Misplaced Pages

Talk:Islamic State: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:38, 28 February 2015 editRothorpe (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers104,418 edits →Name of article← Previous edit Latest revision as of 22:50, 7 January 2025 edit undoOrebroVi (talk | contribs)370 edits →Use of term 'terror group': ReplyTag: Reply 
(1,000 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{pbneutral}} {{Skip to talk}}
{{Peer review|archive=1}} {{Talk header||search=no}}
{{Notice|heading=Note 1| This talk page has a history of high levels of activity. Please check to see whether your additional content can be added to an existing discussion section, and please make new section titles as precise as possible.}}
{{talk header||search=no}}
{{Notice|heading=Note 2| Please complete citations attached to article content with fields such as Author, Title, URL, Date, Publisher/Work, Agency and Access Date. (See footnotes guide above.) <small>(If you would like to copy the footnotes guide to your userpage, put this template in the Edit Page – <nowiki>{{</nowiki>]<nowiki>}}</nowiki> – and it will display the guide.)</small>}}
{{round in circles}}
{{Controversial}}
{{Syrian Civil War sanctions}}
{{censor}}
{{Not a forum}}
{{Calm}}
{{Round in circles}}
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}}
{{British English|date=December 2014}}
{{afd-merged-from|Ajnad Foundation|Ajnad Foundation|19 July 2020}}
{{Old peer review|reviewedname=Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant|archive=1}}
{{Afd-merged-from|Worldwide caliphate|Worldwide caliphate|8 September 2022|8 September 2022}}
{{On this day|date1=2015-04-08|oldid1=655155477|date2=2017-04-08|oldid2=774405852|date3=2020-04-08|oldid3=949717701}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Arab world|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|terrorism=yes|terrorism-imp=top|importance=Mid|organizedcrime=yes|organizedcrime-imp=Top}}
{{WikiProject International relations|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Iraq|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Islam|importance=high|Islam-and-Controversy=yes|Salaf=y|Sunni=y}}
{{WikiProject Military history|class=B|b1=y|b2=y|b3=y|b4=y|b5=y|Middle-Eastern=yes|Post-Cold-War=yes|African=yes|Asian=yes}}
{{WikiProject Organizations|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Syria|importance=high}}
}}
{{Press|collapsed=yes
| org = Olean Times Herald
| url = http://www.oleantimesherald.com/commentary/article_2d97b474-cd8b-11e4-993b-439f0998aecc.html
| date = March 18, 2015
| title= ISIS not the Islamic state it fiercely claims to be
| quote = "I approach Misplaced Pages cautiously as to whether its abundant information on a multitude of subjects is complete and authoritative. But I salute the site for its numerous citations concerning the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS — specifically the "criticism of the name 'Islamic State' and 'caliphate' declaration" (found under its entry for the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant)."
}}
{{Gs/talk notice|scwisil}}

{{Other banners|collapsed=yes|
{{Annual report|] and ]}}
{{Top 25 Report|Aug 3 2014 (9th)|Aug 10 2014 (12th)|Aug 17 2014 (5th)|Aug 24 2014 (5th)|Aug 31 2014 (3rd)|Sep 7 2014 (5th)|Sep 14 2014 (3rd)|Sep 21 2014 (2nd)|Sep 28 2014 (12th)|Oct 5 2014 (12th)|Oct 12 2014 (12th)|Oct 19 2014 (24th)|Feb 1 2015 (14th)|Feb 8 2015 (20th)|Feb 15 2015 (11th)|Feb 22 2015 (15th)|Mar 1 2015 (18th)|Mar 8 2015 (17th)|Jun 28 2015 (22nd)|Nov 8 2015 (6th)|Nov 15 2015 (2nd)|Nov 22 2015 (10th)|Nov 29 2015 (20th)|Dec 6 2015 (13th)}}
{{Old moves
| list =
*See ''Older discussions'' (below this list) for a list of twelve earlier requested moves and discussions.
* ] '''Agreed''' 14 Aug – 19 Sep 2015
* RM, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → ISIS, '''Not moved''', 20 Oct – 27 Oct 2016, ]
* RM ] → ] '''Technical Close''' 4–23 July 2017, ]
* RM ] → ] '''Moved'''. 30 August – 22 September 2021.
* RM ] → ] '''Not moved'''. 18 May – 26 May 2022.
| oldlist =
# Islamic State of Iraq and Syria → Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, '''Moved''', 13 August 2013, ]
# RM, Islamic State '''in''' Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, '''Not moved''' (but moved back to "Islamic State '''of''' Iraq and the Levant"), 12 June 2014, ]
# RM, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → The Islamic State, '''No consensus''', 29 June 2014, ]
# RM, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, '''Procedurally closed''', 31 July 2014, ]
# RM, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State, '''Not moved''', 8 August 2014, ]
# Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State (organization), '''Quick close''', 20 August 2014, ]
#Content discussion, References in the text: ISIS or ISIL?, '''ISIL chosen''', 17 Sept – 26 Sept 2014, ]
# RM, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State, '''Not moved''', 7 Sept – 30 Sept 2014, ]
# RM, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State (Organisation), '''No consensus''', 17 Sep – 3 Oct 2014, ]
# RM, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State (islamist rebel group), '''No consensus''', 9 Jan – 17 Jan 2015, ]
# RM, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State, '''Not moved''', 19 Apr – 20 Apr 2015, ]
# RM, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State (IS), '''Not moved''', 15 Jul – 29 Jul 2015, ]}}
{{Merged-from|Khilafah.is|29 November 2015|target=ISIL#Propaganda and social media}}
{{Annual readership}}
{{section sizes}}
}}

{{anchor|FootnoteDirective}} {{anchor|FootnoteDirective}}

{{WikiProjectBanners|1=
<!--
{{WikiProject Iraq|class=B|importance=high}}
{{anchor|Moratorium on Requested Moves}}{{anchor|Requested Moves}}{{anchor|Moratorium}}
{{MILHIST|class=B|b1=y|b2=y|b3=y|b4=y|b5=y|Middle-Eastern=yes|importance=mid}}
{{Notice|image=Stop hand nuvola.svg|header=Moratorium on Requested Moves|1=Notice: There is an ] on Requested Moves (page renames) until 7 January 2015.-->
{{WikiProject Syria|class=B|importance=high}}

{{WPARAB|class=B|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Terrorism|class=B|importance=high}}
}}
{{notice|{{User:P123ct1/My template}}}}
<!--Archive--> <!--Archive-->
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo=old(14d) | algo=old(60d)
| archive=Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/Archive %(counter)d | archive=Talk:Islamic State/Archive %(counter)d
| counter=30 | counter=44
| maxarchivesize=100K | maxarchivesize=75K
| archiveheader={{Talk archive navigation}} | archiveheader={{Talk archive navigation}}
| minthreadsleft=4 | minthreadsleft=5
| minthreadstoarchive=1 | minthreadstoarchive=1
}} }}
Line 30: Line 86:
|indexhere=yes |indexhere=yes
}} }}
{{auto archiving notice|bot=lowercase sigmabot III|age=14|small=no}}
{{Calmtalk}}
{{British English|date=December 2014}}
<!--
{{anchor|Moratorium on Requested Moves}}{{anchor|Requested Moves}}{{anchor|Moratorium}}
{{notice|image=Stop hand nuvola.svg|header=Moratorium on Requested Moves|1=Notice: There is an ] on Requested Moves (page renames) until 7 January 2015.-->
{{Old moves
| list =
* RM, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State, '''Not moved''', 7 September 2014, ]
* RM, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State (Organisation), '''No consensus''', 17 September 2014, ]
* RM, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State (islamist rebel group), '''No consensus''', 9 January 2015, ]
*Content discussion, References in the text: ISIS or ISIL?, '''ISIL chosen''', 17 September 2014, ]
| oldlist =
* Islamic State of Iraq and Syria → Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, '''Moved''', 13 August 2013, ]
* RM, Islamic State '''in''' Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, '''Not moved''' (but moved back to "Islamic State '''of''' Iraq and the Levant"), 12 June 2014, ]
* RM, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → The Islamic State, '''No consensus''', 29 June 2014, ]
* RM, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, '''Procedurally closed''', 31 July 2014, ]
* RM, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State, '''Not moved''', 8 August 2014, ]
* Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State (organization), '''Quick close''', 20 August 2014, ]
}}
<!--}}-->
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes }}
{{hatnote|<big>'''NOTE 1: This talk page has a history of high levels of activity. Please make reasonable checks to see whether additional content can be added to existing threads and please make new section titles as general as may be practically helpful.'''</big>}}
{{anchor|Footnote_2}}{{anchor|FootnoteHatnote}} {{anchor|Footnote_2}}{{anchor|FootnoteHatnote}}
{{hatnote|'''NOTE 2: Please complete citations attached to article content with fields such as Author, Title, URL, Date, Publisher/Work, Agency and Access Date. (See footnotes guide above.) <small>(If you would like to copy the footnotes guide to your userpage, put this template in the Edit Page – <nowiki>{{</nowiki>]<nowiki>}}</nowiki> – and it will display the guide.)</small>''' }}

<!--Talk discussions must go below this line--> <!--Talk discussions must go below this line-->


{{old move|date=14 December 2024|destination=Islamic State (militant group)|result=not moved|link=Special:Permalink/1264338464#Requested move 14 December 2024}}
== Requested move 26 January 2015 ==
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ]. No further edits should be made to this section. ''


== Requested Move 15 October 2024 ==
The result of the move request was: '''No consensus''', and no real merit in relisting as none is likely to emerge because all parties are, on the face of it, right, to a greater or lesser extent. It is possible that ISIS may be the best of a bad bunch, but even that is fraught with problems (even if there is a certain poetry in ISIS sending so many to meet Osiris). It may be that in coming weeks one particular name will emerge, perhaps Islamic State, but that is not the consensus view now, at least as expressed here. Sorry, the problem remains, there is no quick fix. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
<div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #efe); color: var(--color-base, inherit); margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted var(--border-color-subtle, #AAAAAA);"><!-- Template:RM top -->
:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color: var(--color-error, red);">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''


The result of the move request was: '''Not moved.''' We normally keep RM discussions open for at least seven days with a possibility for prolongation via relisting. This discussion has now been open for more than four weeks. The request suggested a move to {{-r|Islamic State (organisation)}}, a target that for several years has been a stable and correctly ] {{tl|R from unnecessary disambiguation}} redirect to ].{{pb}}The proposal to move has seen no policy-based support. The opposers argue per ] and ] that the article should stay at the ], ''ergo'' the survey is closed noting a clear '''consensus not to move'''. <small>(])</small> ] ] 17:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
---- ----
]→? — Current name is just the "Islamic State", it’s can confuse readers with article about the ]. I don’t' suggest it to rename the article to ISIL, beacuse "ISIL" is not common name anymore and pretty outdated.


So let's rename the article to ]. ISIS can be also suitable beacuse "ISIS" is currently common name to the group. ] (]) 06:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
] → {{no redirect|Islamic State of Iraq and Syria}} – or to ]. ISIS is the most common English language reference to the group in reference to the Arabic title "ad-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fī al-‘Irāq wash-Shām". This title is also rendered into English as "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant", "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria", "Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham" or "ISIL" and is also represented as "Da‘ish" or "DAESH", the acronym of the Arabic title but ISIS remains in common usage.


:'''Oppose''' Islamic State is the common name for the organization, being the one used by the media. The organization is also the clear primary topic for the name "Islamic State" with this capitalization. The hatnote at the top of the article is good enough to clear up any confusion. ] (]) 19:07, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
*A major advantage of ] is that it uses natural disambiguation and refers to a more accurate translation of "al-Sham".
*A major advantage of ] is that it uses natural disambiguation and links smoothly with the commonly used acronym ISIS.
*A major advantage of ] is that it uses the commonly used ISIS format. ]].
'''Context''' A wide range of scholars and groups reject the use of the title "Islamic State" on the basis of the religious and political implications of the title. Reference can be made to other groups with Mohammedan based faiths ranging from nations to other rebel groups in conflict with ISIS, and a wide range or representatives in the international community. The group describes itself as "Islamic State". Ban-Ki Moon stated, "As Muslim leaders around the world have said, groups like ISIL – or Da’ish -- have nothing to do with Islam, and they certainly do not represent a state. They should more fittingly be called the "Un-Islamic Non-State" and Muslim leaders sticking to religious angles have described it as the un-Islamic State. With these two extremes of presentations I think that NPOV demands that we don't become a soapbox for either side and that a relevant rendering of "ad-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fī al-‘Irāq wash-Shām" be used. At one extreme I personally think that, in this context, questionable unqualified use of the title "Islamic State" has been made by news groups such as agency Reuters from early times. At the other extreme, notable Arabic news groups make sole use of terms such as ISIL, ISIS and Daesh. Another issue is that we already have an article on ]. ]] 11:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
:'''Comment''': I am more inclined to think '''Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham''' may be our best option for the title. "Syria" does not really 100% equate with "al-Sham", because it is the name of a country and used rarely in the English language to translate the Arabic-language word "al-Sham". So, Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham has an even greater advantage with regards to having a more accurate translation. ] (]) 12:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
*'''Neutral, but support move to "Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham"''': It combines all the three major advantages you list. ] (]) 12:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I believe Islamic state is the common name, but a lack of consensus stopped that <u>(referring to the rfc, no change in my opinion) </u>. The name "Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham" is rarely used. I have no preference between ISIL and ISIS (both spelled out) at this time. I can't point to a specific policy, but I seem to remember that Misplaced Pages rarely uses acronyms as titles. ] (]) 13:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
*'''Question''' a) The first two failed moves listed at the top of the page were to ]. What has changed since then? ] (]) 18:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
::Legacypac why did you delete ]'s oppose comment?
:::Edit conflict - I've just restored two comments, good catch. ] (]) 20:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
::::], "What has changed since then?" At that time a number of world leaders were making use of the designation ISIL. From what I have gathered, a number of them have moved to "Daesh". While references to "ad-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fī al-‘Irāq wash-Shām" remain relevant I believe that ISIL is less so. ]] 20:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::That would support a move toward Daesh more than a move toward ISIS. ] (]) 21:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
::::::] Perhaps, but as as mentioned in the OP: ISIS is the most common English language reference to the group in reference to the Arabic title "ad-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fī al-‘Irāq wash-Shām". Daesh now comes in a closer third place while ISIL comes in a more distant second. If this RM goes through then it seems to me that the article title will remain a stable representation of the three title presentations. The actual change is hardly more than cosmetic. ]] 12:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' there are plenty of groups known by their acronyms. ISIS has long been an extremely commonly used designation for the group. ]] 18:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' there are enough justifications for that the current name is the best one, please check archives for name change votings, BTW @] what exactly 'Neutral, but support move to "Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham' means mate it is somehting like 'definetly maybe' :D <span style="font-size: 125%; font-family: New Times Roman;">]</span> 18:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': A tremendous amount of time and effort has already gone into debating the name for this article. The current name seems reasonable. Once some time passes, and more systematic histories are written of the group, it will be easier to judge whether another name might be better. What we have seems to me good enough for now, and our efforts might be better spent concentrating on the content of the article rather than the title of the article. ] (]) 19:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': I agree with EastTN, time could be better spent improving the article. The last admin suggested we take a breather and let the issue rest for a while. This will give time for another modality of RS, that being published books to come to the fro. In light of that, it will be interesting to see what name Jurgen Todenhofer uses in his book, seen as he is the only author, as far as I am aware, to have publicly stated his efforts of writing a book on the group. ] (]) 19:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
*'''Óppose''' Policy at ] is applicable. The current title has been stable since August 2013 except for changing "in" to "of". There is significant consistency with use of ISIL across WP titles and articles and I can't see any value in moving from ISIL=>ISIS when they are only alternative translations of one word, both widely used in the real world. Big effort to change, no real value. ] (]) 20:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' as the current title is a common enough name, and accurate enough. Moving will make it either less common or less accurate, and no move seems like a net win at this time. ] (]) 05:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. "ISIS" is vastly more common than "ISIL," as you can see . ] (]) 13:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' – For one thing, I'm really getting tired of these frivolous move proposals. Honestly, can you please just accept what we have, and stop making a mess after each subsequent move proposal fails? Per ], there is absolutely no reason given for a change. The present title has been here for a long time, and has worked well. It is the best possible translation of the Arabic, and using entirely English titles is preferred per ] (i.e. I strongly oppose using "al-Sham"). Debate about the acronym is pointless. Many sources (such as the ) that translate the full name as "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" use "ISIS" as an acronym, so this move proposal won't change anything to that effect. Leave this alone. It is the best possible title. ] — ] 19:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
**Whatever the BBC does, this article uses ISIL all the way through. I doubt you can change that without changing the title. The quotes all say ISIS, which is certainly jarring. ] (]) 10:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
:::If you want to use "ISIS", then open an RfC on the usage of the acronyms in this article. There is no reason that one can't use "ISIS" and "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant", like the BBC does. That has nothing to do with the article title. I'd oppose such a proposal, regardless, as ISIL is simply better. ] — ] 19:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - Not the common name, nor is it an accurate translation of al-sham. Like the current title, it is used mainly by world leader and relevant stakeholders as opposed to the common name in reliable sources. ] (]) 01:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
<s>*''' Strong Support for The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria''' - Even though I prefer the Islamic State v Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, per ], '''The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)''' is much more recognizable than '''The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)'''. The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria also satisfies ] more so then just the Islamic State (Islamist rebel group). Arguments raised by ]] in the previous name change discussion illustrated this fact. ISIL is not only the least recognizable of the two, but the main body which uses ISIL, the U.S government is increasingly favoring 'Daesh' over ISIL . The following points to support my contention:<s>
::'''Comment''' - Changed vote to no opinion. Only the Islamic State group (IS) is a viable and sustainable article name. ] (]) 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 ]. ], 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. ]] 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:<br>
*The Guardian:<br>
*CNN:<br>
*CNBC:<br>
*Fox News:<br>
*International Business Time:<br>
*Bloomberg:<br>
*Sydney Morning Herald:<br>
*The Independent:<br>
*New Statesman:<br>
*National Review:<br>
*The Nation:<br>
*The New York Times:<br>
*The Council on Foreign Relations:<br>
*The Atlantic:<br>
*Al-Arabiya:<br>


::Hi ], Naming the article "]" would be a more appropriate solution, as it clarifies that the article specifically refers to the militant group commonly known as ISIS, while distinguishing it from the broader and more diverse theoretical concept of an "Islamic State." This title would help avoid confusion, making it clear that the focus is on the organization rather than the general political or religious concept. By adding the term "organization," it also provides a more neutral and descriptive approach, acknowledging that the term "Islamic State" has broader historical and theoretical meanings, which should not be conflated with this particular group.The normal readers are not supposed to distinguish this minute difference.
Note that many of these publications may use Islamic State in conjunction with the term ISIS.
::--] <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added 18:56, 7 November 2024 (UTC)</small>
:::Please convey your thoughts in your own words, chatbots are not helpful. - ] (]) 02:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)


* '''Oppose''' as per ] that is what the organization calls itself.] (]) 07:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Many former editions of articles from The Economist publication used ISIS before switching to just the Islamic State:.
*:"that is what the organization calls itself"
Reuters, as well as others use the term Islamic State while also using the term ISIS:
*:Why we would use "]". Article about the concept is " ] ", about the group is " Islamic State ". Just ] is difference. That's why I start an RM. We can use " ] or "]. ] (]) 03:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
*::I would rather move the article on the concept to ] if you think something needs to be moved. The organization is what most users are looking for when they type "Islamic State" into the search bar. ] (]) 12:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
*:::@] Ok.
*:::I forget this opinion when I propose this in October. ] (]) 10:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - It is the common name. - ] (]) 02:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' – I endorse ] proposal to modify the article title for enhanced clarity and accuracy. Currently, “Islamic State” as a title risks conflating the militant group with the broader concept of an “Islamic state,” a political or theological idea concerning governance within Islamic contexts. This ambiguity can lead to misunderstandings and unintentionally lend an inappropriate connotation to either the organization or the general concept.
*:] (]) 08:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
*:@] This RM is not closed but you still moved article about the organisation as "]". You should wait until the problem get solution. ] (]) 10:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: var(--color-error, red);">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from ] -->
</div><div style="clear:both;" class=></div>


== "‘You are next’: online posts show Islamic State interest in attacks on US ahead of election" ==
2.) Google statistics and trends: Show that '''ISIS''' is much more prevalent than '''ISIL'''


] ] 11:16, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
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


:@] Cite reliable sources to confirm it. ] (]) 08:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
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 .
::@] Why didn't you bother to look first? That would be the sensible idea and sholw good faith. The first hit is ] ] 11:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)


== Very small Minor edit request ==
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 ]] previous comments, so it is more his research. ] (]) 07:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


{{edit semi-protected|Islamic State|answered=yes}}
:] -- 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. ] (]) 07:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Add an collapsible list into groups infobox, it's very long. <br><small>(''this topic will be deleted after accepting'')</small> ] (]) 19:25, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
::] 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 ] → {{no redirect|Islamic State of Iraq and Syria}} 11:41, 30 January 2015 ]] 11:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
:{{done}}. ~] <small>(])</small> 20:49, 11 November 2024 (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. ] (]) 14:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
::::] 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. ]] 08:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::] 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. ] (]) 17:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::] 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". ]] 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. ] (]) 18:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::::] 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. ]] 12:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::]: 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. ] (]) 13:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::] 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 ], 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. ]] 18:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::] 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. ] (]) 19:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::] {{ty}} for your response. The last thing I want to do is add issues. ]] 07:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per nom and StanMan87. Much bigger scope. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 11:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


== First sentence ==
*'''Support''' per ] as argued by ]. --] (]) 13:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


I have removed, from the first sentence of the article, (uncited) text that calls ISIL an "] ]." It is true that, as of 2024, affiliates of the terror group hold territorial control over shifting areas of Africa (which we mention in the lead section), but the preponderance of sources (or at least the sources currently cited) don't seem to commonly use the "quasi-state" verbiage to describe ISIL presently - certainly not at a frequency sufficient to justify its inclusion in the lead. Neither of the two sources cited on the present situation in Africa (, ) use the term. Given all that, the "quasi-state" language is more likely to confuse readers than enlighten them, especially as it seems to conflate the situation a decade ago (2012/2013 era) with the situation today. (Note, too, that there are many terror/insurgent groups that occupy territory but are not commonly described as "quasi-states." ]<sup>]</sup> 19:03, 14 November 2024 (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. ] (]) 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 ]. ] (]) 07:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
:::] 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 ] than references to ] but this did not take into account the prevalent use of ] over ]. 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. ] a common practice with non complicated RMs in which decisions are not clear cut can be for them to be relisted. ]] 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. ] (]) 09:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::::] 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. ]] 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. ] (]) 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. ] 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. ] — ] 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 ({{google|"Islamic State of Iraq and Levant" ISIS site:www.bbc.com}}). That compares to 18 for {{google|"Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" ISIS site:www.bbc.com}} and six for {{google|"Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham" ISIS site:www.bbc.com}}. It's a typo, not a style. ] (]) 01:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
:::No, it is not a typo. BBC 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 does the same thing, and continues to use the long form of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant with the acronym "Isis". 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. ] — ] 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' ], 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 ], 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 ] and ]. But you voted against the proposal. So now I am perplexed ]. 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 ]. As for ], 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: <br> '''Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)''' ++Commonality|Recognition vs. -Accuracy. <br>'''Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS)''' +Accuracy| vs. -Commonality|Recognition. <br> '''Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)''' +-Commonality|Recognition vs. +-Accuracy <br> '''Islamic State (IS)''' +Commonality|Recognition vs. ++Accuracy ] (]) 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 , , the , , , the . 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 ]. 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". ] — ] 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. ] (]) 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 ]. Regardless, I strongly oppose the word "rebel" on ] grounds. ] — ] 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 ] or not, the term '''Islamic State''' (IS) will soon become the most and only viable alternative. Please keep this in mind. ] (]) 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. ] — ] 03:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
:::Attention to NPOV? As per ], "''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. ] (]) 03:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
::::Note NPOV doesn't come into it due to povtitle. Aside from ], 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. ] (]) 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 ]. "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. ] — ] 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 ]. ] (]) 16:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' ] 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 ], to my knowledge President Obama uses "ISIL" exclusively. <font face="strong" color="green">*]*]*]*</font> 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. &nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;] (]) 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. ] (]) 13:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Per ] 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. ] (]) 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. ] — ] 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. ] (]) 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. ] — ] 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. ] (]) 07:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' as nominator. I think that {{no redirect|Islamic State of Iraq and Syria}} provides good, recognisable and natural disambiguation from the article on the ] governance methodology. Another natural disambiguation might be ] 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. ]] 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. ] 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. ] — ] 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 , you will see they use "IS" and "Islamic State" to refer to the group. ] (]) 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, ], and also by comments above, where I address that issue. of their usage, which consists of "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS)". BBC does not make the totality of the British press. ] — ] 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. ] (]) 22:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
*'''Strongly Support'''. According the source. --] (]) 08:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
::What source? ] — ] 05:02, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per ] - ISIS is far more known so personally I think it should be moved... –]<sup>]</sup> 05:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
::{{ping|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 ], 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 ]. No disambiguation is even necessary, given that it is a clear ], and that it already redirects here. ] — ] 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. –]<sup>]</sup> 06:43, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
::::{{ping|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 ] below. Please comment. ] — ] 06:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 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. ] (]) 05:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
===Proposal: Title the article ]===
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 ''']''' should be the title of this article? I support changing the name of this article to ]. No disambiguation is required, as ] already redirects here. ] is undoubtedly the common name of this entity, used by sources that use the long forms ], ], and ]. The above proposal for ] is very misguided, as I've demonstrated above. ] strongly discourages moves that will likely result in more move requests, and that's one that'll do it. A move to ], on the other hand, is ideal. There is no denying that "ISIS" is the common name of the entity, and that "ISIS" is the ] of "ISIS". What's more, ISIS is the most ] title for this article, the one most users are likely to type into the search bar. It is also the most ] title possible. Let's move this article to ] and close the door on these constant moves. ] — ] 06:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support as proposer'''. ] — ] 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". ] — ] 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. ] (]) 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. ]] 22:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''', By my understanding of ], is not primarly known by that acronym. ] (]) 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 ] 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 . 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. ] — ] 01:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 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. <br />"Islamic State," two words used on 59,600,000 Google results, is quite the valid choice per ].<br />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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 21:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
----
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a ]. No further edits should be made to this section.</div><!-- Template:RM bottom -->


== Proposal to include IS-CP and Add a Section on Involvement within the borders of the Russian Federation ==
== Emblem ==


The article shows a significant plurality of foreign fighters in Islamic State originating from The Russian Federation yet there is no mention of either IS-CP or the link to Chechan extremists/terrorists nor the direct involvemnet of Al-Qaeada fighters in the Second Chechen War and activities of IS-CP in Russia since inception of Islamic State/Daesh and it's military defeat two years later.
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.--<span style="font-size: 14px; text-shadow: grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.1em;">''']''' <small>]</small></span> 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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.--<span style="font-size: 14px; text-shadow: grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.1em;">''']''' <small>]</small></span> 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. ] (]) 10:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
{{od}}
Can we therefore delete the emblem because it is inaccurate information. ] (]) 21:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
:I did but {{ping|LightandDark2000}} {{Diff|Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant|647638280|647637722|reverted it}} stating no consensus was reached in talk page.--<span style="font-size: 14px; text-shadow: grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.1em;">''']''' <small>]</small></span>
::They still use the same flag, so they probably still use the same emblem. ] (]) 19:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
:::] could you please provide sources that corroborate the view that they use this emblem. ] (]) 20:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


I prepose inclusion of links to the main article for IS-CP in the article summary as well as a summary of IS-CP operations within the Caucuses. I'm interested in any discussion/contributions before amending the article. ] (]) 15:12, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
== Restoring Section on "Sexual violence and slavery" After the Edit Wars ==
:''See also: ] and ].''


== Requested move 14 December 2024 ==
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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 21:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
::You're adding the Daily Mail and ] as sources? Seriously? --] <sup>]</sup> 21:45, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
:::], 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. ], I took the two citations to ] out. Including the ] 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (])
::::::Looks like it, had a go at clearing it up. 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===
<div class="NavFrame collapsed">
<div class="NavHead"></div>
<div class="NavContent">
====Sexual slavery====
ISIL claims it has religious justification for the treatment of its captives based on the ] and ], 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.<ref name="Kumar">{{cite news|last=Kumar|first=Anugrah|title=ISIS Claims Islam Justifies Making 'Infidel' Women Sex Slaves|url=http://www.christianpost.com/news/isis-claims-islam-justifies-making-infidel-women-sex-slaves-128004|agency=CHRISTIAN POST CONTRIBUTOR|publisher='']''|date=13 October 2014|accessdate=1 January 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Spencer|first=Robert |title=Islamic jihadist says slavery biggest honor for non-Muslim women|url=|publisher='']''|date=2 January 2015|accessdate=5 January 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last= Sypher|first= Ford|title= Rape and Sexual Slavery Inside an ISIS Prison|url= http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/28/rape-and-sexual-slavery-inside-an-isis-prison.html|agency=Horror|publisher='']''|date= 28 August 2014|accessdate= 5 January 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Abdelaziz|first=Salma|title=ISIS states its justification for the enslavement of women |url=http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/12/world/meast/isis-justification-slavery|publisher='']''|date=13 October 2014|accessdate=1 January 2015}}</ref> An ISIL source claimed they wish to ethnically cleanse the land they control of all non-believers.<ref>{{cite news|last=Harding|first=Luke|title=Isis accused of ethnic cleansing as story of Shia prison massacre emerges|url=http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/25/isis-ethnic-cleansing-shia-prisoners-iraq-mosul|agency=Irbil|publisher='']''|date=25 August 2014|accessdate=5 January 2015}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite news|last=Siddiqui|first=Mona|title=Isis: a contrived ideology justifying barbarism and sexual control|url=http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/24/isis-ideology-islamic-militants-british-appeal-iraq-syria|agency=The Observer|publisher='']''|date=24 August 2014|accessdate=1 January 2015}}</ref> ''], ''an ISIL magazine claimed "enslaving the families of the ] 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.<ref name="Kumar" /><ref>{{cite news|title= ISIL seeks to justify enslaving Yazidi women and girls in Iraq|url= http://www.todayszaman.com/national_isil-seeks-to-justify-enslaving-yazidi-women-and-girls-in-iraq_361547.html |agency=abril|publisher='']''|date=14 October 2014|accessdate=2 January 2014}}</ref>Yazidi and Christian girls are sold for a price of around $175 in Iraq. <ref>{{cite news|title=Islamic State slave price list shows Yazidi, Christian girls aged 1-9 being sold for $172|url=http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/11/islamic-state-slave-price-list-shows-yazidi-christian-girls-aged-1-9-being-sold-for-172| date=5 November 2014|accessdate=25 January 2015}}</ref> Those who don't cooperating ‘would be executed.’ <ref>{{cite news|title=Islamic State enslaves 400 Yazidi women
−
|url=http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/08/islamic-state-enslaves-400-yazidi-women| date=7 August 2014|accessdate=25 January 2015}}</ref>
====Executions====
Dabiq cites the severe punishments the Prophet Mohammed gave to traitors as a justification for their actions. <ref>{{cite news|last=Spencer |first=Robert |title= Islamic State justifies atrocities by citing Muhammad |url= http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/09/islamic-state-justifies-atrocities-by-citing-muhammad |publisher=]|date=4 September 2014|accessdate=23 January 2015}}</ref> 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. <ref>{{cite news|last=Spencer |first= Robert |title= Muslim cleric justifies Islamic State beheadings: “Islam is a religion of beheading”|url= http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/08/muslim-cleric-justifies-islamic-state-beheadings-islam-is-a-religion-of-beheading|publisher=]|date=25 August 2014|accessdate=23 January 2015}}</ref> A captured fighter said he deliberately drew out the beheading of others to inflict more pain on them. <ref>{{cite news|last= |first= |title=Islamic State jihadi says he felt joyous when killing people because “I was killing infidels”|url=http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/12/islamic-state-jihadi-says-he-felt-joyous-when-killing-people-because-i-was-killing-infidels|publisher=]|date=30 December 2014|accessdate=25 January 2015}}</ref>


<div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #efe); color: var(--color-base, inherit); margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted var(--border-color-subtle, #AAAAAA);"><!-- Template:RM top -->
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" <ref>{{cite news |title=Islamic State crucifies 17-year-old boy for apostasy|url=http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/10/islamic-state-crucifies-17-year-old-boy-for-apostasy|agency=|publisher=|date=18 October 2014}}</ref> An ISIS commander claimed they try to convert others before they die to save them punishment in the afterlife. <ref>{{cite news |title=Islamic State justifies its jihad against Yazidis|url=http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/08/islamic-state-justifies-its-jihad-against-yazidis|agency=| date=21 August 2014|accessdate=25 January 2015}}</ref>
:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color: var(--color-error, red);">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ] '''after''' discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''
====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.


The result of the move request was: '''not moved.''' <small>(])</small> '']'' 🎄 ] — ] 🎄 23:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
</div>
----
</div>
::::::] (]) 23:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}


] → {{no redirect|Islamic State (militant group)}} – "Islamic state" doesn't indicates towards a particular group but whole Muslim community! And it makes confusion. There are lot of countries or state in past who used this name but not fair to target whole community as majority or almost all Muslims don't accept it as an Islamic state or caliphate. It makes confusion like in ] page. I think it should be moved on the basis of it targets a particular community who aren't accepting it and Misplaced Pages should not work on the basis of who claims the title.There is no problem using Islamic state name as per WP:COMMONNAMES But make a distinction.
:Thank you very much for doing this! I'll make a ] stab at merging what hasn't already been merged into the body of the article.] (]) 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." ] (]) 18:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC) I have changed the proposed title because the Islamic state of Iraq and Syria doesn't exists. And the main reason for this request is to make distinction.] (]) 23:23, 14 December 2024 (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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 22:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

:::::Ouch! Hope you feel better soon. ] (]) 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. ]] 21:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::::I found that incredibly funny, whilst putting everything into perspective. You made my day ] (]) 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. ]] 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." ] (]) 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. ]] 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 ], ] and ]. 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. ] (]) 16:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
::::There's also some material in ], 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. ] (]) 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. ]] 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 00:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

:::::::::::I completely agree that we cannot provide ISIL with a ] 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 ] 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 ], ], and ]. 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. ] (]) 01:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

:{{od}}
:Also, I'm not sure what to make of the newly inserted Eschatology section. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ] if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or ] if you are.) For ], we cannot accept ] 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 ] 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'' ] from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our ] for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Misplaced Pages takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators '''will''' be ] from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. <!-- Template:Cclean --> ] <sup>]</sup> 15:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
:Usual hat tip to you, ]. --] <sup>]</sup> 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? <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 13:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:] You are more than welcome to review past discussions and to consider the various issues involved. ]] 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 ], which I think makes it the correct name for this article. ] (]) 23:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
::per ], 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? --] (]) 09:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
:::] 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 ] 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, ] into consideration as that is the main guide for us to deal with this issue. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 09:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
:TY ]. I had recently moved the information from ] due to the repetition of content but realised this was a bodge and highlighted the issue at ]. 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 ] 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. ]] 11:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

::] 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.

::] (]) 12:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
:::] 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 ] article. I personally think that this type of article is best expanded and with content here being cut. ]] 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. ] (]) 15:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

== Inconsistent section headings ==

These section headings are inconsistent:

<i>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)</i>

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.] (]) 10:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
:One difference is that the third name change was more widely rejected both in ~Arabic communities and internationally. ]] 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ]. 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. ] (]) 23:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
:Also the lead seems to imply that Al-Nusra merged with ISIL. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 04:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

== Primary target of ]??? ==

The sentence looks like a ] to me. In the article of ], 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. <span style="font-size: 125%; font-family: New Times Roman;">]</span> 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 ] and I've previously noticed it on ] . This merits discussion because I fail to see sources claiming that these conflicts are particularly related to this "war". ] (]) 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. ] (]) 04:20, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

::I have reverted your edit on the Libyan intervention article, and will do the same on ] 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 ] 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". ] (]) 08:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

== Ham fisted lead ==

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

<blockquote>The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL /ˈaɪsəl/) is a jihadist most extreme terroristand a rebel group that controls territory in Iraq and Syria and also operates in eastern Libya, the Sinai Peninsula of Egypt, and other areas of the Middle East, North Africa, South Asia, and Southeast Asia.[</blockquote>

Honestly, I don't know about you, but this seems pretty confusing to me. What is a "jihadist most extreme terrorist?" ] (]) 04:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
:I don't see the issue. The article's lead's grammar seems fine to me (at least where you are pointing out). If there is really a problem, it just might be your phone's software. ] (]) 08:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

== Extremist, Islamist as most prevalently used descriptions for the group. ==

:''See also: ]''
Despite content of the above mentioned discussion there has been an edit war so as to replace the more commonly used description "Islamist" within News, Books and Scholarship with "jihadist". Please consider the following search results:
* gets "About 6,790,000 results" results in News
: gets "About 8,780 results" results in Books
: gets "About 15,600 results" results in Scholar
* gets "About 611,000 results" results in News
: gets "About 17,500 results" results in Books
: gets "About 17,900 results" results in Scholar
* gets "About 131,000 results" results in News
: gets "About 2,170 results" results in Books
: gets "About 5,490 results" results in Scholar
]] 16:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
:] Could we please include in-text attribution to the term "terrorist" in the lead. ] (]) 05:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
::] I am not sure what you are asking/proposing. Do you want a similar complilation of search results on "... ("terrorist" OR "terrorism")" for comparison? ]] 11:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
:::In text attribution is where you have a sentence that says "according to x, y" rather than "y". So here this is saying "According to the UN/some other group, ISIL is a terrorist group" or similar rather than "ISIL is a terrorist group". Under ] we cannot do the second one, rather we have to use ] if we wish to include terrorist in the lead, as Mbcap wants to. ] (]) 11:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
::::], the middle sentence of the second paragraph reads: "The group has been ] as a terrorist organisation by the United Nations, the ], the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, Canada, Indonesia, Malaysia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the ], Syria, Iraq, Egypt, India, and Russia." Can you clarify further what is being asked here? As far as I can see this fits in with guidelines on the use of value laden ]s. ]] 11:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::I previously missed that sentence, then made a comment at ], which Mbcap must have read and thought there was no such statement in the lead having taken my word, I think. Instead he might be asking for it to be moved to the first paragraph. You'll have to ask them to be sure. ] (]) 11:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
{{od}} My apologies for being the cause of confusion. To be honest I think I was confused when I wrote my original post. I mean can we provide attribution to the term "extremist" in the first line of of the article. ] (]) 19:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

== Khawarij ==

The article on Khawarij states that ISIL is a modern variant of this phenomenon. There seems to be some support that Islamic scholars are categorizing them in this fashion. Whether this is mere war propaganda or a serious scholarly judgment is beyond me but it does seem to be an interesting issue that deserves a new section. Before I stick my hand in the buzz saw of adding such a thing, what's consensus on ISIL as a neo form of Kharijites? ] (]) 18:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
::] It depends. How much weight does it get in reliable sources? ] (]) 19:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
::: A good start would be the page on ] which has the following section:
<blockquote>The ], ] and like minded groups are also modern day Khawarij according to all major Salafi and Sunni scholars.

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

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

==Is the infobox as acurate as it could be? Re; Primary participant and target==
Is Islamic State a primary participant in any of the following conflicts (in reliable sources);
*Second Libyan Civil War (2014–present)
*Sinai insurgency
*War in Afghanistan (2015–present)
*War in North-West Pakistan
*Moro insurgency in the Philippines
*Insurgency in the Maghreb (2002–present)
*al-Qaeda insurgency in Yemen

Is Islamic State the primary target of (in reliable sources);
*Global War on Terrorism

] (]) 01:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

::Re:Global War on Terrorism is concerned, UK commentators speak of two major wars that relalate to national security, the war in the Ukraine and the war with ISIL. Russia and the separatists in Ukraine are not designated as terrorists. 'SIL are certainly a major target in the Global War on Terrorism with more global involvement against it than I think is even ranged against a group like al-Qaeda.I certainly don't think that 'SIL come a clear second place as far as targets are concerned/ ]] 23:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

==Turkey invaded Syria==
This should be added, because they invaded specifically to fight the terrorists ...and probably also to conquer the area around their former rulers grave. ] (]) 12:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

== Map ==

I suggest you change the map in the infobox to Territorial control of the ISIS.svg. --] (]) 16:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

== Quotes around "Caliphate" in infobox ==

The infobox "Establishment" section lists: Declaration of "Caliphate" 29 June 2014

Why are there quotes around the word Caliphate? The word declaration implies quotes around whatever follows it, so the added quotation marks only serve to add biased commentary. ISIL is generally considered illegitimate and Misplaced Pages should reflect that, but the quotation marks are not the appropriate way.

I looked at another self-declared state for comparison; ]'s infobox lists: Declaration of Independence 23 July 1992, First international recognition 26 August 2008. This seems like a more appropriate model because it highlights the difference between declaration and recognition without giving an opinion on either. ISIL's infobox should list their declaration in an equally unbiased manner, with the absence of international recognition drawing attention to its illegitimacy.
] (]) 23:44, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
:I agree that the quotes should be removed. They are redundant. This problem is widespread in ISIS-related articles. For example in the opening paragraphs ''Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was named its "Caliph". As a caliphate, it claims religious...'' should read ''Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was named its Caliph. As a "caliphate", it claims religious...'' I don't know why we have such difficulty with this. I'm sure we can all agree that 1) ISIS is illegitimate and 2) They consider themselves a Caliphate. Despite this some people have put ridiculously convoluted and sarcastic language into these articles just to ensure that people don't think ISIS is a real Caliphate. The opening paragraph to al-Baghdadi's article is equally ridiculous. I have tried to improve it. I would just come back in 5 or 10 years and then try to make some common sense edits to these articles. ] (]) 00:38, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

::If we wanted to make it crystal clear without using quotation marks around "Caliphate" we could begin the statement with "Self-declaration" rather than "Declaration." ] (]) 02:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
:::I would oppose any such use of quotation marks, unless someone provides reliable sources which use it. ] (]) 03:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
::::{{done}}, I've gone ahead and removed the quotation marks so as to present: Declaration of ] &ensp;29 June 2014. I can't remember any time that the use of quotation marks here had been agreed. I agree with ] regarding the use of "Self-declaration" which has also previously been debated. While the declaration has been widely rejected, it has been accepted by groups such as in Libya and Sinai. All the same, acceptance seems to be at a relatively low level. I think that the self declared terminology is reasonably justified. ]] 09:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

A caliphate covers all muslims. Clearly there is no caliphate or caliph regardless what they call themselves. The group in Libya is sponsored by returned ISIL fighters, more of an expansion than acceptance. ] (]) 08:16, 28 February 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.] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ]] 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. ] (]) 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."<br />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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 08:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

== Quranic Quotations in Section on "Sexual violence and slavery" ==

A Quranic quotation supporting slavery has been inserted into this section again with {{diff|Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant|prev|648625164|this edit}}. The question of what to put into this section has been extensively discussed in the past. My sense of the consensus is that we should summarize the gist of ISIL's primary arguments, but not repeat their propaganda. I can imagine an appropriate way to indicate which portions of the Quran ISIL picks to support its arguments, putting ISIL's interpretation into context with the standard interpretations of Islamic scholars, but this text doesn't appear to be doing that. As it stands, it seems to me to lean towards promoting ISIL's point of view. ] (]) 16:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
:I think we previously agreed not to include such quotes. I would revert it away, but I rarely revert with mobile edits. ] (]) 16:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
::I brought it here because I've already reverted it once. I'll let it sit for a bit, and come back later and remove it again if there's no additional discussion. ] (]) 17:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
::: I see no reason to remove.<br />It would seem bias against the Islamic State for Misplaced Pages to censor out the IS' reasons and justifications for what they see as correct and fair (from their POV); the islamists could then fairly say that Misplaced Pages only publishes arguments against them. ] (]) 16:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
::::This has been discussed extensively above. There is a difference between reporting on ISIL's claims and providing a ] to promote their position. The consensus is that quotes such as this cross that line. ] (]) 17:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::So you're accusing news agencies of soapboxing or whatever that means. There are tons of articles (featuring the sex slave pamphlet) which include the quranic verses which justifies the sexual slavery of the militant group and you're complaining that the verse helps repeat ISIL propaganda. This is not your job. ''''The facts'''' how ugly it may be, must be included.] (]) 18:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
{{od}}
] and ], is the use of quotes from the Qur'an used in reliable sources in this way and if so, can you provide a list. ] (]) 18:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

:], I have not made any accusations. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. It's not a newspaper, magazine or on-line news outlet. That means Misplaced Pages articles will not (and should not) be written like news articles. The standards for neutrality and objectivity are different (and much higher). In other terms, Misplaced Pages is a ], while the news reports are generally ]s. Again, that means that the Misplaced Pages articles (encyclopedia entries) will be written differently than news stories are. We include the facts (in fact, we ''already'' include the fact that ISIL claims the Quran and the Hadith support the practice of slavery), but we do so in a manner appropriate to an encyclopedia. The fact that an encyclopedia is different from a news paper is not a criticism of either. ] (]) 19:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
::] I would like to respectfully disagree with you about Misplaced Pages having higher neutrality and objectivity. I am sure you are well aware of the page called "liberation of Mosul" so let us not pretend that we are contributing to a bastion of demonstrable neutrality and objectivity. Having said that we do need reliable sources, secondary or tertiary to use the quotes in the way that is suggested in the article. ] (]) 19:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
:::], I would argue that Misplaced Pages has higher ''standards''. Whether we ''achieve'' them or not is an entirely different question, to which I agree the answer is far too often "no". But if we want to improve Misplaced Pages, we have to keep doing our best to hold ourselves to those standards. ] (]) 19:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
::::True, you are right about striving to make it better. However I just checked the sources and it seems that they are one; reliable and two; use the quote from the Qur'an, in the way that is used in this article. For this reason we should not delete it from the article. ] (]) 19:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
:::: The RS citations provided are irreproachable. Should be kept in the article. ] (]) 20:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::I never said the articles - and the ISIL pamphlet they're talking about - don't cite that particular verse. But I don't think that's the issue here. The real question is the degree of detail we should go into in covering ISIL's arguments, and the extent to which we should directly quote it. To get more specific, the original text said that the ISIL pamphlet allows fighters to do certain things. The last time I took the quote out, I ''also'' modified the remaining text to say that the pamphlet claims the Quran allows fighters to do those things. Another step could be to say that according to the pamphlet, Quran 23:5-6 allows fighters to do certain things (which would be my preferred solution at this point). The point is, there are multiple ways of reporting their arguments, and including entire verses out of the Quran may well not be the best one. ] (]) 20:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::: There have been too many Misplaced Pages instances where a well-intentioned editor correctly summarised as in, for example, "koran 23:5-6 allows muslims to have sex with their slaves" (which BTW is exactly what the koran reads; look it up), where such a good faith edit ends up getting taken out of Misplaced Pages because of disagreements with the text. So for instance your proposed text "allows fighters to do" is erroneous. Better stick to the facts as reported by RS. '''Recommend keep the citations in the article as they stand'''. ] (]) 21:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::::That's exactly the problem - the scope of the article does ''not'' include the ''correct interpretation of the Quran,'' but it ''does'' include what ''ISIL says'' about the Quran. We can report what ISIL says about the Quran, based on reliable sources, without quoting the Quran itself. Second, done correctly, including the statement "according to the pamphlet, {{cite quran|23|5|e=6|style=ns}} ..." will provide the reader with a direct link to the verse, so they can see ''exactly'' what it says if they so desire. Again, the issue isn't about whether we report facts based on reliable sources, but ''how'' we report them. ] (]) 22:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::::: So, you agree that there are pitfalls with any proposed modification to the current text, which is backed by multiple RS. '''Recommend keep the citations in the article as they stand, as per the RS'''. ] (]) 03:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
{{od}}
I mentally considered a few things when I previously decided what I felt about the inclusion of the quote, they included how much of IS's viewpoints we should include in their own article, the weight given to IS's viewpoints and noteworthiness of their viewpoints. In the end I decided that, IMO it would be wrong for a mixture of ] and Neutrality (kind of like the second example at ] only without the majority opinion at all), but the issue of how much weight IS should be given in their own article is... interesting. ] (]) 23:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
::] - "So, you agree that there are pitfalls with any proposed modification to the current text..." No, I do not. You have completely misread my comments. ] - that is an interesting question, and one reason I've consistently said we should cover the arguments ISIL asserts to justify their actions and positions. But for exactly the considerations you've raised, I believe we need to do it very, very carefully. I believe the safest way is to summarize their arguments in a neutral fashion (e.g., "ISIL uses X to support Y"). That can be done in a reasonable amount of detail, as long as we don't violate ] and appropriately include other perspectives so as to maintain ]. But while I'm fine ''listing'' the verses ISIL relies on, my judgment is that you were correct in saying that quoting them at length crosses the line. ] (]) 04:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

==Feb. 23 abductions==
Two days later, quotes "sources in the community" as saying the number abducted may be as high as 200. ] (]) 15:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

==Terrorist Organization==
The "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" should be called as the terrorist organization. Should it put on the front page of topic?] (]) 11:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
:Probably not in the first paragraph of the header, see ] which says only in-text attribution should be used to label group as such. We could include a sentence there which says the UN has designated it as one. ] (]) 12:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
:Dug around the archieves, found these previous discussions amongst others:
*],
*]
*]
] (]) 16:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
::I find it humourous. Editors will strongly argue against the use of the word terrorist in regard to groups even when these groups are widely and reliably described with this term and they will make their arguments to the point of adding ] as a secondary shortcut to value laden ] and yet editors will also push to add "jihadist", a questionably applicable value laden ] which contest a religious justification to group action. I think that it is appropriate to quote sources as the article currently does but a parallel article which perhaps is of note is ]. ]] 11:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

==Name of article==
Why is this still called (the expansion of) "ISIL"? All the news organizations I can find (and the same point is confirmed by someone else's list above) call it either ISIS or IS. The entity itself apparently calls itself IS. There may have been a time a few months ago when ISIL seemed OK as a title, but now it looks behind the times. ] (]) 08:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
:], I generally agree but use of Isil persists in the news and it remains a recognisable name. The original discussion on the topic was: ] which may now be dated. ]] 11:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
::Seems to me ISIL is being used less and less in the news. But even if that's the title we're using for now, we should still follow normal Misplaced Pages practice and put the other common (more common, in this case) English names in the first sentence, otherwise it looks as if we're taking a stand as to what the group "ought" to be called. I think also the Arabic form of the self-appellation "Islamic State" should appear somewhere - I assume it's just the first two words of the full name. ] (]) 12:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
:::You are wrong. See the recent RM at the top of this page, where such evidence was provided (it just closed yesterday). I'm not sure if you are American, but "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" with the ISIS acronym dominates British and Irish usage. ] — ] 14:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
::::Reverted. I agree that ISIS is more common than ISIL, but we can't claim it stands for Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. ] (]) 14:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::It is not a "claim". This usage is standard in RS. I provided the sources in the RM discussion above: , the , , , the . ] — ] 18:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
*], why you claiming that "ISIS" is an abbreviation for "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria"? It isn't. It is an abbreviation for "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant". Sources have been provided. Please do not remove sourced content. ] — ] 18:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
::That creates an absurdity. All those sources show is that in the abbreviated form ISIS is more common than ISIL, even when the source uses the long form "...and the Levant". It's SYNTH (and obvious nonsense) to believe those sources they are saying that those initials ''stand for'' that long form. There is no useful purpose to the reader to include "ISIS" ''twice''. I find it difficult to believe that it is even necessary to explain that. ] (]) 18:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
:::I made no comment about what it "stands for". I said that "ISIS" is used an abbreviation for "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant". This is a fact. "ISIS" is not proper to "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria". The proper abbreviation for "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" must be shown. "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" should not even be granted an abbreviation. I say write "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS)", and write "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" with no abbreviation at all. ] — ] 18:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
::::I thought I'd seen some nonsensical positions while editing WP but that really takes the biscuit. ] (]) 19:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::HH (which stands for: I agree with DeCausa). ] (]) 19:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::::You may agree, but the fact remains that "ISIS" is an abbreviation for "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant", and is widely used by RS. ] — ] 20:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::::The sources you cite don't say that at all. I'm afraid you've disappeared "up" your own ]. ] (]) 21:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::If a source writes "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isis)", that fairly obviously means that they believe "Isis" to be a suitable acronym for "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant". "Isis" may well be derived from "Sham", and not "Syria", given that "Syria" is plain wrong, and that the long form "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" predominates in RS, and has done so, though some have converted to "Islamic State". Regardless, all long form translations take "Isis" as an acronym. Isis, one could say, has taken on its own life. Many sources use "Isis" without any long form, something I also demonstrated in the above discussion. Certainly, Isis might not be considered an acronym or abbreviation at all, but a name in its own right. ] — ] 21:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::Pure ], Alice, which even if true still would not support your bizarre edit. 22:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::How can it be "SYNTH"? One source is enough, and there is nothing bizarre about it. ISIS is not proper to "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria". ] — ] 22:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::Probably ISIS or Isis is becoming the most common name, and possibly ought to be what the article is eventually titled. The introduction is always going to look a bit bizarre at the moment, since it needs to link in with the current title, which is not really the right one. Maybe rather than put ISIS in parentheses after something, we should write "...also known as '''ISIS''' (an acronym for ... or ...)". ] (]) 07:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::RGloucester, you say that "it fairly obviously means thay believe "Isis" to be a suitable acronym for "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant". Of course it doesn't. You've drawn a conclusion which isn't stated in the source. This is excacerbated by it being a particularly bizarre conclusion. None of your sources say it is an acronym for the "...and the Levant" version of the name, they're using it as an alternative name. Apart from the fact that they don't actually say it is an acronym, how do we know that? Because a wording beginning with an L doesn't figure as an S in an acronym of course. I can't believe I'm having to write this. On the other hand, however, the ''Washington Post'' article currently cited aginst that line in the article says "The Washington Post has been referring to the organization as ISIS, shorthand for the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria". So that it is a source which explicitly states it. Your sources are allegedly make your Alice-in-Wonderland point in an implied way. This one makes the opposite point explicitly. Sheesh. ] (]) 12:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::You're the one that's nonsensical. Acronyms need not align with the long form. The fact remains that "ISIS" is often attached to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. It is not owned by Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. It is proper to all long forms, even Islamic State. ] — ] 15:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::"Acronyms need not align with the long form." Now ''that's'' nonsense. ] (]) 16:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

== Requested move 27 February 2015 ==
{{archive top|Speedy close, to be reopened in a month per previous RM closer}}
] → {{no redirect|Islamic State (rebel group)}} – Now that your using it as an offical name in the intro, we really should start calling it that. ] (]) 15:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
*'''Speedy close''' – {{ping|JzG}} Prior RM discussion finished yesterday, where this name too was discussed. Requesting input of closer. ] — ] 18:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
:: Leave it at least a month, is my view, and then place all possible candidate titles on the table and look at how the sources address them. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 18:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}

== Allegations of Saudi Arabia's support ==

I am concerned with the following sentence: ''the Iraqi President Nouri al-Maliki and some media outlets like NBC, BBC, and NYTimes stated that Saudi Arabia is funding ISIL''. None of the four cited sources contain this claim, and in most cases assert the exact opposite, so I have changed it accordingly.


:Disagree. The "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" is no more as declared by former Caliph Baghdadi, who declared a global Caliphate. That is why now correct to talk of "Islamic State" when referring to the group's central activities and in general; then one can talk of "IS in Syria, in Iraq, IS-WAP, IS-SP, IS-GS etc. etc.
# In the Washington Institute for Near East Policy : “At present, there is no credible evidence that the Saudi government is financially supporting ISIS”
:None believe "Islamic State" means "worldwide Muslim Community". ] (]) 14:14, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
# In the BBC Article : “Saudi Arabia likewise is innocent of a direct state policy to fund the group,”
:'''Comment:''' I was launched a RM in October to ''']''' but only one supported it, they argued that "Islamic State" is common name. So I think this RM won't succusful.
# In the NBC article : “Stavridis and other current U.S. officials suggest that the biggest share of the ''individual'' donations…..One U.S. official said the Saudis are "more in line with U.S. foreign policy" than the Qataris.
:But If we uses "ISIS" in most of area rather then article title, it will succusful. No one call the group as "ISIL" now. Reliable sources also use "ISIS". So ISIS is most popular term to refer the group. The " Islamic State" is second most popular term. ] (]) 14:19, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
# The New York Times article is an op-ed describing Saudi Arabia’s sponsorship of Salafism, no claim that “Saudi Arabia is funding ISIL” is made.
:'''Oppose''' When sources spell the name out, they almost always use "Islamic State" – , , , the list goes on and on. Readers expect to see "Islamic State", not a long and clunky alternative name. Almost nobody even knows what the second part of ISIS stands for. ]&nbsp;]&nbsp;&nbsp;''<sup style="font-family:Times New Roman">]</sup>'' 15:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
] (]) 12:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
::No. ], ] and this page makes confusion. And while saying the word "Islamic state" the thing comes on mind is the state of Islam and there should be no one particularly refered as Islamic state cuz lot of states claimed to be Islamic state and caliphate but it something that is/should be based on consensus of Muslims (Shura) like ] they can come to conclusion that is this an Islamic state, caliphate or not and no one accept them. They are salafi terrorist organization they have not right to claim that they are the Islamic state and how will someone make distinction between (] and isis ??? It's disrespectful and unfair that someone claimed the Islamic state or caliphate title and no one of that community accepts but based on people refers them giving the name doesn't make sense! If you think "Islamic state of Iraq and Syria" is not suitable then ]as suggest by @] or ] but the word "Islamic state" refers whole community not just a particular group it's a term. ] (]) 17:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Nothing written above concerns Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, it simply appears to be your personal opinion based on your own sensitivity (] may be helpful). ] (]) 22:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Agree with Sira Aspera, ] may also be relevant here. ]&nbsp;]&nbsp;&nbsp;''<sup style="font-family:Times New Roman">]</sup>'' 01:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::It sucks that terrorists have co-opted the name, but it isn't Misplaced Pages's job to WP:RGW and change article titles based on a Shura council. ] (]) 22:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. ] should redirect to ]. ] (]) 19:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''': No reason to lengthen the title. The terrorist organization is exactly what 99% of readers expect to find when they type the title, even more so after the current events in Syria. ] (]) 22:32, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. An RM with basically the same rationale was discussed a month ago and the closer found a "clear consensus not to move". So why are we discussing it again? I'm often not the biggest fan of ], but in this case it works perfectly. ] is the organisation, capitalised as such and commonly known thus, while ] refers to the generic concept. Suggest a speedy close since nothing has changed since November. Cheers &nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;] (]) 23:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' that is what the organization calls itself being the one used by the media and is clearly the ] and is the ].] (]) 01:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Then what will you say on ] ? How readers will distinct those pages? Or ] what does this page means the first state of Islam or first state of isis ? There is no problem using Islamic state name as per ] But make a distinction. ] (]) 01:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per ]. This is not an Islamic state but a terrorist organisation whose proper name is "Islamic State". The capitalisation difference is sufficient. ] &#124; ] 07:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:No it's not sufficient for a normal reader ] (]) 14:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)


:'''Oppose'''. The Islamic State itself is not a militant group, but a global coalition of militant groups under Islamic State's central command. The Iraq and Syria province is the most well-known, but there is no group that's just the Islamic State and not a regional affiliate. I wouldn't be opposed to renaming the article ] as that makes a better distinction between the org and the concept of an Islamic state.
== Official name ==
:Per WP:COMMONNAME as Amakuru points out, The Islamic State vs. Islamic state is the perfect example of a specific group commonly known as that versus the concept. ] (]) 22:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::Think from the pov of a normal reader who wants to know concept but finds this group go on Google and search Islamic state it shows this article. And the isis don't operating now globally and Minor in Iraq and Syria. And it create confusion with ] too ] (]) 02:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Per commonname. ] (]) 23:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Very clear primary topic. -- ] (]) 16:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Islamic State is a common name for the group. It’s the first thing that comes to mind. ] (]) 20:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*:True, The name 'Islamic State' should be kept on the page, Nobody knows what ISIL, ISIS are anymore. ] (]) 21:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*::But all the article in press mentions it as militant group or organization so why not make a distinction ] (]) 16:28, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: var(--color-error, red);">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from ] -->
</div><div style="clear:both;" class=></div>


== Use of term 'terror group' ==
*The official name is Islamic State. That should be listed as such in the lede as a valid alternative title (irrespective of the current title per ]). It is against policy to hide per ] or disagree with that fact per ]. The argument that the name is invalid as it is self-chosen is folly. Organisations chose their own name (generally). Attempts to delegitimise the name by that argument seem to be conflating the factual organisation name with the controvercial territorial claim (which of course the name asserts). That valid argument is best utilised in discussing the legitimacy backing the name as a self-proclaimed caliphate and unrecognised country, which is important, and should be detailed per ] and ] but not used in delegitimising the latest of a string of ''names'' this group call themselves this minute.
*] and ] re this undo , if we can not conflate the legitimacy of the name and the legitimacy of the territorial claim there may be a way forward. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span>; ]</span> 10:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


Per ], terms like terrorist are "best avoided '''unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject'''." I understand there was some confusion that led to the removal of the term based on a quick reading of the 'best avoided' part alone. The label terrorist is near-unanimously used by ]s in essentially every language to describe groups like ISIS and hence it is usable per ]. Using such a term would be justified in the lede as long as reliably sourced.--] (]) 22:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::Official name according to who? Groups do not get to pick their own name without restriction. I can't form "The United States" or "The Catholic Church" and expect anyone to call my group that. If I want to form a legal group in Canada/Iraq or Syria I need to register the name with the government. They are not a legally registered anything. They are not any kin of country either according to all reliable sources. The world community generally rejects the territorial claims (claim of up to the entire world), religious claim (all muslims must follow) and political claims (all governments are void) and the name that demands all this. What is in it for you to push terrorist propaganda at Misplaced Pages that goes against the condemnation of many world leaders, muslim leaders, and the standard name DAESH used in the region? Your proposed name has been rejected here repeatedly, so why push again unless you are trying to push the terrorist agenda? ] (]) 10:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


:I think something like "Islamic State has been designated as a terrorist organistation by the United States and many other countries" would be appropriate, per the requirement at MOS:TERRORIST for intext attribution. Note that news organisations like the BBC also refer to IS as a "militant group" rather than referring it to it in their own voice as a "terrorist group". ] (]) 22:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Legal registration means nothing when it comes to militant groups. The group has called itself 'Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant', and that was considered legitimate, but removing that describer somehow makes it less legitimate? And we are talking here about the legitimacy of the name, not the territorial claim. The two are independent of each other - just because the name the group identifies itself with changes, it does not mean their integrity changes too. The name is self-styled but there's no reason to pursue a practice of undermining a name change. Mind you, the name is recognised.. I see "IS" and "Islamic State" being used daily on television, to undermine a globally acknowledged change of name seems a pointless exercise. This is a global encyclopedia and I believe it should reflect that in at least being passive and impartial towards whatever this group decides to call itself. It is our job to record history, not try and influence it.] (]) 10:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
::The in-text styling is in the fourth paragraph of the lede. BBC also regularly uses the term terror and alternates between the two (terror and militant) rather than using only 'militant'. ] (]) 22:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::] forms a basis for a major argument here. The group has unilaterally made an unfortunate contraction to their name in the claim of being the Islamic State, as caliphate, to purportedly all of Islam and the world. This is a group that burns purportedly Sunni Muslim prisoners of war, that will behead aid workers and a Japanese man that only came to plead for the liberty and release of another prisoner and that has bombs aimed at it inclusive of the, I think justified, writing "enemies of Islam". We can indicate the groups claims here but we can't indicate such far reaching claims in Misplaced Pages's voice. Other organisations may fail in regard to their standards of NPOV. This is no reason for Misplaced Pages to do likewise. Isis, Isil and Daesh remain in common currency. They are all reflective of a name chosen by the group and, in a form such as ], provision is made for natural disambiguation.
::::The use of Misplaced Pages designation is not, I think, done to delegitimise the group. Legitimacy and legality is a matter to be worked out within the context of neighbouring nations and in the wider international sphere. Even under the ISI and ISIL names they were not regarded as a state. The difference now is the contested claim of being the Islamic state in regard to people who don't agree. ]] 11:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::(edit conflict with above)
:::::Can we hold off on the name changes at least until we finish being reviewed for A-class article status (or a month, whichever is shortest)? We just had failed move request to Islamic State, so the name is not about to change to Islamic State, however much I believe policy says we should. We are getting nowhere, and we could instead by working on improving the article or other projects. I disagree with Greg's argument, but for some reason in our many past discussions we have been unable to get anywhere
:::::Also, I'd be interested to see if anyone would be interested in ] over this and one or two other issues, such as quotes from the Quran? ] (]) 11:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 22:50, 7 January 2025

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Islamic State article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44Auto-archiving period: 2 months 
Note 1 This talk page has a history of high levels of activity. Please check to see whether your additional content can be added to an existing discussion section, and please make new section titles as precise as possible.
Note 2 Please complete citations attached to article content with fields such as Author, Title, URL, Date, Publisher/Work, Agency and Access Date. (See footnotes guide above.) (If you would like to copy the footnotes guide to your userpage, put this template in the Edit Page – {{User:P123ct1/My template}} – and it will display the guide.)
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Censorship warningMisplaced Pages is not censored.
Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Misplaced Pages's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Islamic State. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Islamic State at the Reference desk.
Peace dove with olive branch in its beakPlease stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.
? view · edit Frequently asked questions Q1: Which name is best: ISIS, ISIL, Daesh or Islamic State etc A: The article title is decided according to policy WP:Article titles

The discussion that resulted in the current name Islamic State was held in August-September 2021. The decision followed WP:Commonname section of WP:Article titles.

This question has been raised over 40 times on the talk page, without any proposal other than the September 2021 and August 2013 discussions resulting in a page move. Now archived, those discussions can be read here and searched here.

Past names, both used and considered, have included: "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria", "Islamic State of Iraq and (al-)Sham", "Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria", "Islamic State", "The Islamic State", "Islamic State (Middle East)", "Islamic State (Organisation)".
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Ajnad Foundation was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 19 July 2020 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Islamic State. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.
Islamic State received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Worldwide caliphate was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 8 September 2022 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Islamic State on 8 September 2022. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.
A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on April 8, 2015, April 8, 2017, and April 8, 2020.
This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconArab world Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconCrime and Criminal Biography: Organized crime / Terrorism Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Organized crime task force (assessed as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as Top-importance).
WikiProject iconInternational relations Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconIraq High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IraqWikipedia:WikiProject IraqTemplate:WikiProject IraqIraq
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconIslam: Islam and Controversy / Salaf / Sunni Islam High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Islam and Controversy task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Salaf task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Sunni Islam task force.
WikiProject iconMilitary history: African / Asian / Middle East / Post-Cold War
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
African military history task force
Taskforce icon
Asian military history task force
Taskforce icon
Middle Eastern military history task force
Taskforce icon
Post-Cold War task force
WikiProject iconOrganizations Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPolitics Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSyria High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by a media organization:
  • "ISIS not the Islamic state it fiercely claims to be". Olean Times Herald. March 18, 2015. I approach Misplaced Pages cautiously as to whether its abundant information on a multitude of subjects is complete and authoritative. But I salute the site for its numerous citations concerning the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS — specifically the "criticism of the name 'Islamic State' and 'caliphate' declaration" (found under its entry for the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant).
WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS

The article Islamic State, along with other pages relating to the Syrian Civil War and ISIL, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:

  • Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period)

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.

Remedy instructions and exemptions

Enforcement procedures:

  • Violations of any restrictions (excluding 1RR/reverting violations) and other conduct issues should be reported to the administrators' incidents noticeboard. Violations of revert restrictions should be reported to the administrators' edit warring noticeboard.
  • Editors who violate any listed restrictions may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
  • An editor must be aware before they can be sanctioned.

With respect to any reverting restrictions:

  • Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
  • Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as clear vandalism.
  • Clear vandalism of any origin may be reverted without restriction.
  • Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

          Other talk page banners
This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2014 and 2015.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 24 times. The weeks in which this happened:
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Discussions:

Older discussions:
  1. Islamic State of Iraq and Syria → Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, Moved, 13 August 2013, /Archive 1#Rename
  2. RM, Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, Not moved (but moved back to "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant"), 12 June 2014, /Archive 2#Requested Move
  3. RM, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → The Islamic State, No consensus, 29 June 2014, /Archive 3#Requested move 2
  4. RM, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, Procedurally closed, 31 July 2014, /Archive 3#Requested move
  5. RM, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State, Not moved, 8 August 2014, /Archive 5#Requested move 8 August 2014
  6. Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State (organization), Quick close, 20 August 2014, /Archive 5#Move
  7. Content discussion, References in the text: ISIS or ISIL?, ISIL chosen, 17 Sept – 26 Sept 2014, /Archive 10#References in the text: ISIS or ISIL?
  8. RM, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State, Not moved, 7 Sept – 30 Sept 2014, /Archive 10#Move request - 6 September 2014
  9. RM, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State (Organisation), No consensus, 17 Sep – 3 Oct 2014, /Archive 11#Requested move 17 September 2014
  10. RM, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State (islamist rebel group), No consensus, 9 Jan – 17 Jan 2015, /Archive 28#Requested move 9 January 2015
  11. RM, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State, Not moved, 19 Apr – 20 Apr 2015, /Archive 34#Requested move 19 April 2015
  12. RM, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State (IS), Not moved, 15 Jul – 29 Jul 2015, /Archive_37#Requested move 15 July 2015
The contents of the Khilafah.is page were merged into ISIL#Propaganda and social media on 29 November 2015. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.
Section sizes
Section size for Islamic State (41 sections)
Section name Byte
count		 Section
total
(Top) 86,495 86,495
Name 12,163 12,163
Purpose and strategy 27 41,370
Ideology 24,537 24,537
Islamic eschatology 1,734 1,734
Goals 7,287 7,287
Strategy 7,785 7,785
Organisation 1,359 50,589
Leadership and governance 19,704 19,704
Civilians in Islamic State-controlled areas 3,373 3,373
Military 101 10,951
Number of combatants 4,645 4,645
Conventional weapons 2,102 2,102
Non-conventional weapons 4,103 4,103
Women 3,680 3,680
Communications 69 69
Finances 7,841 11,453
Monetary system 2,516 2,516
Education 1,096 1,096
History 2,821 2,821
Territorial control and claims 10,277 10,277
International reaction 124 62,895
International criticism 2,287 2,287
Islamic criticism 531 31,784
Religious leaders and organisations 20,797 20,797
Other jihadist groups 10,456 10,456
Other commentaries 2,731 28,700
Designation as a terrorist organisation 22,657 22,657
Militia, cult, territorial authority, and other classifications 3,312 3,312
Supporters 3,865 3,865
Countries and groups at war with IS 672 28,869
Global Coalition to Counter the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant 6,344 28,197
Other state opponents not part of the Counter-ISIL Coalition 5,338 5,338
Other non-state opponents 11,421 11,421
Al-Qaeda 5,094 5,094
Human rights abuse and war crime findings 4,279 4,279
Explanatory notes 38 38
Citations 29 29
General and cited references 3,466 3,466
Further reading 333 333
External links 5,413 5,413
Total 312,902 312,902


On 14 December 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to Islamic State (militant group). The result of the discussion was not moved.

Requested Move 15 October 2024

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Not moved. We normally keep RM discussions open for at least seven days with a possibility for prolongation via relisting. This discussion has now been open for more than four weeks. The request suggested a move to Islamic State (organisation), a target that for several years has been a stable and correctly categorized {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} redirect to Islamic State.The proposal to move has seen no policy-based support. The opposers argue per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC that the article should stay at the base name, ergo the survey is closed noting a clear consensus not to move. (closed by non-admin page mover) Sam Sailor 17:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Islamic State→? — Current name is just the "Islamic State", it’s can confuse readers with article about the concept. I don’t' suggest it to rename the article to ISIL, beacuse "ISIL" is not common name anymore and pretty outdated.

So let's rename the article to Islamic State (organisation). ISIS can be also suitable beacuse "ISIS" is currently common name to the group. Gaplow43286 (talk) 06:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Oppose Islamic State is the common name for the organization, being the one used by the media. The organization is also the clear primary topic for the name "Islamic State" with this capitalization. The hatnote at the top of the article is good enough to clear up any confusion. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:07, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
Hi QuicoleJR, Naming the article "Islamic State (organization)" would be a more appropriate solution, as it clarifies that the article specifically refers to the militant group commonly known as ISIS, while distinguishing it from the broader and more diverse theoretical concept of an "Islamic State." This title would help avoid confusion, making it clear that the focus is on the organization rather than the general political or religious concept. By adding the term "organization," it also provides a more neutral and descriptive approach, acknowledging that the term "Islamic State" has broader historical and theoretical meanings, which should not be conflated with this particular group.The normal readers are not supposed to distinguish this minute difference.
--DelphiLore — Preceding undated comment added 18:56, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Please convey your thoughts in your own words, chatbots are not helpful. - Ratnahastin (talk) 02:49, 12 November 2024 (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.

"‘You are next’: online posts show Islamic State interest in attacks on US ahead of election"

Doug Weller talk 11:16, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller Cite reliable sources to confirm it. BangladeshiStranger🇧🇩 (talk) 08:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
@Stranger43286 Why didn't you bother to look first? That would be the sensible idea and sholw good faith. The first hit is Doug Weller talk 11:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Very small Minor edit request

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add an collapsible list into groups infobox, it's very long.
(this topic will be deleted after accepting) 178.81.55.110 (talk) 19:25, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

First sentence

I have removed, from the first sentence of the article, (uncited) text that calls ISIL an "unrecognised quasi-state." It is true that, as of 2024, affiliates of the terror group hold territorial control over shifting areas of Africa (which we mention in the lead section), but the preponderance of sources (or at least the sources currently cited) don't seem to commonly use the "quasi-state" verbiage to describe ISIL presently - certainly not at a frequency sufficient to justify its inclusion in the lead. Neither of the two sources cited on the present situation in Africa (, ) use the term. Given all that, the "quasi-state" language is more likely to confuse readers than enlighten them, especially as it seems to conflate the situation a decade ago (2012/2013 era) with the situation today. (Note, too, that there are many terror/insurgent groups that occupy territory but are not commonly described as "quasi-states." Neutrality 19:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to include IS-CP and Add a Section on Involvement within the borders of the Russian Federation

The article shows a significant plurality of foreign fighters in Islamic State originating from The Russian Federation yet there is no mention of either IS-CP or the link to Chechan extremists/terrorists nor the direct involvemnet of Al-Qaeada fighters in the Second Chechen War and activities of IS-CP in Russia since inception of Islamic State/Daesh and it's military defeat two years later.

I prepose inclusion of links to the main article for IS-CP in the article summary as well as a summary of IS-CP operations within the Caucuses. I'm interested in any discussion/contributions before amending the article. Debiant (talk) 15:12, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 14 December 2024

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Cremastra 🎄 u — c 🎄 23:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Islamic State → Islamic State (militant group) – "Islamic state" doesn't indicates towards a particular group but whole Muslim community! And it makes confusion. There are lot of countries or state in past who used this name but not fair to target whole community as majority or almost all Muslims don't accept it as an Islamic state or caliphate. It makes confusion like in First Islamic state page. I think it should be moved on the basis of it targets a particular community who aren't accepting it and Misplaced Pages should not work on the basis of who claims the title.There is no problem using Islamic state name as per WP:COMMONNAMES But make a distinction.

I have changed the proposed title because the Islamic state of Iraq and Syria doesn't exists. And the main reason for this request is to make distinction.Therealbey (talk) 23:23, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Disagree. The "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" is no more as declared by former Caliph Baghdadi, who declared a global Caliphate. That is why now correct to talk of "Islamic State" when referring to the group's central activities and in general; then one can talk of "IS in Syria, in Iraq, IS-WAP, IS-SP, IS-GS etc. etc.
None believe "Islamic State" means "worldwide Muslim Community". 22Chev22 (talk) 14:14, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Comment: I was launched a RM in October to Islamic State (organisation) but only one supported it, they argued that "Islamic State" is common name. So I think this RM won't succusful.
But If we uses "ISIS" in most of area rather then article title, it will succusful. No one call the group as "ISIL" now. Reliable sources also use "ISIS". So ISIS is most popular term to refer the group. The " Islamic State" is second most popular term. RealStranger43286 (talk) 14:19, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Oppose When sources spell the name out, they almost always use "Islamic State" – , , , the list goes on and on. Readers expect to see "Islamic State", not a long and clunky alternative name. Almost nobody even knows what the second part of ISIS stands for. 🐔 Chicdat   15:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
No. Islamic state, First Islamic state and this page makes confusion. And while saying the word "Islamic state" the thing comes on mind is the state of Islam and there should be no one particularly refered as Islamic state cuz lot of states claimed to be Islamic state and caliphate but it something that is/should be based on consensus of Muslims (Shura) like OIC they can come to conclusion that is this an Islamic state, caliphate or not and no one accept them. They are salafi terrorist organization they have not right to claim that they are the Islamic state and how will someone make distinction between (Islamic state and isis ??? It's disrespectful and unfair that someone claimed the Islamic state or caliphate title and no one of that community accepts but based on people refers them giving the name doesn't make sense! If you think "Islamic state of Iraq and Syria" is not suitable then Islamic State (organisation)as suggest by @Stranger43286 or Islamic state (militant group) but the word "Islamic state" refers whole community not just a particular group it's a term. Therealbey (talk) 17:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Nothing written above concerns Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, it simply appears to be your personal opinion based on your own sensitivity (WP:NOTAFORUM may be helpful). Sira Aspera (talk) 22:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Agree with Sira Aspera, WP:RGW may also be relevant here. 🐔 Chicdat   01:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
It sucks that terrorists have co-opted the name, but it isn't Misplaced Pages's job to WP:RGW and change article titles based on a Shura council. Jebiguess (talk) 22:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Oppose. The Islamic State itself is not a militant group, but a global coalition of militant groups under Islamic State's central command. The Iraq and Syria province is the most well-known, but there is no group that's just the Islamic State and not a regional affiliate. I wouldn't be opposed to renaming the article Islamic State (organization) as that makes a better distinction between the org and the concept of an Islamic state.
Per WP:COMMONNAME as Amakuru points out, The Islamic State vs. Islamic state is the perfect example of a specific group commonly known as that versus the concept. Jebiguess (talk) 22:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Think from the pov of a normal reader who wants to know concept but finds this group go on Google and search Islamic state it shows this article. And the isis don't operating now globally and Minor in Iraq and Syria. And it create confusion with First Islamic state too Therealbey (talk) 02:18, 17 December 2024 (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.

Use of term 'terror group'

Per MOS:TERRORIST, terms like terrorist are "best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject." I understand there was some confusion that led to the removal of the term based on a quick reading of the 'best avoided' part alone. The label terrorist is near-unanimously used by WP:RSs in essentially every language to describe groups like ISIS and hence it is usable per MOS:TERRORIST. Using such a term would be justified in the lede as long as reliably sourced.--OrebroVi (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I think something like "Islamic State has been designated as a terrorist organistation by the United States and many other countries" would be appropriate, per the requirement at MOS:TERRORIST for intext attribution. Note that news organisations like the BBC also refer to IS as a "militant group" rather than referring it to it in their own voice as a "terrorist group". Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
The in-text styling is in the fourth paragraph of the lede. BBC also regularly uses the term terror and alternates between the two (terror and militant) rather than using only 'militant'. OrebroVi (talk) 22:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Categories: