certainly don't represent the people I know. I'm beginning to agree with Cush. GregKaye 18:05, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Well maybe if you watch the latest video from IS, the first 25 minutes you can see how Christians are actually living happily and safely in IS raqqah after paying jizyah and that the caliph let all the Christians leave Mosul safely even though they refused Islam and jizyah So much for religious persecution. To pay a few hundred dollars a year in tax to the Muslims to be protected is a good deal for the Christians As for deprivation of education, maybe you want to hear about how IS open a nursing school for women? So no problems with education. As-salamu alaykum is only used Muslim-Muslim. We are gentle towards the Muslims and harsh towards the disbelievers, this is the doctrine of Islam. IS are following exactly Quran and sunnah and they are adhering to shariah in every matter. Too bad for you, they are not just a state, they are a caliphate, and they are remaining and expanding despite 7 months of crusader air strikes You can ban me if you like, that's what all Muslims get in this world for exposing the lies of the disbelievers. 87.244.94.46 (talk) 21:35, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

What you actually describe is that people are being selectively forced to pay additional monies in a religiously motivated Protection racket. The fact that the Mosul Christians chose to leave also tells a story. How do we know that they were all allowed to leave? Groups with similar mentalities and associations with ISIL are involved in selective kidnappings. They limit freedoms. Can John Cantlie do and say what he wants?

No problems with education? Really? Are a full range of subjects available? Clearly not. Yours is a regime that censors and manipulates and, I think, is scared to let facts speak for themselves.

Yours is an organisation that kills aid workers and which commits atrocities that has generated horror in the Islamic world. The crusader air strikes as you tendentiously describe them are conducted by nations including Jordan who write enemies of Islam on their bombs and, IMO, they are right - across the world ISIL are chief amongst the embarrassments to religion and you are pushing it right out there. GregKaye 03:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Can an admin SNOW close this per WP:DFFT - the proposer has been blocked for 72 hours for trolling/NOTHERE editng, and the majority of discussions are pushed by them.-- Aronzak (talk) 06:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

---

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

Sex slavery, nicknames and origins of ISIS

WP:ADVOCACY for Daesh

I'm going to bring up three issues, and more experienced people can decide whether to incorporate them into the article. Firstly, the article currently says that only non-Muslim women (especially Yezidis and Christians) have been raped or used as sex slaves by ISIS, although Sunnis who have lived under ISIS control have said that even Sunni women have been systematically raped on a daily basis by ISIS fighters (a practice which they call "sex jihad" - a requirement that women should serve as sex slaves for them as a duty. ISIS posted signs in Mosul to that effect). Here's a news report (which should be an RS) in Arabic, which I can't understand but maybe someone else can : http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ef9_1403543024 Here's a description by Scott Wolf, an American volunteer fighting for the Kurds, describing how Sunnis southwest of Kirkuk told him through a translator that almost all the women in their village had been raped on a nearly daily basis by ISIS fighters (this may not be an RS but it gives some indication of what might be going on): https://www.facebook.com/scott.cardy.18/posts/10153250597398593?pnref=story Second Issue: here's a theory about ISIS' origins which is based on hard documentation (extensive papers captured after one of ISIS' members was killed) rather than the usual vapid conspiracy theories or political finger-pointing, and it's in an RS that we can use, the German newspaper "Der Spiegel". The theory says that ISIS was set up partly by a Ba'athist named Samir Abd Muhammad al-Khlifawi who had previously served as a colonel in one of Saddam Hussein's intelligence agencies. After he was killed at Tal Rifaat in 2014, his captured documents indicate that he planned the structure and initial leadership assignments for ISIS. The article is in English this time: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/islamic-state-files-show-structure-of-islamist-terror-group-a-1029274.html Third issue: among the common frontline nicknames for ISIS (not currently listed in the article) is "Dola Shaytania" - which means "Satanic State" - which is often used by the Kurds. I've seen them use terms like this, and Scott Wolf says it's common near Kirkuk: https://www.facebook.com/scott.cardy.18/videos/10153272857563593/ There may be an RS available for this. Ryn78 (talk) 20:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC) Before I get banned, the sexual jihad thing is a lie, propaganda. A man can only have sex with his wife or slave girl in Islam. Mujahideen do not have sex outside marriage to Muslim girls, that is a sin and is fornication and gets 100 lashes. How anyone believe that rubbish is ridiculous. Secondly IS existed for years in Iraq, it was not set up by any Baathists, and any Baathists who joined had to renounce Baathism and their former apostasy, learn to recite a third of the Quran and take classes in aqeedah, Islamic creed. Thirdly, you already have Daesh insult in the leader, adding another can make this article read even more like propaganda against Muslims, so go ahead and be an islamophobe! Allahu akbar Islamic state remaining and expanding with Allahs permission 87.244.94.46 (talk) 21:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC) So, can we finally have a ban for 87.244.94.46 ? And not just for failing to indent replies properly... ♆ CUSH ♆ 22:19, 19 April 2015 (UTC) Any topic ban proposals need to be raised at WP:ANI. Focus on content here, please. --NeilN talk to me 22:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC) And in Christianity, people must be faithful to their spouse. Doesn't mean there's some magical Christian force preventing cheating. What religion dictates and what actually happens are two different things. --NeilN talk to me 22:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC) It is not attributable to any Islamic state mujahideen that they would ever violate the honour of a Muslim girl. If anyone say IS soldiers raped Sunni women, it's just an disgusting evil lie, plain and simple Like I said, sex is only allowed with wife or slavegirl and only non-Muslim can be slave That is the difference between Christianity and Islam, islam has laws and they are followed and enforced That we are even discussing this obvious lie and propaganda is just a sign of how brainwashed people are against IS In fact they are the best of people.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.94.46 (talk) 22:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC) There are eyewitness accounts of ISIS fighters systematically raping Sunni women at least in a few areas, as well as the much more common rape of Christians and Yezidis. If you want to dismiss these eyewitness accounts, you need a better argument than claiming that even individual Muslims never violate Islamic law (in which case Islamic countries would have zero crime if that were true). Ryn78 (talk) 18:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC) BTW, why is this entire section closed off with an "Advocacy for Daesh" label? Only one person (87.244.94.46) was advocating for Daesh here. My original note in this section raised three issues, none of which involve "advocacy for Daesh" (rather quite the opposite if anything). Ryn78 (talk) 19:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Map

The map is not clear. People not familiar still don't know where everything is located because there is hardly any water on the map. There should a map showing the surroundings.

--2.245.168.6 (talk) 22:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm a little surprised the location map is so far down the article, don't remember that being the case. I thought that map was up near the header to show it's location, but this appears to not be the case. Banak (talk) 14:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Lede

The lede, with its wording ..is an Islamic extremist rebel group controlling territory.. was chosen after long discussions, most notably by GregKaye but also others involved. So it must remain until a consensus is reached to change it. Khestwol (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

1 revert per 24 hours rule?

The warning on top states: "Editors of this article are restricted to 1 revert per 24 hours when reverting logged-in users... Violations of this restriction will lead to blocks or other sanctions". Yet, Mbcap reverted 2 users in a period of less than 1 hour ([1] [2]). It seems the policy is not helping protecting this page from disruption by Mbcap etc. Khestwol (talk) 19:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Maybe log it at WP:ANEW. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 19:54, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

It will result in a temporary block for Mbcap? Can you do it Fortuna? Khestwol (talk) 20:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I doubt it will result in anything like a ban, he hasn't been notified of the General_sanctions at Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Syrian_Civil_War_and_Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant. Mbcap may not have believed the first edit is a revert or it may have been an accident, that is if Mbcap is aware of the 1RR here. I have seen Mbcap go out of their way to obey Wikipedia's rules and act in good faith, so I personally doubt any attempt is being made to be disruptive. That said, if they violated the 1RR, perhaps you should ask them on their user page to revert their offending edit in question? Banak (talk) 21:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

@Khestwol: Also, didn't [3] and [4] happen within 24 hours? Appears to be an accident as your edits are 16 hours apart and you appear to have a good record from your talkpage. Banak (talk) 21:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Mbcap's record as a meticulous, well-documented editor is unimpeachable. XavierItzm (talk) 02:50, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you all for assuming good faith. The sentence which I reverted was one that was discussed above[5]. So it is a mystery as to why it is being deleted without being discussed on the talk page first. Regardless I have reverted myself. This sort of problem takes place all too often. The section on "Islamic State being Islamic" has been so far deleted twice I think. The "Wahhabism" reference in the ideology section has also been deleted and is not in the infobox anymore. I hope something can be done about this. Mbcap (talk) 14:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

1RR is a hard rule in regard to Wikipedia conduct. This is not pointed at Mbcap but I am not sure whether intention by any editor comes into it. If we know the rule then we should follow it. GregKaye 19:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

@Mbcap: The "Wahhabism" reference in the ideology section has also been deleted and is not in the infobox anymore. Yes that is correct it was not there. I just restored it. Khestwol (talk) 15:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The 1RR rule is sometimes quite tricky to understand. I hope this summary I drew up some time ago helps. ~ P-123 (talk) 21:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

ThanksP-123. I made an error in judgement with the revert but I did self revert. However I do think the lead still lacks in informing the reader about their Islamic nature which is something contested in sources. There is no unanimous opinion on the group being unIslamic and this should be in the lead. Mbcap (talk) 21:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Military capabilities

“The overall takeaway from this and several other videos like it, and this opinion is borne out by the facts on the ground, is that Daash remains better trained, more motivated, better led and supported by a logistical infrastructure that the Iraqi government is literally incapable of delivering to their own troops,” said one former British special forces soldier who consults with the Iraqi Kurdish government on military affairs. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 23:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)