Misplaced Pages

Comment - Changed vote to no opinion. Only the Islamic State group (IS) is a viable and sustainable article name. StanMan87 (talk) 12:49, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

It is worth adding late comment that this view is here presented by an editor who has gone into length in presenting interpretations of Islamic doctrines on my talk page as found at User talk:GregKaye#Re: Full picture. StanMan87, the Jordanian air force write enemies of Islam on the bombs that they drop on this group in response to the groups public burning of a proclaimed Sunni Muslim, Jordanian prisoner of war. It is very clear that there are other extremely viable and sustainable names that can be used for the article. GregKaye 23:15, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

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

• The Wall Street Journal:
  
• The Guardian:
  
• CNN:
  
• CNBC:
  
• Fox News:
  
• International Business Time:
  
• Bloomberg:
  
• Sydney Morning Herald:
  
• The Independent:
  
• New Statesman:
  
• National Review:
  
• The Nation:
  
• The New York Times:
  
• The Council on Foreign Relations:
  
• The Atlantic:
  
• Al-Arabiya:
  

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

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

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

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

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

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

StanMan87 -- You have raised some good points. I may need to reconsider. I also prefer Islamic State, nevertheless a progression towards a more policy congruent name would be worthwhile. I am going to do some searches myself and consider those already in your post before making any further comments. Mbcap (talk) 07:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Mbcap You have been consistently reminded of the concept of not stating opinion as fact. Reviews of previous RM discussions, despite repetitions reveal that a range of policy issues are addressed. The reasons we have discussions is to jointly develop policy based decisions based on a range of policy issues. The current discussion relates to a RM for Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State of Iraq and Syria 11:41, 30 January 2015 GregKaye 11:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

GregKaye, I stated that "I prefer" which I thought would have implied that it is merely an opinion. I made the comment to concur with StanMan87's preference and that is all it was. His post gave me a new perspective on the current move and also the way policy is applied, which has compelled me to reconsider, despite my initial opposition. Please consider that this is a learning curve for me. Mbcap (talk) 14:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Mbcap You expressed a preference for what you then (stating opinion as fact) presented as being "a more policy congruent name". Please do not assert unsubstantiated claims. I appreciate that you "made the comment to concur with StanMan87's preference" but, while he quoted one area of policy (in application amongst a variety of names that are all clearly recognisable), as you know, other important policy issues have also been discussed. I prefer what I regard to be these disruptive unreferenced and I think partisan assertions to stop. As you know I have tried at my utmost to explain this to you on a personal basis. Also of note is that the current RM is related to a move to the title Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. Points made in favour of the title Islamic State (islamist rebel group) were I think repeated to a level of disruptive rhetoric in the previous discussion and now, in a topic relating to a different move, the same arguments are I think being pushed irrelevantly yet again. GregKaye 08:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Greg Please concentrate on the current RM, rather than requesting I stop the alleged partisan assertions. It also does not aid to induce a collaborative spirit here, if one was to label others work as disruptive rhetoric. Please concentrate on the RM at hand and appreciate the points raised previously were a related, appropriate and a passing mention of a previous RM, and that is all it was. Mbcap (talk) 17:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Mbcap Do likewise and we will get on just fine. Please get the point here. Ambiguous claims such as regarding "a more policy congruent name" need substantiation for fear of otherwise fitting the description of "empty air". GregKaye 18:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

It is not appropriate for yourself to rehash old issues which have now resolved, in light of your empty air reference. Islamic State is the most policy congruent name and in the future, all related pages will be named as such. I made a passing reference to that. In the meantime I alluded to the fact that it would be no harm to consider a more policy congruent name if it is supported by policy, until the aforementioned action is undertaken. However, in light of RGloucester's comments below, I will be still opposing so that we can rename the page and all related pages to the obviously policy based "Islamic State (group)". I am trying to exert utmost effort to maintain focus on the current RM but you will not let the stick drop so I ask you to drop it please. Mbcap (talk) 18:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Mbcap You consistently neglect to ping the editors that you reply to. The use of the designation "Islamic State" has been viewed to be in violation of WP:NATURAL as well as with WP:NPOV, WP:SOAPBOX in its connection to the naming of a prisoner of war burning group that claims authority over the very faith of the man that it burned. Clearly there are strong policy arguments against the use of Islamic State and, despite the fact you are fully aware of these issues, you persist in dogmatic and I think partisan assertions regarding your personal interpretations of policy. Your arguments have recently been made at great and repetitive length and have been found wanting. It is not appropriate for you, in a proposed article title move discussion to a different title issue to make clearly unsubstantiated claims regarding the supposed superiority of arguments that had failed in the last discussion despite their extensive repetition. Please get this point. Your claim asserting some supposedly "most policy congruent name" flies in the face of the result of recent discussion and seems to me utterly devoid of substance. GregKaye 12:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Greg: I made a passing reference to Islamic State which I explained but you continue to discuss the issue. If we can get the issues down which are; 1)I neglect to ping editors that I reply to, 2)According to you there are clear policy arguments against the name, 3)I allegedly persist in dogmatic and partisan assertion regarding my so called personal interpretations of policy, 4)My arguments allegedly as of late have been repetitive and has left you wanting, 5)I should not discuss unrelated titles in a RM, 6)Previous arguments relating to "Islamic State" allegedly failed in the last discussion (please see NW admins closing statement), 7)I should get the point, 8)My statement about most policy congruent name seems to you as utterly devoid of substance. Is there anything else you want to throw into this basket? I want to discuss this RM so let me make it clear that I have read your post but I do not wish to discuss these things in the current RM. Please concentrate your efforts on the current RM. Mbcap (talk) 13:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Mbcap There has been a relatively succinctly presented RM which is mostly self explanatory and a considerable content dealing with your basket. 1) If you are replying to dialogue content not at the end of the thread it helps, 2) and according to a number of editors in the RM, 3) assertions are best left out if not substantiated, 4) there has been repetition yet a number of editors have been unconvinced, 5) This discussion is for a RM to The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, 6) I am well aware of NW's comments, 7) please, points made are not new, 8) claims need substantiation, If there is no substantiation it is just claim and opinion. Don't you think that is enough. There is not much effort to be made in the RM. It is just a proposal to which editors are welcome to make fair and substantiated comment. GregKaye 18:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Greg you need not have replied to the previous points as all I did was mostly sum up your points from your previous post. I guess we shall add another to the basket; a) claims need substantiation. Got it, anything else you would like to elucidate or is that all. Mbcap (talk) 19:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Mbcap Thank you for your response. The last thing I want to do is add issues. GregKaye 07:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support per nom and StanMan87. Much bigger scope. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME as argued by StanMan87. --Ritsaiph (talk) 13:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• Note to closing Admin The Supporters seem to be split between the two different proposed titles. Editrs should also consider that this proposed change runs counter to the names of maybe a dozen related articles which all use Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant or ISIL in their titles. Those titles were debated by a lot more editors then have commented on this, the 10th formal move request in a few months here. I would think that a lot of editors are tiring on commenting on these move requests. Legacypac (talk) 05:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

It is rather clear cut which option is being supported. The title: Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. The acronym ISIS will used throughout the article and many of those articles related, to replace ISIL. I will personally comb through every single article that mentions ISIL and revert it to ISIS if the change goes ahead. It should never have been changed to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant in the first place based on WP:COMMONNAME. StanMan87 (talk) 07:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

StanMan87 Nothing is clear cut here. At this point there are five opposes and four supports (five if you count my nomination). The original decision to move was based on the existence of more references to Islamic State of Iraq and Levant than references to Islamic State of Iraq and Syria but this did not take into account the prevalent use of ISIS over ISIL. At this point, what is clear cut? However I would to the arguments that, as far as disambiguations go, "... of Iraq and Syria" is more readily understandable than "... of Iraq and the Levant". I would advise careful combing so as not to remove change direct quotes to "ISIL" or footnote references. Legacypac a common practice with non complicated RMs in which decisions are not clear cut can be for them to be relisted. GregKaye 09:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

No StanMan87, you will need to run each and every other article title through an RM before changing it - and that will likely result in some changing and others not and a real mess. Also consider that the UN and all 60 countries in the coalition against ISIL plus Iran and others all use ISIL or Daish to refer to this group - in fact I have not seen any country use ISIS officially. Many media orgs use ISIL too. We already determined the big 4 news services are not united around the term ISIS (above). And it is not clear to me which of the proposed names some editors are supporting when they say ISIS - do they mean ISIS or ISIS spelled out. Legacypac (talk) 09:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Legacypac can you cite this? It is acknowledged that there are arguments on both sides of this RM but, if it goes through, then I would think that there would be a clear precedent to change other article, category, template and other content to match. GregKaye 08:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

This RM has a low # of editors and no clear consensus, so it would make a poor precedent for a site wide change. All controversial title changes should be run through an RM. Legacypac (talk) 15:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment – All arguments about the acronym "ISIS" than "ISIL" being more common have no bearing on whether the title of this article should be "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria", which is a completely incorrect translation and a rather kibosh. As I provided above, the BBC consistently used the long form "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant", but used the acronym "ISIS". Sources that use "ISIS" do not necessarily support the use of "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria". Many sources refer to the group as "Islamic State" with the acronym "ISIS" as well. If people want to name this article "ISIS", that's a separate proposal. Regardless, it is obvious that "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" is not common, and is also a completely incorrect translation. If people want to use ISIS in the body of the article, no name change is necessary. Originally, the body did use ISIS, even with the title as it is now. However, an RfC on the matter supported changing over to ISIL, which is why we use that now. People can start a new RfC if they want. There is no argument for moving to "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" at this point in the game. Zero. WP:TITLECHANGES applies. Such a move would only result in myriad more move requests to "IS", "ISIS", "Islamic State", &c. Moving this article from one controversial title to another is not a solution to this problem, especially when the proposed title is an INCORRECT translation of a name NO LONGER USED by the group itself. RGloucester — ☎ 23:05, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • There is only one article on the BBC site that gives "Islamic State of Iraq and Levant" as the long form of ISIS ("Islamic State of Iraq and Levant" ISIS site:www.bbc.com). That compares to 18 for "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" ISIS site:www.bbc.com and six for "Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham" ISIS site:www.bbc.com. It's a typo, not a style. NotUnusual (talk) 01:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

No, it is not a typo. BBC used that as their main style until they switched over to "Islamic State", at which point they changed over many of their old articles. You can see that the Financial Times does the same thing, and continues to use the long form of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant with the acronym "Isis". The Independent does this as well. British press, on the whole, prefer "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant". Some use Isil, and some use Isis. Some have changed to using "Islamic State" with "Isis" or "Isil". Regardless, it is clear that the acronym is not determined by the long form name. RGloucester — ☎ 03:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

'Levant' is just as much as incorrect as 'Syria' is. 'Levant' was only adopted becuase it is the closest thing that we can refer to Shām as, an Arabic word. It's a half-ass and lazy solution to a common linguistic problem. If you want to go for 'correctness' RGloucester , then that leaves you two options: Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham which is the most accurate and best translation that there is for this group but as you said, the term is no longer used anymore and you stated yourself you are not a fan of using the Arab word Shām in the title as it's the English Misplaced Pages. Then why is it we refer to Al-Qaeda as Al-Qaeda and not The Base? Because it is more common and more widely known? Because there official name is Al-Qaeda? As per WP:COMMONNAME, it is the most acceptable choice. Just like the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria is more recognizable than Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, as shown above. So then that leaves the Islamic State, the official and current name of the group which was voted with 5 in support (Including myself) and 4 against, including yourself. This name was also proven to be just as common as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant if not much more so by Mbcap and John Smith the Gamer. But you voted against the proposal. So now I am perplexed RGloucester . You obviously do not want 'correctness' as you are opposed to both of the names I have listed. Yet, at the same time you favor the name that is less recognized (as shown above, and in the previous change of name discussion), less common and therefore against WP:COMMONNAME. As for WP:TITLECHANGES, this policy was cited many times when I sought to change to the Islamic State (islamist rebel group). Allow me to quote: If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed. How long has this article been stable for? How many copious change of name requests have been initiated? How many previous names has this article been known by? This article is not stable at all.

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

No, it isn't. We don't speak foreign tongues here. There is nothing accurate about mixing a foreign language with English. "Levant" is the most accurate term, the term that is most recognisable, and the term with the most historical gravitas. "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" is not more common. In the British and Irish press, it is almost never used: The Daily Telegraph, the Financial Times, the Daily Mail, the the Irish Independent, The Scotsman, The Guardian, the Daily Mirror. Sure, plenty of these use "ISIS", but they all use the long form "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant". I might be able to understand a move to "ISIS", but not at all to "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria", as it is a crap translation and not frequently used. I personally think there should be no change. It seems to be that you're just out to change the title, with no particular care for what title you get to. Sorry, read WP:TITLECHANGES. Please stop making a mess for no reason. This title is fine, it is common, it is an adequate disambiguation. Any title for this article will be controversial, and there is no reason to move this article to the worst of the available options, i.e. the defunct, incorrect, and uncommon "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria". RGloucester — ☎ 03:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

"Any title for this article will be controversial" Then based on what you have just typed, you should have been fine with the proposal to change it to the Islamic State (islamist rebel group) which was shown to be the current, correct and very much common alternative in that discussion. You are very inconsistent with your reasoning to oppose, oppose and oppose. StanMan87 (talk) 03:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

No, because I like consistency and stability. If none of the proposed titles are perfect, and all are controversial, the stable title that has been here for ages is the one that should stay, per WP:TITLECHANGES. Regardless, I strongly oppose the word "rebel" on WP:LABEL grounds. RGloucester — ☎ 04:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I'd just like to add that soon if not now the terms ISIL, ISIS and Daesh (acronymization of Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham) will become largely irrelevant as this group continues to spread outside its tradtional sphere of influence in Iraq and Syria to places like Algeria, the Sinai in Egypt, Libya and now along the Afghan-Pakistan border. Whether in violation of WP:NPOV or not, the term Islamic State (IS) will soon become the most and only viable alternative. Please keep this in mind. StanMan87 (talk) 03:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

If that's the case, there really are absolutely no grounds to move this to the proposed title, as it will only result in a succession of moves to nowhere. Of course, we know that your proposed title ("Islamic State") has been rejected numerous times, and will continue to be rejected without adequate disambiguation and attention to neutral point of view. RGloucester — ☎ 03:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Attention to NPOV? As per WP:TITLECHANGES, "discussing the appropriate title of an article, remember that the choice of title is not dependent on whether a name is "right" in a moral or political sense." I guess this overrides the neutral point of view/ethical/moral consideration. But I no longer care to waste my time anymore. I have argued my case. Soon I will stop editing Misplaced Pages in 1-2 months time after I see to some articles that need urgent attending to. You, I assume are in Misplaced Pages for the long term. This article will be your problem and issue, not mine. This article has been stuck in the past for 8 months. The group has a new name which is common and recognizable. These name changes are the consequence of that. There will be many others who will opt to change the article name, and perhaps better argue the case than I have tried to do. And as I said, all other alternatives will become irrelevant if the Islamic State remains and expands. So this article seems to be in a bit of a dilemma. StanMan87 (talk) 03:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Note NPOV doesn't come into it due to povtitle. Aside from POVTITLE, consider that no admin would make a change that violated NPOV, as even consensus doesn't override NPOV. POVTITLE doesn't violate POV. The article makes it very clear that few consider IS Islamic or a State. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 04:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I was not referring to "Islamic State". I was referring to the use of the word "rebel" in Mr Stan's proposal, which is an unacceptable word per the MOS section value-laden labelling. "Rebel" is commentary, as would "terrorist" or "islamist" be. Maybe one could use "organisation" or "group", but certainly one cannot tack commentary onto it. Whilst POVTITLE does exist, it only applies when a singular non-neutral common name overrides all alternatives, which is not the case here. It does not apply to parenthetical disambiguation, either. RGloucester — ☎ 04:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure "Rebel" is a contentious label, but (group) does work for me, and is shorter. However, I was not talking about parenthetical disambiguation. I was more trying to stop another "We can't call them IS as that's POV" discussion. I should have been more clear, but I wasn't very awake when I posted that. Most of the discussions we've had here on NPOV have been about limiting IS's influence on this article. Also, another single purpose account has edited this article again and reinserted material in a manner almost identical to an account that was permanently blocked under WP:DUCK. 1John Smith the Gamer (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Isis is a deity who retains worshipers to this day (Disclaimer; I am not one, although I know at least one). To conflate Her, even minimally, with this organization is disrespectful and inappropriate in the extreme. Furthermore (at the risk of appealing to authority, to my knowledge President Obama uses "ISIL" exclusively. *Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 20:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - the correct title for this entity is overwhelmingly becoming simply "Islamic State", however much people try to emote about it and say they don't deserve the title. Whether it's primary for that topic is a matter for debate, but in any case the proposed move does not help anything at all.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support - I am shocked that Misplaced Pages is using "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" to describe the Islamic State. It's inaccurate, not widely used, and a French colonial term rejected by the anti-colonial Islamic State. There appears to be a consensus here to redirect to somewhere else. I support redirecting to "Islamic State," but any other title is better than the current one. MiamiManny (talk) 13:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support Per WP:COMMONNAME and pretty much what every one else has said. ISIS has the sources, it's what everybody calls them, and really, the only thing that ISIL had going for it is that the US government was calling it ISIL. Every other source in the world calls them ISIS, and that's what Misplaced Pages should call them too. Tutelary (talk) 01:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Just want to note that this is patently false. I provided tons of sources above. By the way, the proposal isn't to call this article "ISIS" or "ISIL", but "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria". Many sources use the full name "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" with "ISIS". See above. If you want to propose "ISIS" as a title, maybe people will support that. RGloucester — ☎ 23:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support. I for one had never heard of ISIL outside of Misplaced Pages and was initially confused and thought it was another, similar group. I don't care what the second S refers to, as long as it's there. Antti29 (talk) 09:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I guess that means you don't read many news sources, since it is used by every British and Irish paper. RGloucester — ☎ 21:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Being Finnish, I don't read British or Irish newspapers. You, on the other hand, seem to read them all. Antti29 (talk) 07:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. I think that Islamic State of Iraq and Syria provides good, recognisable and natural disambiguation from the article on the Islamic state governance methodology. Another natural disambiguation might be Islamic State group which has common usage. However this still does not account for the fact that all previous Islamic states were groups and within contexts, for instance, of the Arabic article moving to the title Daesh, I think that an ISIS related title is appropriate. GregKaye 11:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The present title provides "good, recognisable and natural disambiguation from the article on Islamic state", Mr Nominator (be careful, closer). It does so without using an incorrect translation that is not used by any British outlets, is outdated, and simply wrong. WP:TITLECHANGES tells us not to move articles from one controversial title to another, and that applies here. The present title is more correct, is widely used, and has been stable for months. The group in question does not even use the proposed title anymore, and most outlets do not use it either. British outlets never used it, and maintain "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant", and American outlets have largely adopted "Islamic State". This is really just the worst possible proposal I've ever seen. RGloucester — ☎ 21:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

You keep mentioning the BBC. At least online, BBC doesn't use "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant". If you look at the BBC special report on for Islamic State, you will see they use "IS" and "Islamic State" to refer to the group. Banak (talk) 21:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say "BBC" anything in my recent comments. Since you mentioned it, BBC previously referred to them as Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant prior to the changeover to Islamic State. This can be verified by looking at previous RMs, specifically this one, and also by comments above, where I address that issue. Here is an example of their usage, which consists of "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS)". BBC does not make the totality of the British press. RGloucester — ☎ 21:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I misread your earlier comments and I apologise. You only said the BBC used rather than uses "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant". Indeed, they do not make the totality of the British press, but are a part of it. Banak (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• Strongly Support. According the source. --Panam2014 (talk) 08:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

What source? RGloucester — ☎ 05:02, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME - ISIS is far more known so personally I think it should be moved... –Davey2010 05:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

@Davey2010: The proposed title is not "ISIS". The proposed title is "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria", which is neither commonly used nor an accurate title. If you support a move to "ISIS", I can understand. I too would support a move to ISIS, as that is genuinely the common name for this body, used by those that use the long forms "Islamic State", "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant", and "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria". "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria", on the other hand, is not a common name, as has been demonstrated by the evidence above. There is no reason why this article cannot be titled ISIS. No disambiguation is even necessary, given that it is a clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and that it already redirects here. RGloucester — ☎ 06:32, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Damn sorry that should've said "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria/ISIS" - "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" and "ISIS" are far more used than "ISIL" or "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant", Well I've noticed they are anyway. –Davey2010 06:43, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

@Davey2010: "ISIS" is more common than "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" and "ISIL", but "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" is not more common than "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant". This is where it gets tricky, because sources that use "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" and "Islamic State" as long forms use "ISIS" as a short form, as I've demonstrated above. To sidestep this issue, I've proposed a move to ISIS below. Please comment. RGloucester — ☎ 06:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Ariel 05:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
• oppose islamic state of iraq and syria. no one calls this islamic state of iraq and syria. never using in sources. user above know this. anyway now there isis out of that area. sources use ISIS. only title should be ISIS. support title as ISIS. always using in all sources. islam state is o.k. but ISIS is better and i support. Togashi Yuuta (talk) 05:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: Title the article ISIS

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

• Support as proposer. RGloucester — ☎ 06:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
• Note to closer – I would argue that in assessing consensus in the above discussion, you should be careful to make the distinction between support for "ISIS" and for "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria". I would say that this discussion could be easily closed with a move to "ISIS", given that everyone here agrees that ISIS is the common name, but not to "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria". RGloucester — ☎ 18:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
• Note to closer - Everyone does not agree that ISIS is the common name. There are numerous opposes in the above discussion. ISIS is an acronym and should not be used. NATO is called NATO because that is the common name and is not known by any other name. Hardly anyone knows NATO is actually called North Atlantic Treaty organization. Islamic State is completely the opposite. Islamic State is the common name for this group with ISIS being used as the acronym in US media. In europe, they use the term ISIl but just like in US, Islamic State has become the common name. Moving this page to ISIS or even the name spelled out, will still keep the problem of unstable article title because no doubt there will be future RM's to move to Islamic State. Mbcap (talk) 18:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment, One thing that is clearly apparent and which, coincidently, is the core of contentions here, is that the group clearly do not have a clear, unanimously agreed designation and it all blew up following the groups proclamation of themselves as being "Islamic State". A variety of presentations of "ad-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fī al-‘Irāq wash-Shām" are made and, of all or them, ISIS and ISIL are the certainly the most common. Many Misplaced Pages's use a title such as "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" or the same ending ".. Iraq and Syria". Hindu Misplaced Pages uses ISIS and, at the centre of the storm, Arabic Misplaced Pages uses Daesh. The main reason for the move is due to the prevalence of the use of ISIS amongst sources and there certainly is an argument to cut straight to the change so as to make use ISIS as the actual title. GregKaye 22:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Oppose, By my understanding of WP:NCA, is not primarly known by that acronym. Banak (talk) 23:43, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

It is primarily known by the acronym. You won't find people saying "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" or "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" did something, but that "ISIS" did something. In fact, this is a case where WP:NCA explicitly supports using the acronym. This is so true, in fact, that many sources only use ISIS, with no long form. For example, take a look at this NBC News article. The organisation is referred to as "ISIS", and nothing else. No long form is presented. The only mention of a long form is in quotation ("Islamic State"), but no long form is ever used in NBC's voice. RGloucester — ☎ 01:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Ariel 05:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Islamic State" is the name the organisation prefers to use, and it is also the common name. Sure, much of the media often (but not always) abbreviate it, which is normal, but this should have no prevalence on the issue. Even then, such shortening seems to be most common in US-centric media, following the lead of its current administration.
  "Islamic State," two words used on 59,600,000 Google results, is quite the valid choice per WP:COMMONNAME.
  Furthermore, "Islamic State" is the tile of the French Misplaced Pages (État islamique (organisation)), the German Misplaced Pages (Islamischer Staat (Organisation)), the Spanish Misplaced Pages (Estado Islámico (organización terrorista)), the Italian Misplaced Pages (Stato Islamico), the Portuguese Misplaced Pages (Estado Islâmico do Iraque e do Levante), and the Russian Misplaced Pages (Исламское государство). There you have the six top non-Asian world economies. XavierItzm (talk) 18:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" as least problematic option, and it does cover the 2 countries where it is the de facto govt. of significant areas. "Levant" is a dated term, plain "Islamic State" is highly problematic, "ISIS" is possible, but we need a disambiguator, one way of doing so is to expand the initials. PatGallacher (talk) 21:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Emblem

Is there any RS on the emblem? The emblem reads "Islamic State of Iraq and Sham" so we need a good RS dating to after their name change.--Kathovo talk 17:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

no you are reading an alternative (non) translation clearly detailed in the lead of this article. Sham=Levent. The emblem is often visable in ISIL released and other published photos, especially on vehicles but also billboards and buildings. Just google image search and you will see it. It is used so much I don't think we need to provide a specific source for its use. Legacypac (talk) 12:35, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The emblem with "Iraq and Sham" is no longer in existance. The image is not visible on any ISIL released photo or vehicles or billboards or building since their name change. Mbcap (talk) 15:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

It looks more like fan art since I have never encountered it in any of their official publications. Interestingly it is only exclusively found in English language websites.--Kathovo talk 10:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

They no longer include of "Iraq and the Levant" in their name, I see no reason that they would keep it in their banner. Banak (talk) 10:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Can we therefore delete the emblem because it is inaccurate information. Mbcap (talk) 21:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I did but @LightandDark2000: reverted it stating no consensus was reached in talk page.--Kathovo talk

They still use the same flag, so they probably still use the same emblem. LightandDark2000 (talk) 19:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

LightandDark2000 could you please provide sources that corroborate the view that they use this emblem. Mbcap (talk) 20:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Restoring Section on "Sexual violence and slavery" After the Edit Wars

See also: Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/Archive_29#Section title Jusifications (asserted) for sexual slavery and Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/Archive_29#Propose deleting section: Justification based on Islamic religious text.

I think some useful text in the section on "Sexual violence and slavery" was lost during the recent edit wars. I've put back in what I think is appropriate and consistent with the pre-war consensus. It does not include the lengthy quotations from the Quran, and I do not believe it includes any copyright violations. It does have a couple of direct quotations, but they are within quotation marks, the speakers are clearly indicated and the sources are cited. If anyone does believe the text as it stands still contains copyright violations, I'd appreciate it if they would identify the specific sentences involved so we can resolve them. I think what we have is reasonably encyclopedic, but if there are concerns about the tone or balance, let's talk about it. Thanks. EastTN (talk) 21:20, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree, but thought most people on this talkpage opposed it. Previously removed text was discussed to be readded, but I don't think we ever decided how. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 21:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

You're adding the Daily Mail and Jihad Watch as sources? Seriously? --NeilN 21:45, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

John Smith the Gamer, you may be right. I've tried to reflect the more rational comments as we've gone along. Please take a look and see if you think I've done a reasonable job. Now that things seem to have cooled down a bit, we should be able to talk about and adjust the language a bit more dispassionately. NeilN, I took the two citations to Jihad Watch out. Including the Daily Mail doesn't give me any real heartburn, but others may have a different views and we can certainly talk about it. I'm not sure it matters much in this case, because there are multiple sources for what ISIL has said on this topic. EastTN (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I added some stuff for balance, couldn't see anything that seemed POV pushing. The sections that were removed included things titled "justification for...", I'll try to fish them out of the history and clear them up if I get time, but need to update the map due to advances. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 00:14, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! That sounds good. I think much of the useful material from the "justifications" sections has already been folded in to the rest of the article - but it would be good to check. EastTN (talk)

Looks like it, had a go at clearing it up. Diff shows how it was. I've managed to get rid of some of unencyclopaedic content, but finding the first paragraph a little difficult to clean up.

Partially cleaned up old content

Sexual slavery

ISIL claims it has religious justification for the treatment of its captives based on the Hadith and Qur’an, which has received widespread criticism for explicitly citing verses from the Qur'an by Muslim scholars and the rest of the Muslim world. Muslim leaders say it is forbidden to use part of the Qur'an to derive a ruling in isolation, rather that they must consider the he entire Qur’an and Hadith. They publicly claim religious justification in enslaving and raping captive non-Muslim women citing Qur'an verses. An ISIL source claimed they wish to ethnically cleanse the land they control of all non-believers. Non-Muslim women have reportedly been married off to fighters against their will. They claim women provide new converts and children to spread ISIL's control. Dabiq, an ISIL magazine claimed "enslaving the families of the kuffar and taking their women as concubines is a firmly established aspect of the Sharia’s that if one were to deny or mock, he would be denying or mocking the verses of the Qur'an and the narration of the Prophet … and thereby apostatizing from Islam,". Captured Yazidi women and children are then divided amongst the fighters who captured them, with one fifth taken as a tax. Dabiq claims that taking forced wives reduces risk of infidelity.Yazidi and Christian girls are sold for a price of around $175 in Iraq. Those who don't cooperating ‘would be executed.’

Executions

Dabiq cites the severe punishments the Prophet Mohammed gave to traitors as a justification for their actions. An Al-Qaida-affiliated leader expressed support for the beheading of American journalist James Foley by a member of ISIL to terrorize "the enemies of Islam". He points out he is responsible as he didn't pay for religious protection from ISIL. and that Islam since it is a religion of violence. A captured fighter said he deliberately drew out the beheading of others to inflict more pain on them.

ISIL has publicly crucified people, including a 17 year old boy in Syria, and those who had already died. People who are convicted of supplying information to media outlets or counter-terrorism establishments are executed. They claim that the Qur'an justifies executing, including by crucifixion those "who wage war against Allah" An ISIS commander claimed they try to convert others before they die to save them punishment in the afterlife.

Persecution of Yazidi

Yazidis, a religious minority of 650,000 in Iraq and 50,000 in Syria, have been persecuted and considered as devil worshippers by ISIS. Some have been forced to convert to Islam.

Banak (talk) 23:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

References

1. ^ Kumar, Anugrah (13 October 2014). "ISIS Claims Islam Justifies Making 'Infidel' Women Sex Slaves". The Christian Post. CHRISTIAN POST CONTRIBUTOR. Retrieved 1 January 2015. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
2. Spencer, Robert (2 January 2015). "Islamic jihadist says slavery biggest honor for non-Muslim women". Jihad Watch. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
3. Sypher, Ford (28 August 2014). "Rape and Sexual Slavery Inside an ISIS Prison". The Daily Beast. Horror. Retrieved 5 January 2015. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
4. Abdelaziz, Salma (13 October 2014). "ISIS states its justification for the enslavement of women". CNN. Retrieved 1 January 2015. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
5. Harding, Luke (25 August 2014). "Isis accused of ethnic cleansing as story of Shia prison massacre emerges". The Guardian. Irbil. Retrieved 5 January 2015. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
6. Siddiqui, Mona (24 August 2014). "Isis: a contrived ideology justifying barbarism and sexual control". The Guardian. The Observer. Retrieved 1 January 2015. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
7. "ISIL seeks to justify enslaving Yazidi women and girls in Iraq". Today's Zaman. abril. 14 October 2014. Retrieved 2 January 2014. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
8. "Islamic State slave price list shows Yazidi, Christian girls aged 1-9 being sold for $172". 5 November 2014. Retrieved 25 January 2015.
9. "Islamic State enslaves 400 Yazidi women −". 7 August 2014. Retrieved 25 January 2015. {{cite news}}: line feed character in |title= at position 40 (help)
10. Spencer, Robert (4 September 2014). "Islamic State justifies atrocities by citing Muhammad". Jihad Watch. Retrieved 23 January 2015.
11. Spencer, Robert (25 August 2014). "Muslim cleric justifies Islamic State beheadings: "Islam is a religion of beheading"". Jihad Watch. Retrieved 23 January 2015.
12. "Islamic State jihadi says he felt joyous when killing people because "I was killing infidels"". Jihad Watch. 30 December 2014. Retrieved 25 January 2015.
13. "Islamic State crucifies 17-year-old boy for apostasy". 18 October 2014.
14. "Islamic State justifies its jihad against Yazidis". 21 August 2014. Retrieved 25 January 2015.

Thank you very much for doing this! I'll make a WP:Bold stab at merging what hasn't already been merged into the body of the article.EastTN (talk) 17:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The Harding piece on ethnic cleansing is already in the section on "Human rights abuse and war crime findings." EastTN (talk) 18:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I just took a stab at incorporating the text on slavery into the appropriate section in an organic way. I didn't include the stuff based on Jihad Watch, because of a question raised earlier about using that source. Please take a look and see what you think. EastTN (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Had a glance and it looks good to me, but I just smashed my head on a door handle so I can't focus. The text that was already in the article might need a bit of a clean up as well. I'll probably look over the whole of section 4 (Human rights abuse and war crime findings) tomorrow when if I get time. Banak (talk) 22:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Ouch! Hope you feel better soon. EastTN (talk) 22:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

You talked about a heads up in the following thread. But better a heads up, however literally, than a heads off. GregKaye 21:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I found that incredibly funny, whilst putting everything into perspective. You made my day Banak (talk) 22:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I would appeal, perhaps in reflection on the content above, that we proceed with caution. I'd be curious as to what other editors think about the potential best location for this type of information. I think there is an argument that, if this type of information is to be added at all, it could go in a common article such as Islamic extremism. There may be a great deal of repetition if this type of information were placed in every Misplaced Pages article on a similar group. I think that the article should best present information that is unique to ISIL and that care should be taken with presentations regarding interpretations of religious texts. GregKaye 00:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

If we don't use the material from Jihad Watch, which someone objected to above, there's really not that much material here. Having said that, I do think it makes sense to talk about whether we have the material arranged in the most useful way. It seems natural to me that this article would include at least a summary discussion of ISIL's ideology on certain issues, since they are at least ostensibly an ideologically driven group. Is it appropriate to put it into a general article on Islamic extremism when the sources we're using specifically address ISIL's beliefs, and not a general Islamist ideology? Another approach might be to create a sub-article on something like "Islamist Ideology of ISIL." EastTN (talk) 01:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

A person can be considered to be an Islamist simply by having a friendly level of "evangelical" disposition with regard to a version of Islamic faith or something similar. Unique aspects of ISIL's interpretive theology I doubt would be very extensive. People can also be fundamentalists in all sorts of ways as different people may have different views on the fundamentals of a religion. None-the-less, some content might be presented in the Islamic fundamentalism article or, as mentioned, in Islamic extremism. This is a common description of groups such as ISIL. GregKaye 07:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that some content on ISIL should be in the general articles on Islamic fundamentalism or extremism. We already have some in the articles on Slavery in 21st-century Islamism, Islamic views on slavery and Sexual slavery. But it seems appropriate to me to have the most detail on what ISIL believes, says and does in articles that are specific to ISIL. EastTN (talk) 16:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

There's also some material in Sexual violence in the Iraqi insurgency, but that may be more of an ISIL-specific article than a general Islamist one. I believe it has ab bit more detail than the others. EastTN (talk) 16:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I am curious/concerned about the legal/ethical situation regarding these issues. I also think that it is important to keep things in perspective. ISIL are a group that will endorse and publicise the deaths of a British aid worker and a compassionate Japanese man who only came to the area to try to negotiate the release of another prisoner. There is nothing in Islam that justifies these acts and, in this context, I am very uneasy in regard to the presentation of interpretations of Islamic religious texts that are taken to justify similar killings. I am also curious in regard to any extent to which a potential acquisition of female slaves may be a motivation amongst the ISIL militants. The husband and brothers of women of a range of ethnic groups have been slaughtered and, it has been in the context of this death, that the women have been forced into sex slave relationships with men within the killing group. Again I do not see the point in presenting any great content regarding the groups explanations / justifications for their actions.

Another thing that I am curious about is what I think is the possibility of many organisations steering clear of this kind of information and it has crossed my mind that there may be legal issues affecting various organisations. Jihad Watch present various claims and, while I am not sure whether all the content is factually correct, they present their contents as an expose of faults within extremist groups. Other outlets seem to be more reticent in regard to presentations of explanations of the motivations of extremist groups and, if not due to legislation, I think that there are ethical considerations that need to be kept in mind. I really do not think that it is Misplaced Pages's role to give any significant focus reasonings and rationales that the group choose to present. It is blatantly obvious that the group believes in such practices as beheadings and sexual slavery. I don't see the relevance or benefit of significant further comment. GregKaye 21:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

My perspective is a bit different from yours. I agree that it's entirely possible that what the various media outlets report is affected by legal considerations. I'm not privy to what those considerations are, but I imagine they would include the usual concerns about avoiding anything that's slanderous or libelous, and in some jurisdictions legal limitations on naming victims of sexual assault. Once they publish, though, I don't see how that directly affects our work as Misplaced Pages editors. We do, of course, have to follow all of the applicable Misplaced Pages rules and guidelines.

It sounds like your primary concern is ethical. The basic question seems to be whether reporting on ISIL's arguments will promote their idiology, make readers more sympathetic, give their position intellectual cover, or in some other way provide aid and comfort to ISIL. Assuming we do it correctly, my answer would be an emphatic "no." I would share your concern if we were indiscriminately copying ISIL propaganda - but we're not doing that. I firmly believe that if we report clearly and dispassionately on ISIL's actions, beliefs and claims, people will see it for what it is. Yes, they twist Islam. That's at the core of their ideology, and we have to understand that to understand ISIL. Reporting on how they twist the Quran isn't going to make ISIL more attractive to Muslims or to anyone else. There are some ideologies that, when clearly understood, shock the conscience of the world. In those cases the best innoculation against their spread is to make sure as many people as possible understand them as clearly and thoroughly as possible. EastTN (talk) 16:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

If publishing religious texts that justify their attracities did not attract new recruits ISIL would not do it - Misplaced Pages should not be a soapbox for extremist views. Presenting text after text will alternatively convince people that Islam supports ISIL or that ISIL is justified by their faith, or maybe that they are taking things out of context. One can pull Bible texts to justify slavery, honor killing, stoning and other things not practiced by Christians today but Misplaced Pages does not publish defenses of these things using Bible texts. Legacypac (talk) 23:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I am personally against using specific verses in the Quran to back up their claims in the main article, but for outlining their arguments. If we don't cover them at all we fail NPOV, and therefore we will stop people coming to an informed opinion, which I doubt could be anything other than utter disgust at IS. If there was a separate page on IS's religious arguments, I believe that should have specific quotes from the Quran as used by IS. If you believe we are/would be giving undue weight, then we probably should look into that in more detail. Banak (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree that we cannot provide ISIL with a soapbox for their ideology. I'm comfortable, though, that the current text doesn't do that. To your point, it doesn't quote any specific verses from the Quran. I don't see any need for us to go that far. (I would note that the article on Christian views on slavery does discuss specific passages from both the Old and New Testaments and the positions Christians have taken both for and against slavery, and does it in a way that's not inflammatory.) I agree that ISIL believes it can attract support through their religious arguments, but that's when they get to frame those arguments as part of their propaganda. I think we're all agreed that we can't copy ISIL's propaganda into the article.

Misplaced Pages covers a lot of distasteful topics, including Nazi racial theories, eugenics, and white supremacy. This is truly ugly stuff, and some of it's still with us. But I think Misplaced Pages does a pretty good job of covering topics like this in a responsible way. I also believe that, on balance, it's better for Misplaced Pages to make this information available in a neutral, dispassionate, encyclopedic way than to leave it out. We do need to be careful - as I think we have been - to guard against folks trying to turn Misplaced Pages into yet another media outlet for ISIL. But I am absolutely convinced that if we report this ideology straight-up as the Misplaced Pages guidelines call for, readers will be able to see this group for what it is. EastTN (talk) 01:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure what to make of the newly inserted Eschatology section. Banak (talk) 10:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I probably wouldn't have gone into that much detail, but it looks like it was written in good faith. EastTN (talk) 13:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/28/rape-and-sexual-slavery-inside-an-isis-prison.html and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2874435/Isis-puts-Iraq-s-second-biggest-city-lockdown-cutting-phone-lines-banning-residents-leaving-ahead-expected-assaults-government-forces.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Misplaced Pages takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl 15:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Usual hat tip to you, Moonriddengirl. --NeilN 15:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Article name

Based on the logic used in renaming the Bradley Manning article Chelsea Manning (that that is what verifiably the subject of the article prefers), should not this article be titled simply "Islamic State"? Or are there different rules depending on the non-neutral opinions of wikipedia editors? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.5.253 (talk) 13:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

129.215.5.253 You are more than welcome to review past discussions and to consider the various issues involved. GregKaye 23:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I recently supported a failed move request to move to "Islamic State (group)" , IP. However I disagree with your argument. It seems that just because IS declared they've changed their name doesn't make it automatically so, according similar wikipedia policy (e.g. in the case of people wikipedia says to look to others sources). Rather, in my opinion it is the commonname, which I think makes it the correct name for this article. Banak (talk) 23:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

per commonname, why this article isn't titled ISIS, like the Arabic article, which was recently moved to Da‘ish from Islamic State of Iraq and Levant? --Kuwaity26 (talk) 09:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

129.215.5.253 you are welcome to review the situation. If you go to the top of this talk page, you can go through all past discussion's on the naming of the article. I would also echo Banak's comment, that if someone or something changes their name, that is not reason enough to change the name. I guess Bradley Manning was changed because the more common name was Chelsea Manning in reliable sources. The WP:Commonname is one of the criteria that is used to determine the article name. Your point regarding non-neutral opinions, are not strictly true because the move that took place before last, was closed with no-consensus based on valid arguments on both sides. It may also be worthwhile, to take the article naming policy, WP:AT into consideration as that is the main guide for us to deal with this issue. Mbcap (talk) 09:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Is placement of "Territorial control and provinces" strictly correct?

I would like to get editors comments on this section of the main article. To me at least, the title and placement of this section at the current position that it holds on the page, suggests that all of the mentioned provinces constitute territory. Whilst for example, Barqa and maybe Sinai Province do hold territory, the same cannot be said for Khorasan or the Algerian province. My own impression is that these provinces are not provinces as such but the new names of the groups which have now pledged allegiance to Islamic State, some of which have territory under their control. In light of this I thought, maybe we need to rethink how to place these provinces on the page. As I mentioned, Barqa and Sinai Province's could stand where they are at the moment as they do hold territory (not sure about Sinai though), but the other provinces may need to be appropriately placed elsewhere. Otherwise we may give the impression that they hold more territory than they actually hold. If I have overlooked anything or misunderstood the situation, please do let me know. Mbcap (talk) 09:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

TY Mbcap. I had recently moved the information from ISIL#Military and resources due to the repetition of content but realised this was a bodge and highlighted the issue at Talk:ISIL#Province content. The groups with allegiance don't really count as resources and, as you mention, some don't control territory. One way that things could go is to rename section to something along the lines of "Territorial control and international presence". I personally think that some of the content has been added in excess to relevance to the current article as it is all presented in the questionably named ISIL territorial claims article. I am also uncertain as to the extent that the groups would be willing to follow al-Baghdadi's orders and the extent, beyond claims, that this has been verified. GregKaye 11:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Greg the new proposed section of "Territorial control and international presence" would be better than the current heading. We would need to clearly differentiate between what is territorial control and what is international presence because the sources I have read do make that distinction. This would, I hope, do away with the false impression that is given by the current section and that given impression is not your fault. I only realised when I was searching through the relevant attributed citations.

For example the Khorasan province, the information contained within reliable sources only go as far as to say that some have pledged allegience and that there is a recruitmant drive. There is no mention of territorial control, unlike the Barqa province. In fact this article from the New York times, mentions the matter of territorial control directly by saying that "there is no indication that the Islamic State controls territory in Afghanistan."

In regards to Sinai province this article from the wall street journal suggests that the army control the entire Sinai peninsula. I could not find any sources to state otherwise.

In regards to the Alergian pronvince, there were no sources to be found suggesting any form of control. They simply stated that they had pledged allegiance and were not a major force here.

Barqa province controls territory and this is shown by the sources. There may be some element of control exerted by Baghdadi on Barqa as reported here but the information is sourced from Al-Monitor which in my opinion is not reliable. Your uncertainty as to the extent that the groups would follow Baghdadi's orders are reflected by sources, as far as I am aware. This article from The Nation says that is little to no evidence to suggest practical control over Islamic State's North African provinces but it does admit their apparent influence. I think we simply do not know if they are in control or not because we do not have the necessary evidence.

All of the above taken together, I would suggest the following;

• Rename "Territorial control and provinces" to the suggested "Territorial control and international presence".
• Keep Barqa province in its current place as it controls territory
• Create a new level 3 heading for "international presence" and transfer the contents of Sinai, Khorasan and Algerian province's into there.
• The provinces of Sinai, Khorasan and Algeria, do not need individual separate heading, I think this is giving too much weight. We can reconsider if the situation changes.

Mbcap (talk) 12:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Mbcap Again your diligence in all of this is greatly appreciated and I doubt, IMO, that there would be any objection to these suggestions. Also, given that some content is not relevant to territorial control, let alone territorial claim, have you (or anyone else) any thoughts on the title for (or content limitation of) the ISIL territorial claims article. I personally think that this type of article is best expanded and with content here being cut. GregKaye 18:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes I am aware that my previous post may seem overboard but it was necessary because after I made the discussed changed, the edits that were concerned with clearly distinguishing those provinces that hold territory and those that do not, were reverted. Moreover, the introduction to the section of territorial control and international presence currently says, that they hold territory in Sinai, which is not supported by any reliable source. I am not really sure how to proceed as a repeat edit by me on the same thing, may end up being reverted again. Mbcap (talk) 15:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Inconsistent section headings

These section headings are inconsistent:

1.3 As Islamic State of Iraq (2006–2013)

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

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

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

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

One difference is that the third name change was more widely rejected both in ~Arabic communities and internationally. GregKaye 11:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

That's a curious standard. Nowadays, people and organisations are always allowed to call themselves whatever they want; the politically correct stance seems to be that to call them otherwise is an infringement on their rights. It is not clear why an exception to this rule is to be made for the Islamic State, or why the "Arabic communities" you mention should have special veto power over anyone who wishes to call themselves whatever. XavierItzm (talk) 18:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Widely rejected - so we follow the sources. If you are here to promote the ISIL narrative which includes the name that is highly offensive to both muslims and every country in the world, try a different soapbox. Legacypac (talk) 08:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I notice the BBC, at least, seems to use Islamic State (IS), and other British newspapers also use the name (though they prefer ISIS), so the line that it's offensive is clearly not necessarily one we should accept. W. P. Uzer (talk) 09:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Lead section

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

Also the lead seems to imply that Al-Nusra merged with ISIL. Banak (talk) 14:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

This is not the case, although al-Baghdadi "claimed" that this was the case. I thought that I had cleared this up in the lead, so if it isn't discernible, then someone must have reverted my edit. LightandDark2000 (talk) 04:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Primary target of War on Terror???

The sentence looks like a WP:ORIGINAL to me. In the article of War on Terror, it has been stated that Al-Qaeda is the primary target. And i believe Al-Qaeda is still the #1 target if we look at international intervention. We didint see any Afganistan scale intervention against ISIS. kazekagetr 21:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Funny how I was coming to discuss the very same thing here as well, and I've found this thread. I strongly object to the inclusion of the "War on Terror" in the "part of.." section of infoboxes in articles which involve ISIL. This term still remains a controversial one, and it mainly (if not always) applies to US-led anti-terrorism campaigns. I came across it when editing 2015 Egyptian military intervention in Libya and I've previously noticed it on Sinai insurgency . This merits discussion because I fail to see sources claiming that these conflicts are particularly related to this "war". Fitzcarmalan (talk) 09:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

ISIL is a primary target of the War on Terror. Barack Obama's speeches on the terrorist organization also implies that the US targets ISIL every bit as much as it targets al-Qaeda, if not more so at the moment. LightandDark2000 (talk) 04:20, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit on the Libyan intervention article, and will do the same on Sinai insurgency as well. Unfortunately you did not provide sources claiming that Egypt's operations are part of these particular campaigns. Yes, the Egyptian government is indeed engaged in a "war on terror", but is it the War on Terror in question? Hardly. The only thing linking this to the US in any significant way is when Sisi previously called on Washington to finish what it started in Libya. But I fail to see how this translates into Egypt being part of the "War on Terror". Fitzcarmalan (talk) 08:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Ham fisted lead

In Archive 25 I made a comment regarding the LEAD's unclear and confusing prose/grammer. Unfortunatly as a reader who just wants basic information (as in asking Siri what ISIS stands for) I would get this grammatical nightmare: