Template:Pbneutral

Template:Syrian Civil War sanctions

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Iraq C‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Wikipedia. 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 articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Middle East C‑class This 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 articles C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  Middle Eastern military history task force Syria C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Wikipedia. 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 articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Arab world C‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Wikipedia. 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 articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Terrorism C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on terrorism, individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TerrorismWikipedia:WikiProject TerrorismTemplate:WikiProject TerrorismTerrorism articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Findnotice

Quote:

"The Organization of Jihad's Base in the Country of the Two Rivers," more commonly known as "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" (AQI).

"Country of the Two Rivers" links to Mesopotamia. Media also translated that to "Al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia" which is not mentioned in this long section on names and name changes.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.221.67.50 (talk • contribs) 06:58, 24 August 2014

Most of the big red splotch of Islamic State is empty desert controlled by no one. At most, ISIS/ISIL controls the cities/towns they occupy and the routes between the cities/towns. The area fully controlled by Islamic State (and the for that matter most formal governments in a desert region) would look more like a spider web. --Naaman Brown (talk) 09:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Note: map includes uninhabited areas" was added to partially address this. I don't believe it's technically feasible, or at least far more challenging, to create and update a map using the 'spiderweb' that Institute for Understanding War and others are using. Gazkthul (talk) 02:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you were to modify the map, you should add another color for "no man's land (desert)". To be fair, that territory does not count for either side in the conflict. JRSpriggs (talk) 03:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which part is Syria and which part is Iraq? That is a basic question any reader would want answered looking at this map. Why is this considered so unimportant? The maps have never shown borders. Why? --P123ct1 (talk) 11:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The statement that the "map includes uninhabited areas" is facile; nearly any map of anywhere in the world above the city level includes uninhabited areas of some kind, depending on the reader's interpretation of "uninhabited". I had no idea what the note meant to communicate until I read this talk page discussion. I recommend either re-wording the note or removing it outright. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 07:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that it's ambiguous and unhelpful. The easiest fix might be to include the locations of cities so the sparseness of al-Anbar province will be more obvious. I'd also suggest replacing "uninhabited" with "uninhabitable". 136.159.160.242 (talk) 16:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Uninhabitable" is not a bad idea, but I worry about quibbles about what that means. How about Note: shading includes large area of undefended desert. This includes several significant wording changes. I'm hoping "undefended" conveys the sense of "nodody gives a f***" what we're trying to find words for. It's not quite "unclaimed", but close. And by saying "shading" (not just "map") and "large areas", it's clear that the indicated sizes are misleading. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 18:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to bring this discussion to your attention which deals with the same question. Kind regards. --RJFF (talk) 17:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - While this needed to be done I'm not happy with the results. I think all timeline history (2003-2013) should be split to it's own article. I've transcluded the most recent part of Timeline of ISIS aggression: December 2013-Present (poor name choice) with the adjustable <includeonly>text here</includeonly> markup tags. That way any recently added text should instantly show up on this page, with the Timeline page being the only place where timeline events should be added.~Technophant (talk) 00:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My experiment with transclusion works however it is complicated and comes to an error page when the edit tab is clicked. There looks like a better way to do this using Help:Labeled section transclusion. I'll be working on using this to selectively include one or two months from the timeline summary.~Technophant (talk) 01:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By changing some formatting I now have both sections (august and september) with the edit functions working correctly. Once October begins the includeonly line can be moved down to only list sept and oct.~Technophant (talk) 03:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the first map under "Timeline" depict Jordan as being under Israeli occupation? What does Israel even have to do with this article? This seems like something that's been added by someone with an ulterior agenda. 123.243.215.92 (talk) 17:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Establishing standardized naming in wikilinks

• Commment There's clearly no census to rename however there's another related problem - how to should this article be referred to from other articles? Should it be Islamic State of Iraq and Levant (ISIL/ISIS) or some other variant? From what I understand we can establish by consensus (like on al-Qaeda) how this group should be wlinked on this talk page as an authoritative guide for other editors.~Technophant (talk) 23:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest ISIL as the least ambiguous option. ISIS sounds too much like the Egyptian goddess. bd2412 T 19:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The use of ISIL is on the rise, partly because of it's use by the Whitehouse's user of it. It's also the most commonly used acronym by military analysts and some international news agencies. However, the term ISIS is still quite popular, and to avoid confusion using ISIL/ISIS seems to me to be the best option.~Technophant (talk) 01:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a search on ("داعش") OR (" الدولة الإسلامية‎"). That's "Daash" / "Daʿesh" / "Daesh" OR "Islamic State". "Daash" / "Daʿesh" / "Daesh" got a lot of coverage.

I am curious about the following extreme results:

• "Daash" / "Daʿesh" / "Daesh" as "داعش" gets "About 45,700,000 results"

(I am yet to find other meanings for "Daash" / "Daʿesh" / "Daesh": https://translate.google.com/#ar/en/%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%B9%D8%B4 )

• "Islamic State" as "الدولة الإسلامية‎" gets "About 9,830,000 results".

First I think we should decide on a prevalent use of one English representation of "داعش" and I propose "Daash"

• "Islamic State" AND Daash gets "About 1,210,000 results"
• "Islamic State" AND Daʿesh gets "About 62,800 results"
• "Islamic State" AND Daesh gets "About 219,000 results"

Second, I propose that "Daash", "Daʿesh" or "Daesh" should be given a far higher level of representation in the article.

Dāʿesh is currently mentioned twice; Daash does not appear; Daʿesh is mentioned once in the article and once in references; Daesh is mentioned once in the article and once in notes.

In this connection I also propose that the lead be changed perhaps as follows:

At the moment the lead reads: The Islamic State (IS); (Arabic: الدولة الإسلامية ad-Dawlah l-ʾIslāmiyyah), formerly the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL /ˈaɪsəl/; Arabic acronym: داعش Dāʿesh)...

I propose: The Islamic State (IS); (Arabic: الدولة الإسلامية ad-Dawlah l-ʾIslāmiyyah), previously self-described as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL); (Arabic: الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام - Arabic acronym: داعش Dāʿish, DaashDaʿish)...

I do not think that "formerly" is sufficient. There is significant use of "Daash", "Daʿesh" or "Daesh" in Arabic sources while the United States and others make direct reference to the "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant".

Gregkaye ✍♪ 00:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see why Daash needs a far higher level of representation in the article. Outlining the term in the lead and repeating it with spelling variations in the 'Name and Name changes' subsection should be more than sufficient. Gazkthul (talk) 00:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I might have missed some previous discussion, but shouldn't we be deciding this based on the MOS's guidelines about Arabic transliteration? "داعش" should appear as "Da`ish" throughout, no? Suomichris (talk) 01:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Gazkthul:, I said "should be". Reason, its a term in prodigious use and this "should be" fairly reported. @Suomichris: in reflection of the high level of use in arabic, "Daash", "Daʿesh" or "Daesh" is widely reported in western media. In this regard I had assumed that WP:Use commonly recognisable names applies. Gregkaye ✍♪ 02:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My 2 cents. The داعش acronym is correctly pronounced Da3esh, where 3 is the internet representation of the guttural sound that Arab speakers can pronounce like they do in the word 3ayn - eye-, and is correctly transliterated as Dāʿesh. Daash is incorrect but it may be used by uninformed persons. I have never heard anyone call them Daash. An analogy may be something like a Latin speaker trying to say "my son" and it comes out "mi zhon". Worldedixor (talk) 02:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you all decide on this time, it will be changed again by a new editor down the line, and the discussion will start again and perhaps another variant will be chosen, and so on. Have lost count of the variants on this acronym that have appeared in this article in just a few months. The beliefs in the infobox are ever-changing as well, and the titles of the infoboxes. Some Wikipedia articles are like an amoeba, and this is one of them. So much for solid information from Wikipedia. --P123ct1 (talk) 07:15, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't think it should stop us that other editors will change it later—there's a clear MOS guideline here, and if we can also get consensus here on the Talk page, anything that doesn't match those two things should be reverted. Worldedixor and I seem to be largely in agreement that this should be represented as "Daʿesh" (note that the transliteration guidelines have the kasra as a /i/, regardless of actual pronunciation, and not /e/). Also, Gregkaye, the guideline you point to about recognizable names is specifically for article titles. Suomichris (talk) 14:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TY Suomichris It is a good point about article titles and I have withdrawn my proposal for Daash above. The thing that was on my mind is that the the topic of Daʿesh/Daash might develop to a point where it warrants an article in its own right but this may be thinking too far ahead. Would people be in agreement on the consistent use of Daʿesh then?

I just did a search on "Islamic State" AND Dāʿesh which merely got "About 3,480 results".

with similar results for "Islamic State" AND Da3esh getting "About 3,180 results".

The search on Daʿesh got "About 62,800 results" and, if people are happy that this fits the MOS criteria, is this something could be used consistently.

On the same basis how does this amended the proposed opener as: The Islamic State (IS); (Arabic: الدولة الإسلامية ad-Dawlah l-ʾIslāmiyyah), previously self-described as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL); (Arabic: الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام - Arabic acronym: داعش  Daʿesh)...

Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the general Wikipedia reader will be far less bothered by how it is spelled and pronounced than why it is used pejoratively, what its pejorative meaning is it carries and why it is disliked so much by ISIS! This remains a mystery despite Google searches. --P123ct1 (talk) 19:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dāʿesh as a word has no meaning in the Arabic language. Some uninformed journalists just parrot that it has a pejorative meaning.Worldedixor (talk) 20:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RS sources back it up in "Name & name changes". Examine them. That's my last word on it. --P123ct1 (talk) 21:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1 more cent from moi... I am aware of MOS's guidelines and its common errors. However, Dāʿesh (not Dā'esh) can only be pronounced Daa3esh... Dāʿish may be pronounced Daa3eesh by most readers, which is wrong! Worldedixor (talk) 21:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Worldedixor, you seem to talk a lot of cents and with value greater than you let on. I am guessing that Daʿesh is better than Daʿesh. Good enough as a compromise between accuracy and standard journalistic output? Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:45, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you, Gregkaye. Worldedixor (talk) 19:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose the consistent use of Daʿesh in article

Can we use a consistent spelling? Daʿesh? Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would be my vote, yes, as it conforms to the MOS. Suomichris (talk) 18:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with Gregkaye and Suomichris as a good compromise between accuracy and standard journalistic output. Worldedixor (talk) 19:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Suomichris: @Worldedixor: and others, I just looked back at some archived pages of this talk page and found: "DĀʻiSh". I know Worldedixor prefers the use of "e". How applicable is a regular presentation such as DAʻeSh or DAʿeSh (DAʻiSh or DAʿiSh) or similar in comparison to Daʿesh? I also wondered about a format such as XXʻXXx or XXʿXXx.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "i" can be mispronounced by many. I see no justification for a capital A in the middle of the word. Perhaps DAʿESH because its an acronym, but we would be given three Latin capital letters to one Arabic letter (ش). I think 'Daʿesh is the best compromise. Hope this helps. Worldedixor (talk) 12:17, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another argument for a capitalisation of DAʿESH is a commonality with ISIL and ISIS. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I predicted, this decision didn't last long. It has just been changed again! --P123ct1 (talk) 11:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And again. :{ --P123ct1 (talk) 12:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I think that a GAN/FAN should be placed. What do you guys think? DEW. Adrenaline (Nahnah4) 04:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To Nahnah4: What are you talking about? What is "GAN/FAN"? JRSpriggs (talk) 04:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@JRSpriggs: Good article nomination and Featured article nomination. DEW. Adrenaline (Nahnah4) 05:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adrenaline: Can you give reasons? --P123ct1 (talk) 07:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that this article is stable enough to allow it to be considered for a good article. JRSpriggs (talk) 08:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JRSpriggs I don't think it ever will be either, given that events are moving so fast and new developments are springing up all the time. --P123ct1 (talk) 19:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Nahnah4 JRSpriggs User:P123ct1 I think with recent changes (historical articles split off and all recent changes to be put in Timeline) it should be upgraded to B-class, and possibly looked at for being GAN/FAN.~Technophant (talk) 19:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi We could name the article Islamic State (Middle East). The name of the arabic page is not important. --Panam2014 (talk) 23:39, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Panam2014: This is being discussed. Please add to earlier Talk page #98 "Requested move". --P123ct1 (talk) 07:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is a bad idea to call this Islamic States (Middle-East) since Middle-East carries geographic connotations and so is not via media and offends muslims and other groups due to legitimating the terrorist group's propaganda. Suggesting the Al-baghdadi's terrorist movement is a state, Islamic, an organisation etc is not good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.217.255.4 (talk) 08:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Panam2014, I'd suggest that the least problematic alternate/compromise name might be Islamic State (Iraq and Levant). It still leaves me a little cold as I think it panders to the groups unjustified claim of authority over Islam and yet a question remains as to the extent to we should ignore the equivalent panderings of the English media and their undeniable preference for "Islamic State". There are arguments both ways.

I don't see names like Islamic State (organisation) and Islamic State (militant group) as being very helpful as they give no certain differentiation from other Islamic States that have gone before  add: or, indeed, that may come in the future. / See: Islamic State (disambiguation). Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What about Islamic State (formerly Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant)? Couldn't be any clearer than that. --P123ct1 (talk) 13:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest issue is that of "Islamic State". It's an odd one as its possible to feel ethically wrong either when supporting or opposing the title.

Beyond these issues, Islamic State (formerly Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) certainly scores high on as a specific reference to the group but, for me, "formerly" presents an issue of the relegation of "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" as a formerly used name. Two associated options might be: Islamic State (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) or Islamic State (previously calling itself the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant). The first title just presents two names without explanation while the second option, while making use of the same non-dismissive link as is currently used in the article, has 13 words.

I think that the most applicable part of the guidelines from Category:Wikipedia naming conventions is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (political parties). This focusses on either location or formation date. A group history of rebrandings and leadership changes may add further difficulties of the date option. For me any suitable reference to "Iraq" and "Levant" will also give a reasonable representation of the last Arabic name in the groups complex history and I also think that these words have significance in relation to WP:UCRN. That's as far as I have got. Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I still cannot see what is wrong with "formerly" the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The group chose to change its name on 29 June this year from that to "Islamic State". It is a fact, full stop. Doesn't an encyclopaedia record facts? P123ct1 (talk) 16:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The group chose to change its name from the Arabic (الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام‎) name that it adopted in 2013 to a shortened Arabic name that they prefer now. Arabic and other language medias continue make significant use of of references to the 2013 name. wikt:formerly presents a meaning that is wholly in the past and, in this case, it is inaccurately used. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic State (formerly known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant)? --P123ct1 (talk) 16:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ISIL itself could be another possible title and, I know that we have just been discussing the within article use of ISIL/ISIS, but in reference to an article title WP:UCRN becomes applicable.
ISIS is also up for consideration.
The use of this type of title could gets around moral objections related to "Islamic State of what?" type issues. Other moral issues might include consideration of the poor woman in the States who pleaded with media outlets not to use her name in this connection but Google stats also coldly weighs into the encyclopaedic argument.
Acronym title formats work for the likes of the BBC, HIV/AIDS, IBM, NATO, and a wide range of others. Perhaps it can work here too.

• "Islamic State" gets "About 4,570,000 results"
• ISIL gets "About 28,000,000 results" with results including those of the likes of Intersil Corp.
• ISIS gets "About 227,000,000 results" note that this will include a number of references to ancient Egyptian religion and a significant number of other organisations and people etc. as partly referenced at Isis (disambiguation). There is also a potential issue here in that "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" is less accurate than "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" but the article currently makes reference to "Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham"

Curiously:

• ISIS got "About 62,900,000 results" with dates "1 Apr 2013 - 'Today'"

while

• ISIS got "About 1,380,000 results" with dates "Before 1 Apr 2013".

Its still a lot of hits. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear All,

I have noticed some problems with this articles and think fixing them is important given the possible traffic this article may get as military action in Iraq and Syria escalates.

1) The time of events and history sections are confusing. These should be one section. 2) The group is not a "jihadist group". Jihad is a religious duty for muslims and this group is engaged in persecuting and murdering muslims as well as various non-muslim religious minorities. 3) The article is bias and furthers ISIS propaganda. Re-terming the article in terms of a movement is more appropriate. The group has labelled itself "Islamic State" to attempt to assert political and religious authority over all muslims. Wikipedia has no interest in supporting this assertion and doing so is biased and not via media. 4) The article is becoming far too long. There is a lot of interest on this at the moment and so a lot of editors, but there is too much content for this topic. It is not in the reader's interest for there to be a billion pages.

That is about it. Please try to address as may be the case. I cannot, since the article is "locked".

Regards, 131.217.255.4 (talk) 08:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

131.217.255.4: Thank you for your comment. There is a proposal to reduce the size of the "History" section here and this will probably happen soon. I also have questioned why the 2014 timeline should be duplicated in this article, now that it has been transferred to a new article of its own here. --P123ct1 (talk) 11:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To 131.217.255.4: If you want to participate in editing this article (which is semi-protected), you should choose a user-id and password and register. After four days of editing, you will be allowed to edit semi-protected articles. I disagree with your desire to whitewash Islam by trying to claim that the actions of ISIL are contrary to the will of Muhammad as conveyed in the Qu'ran. JRSpriggs (talk) 11:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

131.217.255.4 I was particularly interested in what you said at: 2) "The group is not a "jihadist group"..." I am not sure of the extent to which the actions of the group can be justified under any interpretation of Jihad. See: http://www.justislam.co.uk/product.php?products_id=2 for one article on "What Jihad IS NOT!" Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article reflects descriptions by reliable sources. These sources describe claims and counter-claims; and we have both in the article. We don't do original research to single our sources that accord with our findings. I appreciate your point of view but we must defer to reliable sources. Jason from nyc (talk) 23:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of including the last 30 days of the 2014 timeline was my idea and is discussed above (#Timeline and History sections). The idea is to have about 30 days of the most recents events viewable here, however the information is actually in the timeline article, and clicking the edit tab opens an editing window for that article. I think the entire timeline (2003-2014) or just older timeline (2003-2013) should be also on split page as well with a link to it from this page. A proposal to reorder the sections is above (#Sequence of article sections) and there's another proposal to allow Ip users to edit the article with pending revisions (#Questioning semi-protected status) which can be closed and requested. As far as bias, I think there needs to be more information about the soft power campaign and local governance. I found an article here, which along with the Vice documentary gives a rare (albeit biased) view into what everyday life is like in occupied territory. ~Technophant (talk) 00:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that more info on governance would be desirable. I have put some in the Governance section and I see some is in the Guidelines for civilians section. I suggest moving the latter into the former. We use The Atlantic article in both sections. The sources have more details on governance. Jason from nyc (talk) 01:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --P123ct1 (talk) 17:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with this article? It is now being influenced too much by the personal views of editors. Bare facts are being twisted and magnified. I am not saying from bad motives. But neutrality is important in Wikipedia. I understand this is a common problem in Wikipedia. Fortunately, this page seems to have escaped it until recently. --P123ct1 (talk) 12:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jihadist or similar in lead!?

In light of criticisms of Islamic authorities in regard to the groups activities I have swapped Sunni Jihadist for Sunni Insurgent in the lead. I certainly don't think it is fair just to declare them jihadist without citation and without statements regarding who says what. In what Islamically legitimate ways are the group "struggling" and should this label be placed on the groups scholars, the groups leadership, all the groups members? How do some of the groups more controversial actions fit in with the concept of Jihad?
Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gregkaye: Once again, Wikipedia should not judge these things. That is for historians and commentators, whose views can be reported in the right place ("Ideology and beliefs"). Wikipedia must adhere to NPOV, especially in the Lead. The subject you raise has been discussed on the Talk page more than once, for example here. The Lead should not be cluttered up with footnotes; editors have been trying to cut down on their number (see Talk page discussion #27). Footnotes are for the section where their jihadism is described, in the "Ideology and beliefs" section. --P123ct1 (talk) 23:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gregkaye:I think you are reading too much into the term Jihadist, reliable sources use it to describe Islamic State (as well many other organisations from al-Qaeda to the Taliban) therefore we do to. What is or isn't Islamically legitimate is not Wikipedia's place to decide. Gazkthul (talk) 02:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A google of ISIS jihadist gives 9.3 million hits. A google of ISIS insurgent gives 484,000 hits. Jihadist is used in a broad range of publications including The Guardian, CNN, the BBC, and the New York Times. From the context it is clearly used in the martial sense and not in a general sense of striving. Incidentally al-Qaeda jihadist gives 2 million and al-Qaeda insurgent gives 7 million while Boko Haram gives 3 million hits for both combinations. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The lead should summarize the article. We use jihadist more often than insurgent. It is more specific than insurgent. And given the successful establishment of governance in eastern Syria and the possible establishment of rule over Western Iraq, ISIS has gone beyond the insurgent stage in some areas. The word jihadist better summarizes the article. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Insurgent is beginning to look outdated; events have moved on so fast since June. I agree that the Lead should use the term jihadist as that is how they are commonly described. Whether they can legitimately call themselves jihadists could be discussed in "Ideology and beliefs" - see my new outline for this section here. --P123ct1 (talk) 15:44, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In comparison the article on al-Qaeda states later in the lead that: "It operates as ... a radical Wahhabi Muslim movement calling for a strict interpretation of sharia law and jihad". If substantiated then it is certainly warranted to document any of Islamic State/..'s claims of being a jihadist group, its advocacies of jihad or anything that it actually does. Its also fair to report on interpretations of various outlets of it as being an jihadist group. However, when interpretations of Jihad vary, I don't think it right to directly label them as being jihadist. I don't believe the killing of innocents as being legitimately in tune with Islamic law or jihad and, if anything, we should quote experts on these matters. I agree with other editors that the word insurgent is outdated but think that value references to topics like Jihad need to be qualified. Several wordings can be used including "Sunni group" or "group predominantly composed of Sunni Muslims". Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To Gregkaye: The problem is the definition of "innocents". People who you, I, and most others consider innocent are not considered innocent by strict Muslims because those innocents have rejected Allah as understood by the strict Muslims. JRSpriggs (talk) 13:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gregkaye, with all due respect, I believe your objection to stating that ISIS is jihadist is because the converse doesn't hold. The converse would state that jihad must be what ISIS does and as you point out it is a much broader concept; even in the sense of "lessor jihad" most interpreters object to ISIS behavior. This problem is true for every categorization of ISIS. ISIS is Salafi (but not all Salafists are like ISIS). ISIS is Sunni (but the converse is obviously false). ISIS is Wahhabi influenced but so are others who reject ISIS. ISIS longs for a caliphate but so do others who reject self-appointed upstarts. You can put ISIS in many categories that they would share with others who reject and repudiate the path ISIS has taken. The sources overwhelmingly categorize ISIS as jihadist and I believe we must too. Obviously further qualification is absolutely required as we have an obligation to provide a full description. Jason from nyc (talk) 00:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@JRSpriggs: I would like to see evidence that the imams and other muslims beheaded by ISIL were any less "strictly Muslim" than the murderers that killed them. Should we also call them Jihadist? Declaring ISIL to be Jihadist prior to a discussion on the topic is taking sides. There are many Muslims that fit the literal description of Jihad that would not kill journalists and civilians etc. In fact notable opposition exists.

3. By murdering prisoners of war, journalists and civilians, including mosque imams who refused to endorse their campaign, and by enslaving the women and children of their opponents, ISIS has violated international agreements such as the Geneva Conventions and conventions on slavery that everyone, including Muslims, have signed up to. God says in the Qur’an, “Believers, fulfil your covenants!” (5:1)

4. The IS persecution and massacres of Shia Muslims, Christians and Yazidis is abhorrent and opposed to Islamic teachings and the Islamic tolerance displayed by great empires such as the Mughals and Ottomans.

5. Based on all of the above: IS is a heretical, extremist organisation and it is religiously prohibited (haram) to support or join it; furthermore, it is an obligation on British Muslims to actively oppose its poisonous ideology, especially when this is promoted within Britain.

from: http://www.aobm.org/fatwa-on-the-so-called-islamic-state-formerly-islamic-state-in-iraq-syria/

The article's first paragraph described the group as "Jihadist" with the problem that the second paragraph then went on to presents descriptions of the group as being "a terrorist group" "designated as a foreign terrorist organization" that the "United Nations and Amnesty International have accused the group of grave human rights abuses".

Yes Jason from nyc, the point is that Jihad does represent a wider concept. The lead as it stood failed to represent it.

Readers would be forgiven in thinking, oh, so that's what Jihad is. The text of the lead was unacceptable in context that it is very possible for a reader to read just a portion of an article. We would be giving an inaccurate/incomplete view of the broad concept of Jihad.

"islamic state" "jihadist" gets "About 2,560,000 results"
"islamic state" "extremist" gets "About 2,890,000 results"

Claims of the group as being Jihadist or comments on references made in the media (and perhaps in other places) to the group as being Jihadist might well be placed with the groups declaration as being a caliphate as also mentioned in the lead.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 05:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is just the nature of categorization. It’s epistemologically necessary that different concretes subsumed in a general category will be different. Saying that French are Europeans doesn’t mean that French are Greek or Estonians. The fact that all French are Europeans doesn’t mean that all Europeans are French. That's the converse. When stating the Europeans is the genus of French that doesn’t imply that this is the only way to embody that genus. This is just the nature of categorization. Sources overwhelmingly use “jihadist” as the genus for ISIS without implying that the term applies to others in the same way. We should follow the sources as Wikipedia is supposed to reflect the sources. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of "Sunni insurgents" one could say "jihadist extremists." This gives a differentia of extremists to distinguish ISIS jihadists from others. This would be an improvement even if the word "extremist" is vague. By the way I get five times more google hits of ISIS with jihadist than I get with ISIS and extremists. It's clear that jihadist is the descriptor of choice of reliable sources with other qualifiers depending on source. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done "jihadist extremist..." as per suggestion. This may concur with western sources but may follow a path of error.

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Lesser_vs_Greater_Jihad

"The two forms of Jihad in Islam are sometimes explained by apologists as follows:

• Lesser outer jihad (al-jihad al-asghar); a military struggle, i.e. a holy war
• Greater inner jihad (al-jihad al-akbar); the struggle of personal self-improvement against the self's base desires"

Militant claims of jihad have a theological context

Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think the distinction in "jihadist extremists" will mean much to readers. To most people all these al-Qaeda-related groups are seen simply as "jihadists", their extremism being taken for granted. "Jihadist extremists" will probably look like a baffling tautology to them. The Lead is really not the place for hair-splitting of this kind. --P123ct1 (talk) 19:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein and Jason from nyc: et al: Going by the comments on the Talk page recently, this section is becoming very controversial, as I suspected it would. The nature of the group’s ideology and belief system is being as hotly contested among editors as it is in the Muslim world! As there is so much controversy about it in the Muslim world, I think it needs to be covered quite as much as what is agreed upon, and should therefore be kept in the same section. It is probably best divided into subsections dealing with different aspects of the controversy, backed up with citations. The first subsection could state what is generally agreed about their ideology and beliefs and the last could have general statements from the Muslim world criticising their beliefs, such as the long letter with all the signatories recently published, now at the end of the section. The main thing is to keep to a structure, as the section is already becoming muddled without one, with some new edits being thrown in piecemeal throwing out what order there was. I haven’t kept up with this, but categories so far could be (a) are they really jihadists? (b) are they Wahhabists, and if so what kind of Wahhabists? (c) are they Kharijites? Are there others people can think of? --P123ct1 (talk) 14:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So far editors' discussions on ideology and beliefs are in "Ideology and beliefs" and "Ideology and beliefs (2)" earlier in the Talk page, this one on Wahhabism here, this one on jihadism here, and this one here which also mentions jihadism. Can we try and keep all discussions on this subject in one place, please, and not have them scattered about, as that makes them difficult to follow properly. --P123ct1 (talk) 14:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The are two separate issues. The reaction of the Muslim world should obviously be in the article including the ideology section. Wiki allows and even demands attributed opinion. Disinterested commentary and study is preferred when reporting this opinion as it is a secondary source that has singled out this opinion as significant. We should be careful about stating assessments in Wikipedia’s voice and particularly careful about taking the side of one denomination, current, variant, or practice. I see a previous suggestion that criticisms of the ISIS ideology should be in a sub-section. I’m neutral on that. But the criticism is growing. The recent inclusion of the important open letter goes beyond name-calling and cites principles. It was signed by 126 Islamic scholars worldwide (with the conspicuous absence of Saudi Arabia.) This helps our criticism sub-section. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@P123ct1: I'm in agreement on having subsections. But this issue is, as you said, very contested and we should not let every sentence be introduced here. Other parts of this article depend on the news mainly and some how we're going to have a different section here. I strongly recommend to include the main ideas and criticisms which are backed by several groups. Ideas by merely a single clerk usually does not qualify to be here (exceptions may exist regarding very famous political and religious characters). Ideas and criticisms would better have a rational reasoning if they are going to be stated as a fact, or they should be stated just as an expression by an individual. I'm willing to cooperate in enhancing this section, as I made this section before to enhance the quality of the article. Mhhossein (talk) 10:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I meant by "It is probably best divided into subsections dealing with different aspects of the controversy, backed up with citations". Meaning: Aspect X (jihadism, or Wahhabism, etc) described neutrally, backed up with "A said this (about it)", "B said this (about it)" (more if necessary), with citations to back up their statements. For example, "It is said they are not true jihadists. A and B say this about it (with citations)." Each subsection should not, must not, be long. We don't want an essay on the topic. This section would be dealing with opinions rather than facts, obviously. As there are so many opinions, I think they need to be covered - the controversy out there is notable, IMO. It could almost be seen as a "controversies" section:- "Ideology and beliefs": (1) outline of generally agreed characteristics, not disputed by Muslims and others (2) controversies among Muslims and others over what their beliefs really are (3) general Muslim criticism of their ideology/beliefs, for example the letter with all the signatories I mentioned earlier. The sentence in the ISIS article

Other critics of ISIS's brand of Sunni Islam include Salafists who previously publicly supported jihadist groups such as al-Qaeda, for example the Saudi government official Saleh Al-Fawzan, known for extremist views, who claims that ISIS is a creation of "Zionists, Crusaders and Safavids", and the Jordanian-Palestinian writer Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi who was released from prison in Jordan in June 2014.

would not add much to a section of the sort I have outlined, as it is really just a mention of two names that have criticized them. --P123ct1 (talk) 12:51, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There do not necessarily have to be "subsections" dealing with each aspect, but I think it is important that the controversies should be dealt with separately, as far as possible, otherwise there would be a danger of the whole section getting into a muddle again, the way it is now. --P123ct1 (talk) 15:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@P123ct1: according to Wikipedia:UNDUE such views should not be presented. this is in accordance to what I said before. For presenting different views we should not pay to minority views. To support my claim, I'd like to use these sentences from Wikipedia:Reliable sources and undue weight:

We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties.1

So, we'd better be careful about this issue. Mhhossein (talk) 11:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't know the extent to which differing views are minority views; it is up to more knowledgeable editors to decide that and keep description of controversies in proportion. It could mean the section is very short! My main concern was that whatever is said, it should be put down methodically in the way I outlined. --P123ct1 (talk) 12:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If a minority of experts express detailed analysis that doesn't contradict the vast majority of reliable sources but further elaborates the topic, that shouldn't be considered "undue." Experts are a minority. Most writers on the subject (and most of our sources) are not experts. They are secondary sources as they should be and they often don't provide the depth that an encyclopedia requires. Undue has to do with a minority that goes against the majority of reliable sources. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jason from nyc: Being secondary is not enough, the sources should also be reliable with it's specific definition. By the way, I believe that who made this group is not a matter to be discussed here. It is not related to the "Ideology and Beliefs". Mhhossein (talk) 07:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Their ideology and beliefs can't be discussed without saying "who made them". Influences are all when it comes to matters of belief. And if there are serious disputes among Muslims about what their beliefs really are, they cannot be ignored in a section called "Ideology and beliefs". --P123ct1 (talk) 13:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Definitions of terrorism - should be added as the article maintains that several different bodies have designated ISIL as terrorist and this clarifies that and why some do not call them terrorists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.190.195.225 (talk • contribs) 07:27, 28 September 2014

This phrasing is used as has been noted by @P123ct1: in Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#French distinction between the organisation and the state itself "The media put their finger on it when they call it the 'so-called' Islamic State, which unfortunately Wikipedia can't do!" and by @Legacypac: in Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Requested move (amended link) "Often the media uses "the so called Islamic State" with good reason. They claim power over all muslims worldwide".

"So called Islamic State" gets "About 234,000 results"

While we can't speak in Wikipedia's voice on these issues I am wondering where and how it may be possible to quote sources. Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think there has to be a limit to how much this article (as opposed to the media) qualifies its descriptions, "so-called Islamic State", "caliph" and "caliphate" used in inverted commas, "jihadist" now being questioned, "which previously called itself the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" - the list is increasing daily. --P123ct1 (talk) 11:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P123ct1 we can neither speak in Wikipedia's voice to directly describe a "so-called Islamic State" nor can we directly declare them to be jihadist. Both situations require value judgements. As I mentioned in Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Jihadist or similar in lead!? "If substantiated then it is certainly warranted to document any of Islamic State/..'s claims of being a jihadist group, its advocacies of jihad or anything that it actually does. Its also fair to report on interpretations of various outlets of it as being an jihadist group. However, when interpretations of Jihad vary, I don't think it right to directly label them as being jihadist."

Related reasoning to this is presented in content by Muslim scholars presented below. The earlier form of the lead presented the group, in Wikipedia's voice, as being jihadist and, two sentences later, quotes the UN and media in calling them a terrorist group. Many readers may well have stopped there and this unqualified flow of information was unacceptable.

See Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Jihadist or similar in lead!? for jihad related discussion.

I have mentioned the media coverage describing: "So-called Islamic State" and have queried: "where and how it may be possible to quote sources".

Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment the article makes no mention of "So called Islamic State" despite use being propagated by Imans.

Here are some references:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/13/term-islamic-state-slur-faith-david-cameron

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/multimedia/archive/01091/Fatwa_on_ISIS_1091394a.pdf

http://www.aobm.org/fatwa-on-the-so-called-islamic-state-formerly-islamic-state-in-iraq-syria/

http://www.mcb.org.uk/leading-islamic-centres-condemn-so-called-islamic-state/

Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"notinmyname"

This is a recent campaign that seems to have rapidly gained significant prominence.

"notinmyname" gets "About 888,000 results" (This search up to 29/08/14 got "About 105,000 results")

http://www.activechangefoundation.org/portfolio-item/notinmyname/

"Non-Islamic Non-State"

"Non-Islamic Non-State" This is from a reported comment by Ban Ki-moon: http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/09/economist-explains-19

Are you saying there should be a section in the article where criticisms like this can be dealt with? I can see an argument for it. There perhaps should be a new section dealing with the questions now being raised everywhere about the legitimacy and actions of the new caliphate. I thought you were suggesting the article should start using "so-called" Islamic State! --P123ct1 (talk) 11:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the use of "jihadist", I agree with earlier comments, fine to use in the Lead as it is a common term for groups of this sort. Objections can be dealt with elsewhere in the article, as I said. --P123ct1 (talk) 12:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping just to ask the question regarding inclusion. (Wariness by a number of editors to the use of "Islamic State" is, to some extent, validated by recent criticisms and disputes over the use of the short form of the name. I also predict that there may be criticisms of associations between the organisation and jihad. Certainly, if a cite-worthy content is found then I agree that associations between the group and jihad might be criticised under "Ideology and belief" so on this point I agree). Can we please leave Jihad related discussion for the section on Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Jihadist or similar in lead!? or other new section? Its not the topic of this thread.

Current criticism and/or disputes relate specifically to the use of the name "Islamic State". I think that this could fit following Index of names and History of names perhaps under "Disputes regarding use of names". Other suggestions welcomed. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking that as well, that it could be covered in a subsection of the "Names" section. However, it would seem a bit odd to have all that precede the history of the group and the rest, as this controversy over the name is comparatively recent. Perhaps as I said there should be a section dealing with all of the recent and growing criticism of the IS and this name controversy could be a subsection of that. --P123ct1 (talk) 13:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I agree about the specific focus of the sub-topic. 'Objections to "Islamic State"' or similar in names? A section following History perhaps in conjunction with 'Designation as a terrorist group'? Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, important as the topic is, I don't think it should be given as much prominence as that. There are more important things about the group, evidenced by the new sections sequence, I think.--P123ct1 (talk) 16:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moon's comments reflect my view that ISIL is not islamic and not a state. Mind you they are more islamic than any Christian and more a state than most rebel groups, but dressing up like Santa and giving gifts does not make you Santa. The use of caliph is particularly inappropriate - I would expect some evidence and generally acceptance of decent from the prophet before that title gets applied. I think we need to emphasize the "so called" type qualifiers and the critics and stick to acronyms to give balance to ISIL claims.Legacypac (talk) 17:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A good thesis on the use of various words for political purposes http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/what-if-islamic-state-didnt-exist-2101625642 Legacypac (talk) 17:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be a good idea not refer to them in the article (except in the Lead) as "Islamic State" but simply as "IS". That would be a good way of dealing with the problem of WP seeming to endorse the establishment of the caliphate and an Islamic state. Perhaps the words caliphate and caliph (except in the Lead) should always have quote marks around them in the text, for the same reason. --P123ct1 (talk) 18:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I like that solution, with the modification to use ISIL as that fits with the article title.Legacypac (talk) 18:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it is time to move to ISIL in the article. --P123ct1 (talk) 20:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BACK TO THE TOPIC : ))
I'm still wondering about the possible placement of a criticisms section. Looking at the TOC I was wondering if this section might go well next to "Propaganda and social media". At present the order of sections goes:

7 Territorial claims

8 Governance

9 Human rights abuses ...

10 Propaganda and social media

11 Finances

12 Foreign fighters

13 Equipment

14 Timeline of events

There may be a number of ways to sequence this. Place Criticism after 10? Title? subtitles? Gregkaye ✍♪ 19:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Once a criticisms section is started, it will be easier to see where to put it and whether even a criticisms section will need to be broken up. I foresee that some of it would be better in "Ideology and beliefs", for example. --P123ct1 (talk) 06:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask about these in the "Index of names", Gregkaye? I am not clear about the difference made there between translation and transliteration, except in the case of Da'esh, where clearly there is transliteration involved. Surely JTJ is just an acronym, not a translation or transliteration, and QSIS just another acronym. Mujahideen Shura Council is in the translation half, but there is nothing beside it. And clearly all English spellings of the Arabic names in both halves of the index are based on transliterations (which can vary a lot, as in the two versions of the ISIS name I pointed out earlier). Also, "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" isn't a real translation of the Tanzim name, it is approximate, in that Iraq is not directly mentioned in that Arabic name, though "two rivers" does refer to Iraq. I said something about this on the Talk page here. Worldedixor didn't dispute it and he speaks Arabic as you know. Also, I am not clear why "al-Dawlah" and "the State" are in the transliteration half, as "the State" is just a translation.

Do you not think the original version is perhaps a bit clearer? This was the earlier version:

• al-Dawlah ("the State")
• al-Dawlat al-Islāmīyah ("the Islamic State")
• AQI : Al-Qaeda in Iraq : Tanẓīm Qāʻidat al-Jihād fī Bilād al-Rāfidayn
• Daʿesh / Da'ish / Daesh (داعش) : al-Dawla al-Islamiya fi Iraq wa ash-Sham
• ISI : Islamic State of Iraq : Dawlat al-ʻIraq al-Islāmīyah
• ISIL : Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
• ISIS : Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham
• Islamic State
• JTJ : Jamāʻat al-Tawḥīd wa-al-Jihād : The Organization of Monotheism and Jihad
• Mujahideen Shura Council
• QSIS : Al-Qaeda Separatists in Iraq and Syria

Can you think of a way of adding anything about transliteration to that skeleton list? ()bviously the Dae'sh variants need to be added in there.) That list does have the big advantage of being alphabetical, no bad thing when there are so many names to confuse the poor reader, and the useful links to the next subsection (which I believe you put in) explain the translations there. What do you think? --P123ct1 (talk) 14:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@P123ct1: Thanks for sticking with this and I think you are right. I also think that transliteration should either go one way or the other, either more to complete the job (as tried) or less to remove transliteration from all places where possible. How about:

• al-Dawlah ("the State")
• al-Dawlat al-Islāmīyah ("the Islamic State")
• AQI : Al-Qaeda in Iraq
• Daʿesh, Daesh, Daish etc. (Arabic equivalent of ISIL / ISIS)
• ISI : Islamic State of Iraq
• ISIL : Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
• ISIS : Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham
• Islamic State
• JTJ : Arabic acronym (The Organization of Monotheism and Jihad)
• Mujahideen Shura Council
• QSIS : Al-Qaeda Separatists in Iraq and Syria

My intention with the transliteration had been to demonstrate the shared reference of ISIL, ISIS (al-Sham), ISIS (Syria) and Daʿesh but its no biggie.

(Talk page ref: AQI: Tanẓīm Qāʻidat al-Jihād fī Bilād al-Rāfidayn IS: al-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah ISI: Dawlat al-'Iraq al-Islāmīyah ISIL ISIS ISIS DAʿESH al-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fī al-ʻIrāq wa-al-Shām Islamic State al-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah Mujahideen Shura Council JTJ: Jamāʻat al-Tawḥīd wa-al-Jihād: Organization of Monotheism and Jihad)

Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think "IS-Islamic State-then its transliterated name" (however did IS get missed off both versions?!) and the same for AQI, ISI and JTJ (as they appear in the first version) should go in that index - and also all the Da'esh variants, as readers may have seen them in the media and wondered why there were so many versions of this name. I certainly did, before I saw that part of the latest index. It could be explained briefly in "History of names" that those variants are acronyms of the different transliterations of the Arabic name for ISIL/ISIS, as that isn't explained anywhere yet. (But is that correct? I didn't follow in detail the earlier discussions on the acronym.) Do you agree with this? It would be nice to sort this out once and for all now, I think. Other editors? --P123ct1 (talk) 22:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I personally approve of any of the suggestions here and view further discussion as being a matter of tweaking. My previous edit was to consistently add transliteration to the index but am happy for this to be withdrawn. All that remains are considerations of possible tweaks.

How about (no transliteration):

• al-Dawlah ("the State")
• al-Dawlat al-Islāmīyah ("the Islamic State")
• AQI : Al-Qaeda in Iraq
• Daʿesh, Daesh, Daish etc. (Arabic equivalent of ISIL / ISIS)
• IS : Islamic State
• ISI : Islamic State of Iraq
• ISIL : Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
• ISIS : Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham
• JTJ (The Organization of Monotheism and Jihad, Arabic acronym)
• Mujahideen Shura Council
• QSIS : Al-Qaeda Separatists in Iraq and Syria

The transliteration "al-Dawlat al-Islāmīyah" for Islamic State is already presented as a prominently positioned index entry.

My suggestion now is that all further transliteration be reserved for the content section as in history of names. Another possible addition to the index could be (from ####) date information if that is appropriate. Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite right, Gregkaye, I missed it. "Nobody's perfect!" I still think the other transliterations should go beside the acronyms in the index, though. It would be helpful for readers to see them in a row instantly, easier to grasp the information that way, I think. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This could give (trans 1):

• al-Dawlah  ("the State")
• al-Dawlat al-Islāmīyah  ("the Islamic State")
• AQI : Al-Qaeda in Iraq  (Tanẓīm Qāʻidat al-Jihād fī Bilād al-Rāfidayn)
• Daʿesh, Daesh, Daish,... : al-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fī al-ʻIrāq wa-al-Shām
• IS : Islamic State  (al-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah)
• ISI : Islamic State of Iraq  (Dawlat al-'Iraq al-Islāmīyah)
• ISIL : Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant  (al-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fī al-ʻIrāq wa-al-Shām)
• ISIS : Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham  (al-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fī al-ʻIrāq wa-al-Shām)
• JTJ : Jamāʻat al-Tawḥīd wa-al-Jihād  (The Organization of Monotheism and Jihad)
• Mujahideen Shura Council
• QSIS : Al-Qaeda Separatists in Iraq and Syria

I've used brackets to consistently indicate change of language and added a non-breaking space before the bracket but would be happy for any consistent version to be used Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively (trans 2):

• al-Dawlah  "the State"
• al-Dawlat al-Islāmīyah  "the Islamic State"
• AQI : Al-Qaeda in Iraq  Tanẓīm Qāʻidat al-Jihād fī Bilād al-Rāfidayn
• Daʿesh, Daesh, Daish,... : al-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fī al-ʻIrāq wa-al-Shām
• IS : Islamic State  al-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah
• ISI : Islamic State of Iraq  Dawlat al-'Iraq al-Islāmīyah
• ISIL : Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant  al-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fī al-ʻIrāq wa-al-Shām
• ISIS : Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham  al-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fī al-ʻIrāq wa-al-Shām
• JTJ : Jamāʻat al-Tawḥīd wa-al-Jihād  The Organization of Monotheism and Jihad
• Mujahideen Shura Council
• QSIS : Al-Qaeda Separatists in Iraq and Syria

or (trans 3):

• al-Dawlah  "the State"
• al-Dawlat al-Islāmīyah  "the Islamic State"
• AQI : Al-Qaeda in Iraq  Tanẓīm Qāʻidat al-Jihād fī Bilād al-Rāfidayn
• Daʿesh, Daesh, Daish,... : al-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fī al-ʻIrāq wa-al-Shām
• IS : Islamic State  al-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah
• ISI : Islamic State of Iraq  Dawlat al-'Iraq al-Islāmīyah
• ISIL : Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant  al-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fī al-ʻIrāq wa-al-Shām
• ISIS : Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham  al-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fī al-ʻIrāq wa-al-Shām
• JTJ : Jamāʻat al-Tawḥīd wa-al-Jihād  The Organization of Monotheism and Jihad
• Mujahideen Shura Council
• QSIS : Al-Qaeda Separatists in Iraq and Syria

I am happy with any option. I have a slight preference for "no-transliteration" followed by "trans 1" but that's a very marginal difference from 2 and 3. The italics of trans 2 can also be reversed.
Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some adjustments to that-:

• al-Dawlah  ("the State") (but the Arabic name in italics - couldn't do the code)
• al-Dawlat al-Islāmīyah  ("the Islamic State") (ditto)
• AQI : Al-Qaeda in Iraq : Tanẓīm Qāʻidat al-Jihād fī Bilād al-Rāfidayn
• Daʿesh, Daesh, Daish etc : acronyms formed from the Arabic name for "Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham"
• IS : Islamic State : al-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah
• ISI : Islamic State of Iraq : Dawlaht al-'Iraq al-Islāmīyah '(I think you had a typo)
• ISIL : Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant : al-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fī al-ʻIrāq wa-al-Shām
• ISIS : Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham : al-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fī al-ʻIrāq wa-al-Shām
• JTJ : Jamāʻat al-Tawḥīd wa-al-Jihād (no English translation, as there's none here for Tanzim)
• Mujahideen Shura Council
• QSIS : Al-Qaeda Separatists in Iraq and Syria

Have kept italics for Arabic names, as they are in italics in "History of names". Not very happy about my Daesh line. We can't say those are acronyms of al-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fī al-ʻIrāq wa-al-Shām, can we? They will be acronyms formed from different transliterations of the name, as I understand it, thus accounting for the variations. As I said, am not sure about this linguistic point. I think all the Daesh variants need to go in, as per my comment. But possibly best to put the rest in "History of names" as there are so many of them. Otherwise, how does that look? Do you agree with those adjustments? --P123ct1 (talk) 13:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daʿesh / Dāʻish

The predominantly used versions of Daʿesh are in sequence: DAISH/Daish, DAASH/Daash, DAESH/Daesh, DA'ASH/Da'ash, DAAS/Daas, DA'ISH/Da'ish, DĀ'ASH/Dā'ash, DAIISH/Daiish. "Daʿesh" is discussed above as being the most accurate rendition. DAISH/Daish seems to be the most used in English. DAASH/Daash is the second most used and also happens to be the Google translation of the Arabic acronym (داعش).

@Johanna-Hypatia: has unilaterally changed presentation of Daʿesh to Dāʻish in lead[27] which, in itself, may be no problem. I wondering whether this is just a pronunciation issue and would appreciate comment. See also: Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#"Daash", "'Daʿesh" or "Daesh", coverage in Arabic media and reflected content in the article. Consistency between lead and the index could be beneficial and, in a context where many names are used, the issue of accuracy also has relevance.

Suggested entries into the index of names are:

• Daʿesh / Da'ish / Daesh (داعش) : al-Dawla al-Islamiya fi Iraq wa ash-Sham
• Daʿesh, Daesh, Daish etc. (Arabic equivalent of ISIL / ISIS)

should Daʿesh be changed to Daʻash?
In History of names: should Da'ash be similarly changed to Daʻash?
Comments and further suggestions welcome
Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind which it is, Gregkaye, as long as there is consistency between the Lead and the "History of names" section. I think all variants should be included, for the reason I gave earlier. Readers will see many different spellings in the media and wonder why. A brief word of explanation in this section would help them. Your first suggestion there including the transliteration is better, the second I don't think is clear enough. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Phew :)  Done mostly as last suggestion. The only changes are to the Daesh line and nothing there is precious. Am still hoping that someone with better Arabic than me can look at the Daish in the lead and the initial Daesh in the index and pick a consistent form. I think the final usage of italics works well. Gregkaye ✍♪ 18:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great job! I think that layout should work for readers now. :D --P123ct1 (talk) 20:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The previous consensus (reached earlier this year, I believe) was to use "ISIS" in the text, on the grounds that "ISIS" then was the group's common name. I have noticed more use of "ISIL" recently, but cannot quantify it. Who supports a change from "ISIS" to "ISIL"? It would be more consistent with the article's title, if nothing else. Earlier discussion of this is here and here. --P123ct1 (talk) 20:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support - --P123ct1 (talk) 09:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support - especially instead of "Islamic State" which is a very problematic name. Legacypac (talk) 20:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I don't believe that this abbreviation is more common than ISIS, and there would be a disconnect with the use of ISIS on many other articles that would need to be changed also. Gazkthul (talk) 02:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Digging through UN Security Council documents like the al-Qaida Sanctions list, I found the UN is using "ISIL" consistently and long after the group shortened the ir name. A recent example: [28]Legacypac (talk) 03:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support, the accurate translation of the 2013 name is the same as the article title Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. We should use ISIL with consistency to both accurate translation and article title used.

incidentally the parallel article ar:الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام gives a machine code translation that reads: "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant , known for short as Daash , which calls itself now an Islamic state only .." Gregkaye ✍♪ 06:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has changed some instances of "ISIS" to "ISIL" without the consensus from other editors needed for this change. I have reverted the changes until a decision is made on which acronym to use in the article. --P123ct1 (talk) 07:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was the editor who you reverted manually. I'm not upset, just confused as your edit seems to go against what you were advocating, which is consistency. Watching CNN tonight they had ISIS in the graphics over commentators and generals saying ISIL consistently. Strange situation. Legacypac (talk) 09:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You miss the point. The consensus view of editors as a whole is what counts, not the view of an individual editor. Consensus has not been reached yet. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the action to revert at this stage was optional but I certainly give it support. We have a discussion regarding best use of terminology between ISIS (with more usage in media) and ISIL (according to better English translation and consistency with article title). It is a topic that has been previously raised with this and the last instance being at P123ct1's initiation. It can also be helpful in a talk page discussion to give notification that an action has been { {done}}. Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Weak Oppose Either is respectable. As I understand it, "Syria" in ISIS is greater Syria and not the current nation-state that was created by Western division. Thus, Levant, the L in ISIL might be better to capture the wider aims of ISIL. However, they've only captured territory in Syria and Iraq, so ISIS is respectable as well. Both are used by sources. My "weakness" stems from a preference for waiting until one emerges as dominant in the sources. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jason from nyc. I think that, if we could rewrite recent word usage, the 2013 name may have been better rendered as the Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria. This would have given the acronym ISIGS and which would arguably have been a more understandable terminology. The groups name went from reference to Iraq to reference to Iraq and greater Syria/the Levant and now, without giving any public declaration of actual territorial ambition, they have dropped geographical reference altogether. As reference to the 2013 name we are left with a choice between ISIS and ISIL. Arabic sources prefer Da'esh as a clear anagram of the 2013 name. ISIL is the most accurate parallel. Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me remove my opposition. It's a judgment call and those who support it here have done hard work kicking this article into shape. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Can we please have some sort of consistency here? We're using "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" as the title of this article, at present. Until that changes, we should use the accompanying abbreviation, which is "ISIL". Discussions about the article title can be had elsewhere. Right now, at the title that this is at, it makes sense to use ISIL. RGloucester — ☎ 16:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the views of any opposers should be underestimated. There may be an argument that ISIS still is the group's WP:COMMONNAME, or at least more common than ISIL, which under that guidance would mean that ISIS has to stay. --P123ct1 (talk) 18:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UCRN is a section title within WP:AT and applies to article titles. For the time being we have one of those. Another part of WP:AT is WP:CRITERIA where the issue of consistency gets mentioned. Again this is an article title issue. Certainly when we look at other encyclopaedias like Britannica that make consistent use of single renderings but reference to WP:RELIABLE relates to the content of sources and not to their methodologies. I don't know of any guideline that directly applies to this situation and think that Jason from nyc got it right. It's a judgement call. Gregkaye ✍♪ 19:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is a "judgemental call". However, this is an article title concern. There have numerous proposal about moving this article to numerous titles, including the full-length version of ISIS. All of these have failed so far, and given this, it makes sense to be consistent. If we're going to make a judgement call between ISIS and ISIL, which are both used fairly commonly, it only makes senses to use the one that matches the title of our article. RGloucester — ☎ 20:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a few editors have weighed in on now in this thread. And all previous attempts to move the article name to ISIS have failed. I am not opposed to ISIS as an alternate name used in the article just think we need to get off protecting ISIS from being standardized to mostly ISIL. So do we have consensus yet? Legacypac (talk) 21:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What we have is a proposal (dated: 20:13, 29 September 2014) with three supports and one oppose and this can be viewed in a context of a Wikipedia editing force that has seen the creation of 22,657,167 named accounts. In context ...few editors have weighed providing, at best, a limited view of "wikt:consensus". Its 5 editor contributions over 2 days and any S to L changes made at this stage would certainly be WP:BOLD. I'd suggest waiting a little longer and even then changes would be made at risk as WP:consensus can change. Also the view of P123ct1, as proposer of the issue, is important here. Gregkaye ✍♪ 06:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the names, so far it is five for and one against the move from ISIS to ISIL. I sense lukewarm interest from other editors. But as Gregkaye says probably best to wait a little longer to guage consensus. Whatever consensus is reached it should be recorded here, so that if objections are raised by other editors if the vote goes to ISIL, they can be pointed to a clear decision by editors who participated in the "vote". --P123ct1 (talk) 09:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

5:1 sounds more like consensus. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gregkaye has already started changing "ISIS" to "ISIL". In the absence of further "votes" or comments since the last count of 5:1, I think it is it is safe to assume there is now CONSENSUS to move from "ISIS" to "ISIL" in the text of the article.

Please be careful about global changes. (a) Quotations must obviously not be altered. (b) If "ISIS" in footnote wikitext is accidentally changed to "ISIL", it could break the links and then readers won't be able to call up the citations. --P123ct1 (talk) 20:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The recent change in the Lead infobox titles is incomplete. The new titles "Islamic State" to "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" are now inconsistent with the Arabic name and transliteration beneath which remain as "Islamic State". Of the many instances of "ISIS" in the text, some but not all have been changed to "ISIL", so the text of the article is now inconsistent (exactly the same thing happened a week or so ago and had to be straightened out). What kind of impression does this leave with readers? Inconsistencies and inaccuracies of this kind damage Wikipedia's already doubtful reputation for accuracy and reliability. --P123ct1 (talk) 09:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the infobox so the English name matched the article title. I did not feel comfortable changing the arabic as I can't read it. Hoped someone would fix the arabic quickly. RS use both ISIL and ISIS which we explain in the first couple lines. If you want consistency, let's let the infobox match the title. I don't see this as a reputation issue since CNN use actively using both ISIS and ISIL at the same moment (verbal vs graphics). Legacypac (talk) 09:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The CNN isn't WP. No good following the standards of others. Another problem is that "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" clashes with "Caliphate" in the infobox. He is "caliph" of the Islamic State, not ISIS! --P123ct1 (talk) 13:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P123ct1 I agree with the linguistic inconsistency here yet the both titles, "Caliph" and "Islamic State", are called into question. A Caliph is quite literally meant to be a successor of Mohammed. Arab and Muslim communities reject the groups self-declared title "Islamic State". Members of "Islamic State" can claim "we belong to a Caliph". This does not mean that other people cannot still correctly state that "ISIL, ISIS, or Da'esh etc. claim to be a Caliph". Both are linguistically correct. However, I guess similar issues were considered in Arabic Wikipedia. The Arabic article has a lead that says: "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant , known for short as Daash , which calls itself now an Islamic state only" and still have an infobox that presents "Islamic State". Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It gets worse. The Lead now has two infoboxes contradicting each other, one headed "Islamic State" and the other "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" and the Arabic title "Islamic State" still remains in the "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" infobox. Just minor details of no importance to editors, of course. Readers just have to shake the kaleidoscope and take pot luck with the results. --P123ct1 (talk) 08:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All of the awkward politicking of Western politicos aside, how much longer are we going to avoid calling the Islamic State the Islamic State? As already demonstrated, the mainstream Western media has taken to acknowledging IS as the Islamic State or the "so-called Islamic State". There is, as of now, no organization anywhere in the world calling itself either ISIS or ISIL. No such entity exists. Both monikers are sustained by people in the West who don't want to entangle themselves with the burden of fighting such an inconveniently declared entity. In light of its common name, and inconvenient factuality, it's long past time we make the move, even if it's with a qualifier such as (terrorist group), (insurgent group), or the such. If a band is called "The Greatest Band in the World" or a political party is called the "True Patriot Party" we identify them as such according to COMMONNAME and the facts. Why not here? GraniteSand (talk) 09:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever looked at the Talk pages to see what other editors have said about this? This subject has been discussed many, many times since the Islamic State was proclaimed. --P123ct1 (talk) 09:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have. This subject is dynamic and, unfortunately, prone to the predations of a small group of interested editors. GraniteSand (talk) 09:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia actually does use the name Islamic State quite a bit. Legacypac (talk) 09:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And the article should be so appropriately titled, as per our policies. Yes? GraniteSand (talk) 09:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which it is - many RS currently refer to these guys as spelled out or acronym ISIL or ISIS including the UN Security Council. See previous discussions. Legacypac (talk) 09:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Au, contraire. Trending reliable sources cite this group as the "Islamic State" as already demonstrated in this thread. As a current subject prone to both WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RS there is no sustainable reason not to adjust accordingly. There is no organization in the world called either ISIS or ISIL. GraniteSand (talk) 09:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the trending you claim. I haven't seen much change in the last few weeks. ISIS, and to a lesser extent ISIL, seems to be used in the RS just as much as before. DeCausa (talk) 09:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Previous entries here have demonstrated that drift but more importantly, without getting into Google metrics, the AP has settled on Islamic State group and organizations such as the Guardian and the Economist have made note of the politicking in refusing to use IS as well as acknowledging it's correctness. These results with a couple minutes on Google. GraniteSand (talk) 10:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This has all been discussed before. As has the irrelevance of whether or not there is "politicking". We simply reflect usage for good or ill, we don't WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. DeCausa (talk) 10:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm saying the previously used information is perishable and the conclusions are now wrong. The intent of political sources is not without consideration in regards to weight and neutrality, as defined by non-political sources. We have policies in place for this and the policies suggest we should change the title. We are a dynamic and tertiary resource. GraniteSand (talk) 10:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sources tend to use Islamic State for the de facto state created by the group called ISIS/ISIL. The French wikipedia has two articles and if we need to do that at some point I'd argue for Islamic State for the nation. That's assuming this becomes the commonly used name. East Germany became the commonly used name for the German Democratic Republic. The self-proclaimed official name may or may not become the commonly used name. Let's wait. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.activechangefoundation.org/portfolio-item/notinmyname/ - an Islamic voice on the matter Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of "Islamic voices" who have something to on the matter, including the group in question. Crowd sourced political/ideological statements have no weight as reliable sources. GraniteSand (talk) 22:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• A new train of thought has just arrived being stationed at Alternative name. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources now using the group's official name, "Islamic State", include the Economist, as well as The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, The Associated Press, and The Guardian. GraniteSand (talk) 22:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those RSs have been quoted unnumerable times in previous Talk page discussions on the group's common name. It was agreed they all use "Islamic State", but in conjunction with "ISIS". Much Talk page discussion now is mere repetition of past discussions. --P123ct1 (talk) 11:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are some news reports suggesting this, but things appear very fluid. Already I'm seeing al-Qaeda deopped from the opponants and added to the supporters, which does not seem justified just yet. Legacypac (talk) 10:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You mean al-Qaeda franchises are supporters, surely? I thought al-Qaeda proper was still very much an opponent. --P123ct1 (talk) 21:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further to this thread earlier, I wasn't sure what was finally stopping the change to reflect uninhabited areas. I raise it again now because with the bombing campaign, maps of the ISIS areas have been widespread in the media. They are almost always in the spider web style and not showing the large uninhabited areas as coloured in. This gives a very different impression and we seem to be an outlier with our map. Given that the map needs to reflect RS isn't there anything that can be done? DeCausa (talk) 10:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Could the country boundaries be marked in as well? The maps in the media always show them. Essential information, I would have thought. --P123ct1 (talk) 11:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's 2 typical examples: from the BBC and from the New York Times. DeCausa (talk) 11:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed before, but here is my thoughts. Is it fair to show empty desert 100% surrounded by ISIL controlled roads and towns as controlled by the Govt when there are likely no Govt troops there? Cause that is exactly what the spider web maps suggest. No other map I've ever seen outside of ISIL maps follows this spider web design. Legacypac (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But "outside of ISIL maps" is exactly the point. I'm not saying which is better; the point is if the RS are representing ISIL maps this way then we should be reflecting that. Presenting a non-typical map is WP:UNDUE. (And I'm aware this was discussed before, I linked to the last discussion. But that was inconclusive.) DeCausa (talk) 19:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just searched "map of isil controlled areas" with Google as an image search. Try it - my count of the first 30 results is 25 block style maps outweighing 5 spiderweb style maps. Other searches and counting further down the page would likely yield similar results. Legacypac (talk) 21:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do it without all the blogs etc and include ISIS and Islamic state. Almost all the high quality RS in recent weeks are using spider web style. DeCausa (talk) 21:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did a image search without knowing what the quantifiable answer would be - and got a clear one. I just tried with ISIS and IS got the same general results. Lots of big name RS using block maps - BBC, Fox, DailyMail, ABC.net.au and so on. Can you quantify your statement more concretely? Legacypac (talk) 22:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The so called spider web maps you cite merely connect the various cities together with lines. They do not reflect the fact that ISIS controls and operates in the various desert areas we have coloured in on the map. They actually have controlled many of these areas prior to their major offensive against fallujah in December of 2013 for example see here [[29]]XavierGreen (talk) 02:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the style of map is a POV issue. Traditionally states have their territory marked by the territory they have formal control whether or not they occupy it. For example Canada or Australia would look very different if the spider type maps were used. So I suspect that the use of spider maps originate from the US military/convert/diplomatic sources. The issue of what reliable sources to use has in this conversation spanned maps up to a year old (which are ancient history). I suggest that the survey is restricted to maps in reliable sources over the last 3 months (to roll over as the months progress). The spider maps are more useful if one wishes to understand what is going on the ground (as in Syria the more detailed maps seem to intertwine the different powers in the country), but their use is unusual for showing who controls what in such conflicts. -- PBS (talk) 12:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I renamed Timeline of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant events in 2014 -> Timeline of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant events and included all entries from the renaming in April 2013 to the present. I also moved the other timeline entries before this to Islamic State of Iraq#Timeline. This clears up clutter in the main article. There may an entry or two that isn't copied that could be applied to previous groups removed in this diff. The latest (~30 days) of events from the timeline are still transcluded into this article. If they weren't users would be putting them in this article and the main timeline article would not be maintained.

I also mentioned above that this article should be moved from C to B class and considered for Good Article or even Feature Article nomination. There's been a lot of hard work, and even some innovations on how to present so much information. I would also like to propose reusing and revamping the Leadership table now in at Islamic_State_of_Iraq#Leadership to help keep track of the known leadership of ISIL. Most leaders have their own articles which is good.~Technophant (talk) 22:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice idea - I cleaned the list up by sorting all the dead/capture from the likely living. Only problem with a table is we know only maybe 2 active names and little about them... Legacypac (talk) 22:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, Technophant. Gazkthul (talk) 22:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank goodness. Thanks to Gazkthul and Technophant the article is now down to a reasonable size. --P123ct1 (talk) 12:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would editors please not leave bare URL footnotes when they make edits.

Bare URL footnotes – i.e. footnotes that contain only the website http address – are susceptible to link-rot, which means that if the website moves to a new domain, the link will be broken and readers will be unable to read the citation.

The last long backlog has only just been cleared by editors, but the number is starting to go up again. --P123ct1 (talk) 08:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are two infoboxes at the start of the article, the first based on {{Infobox country}} and the second based on {{Infobox war faction}}

These pose several problems in their current form. I think the first 2 problems are very serious.

1. The war faction infobox has grown enormous in scope, covering at least 4 conflicts, and listing military and political opponents and allies all across the globe. It no longer summarizes useful information for the reader. It has instead become several lists with nothing but offsite references to explain it. A reader can no longer navigate it. How do they know whether an ally or opponent is political or military? How do they know whether an alliance existed in the current conflict, or in one of several previous conflicts? Some of the entries are not even mentioned in the body of the article.
2. They span many screenfuls down the right-hand size of the page. On mobile devices, they dominate the top of the article. Tablet and smartphone users have to scroll dozens of pages to get to the table of contents and the body of the article. Mobile readers may never have the patience to find the best work of this article's editors.
3. Editors are confronted with many pages of template code before they can find prose they can read or edit. This is a bad experience for new editors. Even though the page is semi-protected, we should still welcome potential new editors with something that is easy to edit.

I thing that the war faction template was originally designed to be useful to summarize a faction in a single conflict, rather than extend to the entire history of a political and military organization.

I suggest that we start working to fix it. Should we make a first step? Lets delete the second infobox, and work its contents into list sections in the article. (Some of these should eventually become prose sections, and perhaps even lists in themselves. Perhaps as a later step we can add a few more highlights to the main infobox, even if it means customizing the template for this article.)

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds generally sound to me. The first template is a perhaps edited version of one of the templates found at: {{Infobox country}} and maybe there are extra categories there that can absorb some other information.

One difficulty for computer/ large screen users, is that there is a long lead and lengthening TOC while the first infobox is comparatively short. One of my earlier suggestions was for the content of the third and fourth paragraphs of the lead to be distributed into later text. This would give readers more immediate access to the TOC which would also have benefits for small screen users.

Alternatively, not all of the second box need be deleted. Sections are: active -dates; Ideology ...; Leaders ...; Headquarters .. ; Area of operation; Strength ...; part of al-Queda; Originated as ...; Allies ...; Opponents ...; Battles and wars ...;

Sections that I think would be worth moving include the last three (big sections). Other sections like Leaders are duplications of main article content. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to check that information transfers well.

Iraq based opponents

 Iraq

• Iraqi Armed Forces
• Iraqi Shia militias
• Iraqi Turkmen Front [30]

Sunni Iraqi Insurgents

• [[General Military Council for Iraqi Revolutionaries[31][32]

Iraqi Kurdistan

It does and columns can be easily applied :) Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It must be borne in mind that the Lead to any article should be a summary of the article, which this Lead now is. If anything is removed from it, it will no longer be a summary. The Lead is of reasonable length for an article of this size. The problem here is the ridiculously long second infobox, not the Lead, and it is the second infobox that needs dealing with, not the Lead. Reshaping the article to suit the needs of mobile phone users is crazy. The best solution is obviously to give the second infobox information its own section, as suggested, perhaps as lists complete with its flags, or is there some WP policy/guidance that prevents it? Or look at the Syrian Civil War article to see how the same problem is dealt with there. --P123ct1 (talk) 13:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The TOC is collapsible, btw. --P123ct1 (talk)

 Done! at least to a point that gave me satisfaction :)
the TOC now reads:

11 Finances
12 Equipment
13 Support

13.1 Foreign fighters

13.2 Allies

14 Opposition

14.1 Front line opposition forces

14.2 Multinational coalition (US lead) opposition

Actions taken were: to move Equipment above Foreign fighters to link with Finances; to add title Support; to move Allies from infobox; to add title Opposition (used to be opponents but I wanted to counterpoint support); To change to title front line opposition forces from whatever it was and add Iraq, Syria and Lebanon listings here (Perhaps the Kurdish forces could be moved up to here); to move multinational yader yader title changing to opposition from opponents and inserting listings from infobox; placing lists in two column format. That's all folks. Feel free to edit away. :)

The infoboxes now neatly (just as I planned honest) reach down to just about the same depth in the page as the end of the TOC. (I still favour more editing out from both lead and infoboxes but not to the point of being that bothered). Gregkaye ✍♪ 19:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gregkaye After all your hard work I am now wondering about the wisdom of having the allies/opponents in a section so far away from the first page! I notice there is a lot of white space on the first page, in the TOC (s.2.2.1 could be two lines) and between the first infobox and the TOC. Could a single or double column with the allies/opponents be fitted in there? If you look at the first page of the Syrian Civil War article you will see the sort of thing I mean. If the only way would be by removing some of the Lead, please forget it, for as I said above I am very against that! --P123ct1 (talk) 11:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P123ct1 Wow, the Syrian.. page looks good. I really don't have an opinion on positioning and it wasn't that much work, just a few shifts about (but thanks also for your copy-editing). Split column infoboxes would be one option. The option of moving the info to a higher position also sounds great to me. Perhaps, as a section composed of names, it could even follow directly on from the names section - or perhaps follow History or Designation as a terrorist organization. I think the next three headings go well as a unit (Analysis, Ideology and beliefs and Goals) and they are followed by 7 Territorial claims, 8 Governance, 9 Human rights abuses. I'm not fussed on where to place the new insert so don't necessarily wait for my opinion.

Section headings of the moved content might read:

Allies and opposition

Allies

Opposition: based in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon

Opposition: multinational coalition (US-led)

That last section currently reads "Multinational coalition (US-led) opposition" but I wanted to get "opposition" either consistently at the beginning or end of the header.

The sub-heads represent the three double columned lists with the last list being the longest.

This "Opposition: multinational coalition (US-led)" section has further sub titles:

Military operations in or over Iraq and/or Syria, Supplying weapons to ground forces, Other State Opponents, Other Non-State Opponents, Iranian Kurdish fighters[335]

I think the section on Foreign fighters is best left as following the sections on Finance and Equipment as this typically deals with smaller scale gains rather than organisational support.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gregkaye So there is no way the information could be put in a double/single column beside the other infobox as suggested, then? That would be preferable. --P123ct1 (talk) 15:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought perhaps after names but I've got no strong opinion. Suggestions welcome from all. Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it looks good as it currently stands. Gazkthul (talk) 23:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TY. An advantage of current configuration is a connection between of section "Foreign fighters" and "Allies" which was my original motivation. However, P123ct1 is right to note that information has moved from the top of the article virtually to the bottom. The question relates to reader priorities, either to know how things got to the current situation or to know how that situation currently stands. Gregkaye ✍♪ 02:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the section up to come after "Designation as a terrorist organization" as a more appropriate place for it. --P123ct1 (talk) 11:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One the of problems is that with the mobile view current/old mobile view has the subheading "As Jamāʻat al-Tawḥīd wa-al-Jihād, Al-Qaeda in Iraq and Mujahideen Shura Council (1999–2006)" being way too long, which forces the width of the TOC to be too wide to fit side by side with the infoboxes. I tried adding {TOC limit|2} which limits the Table of Contents to only headings that have "==" level, however there's a problem with how this works with Common.css and does not change the mobile view. So I shorten the heading to "Early incarnations (1999–2006)" and now the TOC fits side-by-side with the infoboxes as seen here. The ideal solution would be to limit the mobile view to only the first level headers, but how? The help desk might be able to help.~Technophant (talk) 00:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that there was an issue with not being able to set the {{TOC limit}} in mobile view so I posted it the Village pump and created a bug report. If we can set the mobile TOC limit to 2 (only == level headers) then it will create a slimmer shorter mobile TOC. ~Technophant (talk) 03:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The articles "Infobox war faction" (the second infobox) presents the group's ideology as Salafist jihadism while the recently agreed wording of the main lead reads jihadist extremist. I'm just wondering if there is a consistency issue here and whether we should use one or the other. I'm not particularly bothered which is used but saw the anomaly and thought I'd raise it.

• ("Islamic State" OR ISIL OR ISIS) AND ("Salafi Jihad" OR "Salafi Jihadism") gets "About 48,400 results"

• "سلفية جهادية" ("الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام" OR "داعش") gets "About 537,000 results" - for "Salafi jihadism" ("Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" OR "Da'esh")

• ("Islamic State" OR ISIL OR ISIS) AND ("Jihad" OR "Jihadism") gets "About 19,000,000 results"

• "جهادية" ("الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام" OR "داعش") gets "About 7,710,000 results" - for "jihadism" ("Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" OR "Da'esh")

Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:03, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The United Nations has recently been added to the information box in section 3 as an organisation which has designated ISIL/ISIS as a terrorist organization. In August this year there was long discussion on the Talk page and elsewhere about whether editors could use the same sanctions list document now cited here to support the UN's inclusion in that infobox. The Talk page discussion is zurose arch 4 here and here, and after taking the question to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard WP:RSN here, where the opinion was that that sanctions list document could not be used to support a such a designation by the UN (see discussion there) editors decided that this document was not sufficient back-up. It is a sanctions list, and unlike the other formal country designation lists cited for other countries in that box. We could not find a statement of any kind by the UN, official or otherwise, saying it had designated it as a terrorist organisation - an editor on the RSN didn't believe the UN kept a designation list - the nearest to it was a handful of UN statements where it refers to them as a terrorist organisation, which it not the same thing. Hence the reason why the wording about the UN in the Lead appears as it does. Anyone who wishes to respond to this please look first at the discussion on the RSN. --P123ct1 (talk) 16:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That was a short discussion in which no one seems to have looked at where the cited UN Security Council list came from. ^[1] says the list came from this UNSC Resolution http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/1267(1999) which says "Recalling the relevant international counter-terrorism conventions and in particular the obligations of parties to those conventions to extradite or prosecute terrorists, Strongly condemning the continuing use of Afghan territory, especially areas controlled by the Taliban, for the sheltering and training of terrorists and planning of terrorist acts, and reaffirming its conviction that the

suppression of international terrorism is essential for the maintenance of international peace and security, Deploring the fact that the Taliban continues to provide safe haven to Usama bin Laden and to allow him and others associated with him to operate a network of terrorist training camps from Taliban-controlled territory and to use Afghanistan as a base from which to sponsor international terrorist operations," and so on...

and many related resolutions including 2083 (2012) which says in part:

"Reaffirming that terrorism in all its forms and manifestations constitutes one of

the most serious threats to peace and security and that any acts of terrorism are criminal and unjustifiable regardless of their motivations, whenever and by whomsoever committed, and reiterating its unequivocal condemnation of Al-Qaida and other individuals, groups, undertakings and entities associated with it, for ongoing and multiple criminal terrorist acts aimed at causing the deaths of innocent civilians and other victims, destruction of property and greatly undermining stability, Reaffirming that terrorism cannot and should not be associated with any religion, nationality or civilization..."

I could go on, but we need to look at the clear Security Council Resolutions calling these people terrorists and authorizes the maintenance of the list referenced. It can't be any more clear that the UN Security Council has designated everyone and every organization on the list as terrorists. Legacypac (talk) 01:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just reworded the page to make it more clear.

Note

Legacypac (talk) 01:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Legacypac The discussion on the RSN was lengthy. Only one of your links there works. Can you fix so we can see what those docs are? --P123ct1 (talk) 06:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The editors who participated in the RSN failed to do any meaningful research, and hardly trump the UN Security Council. Let me make this really clear. Read http://www.un.org/sc/committees/1267/ where you will find all the data in supplied links. UN Security Council designated Bin Laden and associates as terrorists in RESOLUTION 1267 (1999) and established a Committee consisting of all Security Council members (point 6 in Resolution 1267 (1999)). In accordance with that resolution and subsequent resolutions, the committee created a list now called the "Al-Qaeda Sanctions list". It is a very detailed document. AL-QAIDA IN IRAQ got added to the sanctions list, and is now called ISIL on the sanctions list. If you read all the Security Council Resolutions linked in the first paragraph of the http://www.un.org/sc/committees/1267/ you will see the evolution. Each resolution is very clear that the listed people and orgs are terrorists. For example 1526 (under which AL-QAIDA IN IRAQ got added) says "participated in the financing, planning, facilitating and preparation or perpetration of terrorist acts or in supporting terrorist acts" "Reiterating its condemnation of the Al-Qaida network and other associated terrorist groups for ongoing and multiple criminal terrorist acts..." For some reason the UN site does not support linking to specific resolutions, I'll fix the article link. Legacypac (talk) 15:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews:Category:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
199.119.232.212 (talk) 16:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• EL? Gregkaye ✍♪ 20:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • External links199.119.232.212 (talk) 21:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The trend since the official name change has moved toward "Islamic State", the official name of the subject of the article. Here is a preliminary listing of English language reliable media sources who are using Islamic State. Feel free to add to the list as it inevitably grows. The dynamic nature of the subject, along with abiding by WP:COMMONNAME, WP:RS and WP:NPOV, is making the continued use of the outdated ISIS or ISIL increasingly untenable. GraniteSand (talk) 23:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the examples listed below are discussing the name, so cannot be used as examples of current usage. Samples need to be taken from regular RS reports on the activities of ISIS. I would imagine that most sources are still using "Islamic State" and "ISIS/ISIL" interchangeably. The Guardian article listed there, a regular report, not discussing name usage, has 29 instances of "ISIS" and 6 of "Islamic State". For as long as RS sources use both, "Islamic State" and "ISIS/ISIL", it won't be possible to say "Islamic State" is now the common name. Twitter and blogs, which appear in that list, are considered questionable sources by WP:RS. "Islamic State" is certainly not NPOV PC for some, which is exactly why there is all this reluctance to use plain "Islamic State" in the media and this article. --P123ct1 (talk) 07:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Without going against WP:NOTAFORUM, I still can't understand how calling them Islamic State (their name) gives them "legitimacy" and isn't NPOV, while calling them Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (their old name) doesn't. Gazkthul (talk) 08:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It can be looked at both ways. Calling them "Islamic State" in the article can be seen as NPOV because all that does is reflect what the group have renamed themselves as, i.e. a fact, and WP records facts. It can equally be seen as POV, because merely using the name in the article [my later additions] looks like endorsement of the highly-disputed legitimacy of the caliphate/Islamic State. The opposing viewpoints obviously account for why editors disagree so much over this, but as you say these are asides since this thread is about RS practice and this article reflecting it. --P123ct1 (talk) 09:47, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@P123ct1 This paragraph is perplexing. That's exactly why they are reliable sources for common usage. These reliable sources are discussing the proper naming conventions of the subject of the article since its change and are agreeing upon "Islamic State". In an instance where the common name is not easily discerned because of the common interoperability then we establish there is no established common name and use what reliable sources tell us is the correct name, which the below sources assert is "Islamic State". Additionally, your use of "political correctness' as a litmus for usage here is extremely concerning and suggests that you are either wholly unfamiliar with our policies and mission or are editing here with an agenda not aligned with our mission. In fact it's reflective of much of the unnecessary and obstructive obfuscation surrounding this issue. GraniteSand (talk) 23:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You fail to grasp the simple point I was making about NPOV/POV (and being PC). It was a statement, not a view. Also, I did not like to say it when commenting on your examples, but I, too, thought they were biased. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I don't understand what you're saying. Still, I would like to know more about how you think Political Correctness fits into this discussion. Could you elaborate? GraniteSand (talk) 07:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PC is not a "litmus" for anything and I did not suggest it was; again, I was simply making a statement. If you search "PC-ness" in these threads, you will see how I think it fits into the discussion. btw, I added a few words in my last main comment, which I hope makes my point clearer.  :) --P123ct1 (talk) 16:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

• Note most sources also take note of the political nature of the hesitancy to use the groups actual name.
• The New York Times
• BBC
• The Economist
• Reuters
• The Guardian
• The Washington Post
• The Associated Press --Adds qualifier "group" which is an excellent idea, i.e. Islamic State (group)
• NPR --Uses qualifier "self-declared" and ISIS for shorthand after the lede
• Washington Times
• International Business times --With qualifier (group)
• USA Today
• Voice of America and Foreign Policy Magazine

Even amongst these specific links:
BBC: "'ISIS' seems to be the most ubiquitous name"
The Economist - article title: The many names of ISIS (also known as IS, ISIL, SIC and Da'ish)
The Guardian - article title: US to directly arm Kurdish peshmerga forces in bid to thwart Isis offensive
Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:20, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've read them. I fail to see where you're taking that, though. GraniteSand (talk) 22:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have? You are quoting select references that clearly use references like ISIS; that can demonstrate the use of ISIS and not "Islamic State" in the title and that can state: 'ISIS' seems to be the most ubiquitous name. You know that RS use a variety of names yet you still present the single option, 'English language reliable sources using "Islamic State"'. Gregkaye ✍♪ 02:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First result in a search for Islamic State this AM is http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/01/islamic-state-language-isis - titled "Why there’s no such thing as Islamic State". Many other articles using the term similarly qualify the use. Counting results for "Islamic State" will include all results for spelled out ISIS/ISIL etc so don't assume that a count of search results = common name.Legacypac (talk) 15:58, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, search results are inherently misleading and practically worthless in this context. We must assemble reliable sources speaking on the subject since the name change and determine common usage among those reliable sources. The list above demonstrates such sources doing just that. GraniteSand (talk) 22:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Islamic State" is the morally corrupt name of a morally corrupt group. It has all the ambiguity of stating "Government" or similar while suggesting a large yet specific sphere of influence.

• ISIL gets "About 28,000,000 results" with results including those of the likes of Intersil Corp.
• ISIS gets "About 227,000,000 results" note that this will include a number of references to ancient Egyptian religion and a significant number of other organisations and people etc. as partly referenced at Isis (disambiguation). There is also a potential issue here in that "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" is less accurate than "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" but the article currently makes reference to "Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham"

Curiously:

• ISIS got "About 62,100,000 results" with dates "1 Apr 2013 - 'Today'"

while

• ISIS got "About 1,380,000 results" with dates "Before 1 Apr 2013".

Its still a lot of hits.

• "Islamic State" gets "About 59,800,000 results"
• "Islamic State" got "About 18,700,000 results" with dates "1 Apr 2013 - 'Today'"

while

• "Islamic State" got "About 3,460,000 results" with dates "Before 1 Apr 2013".

Another repeatedly mentioned problem with the the groups self-designated title is that there is already a Wikipedia article on Islamic state. I have mentioned a potential but personally unfavoured use of Islamic State (Iraq and Levant) which also has the advantages of avoiding the arrogant ambiguity of the self-edited title. Islamic State (group) provides zero disambiguation from other Islamic States that have either come before or which may appear in the future. That title may have use in the context of a news outlet dealing solely with current events but it has no place in an encyclopaedia.

Acronym title formats work for in connection to articles such as: BBC, HIV/AIDS, IBM, NATO, and a wide range of others. The format can work here. Arabic and Muslim communities reject the use of "Islamic State". WP:COMMONNAME indicates that: Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural.

• site:www.nytimes.com/ "ISIS" gets "About 220,000 results"
• site:www.nytimes.com/ "Islamic State" gets "About 29,200 results"

Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gregkaye Is this a new Talk section or a continuation of GraniteSand's that he opened? Probably best to avoid subsections in Talk discussions, I think. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The GraniteSand's thread is disjointed by use of the Sources subheading and I did what I thought best to preserve chronological continuity. I'll move: ISIL/ISIS/"Islamic State" to a level 2 heading.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregkaye (talk • contribs) 10:44, 2 October 2014

Yes, I guessed that is why you had done it! To continue, most of those statistics lump all sources together and it is only the RS sources that we are interested in when looking for the group's WP:COMMONNAME. Global stastistics of that kind won't help especially as ISIS and ISIL refer to other entities as well. Even statistics for "Islamic State" in an individual RS source are no good without a comparison with its use of "ISIS/ISIL". Can you find any more breakdowns for RSs of the kind you found for the NYT? An assessment of the group's common name has been attempted innumerable times on this Talk page in the last few months and each time failed miserably. A proper breakdown of individual RS sources would be needed to come to a sensible conclusion. So far in discussions it has been random sampling, anecdotal evidence and impressions none of which are satisfactory. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GraniteSand, you were aware of the prevalence of the use of the names ISIL and ISIS as per information presented at Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#Alternative_name and this awareness is demonstrated by your 1 October edit of your thread at: Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#How_much_longer_are_we_going_to_avoid_calling_the_Islamic_State_the_Islamic_State.3F. Never-the-less you still presented a single option title as at: Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#English language reliable sources using"Islamic State" since declaration of name change. Are these not examples against WP:NPOV? Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you're asking me. GraniteSand (talk) 23:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GraniteSand, I made a statement. You are also well aware of previous statements statements made regarding the prevalence of the use of ISIL/ISIS. You also quoted a range of articles several of which did not even mention Islamic State in their titles some of which even made statements such as: 'ISIS' seems to be the most ubiquitous name. You know that RS use a variety of names and of the prevalence of the use of acronym based titles and yet you still presented the one sided: English language reliable sources using"Islamic State".

Its not good. Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP has a word for editors with an agenda. --P123ct1 (talk) 14:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Gregkaye After all that verbiage I'm still unclear what your question is. @P123ct1 No need to be passive aggressive or snide. If you have an accusation to level then, by all means, do so. Still, I would suggest that it would behoove you to be more concise and unambiguous than you have so far. GraniteSand (talk) 08:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Manners forbade, but I will say it straight: I think you are a POV-pusher. Your examples were biased and selective and designed to put across a point of view which the evidence does not support. I bow out from this now. --P123ct1 (talk) 09:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GraniteSand, You have everything you need to understand my meaning. You knew of the existence of multiple options and you presented one. This is not a balanced or fair approach to take. I don't know what word P123ct1 had in mind but I think that biased, selective and manipulative apply. Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Gregkaye Wow, where to begin? We don't treat search engine results as a reliable source when extrapolating facts, especially when attempting to gauge the notability or veracity of subject or terms, across the project. Even if we did, your metrics are wrong. You're using search parameters more than a year outside the Islamic State's name change. Additionally terminology searched provide inherently unreliable results as ISIS and ISIL both contain "Islamic State" and many articles talking about the proper or preferred use of "Islamic State" include the former terms for context. These search results are categorically worthless.

Your objections to the title change based on existing articles is a technical issue easily fixed by disambiguation pages and is not an excuse to make a move otherwise compliant with policy. Your push for an acronym title is misguided and your corresponding search results for the NYT are as erroneous as the previous search results, for much the same reason. You'll notice that the overwhelming preponderance of sources using "ISIS" use so as a shorthand, only after identifying the group as it's full former name, in the lede. This is not true of your examples.

To reiterate the policy on Wikipedia article titles: "If the name of a person, group, object, or other article topic changes, then more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change than in those before the change." The subject has changed its name and the way in which we determine usage is by compiling reliable sources who have spoken on the subject since the name change. We don't use loose search results or complain about perceived moral slights, which brings me to my last point. You're leading objection to the use of "Islamic State" as being morally corrupt raises concerns about your paradigm in editing this article. Your angry and unsolicited characterization of the subject of the article as also being morally corrupt, while probably correct, also raises concerns about your state. Both suggest that, in this space, you may be driven more by animosity than a desire to build an article based our core policies. Combined with antagonistic declarations on your user page characterizing religion in general as being an inevitable contributor to insecurity, grief, and insanity leaves me in doubt that you can edit here fairly and without bias. You may want to consider recusing yourself, or even just taking a break, from editing here. GraniteSand (talk) 22:52, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Gregkaye has made a number of major, useful and objective edits to this page - more than most have in the past week. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to this BBC article quoting a woman in Mosul "They will cut your tongue out even if you call them Isis - you have to say Islamic State." Legacypac (talk) 20:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow your logic. Could you expand on that? GraniteSand (talk) 22:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Isis" in their minds means the pagan goddess. Nonsensical - but what do you expect from a bunch of mentally defective terrorists? HammerFilmFan (talk) 00:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Pagan? That's POV. The Egyptian religion had a great belief in such concepts as "truth," "justice," and "order" Belief systems held that people would be judged according to the weighing of their souls. Modern religions typically say that people are judged according to adherence to a specific creed. For most people this means that, if you are born into the wrong family, you're screwed. The Egyptian belief may be considered to be relatively fair in comparison. Gregkaye ✍♪ 18:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]

One way of looking at this is that using "Islamic State" for ISIL bows to the desires of the terrorists. In examining COMMONNAME we need to look at what RS call it - and not just the news media headlines. (I continue to update this list)

UN - consistently uses ISIL in Security Council documents.

US - Govt and Obama consistently using ISIL. Extreme proof: http://www.defense.gov/home/features/2014/0814_iraq/

Canada is using "The so-called Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant’s (ISIL)" or just ISIL.http://www.international.gc.ca/media/aff/news-communiques/2014/09/15a.aspx?lang=eng

AU PM Tony Abbott said at the UN Security council "To use this term [Islamic State] is to dignify a death cult; a death cult that, in declaring itself a caliphate, has declared war on the world," he told the Security Council. Perhaps the realisation is now dawning for all peoples, all cultures and all faiths that it can never be right to kill in the name of God. Countries do need to work together to defeat it because about 80 countries have citizens fighting with ISIL and every country is a potential target."

UK PM Cameron uses the term ISiL https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4HDt9PUkeI

France using Daesh

EU The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has adopted a resolution to combat the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, or ISIL, to establish peace and stability in conflict regions. http://www.aa.com.tr/en/news/398838--pace-calls-for-governments-to-stand-up-against-isil

Russia Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has called for the involvement of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the campaign against the Takfiri ISIL terrorists operating inside Syria and neighboring Iraq. “Iran of course should be part of the efforts to fight ISIL, because Iran is a strong opponent of this group,” Lavrov said http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/09/28/380328/russia-urges-iran-role-against-isil/

Gulf/Arab states usually use Daesh from everything I've read.

That covers the major part of the English speaking world and a few other key players. Legacypac (talk) 01:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that any news organisation that has reporters in front-line regions of Iran, Iraq or Syria can necessarily be considered a reliable source. Sources continue to use a variety of references to the group but remember, this is a group that have been known for killing reporters and for killing people that make reference to Daesh and now ISIS as well. Gregkaye ✍♪ 03:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would it not be a good idea to keep all discussion on this topic under one heading, instead of having it scattered about in different sections? It would make the discussion much easier to follow. --P123ct1 (talk) 07:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac Oh yes, you're right. All those governments utilize the alternate/outdated name. All those governments are also in direct and declared conflict with the Islamic State, a conflict that extends to naming conventions. Independent reliable sources such as the New York Times and the AP have both characterized the listed nations' naming conventions as part of a wider propaganda campaign. Note too that the official apolitical broadcast outlet of the United States uses their actual name "Islamic State" while the political arm of the US government uses "ISIL" which is rejected by independent sources. GraniteSand (talk) 07:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an outdated name when it is commonly used to refer to the entity. For an older example Nazi_Party was not their official name, but kind of but not really an acronym. Same with Tory or Republican or KKK - not that these groups are related of course. And ISIL and ISIS are hardly rejected by independent sources. Lots of organizations like the UN Security Council and media worldwide use ISIL, even Fallon uses it. Legacypac (talk) 10:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think Wikipedia could be a useful vehicle here, and maybe list some of the various international muslim communities that have condemned ISIS. For example, in the UK there is "not in my name" campaign by British Muslims. Perhaps this information could be placed near the top, so its prominent. This wouldn't be manipulative or untruthful, but it would be useful for people to have this information spelt out to them clearly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.43.249 (talk) 01:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encylopaedia, not an arm of the media or an information service. But a section dealing with criticisms of the Islamic State has already been proposed and this could go into that. --P123ct1 (talk) 07:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC) (See next section --P123ct1 (talk))[reply]

If I add this will it be considered breach of the 1RR? I don't f'ing understand how that procedure works. Could someone else add it in my name please. Thanks. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 12:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To Why should I have a User Name?: If it has been at least 24 hours since you last edited the article, then you should feel free to edit it again. Even if your edit is construed as a reversion of someone else's edit, that would not be a violation of 1RR which limits you to one reversion per 24 hour period per affected article (i.e. articles on the Syrian civil war). JRSpriggs (talk) 13:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why should I have a User Name? On an earlier Talk page I drew up this guidance on what a revert is, as I think most of us have been baffled about this rule at some stage. Dougweller, the admin on this page, seems to have approved that list. --P123ct1 (talk) 14:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No I agree that its not an arm of the media etc, but I think its noteworthy to include that many Islamic organisations have condemned this action. The fact that it will also be of humanitarian benefit is just a very positive additional benefit of having such a section. Just without the criticism section, people reading up on ISIS may have the false conclusion that this is supported by the majority of Muslims, so information by omission of such a sensitive nature is all the more crucial in this instance - especially when it seems that a large part of ISIS campaign is to cause a Muslim/non-Muslim divide; would be a shame for wikipedia to play even a small role in propagating that :)

Thanks for the civilised discussions here btw - I've already had a mod that I fell out with on a previous article come to my page and lay down the law regarding this, so thankfully you guys are seeing the bigger picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.43.249 (talk) 15:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

87.115.43.249 You will have seen I opened a new section (see next discussion) after your first comment, because I agree that the Muslim opposition to ISIL is a very important topic to cover. I foresee this new "Criticism" section will grow fast, now that Muslim communities and the international community are voicing their criticisms more and more loudly. Unfortunately, I cannot see where this new section could go in the article to give it more prominence. The history of the group and what is doing now naturally has to be covered first, including the human rights abuses, to explain the contents of the "Criticism" section. This is why it comes fairly low down in the article. There was certainly no intention to "bury" the information. --P123ct1 (talk) 18:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No that's excellent, and I don't think anyone was intentionally burying this information (sorry if I sounded accusatory at all - was not my intention!), I just felt it was an important inclusion for the purpose of balance which led onto the wider reasons I mentioned.. Thanks again for the discussion and the edit. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.43.249 (talk) 18:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, you weren't accusing, but I have been accused of it by another editor, hiding the controversy over the name. Nothing was further from my mind. --P123ct1 (talk) 09:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened a new section called "Criticism of the Islamic State", as it seemed time for one after all the recent outspoken criticisms from various governments and the Muslim world. I have moved into it some text from other parts of the article. Please feel free to change the title or move it to a different position in the TOC, as I don't think either are ideal but couldn't think of better alternatives. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has already removed the subsections I put in, "From the Muslim community" and "From the non-Muslim world", on the grounds that this is divisive - which is fine - but it seemed only logical to me to have the criticisms under those separate headings. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I felt free not to divide the world between 'us' and 'others'. Thank you. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 11:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a better way to handle the information in that section in an orderly way? Any ideas are welcome. --P123ct1 (talk) 11:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The edits to restore any doubt about the applicability of the name "Islamic State" are not constructive. Calling an organization "Islamic State" is incredibly inappropriate: 1. Very offensive to the vast majority of Muslims world wide 2. Not the name used by any known State actor (see list above) 3. Is like naming an organization "The Government" or "Republic" or "Kingdom" with no geographical or ethnic context. It is totally illogical. 4. Many people feel that the organization is neither Islamic or a State and definately not both. 5. The vast majority of media sources qualify the term - and so should we. 6. Multiple move requests to "Islamic State" for the article have failed, yet people keep changing the text. Legacypac (talk) 12:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Putting this important information that no nation recognizes the name they want to use deep down in the article is not NPOV, it is hiding the facts. It belongs in the Lead where I inserted it before, perhaps with more detail in a section of the article. Legacypac (talk) 13:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did voice misgivings about the position of the new section, partly for that reason. I think a sentence or two in the Lead about the name dispute and dispute over the legitimacy of the Islamic State/caliphate (which is really what the name dispute is about) and more detail on it in "Criticism of the Islamic State" placed more prominently in the TOC - though how that can be done without upsetting the flow of the article I can't see at the moment. Perhaps worked into the "Names" section, which is right at the beginning? The most important thing is that whatever is said about this must be said neutrally, or it will flout WP:NPOV, one of the WP:FIVEPILLARS which are the foundation on which WP is built. --P123ct1 (talk) 13:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I put a new sentence, the last in the lead, to cover it, immediately after the sentence about the group renaming itself. It is factual, not POV, and fits with the fact they picked a new name. Their chosen name is a declaration of war on the rest of the muslim world, not some trivial thing Wikipedia should just swallow without presenting that 99% of the world rejects it.Legacypac (talk) 13:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WD P123ct1 and Legacypac for work on this. Digression: I view the content with referral to governmental and religious sources to have a far higher moral standing than the actions of groups such as reuters that for some inexplicable reason seem to have chosen to use the term "Islamic State" in virtual exclusion to all others. I find it incomprehensible, an example of "RS" POV? Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps they took the view, "This is what they call themselves now. We should as well, and not get into the politics of it." Seems reasonable. --P123ct1 (talk) 16:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No I think the media is shortening a long name they don't understand to save ink. That and pure laziness. And like another editor suggested, maybe protect their reporters from being separated from their heads. If this group called itself "The Catholic Church" and the leader the "Pope" would Wikipedia use those name? Legacypac (talk) 16:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Legacypac I agree with you, it should not be trivialised. My overriding concern is WP:NPOV, and if it makes it look as if I minimise some things, that is unintentional. We had a very similar discussion about using the word "terrorist" in the Lead some time ago. It is not what is said, it is how it is said that counts. --P123ct1 (talk) 14:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove Slovenia from list of countries providing weapons. Slovenia is not helping by military means. It was listed on the list of countries in coalition against IS without even being informed.

Sources: http://www.sta.si/en/vest.php?s=a&id=2054912 http://www.noodls.com/view/907F12D3539A0A4E278BE6F2EE86B49EBCD99185?9269xxx1411980751 http://www.24ur.com/novice/slovenija/pahor-zgladil-nesporazum-glede-uvrstitve-slovenije-na-seznam-koalicije-drzav-proti-is.html http://www.siol.net/novice/slovenija/2014/09/mzz.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.103.141.64 (talk) 11:43, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted the flag and bad ref. Thanks for the heads up. Legacypac (talk) 14:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A tricky technical point has arisen. How is land seized and controlled by an unrecognised state described? The Islamic State is described as an "unrecognized state" in the Lead. How should the land it claims for its new caliphate be described? Is the correct description "occupied territory"? --P123ct1 (talk) 16:16, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. The term "unrecognized state" is actually linked to Lists_of_active_separatist_movements and ISIL is on the List_of_active_rebel_groups#Groups_which_control_territory so "controlled" and "occupied" or "occupied territories" seems reasonable. ISIL is the largest rebel army controlling the largest geographic area and population, and the only one spanning two countries in the world right now (Eastern Ukraine being a possible exception). Perhaps we should change "unrecognized state" to something better - I've almost done that already but fear a revert war. ISIL is (correctly) not on the List_of_states_with_limited_recognition but the term unrecognized state suggests that they should be. I can't come up with a better term other than terrorist organization Legacypac (talk) 16:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reworking the Lead

(new heading to attract attention to this continuing discussion)

Legacypac So far the article has "ISIL-controlled territory". Probably safest to keep to that, I think, for consistency if nothing else. There was some discussion about "unrecognised state" edit some time back, which I don't remember, so probably best not to edit it without putting it to the Talk page first. I have no view on what it should be. It is already called a "terrorist organisation" in the Lead, of course. Btw, I was going to add a sentence before yours at the end of the Lead and run it into yours this way:

"There has been much debate worldwide about the legitimacy of these moves, and no government and very few Muslims will acknowledge the name "Islamic State" owing to its far-reaching political and religious authority implications."

I wanted to get in that there is this debate about the legitimacy of what ISIL has done. Is that okay by you? --P123ct1 (talk) 17:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like that change because unlike many things that are debated, all parties (except ISIL, a handful of terror groups that have pledged to them, and some media organizations) reject the name. I don't think your addition says anything more than what is there now, just with more words. I remain open to discussion though. Legacypac (talk) 18:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the widespread criticism of the group from Muslims and the international community is about the legitimacy of the Islamic State and the caliphate. Their rejection of the name "Islamic State" is a part of that wider criticism. Your wording covers the name rejection, mine shows what it stems from. Simples. But I'm not fussed, my edit can stay out. --P123ct1 (talk) 20:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see what you are driving at - maybe we can wordsmith something stronger to that point. There is plenty to criticise. Maybe the name issue should be a subheading along with beheadings and sexual assaults and kidnapping kids (which might be missing) etc. Might want to rename the section. In the lead we could say something like

"ISIL's very existence and nearly all its actions are viewed by the international community as a threat to peace and security. No government and very few Muslims will acknowledge the name "Islamic State" owing to its far-reaching political and religious authority implications." Someone else want to take a crack at this? The only thing they have done that anyone other than their terrorist brothers would approve of is fighting Assad. Legacypac (talk) 04:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That end para has been replaced by a wonderfully woolly one from an editor who is probably oblivious of this Talk page discussion. The sentence does not hang together properly and makes no logical sense. --P123ct1 (talk) 06:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, I fixed it some, along with the first paragraph which someone unhelpfully again took out the self declared part. Below is where it stands at the moment. Maybe with a little more editing to the first and second paragraphs we can cut the last paragraph of the lead?

The self-declared Islamic State (IS; Arabic: الدولة الإسلامية al-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah), which previously called itself and is internationally known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL /ˈaɪsəl/) or the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS /ˈaɪsɪs/; Arabic: الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام al-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fī al-ʻIraq wa-al-Shām) and by the Arabic acronym Dāʻish (داعش), is an unrecognized state and a Sunni jihadist group active in Iraq and Syria in the Middle East.^[a] In its self-proclaimed status as a caliphate, it claims religious authority over all Muslims worldwide, and aims to bring most Muslim-inhabited regions of the world under its political control, beginning with territory in the Levant region, which includes Syria, Jordan, Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Cyprus, and part of southern Turkey.^[2][3][4]

The group has been described by the United Nations^[5] and the media as a terrorist group, and has been designated as a foreign terrorist organization by the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, Turkey, Indonesia, and Saudi Arabia. The United Nations and Amnesty International have accused the group of grave human rights abuses.

(3 history paragraphs then)

Due to ISIL's claim that it holds a certain "supreme/ultimate" political and religious authority over all others, no government, and in fact very few Muslims worldwide will acknowledge the "Islamic State" name, or its apparent aspirations to such a domination over all others. Therefore Arab countries and Muslim media outlets typically tend to refer to the group simply as Da-ish or ISIS while the United Nations and nearly all Western nations use the acronym ISIL.

Legacypac (talk) 21:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the Lead as it stands up until the last para should be disturbed, as there is a flow there. More importantly, that last para, on criticism of the group's aspirations and its name, I think follows on smoothly from the para before about the establishment of the caliphate, since it is describing how the world has reacted to that event - it continues the chronological sequence. To work it in earlier wouldn't make sense, because the criticism follows that last event. In a way, the last para is "And this is what the world said", as in that game of "Consequences" if anyone remembers that!

So in other words, my view on the current shape of the Lead is "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". The real task is to fix that last paragraph. --P123ct1 (talk) 23:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I heard English/American speakers (for example Obama and several analysts) pronounce the IS/ISIL/ISIS acronym as 'eye sa' or 'eye saw', why is that? Bever (talk) 16:25, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've not heard that yet (but I am a native english speaker and it might sound different to your ears). World leaders are saying ISIL almost exclusively pronounced 'eye sole' or pronounced out 'eye es eye el'. But you gotta see this clip from Fallon for the correct pronunciation. Legacypac (talk) 17:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]