Jump to content

Talk:Islamic State/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

References in the text: ISIS or ISIL?

I have changed my mind and think Gregkaye is probably right. As this article is called "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant", surely for the sake of consistency, the references in the text should be to "ISIL" and not "ISIS"? The references to "Islamic State"/"IS" in the text could remain, as this is one of the group's common names now. "ISIS" may have been decided upon as it was once considered to be its WP:COMMONNAME, but things have arguably changed since then, with the adoption of the new name "Islamic State". To my eyes now, "ISIS" clashes too much with the title of the article. There is already a clash between the article's title and the infobox headings. Surely there is no need to add to it by calling the group "ISIS" in the text? If "ISIS" was changed to "ISIL", it would reduce the inconsistencies in the article from three (title, IS in infoboxes, ISIS) to two (title and IS in infoboxes). --P123ct1 (talk) 12:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Obama and Cameron both say ISIL, and it has the advantage, unlike Isis (disambiguation), of not meaning anything else. Rothorpe (talk) 12:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree basically on the basis that the “Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant” is good translation while the “Islamic State of Iraq and Syria” is not.
Also:
However, and at risk of disruptively editting against myself,:
None-the-less, I think that the arguments of related to reference to accurate translation and consistent use carry. WP:Use commonly recognizable names relates to article titles and this article already has one of those.
Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't think we need look beyond the inconsistency factor, which has plagued the article ever since the "Islamic State" and caliphate were announced. --P123ct1 (talk) 13:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
@P123ct1: @Rothorpe: if its OK I'll get on and attempt the edits to ISIL. With both an article and an edit page open and, by use of a bit of systematic cross referencing, I should be alright :) Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Don't rush, Gregkaye. This is such a big change that it needs more than the agreement of two editors. I'm not sure when this was discussed before (where the consensus was for "ISIS"), but I am absolutely confident that more than couple of editors were involved. You may be reverted again if you do it now. --P123ct1 (talk) 17:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
This obsession with consistency is one of the downsides of Wikipedia. I'm all for variety myself. What's wrong with 19 September here and September 19 there? Yes, I know... Instead there should be a rule that forbids (sorry, a guideline against) unnecessary changes. Rothorpe (talk) 19:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
WP:CIVILI wouldn't think much of an encyclopaedia that wasn't consistent. --P123ct1 (talk) 20:50, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I'll plead guilty to playfulness, not incivility. The fact is that there are four names in common use: Islamic State, IS, ISIS and ISIL. History may choose one of them, but for now there's no point in trying to put the article into a straitjacket. And quotations must be verbatim. Allow them all? Favour the shortest? Rothorpe (talk) 03:50, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I can't see how changing ISIS to ISIL would be putting the article into a straitjacket! Of course quotes must be vertbatim. Your point? --P123ct1 (talk) 06:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
My point is that when I switched on my televison today the CNN caption said: ISIS... Rothorpe (talk) 12:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I vote leave ISIS and ISIL as valid ways used by RS to refer to this organization. Many reject calling them the Islamic State because I understand that this is roughly the muslim equivalent to getting Catholics to call a pretender the Pope, or if I renamed myself the King of England and expected everyone to call me that. This group changes their name far to frequently to expect the world to pick a name.Legacypac (talk) 18:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Wahhabism

Jason from nyc: Thanks for the extra information on the group's Wahabbism, which I understand is a tricky subject. Do you think it could be added to the infobox under beliefs? You said, "While ISIS is widely denounced by a broad range of Islamic clerics, it took political pressure before Saudi clerics issued a formal condemnation." Is this linked to the part about Wahabbism or is this a more general point? Also, could you perhaps expand on "it took political pressure", as it is unclear what that entailed and who it came from. I know it will be in the citations, but perhaps it deserves a brief mention in the text. Thanks for expanding this section of the article, btw. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Beliefs

Let me answer your first concern about categorization of beliefs.
Both articles are unequivocal about the ideological basis rooted in Wahhabism. The Times article, relying heavily on Princeton’s Bernard Haykel, says al-Baghdadi’s “ruthless creed … has clear roots in the 18th-century Arabian Peninsula. It was there that the Saud clan formed an alliance with the puritanical scholar Muhammed ibn Abd al-Wahhab. And as they conquered the warring tribes of the desert, his austere interpretation of Islam became the foundation of the Saudi state. … the sea thought has now been revived by … al-Baghdadi … a kind of untamed Wahhabism.” Haykel says “Wahhabism is the closest religious cognate.” “… the leaders of the Islamic State, … are open and clear about their almost exclusive commitment to the Wahhabi movement of Sunni Islam.” ISIS uses textbooks and plasters Wahhabi quotes on official vehicles.
The Times connects the ideology to the violence. “Wahhabi tradition embraced the killing of those deemed unbelievers as essential to purifying the community of the faithful. … Violence is part of their ideology … and end in itself.” The Times does mention additions to the Wahhabi tradition: “Baghdadi, grafted two elements onto his Wahhabi foundations borrowed from … the Muslim Brotherhood … the call to political action against foreign domination of the Arab world …Baghdadi also borrowed the idea of a restored caliphate.”
The Crooke article talks about the evolution of Wahhab’s thought in Saudi Arabia, which was derived from Taymiyyah. After the review of the original Wahhabi principles, Crooke says “there is nothing here that separates Wahhabism from ISIS.” But he goes on to say that ISIS rejects Saudi authority. Apparently under the House of Saud “Wahhabism was forcefully changed from a movement of revolutionary jihad … to a movement of conservative social, political, theological, and religious da'wa … justifying the institution that upholds loyalty to the royal Saudi family and the King's absolute power.”
Cooke says “ISIS is deeply Wahhabist” but “ultra radical in a different way” from the Saudi state. It “looks to the actions of the first two Caliphs … and … denies the Saudis' claim of authority to rule … a return to the true origins of the Saudi-Wahhab project.” Part II of Crooke’s article (another citation [1]) quote Faud Ibrahim saying of al-Baghdadi, his “language replicates exactly Abd-al Wahhab's formulation. And, not surprisingly, the latter's writings and Wahhabi commentaries on his works are widely distributed in the areas under ISIS' control and are made the subject of study sessions.”
I left out all the ways the articles say that ISIS is Wahhabist, the history of Wahhabism, American support for Wahhabism, etc. Both sources are adamant that ISIS is Wahhabist and even more Wahhabist than modern day Saudi Arabia. So, yes, from these two article we can say that ISIS is Wahhabist and put it into the info box. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Politics

Your second concern is about the political pressure.
There is a question about the Islamic opposition to ISIS: theological or political? In the case of Saudi Arabia it is not clear that this can be separated. Crooke notes that the Saudi leadership is running scared. A Saudi opinion poll says “92 percent of the target group believes that 'IS conforms to the values of Islam and Islamic law.” “With 3,000-4,000 Saudi fighters” in ISIS there is a need to “look inward to explain ISIS' rise.” If “Saudi Arabia is engulfed by the ISIS fervor … [it] will deconstruct… this is the nature of the time bomb tossed into the Middle East.” ISIS holds “up a mirror to Saudi society that seems to reflect back to them an image of 'purity' lost and early beliefs and certainties displaced by shows of wealth and indulgence.” This is a “intra-Saudi rift.”
An AP article [2] notes that condemnation of ISIS by “Saudi Arabia's highest body of religious scholars.” “The clerics are appointed by the government and are seen as guardians of the kingdom's ultraconservative Wahhabi school of Islam.” “The edict highlights the historically close relationship between the Wahhabi establishment in Saudi Arabia and the kingdom's rulers …” “The Saudi king earlier this year called on scholars to speak out more aggressively against terrorism. Shortly afterward, the head of the council and grand mufti of Saudi Arabia, Sheik Abdul-Aziz Al-Sheik, described the Islamic State and al-Qaida as Islam's top enemies.”
The New York Times article says “… Saudi clerics lagged long after other Muslim scholars in formally denouncing the Islamic State … there is a certain mutedness in the Saudi religious establishment, which indicates it is not a slam dunk to condemn ISIS … at one point even the king publicly urged them to speak out more clearly … Finally, on Aug. 19, Sheikh Abdul Aziz al-Sheikh” condemned ISIS. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Interesting. I never expected such a full answer! Wahhabism should be included in the infobox after all, then - it has always been chased out before - using those sources as citations? I can see now why the Saudi government are so ambivalent about ISIS. --P123ct1 (talk) 15:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Wahabism is a pejorative and highly loaded term, largely used by Westerners and Shia Muslims, which is one reason why it has been removed from the infobox both on this article and other Jihadist groups. There are also millions of 'Wahhabis' who do not support the Islamic State and do not carry out violence. Gazkthul (talk) 22:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
The term is widely used in a descriptive sense. Both scholarly discourse and journalistic practice use the term routinely. That some adherents object is true but that doesn't prohibit usage by an encyclopedia, especially one that reflects the sources as they are. Adherents don't have veto power over reliable sources. Jason from nyc (talk) 00:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
It has been widely used but it has become less frequent (I will need time to look for sources) in more recent times, particularly from academics and analysts. The term Salafist Jihadist is my preference because the Salafist portion of the name (which is not contentious or pejorative in the way Wahhabi is) captures their belief system, while the Jihadist portion distinguishes those that support active violent Jihad around the world, in contrast to the majority of Salafists/Wahhabis who don't. For example, the followers of Salafist cleric Rabee Al-Madkhali, are almost fanatically opposed to Osama bin Ladin, al-Qaeda, and other militant groups. Wahhabism is a very imprecise term, which fails to explain the many different mutually hostile trends within this movement. Gazkthul (talk) 00:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The term isn't my preference either but it is used by the sources. The above sources specifically argue that ISIS' thought goes back to al-Wahhab and the early practice of those initially influenced by his thought. These sources and others continue to use the term descriptively. If there has been a change of usage, it hasn't yet been adopted by all reliable sources. It's not clear that the above sources intend to use Wahhabist identically to Salafist Jihadist. For us to conclude they do would be a synthesis and hence original research. It's clear that as recently a decade ago major scholars used Wahhabist purely in a descriptive manner. For example, John Esposito does in this synopsis [3]. Esposito heads the Prince Alwaleed Center for Muslim–Christian Understanding at Georgetown funded by a $20 million grant from the Saudi billionaire. I doubt this is a hostile source. In any case, our article on Wahabbism has more on this evolving term. Jason from nyc (talk) 02:39, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

BoogaLouie: Your addition on Wahhabism has been inserted too early in the section. There is a later reference to Wahhabism. The two need to be blended in. --P123ct1 (talk) 21:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

ISIS in Afghanistan

According to NBC News http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/isis-allied-militants-behead-15-during-afghanistan-offensive-official-n212166 A group waving the ISIS flag involved in battle, beheadings. Given that ISIS is not a state but a volunteer movement, does this equate to the beginning of ISIS operations in Afghanistan? Legacypac (talk) 18:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps, but we should wait for more information to come out before making any additions. Gazkthul (talk) 02:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Ideology and beliefs (2)

The question whether ISIS can be called Kharijites under "Ideology" in the Lead and in the "Ideology and beliefs" section in this article is controversial, as can be seen from the discussion above. Jason from nyc (see above) has added a sentence to a para in "Ideology and beliefs" in this way:

"ISIS's ideology originates in the branch of modern Islam that aims to return to the early days of Islam, rejecting later "innovations" in the religion which it believes corrupt its original spirit. It condemns later caliphates and the Ottoman empire for deviating from what it calls pure Islam and hence has been attempting to establish its own caliphate.[108] However, there are some Sunni commentators, Zaid Hamid, for example, and even Salafi and jihadi muftis such as Adnan al-Aroor and Abu Basir al-Tartusi, who say that ISIS and related terrorist groups are not Sunnis, but modern-day Kharijite heretics serving an imperial anti-Islamic agenda. [NEW SENTENCE:] Critics include Salafists Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi and Saleh Al-Fawzan, who claims Western forces are behind ISIS."

This suggests those last two critics hold that ISIS are Kharijites, but this isn't borne out by the citation. According to the citation they clearly are critics of ISIS's religion, but they don't call them Kharijites, so I suggest this alteration of the wording just to avoid any misunderstanding:

"Other critics of ISIS's brand of Sunni Islam include Salafists Abu Muhammad ... ", etc.

Is this alteration acceptable? --P123ct1 (talk) 20:36, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you're saying. That's an improvement and avoids the mistaken implication. I also added "modern-day" to the previous sentence as it is used in the Economist to avoid the implication that critics are saying that ISIS is actually a continuation or revival of the original Kharijite movement. Thank you. Jason from nyc (talk) 21:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 Done --P123ct1 (talk) 08:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • @P123ct1 and Jason from nyc: The section "Ideology and beliefs" should discuss ideology and beliefs only, not the discussion on ISIS's origination! So, the following should go to another section:

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.[219]

It has nothing to do with ideology and beliefs. We may have a section entitled "Criticisms"! Mhhossein (talk) 11:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Good guys vs. bad guys narrative

"In August 2014, after the group captured Kurdish-controlled territory[192] and massacred Yazidis,[193] the US launched a humanitarian mission to help the Yazidis and an aerial bombing campaign against ISIS.[194]"

This is a classical example of good guys vs. bad guys narrative, which Wikipedia should not be. --Mladifilozof (talk) 21:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Well spotted. Have eliminated the cause and effect POV by splitting the sentence. --P123ct1 (talk) 09:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Disagree - the statement is factual and I don't see anything "inferred" except what's obvious. There's very little that can be done about total neutrality when dealing with a terrorist state in an encyclopedia, no different from Nazi Germany. The facts are clear that this is a battle of good vs. evil, no matter how we phrase it via Wiki, or how 'flawed' the good guys may be (as in, less than perfect).HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Whatever the truth is, it can always be stated in a neutral way, and that is what WP has to do. WP:NPOV --P123ct1 (talk) 18:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Turkey's designation of ISIS as a terrorist organization, section 3

I have removed Turkey from the section 3 infobox. There was a citation in English appended which someone has removed and replaced with a Turkish document with no translation. Until a citation can be found, in English, to support the designation or listing by Turkey of ISIS as a terrorist organation, the country must remain out of this infobox.

The Turkish citation that was provided is this. Can someone explain what this document is and what it says? --P123ct1 (talk) 18:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
P123ct1, it is the official gazette of the parliament. it says that 'the assets of the organizations and persons which got decided to freeze/confiscate.' at top and 'A- Persons who has connections with Al-Qaeda', 'B- Organizations which has connections with Al-Qaeda', 'C- Persons who has connections with Taliban', 'C- Organizations which has connections with Taliban'. kazekagetr 17:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I suspected something like that, after seeing the list of names. So it is to do with the Taliban and al-Qaeda. How can the editor who found this have thought it was a suitable citation, then, and what happened to the English citation? --P123ct1 (talk) 18:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources is clear - a citation in Turkish is fine. An English citation is not needed, please put the info back in the infobox - ask for a translation if needed, do not just delete citations because you do not personally understand the language they are written in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.190.195.225 (talk) 07:48, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
In the en.Wikipedia, citations in a foreign language are acceptable if there is a translation. Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources says: "When quoting a non-English source (whether in the main text, in a footnote, or on the talk page), a translation into English should always accompany the quote. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians". The interpretation of the Turkish citation provided here by a user shows that it cannot be used to back up the designation by Turkey of ISIS as a terrorist organisation. Did you not read it? --P123ct1 (talk) 09:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

•Please read this article: Turkey recognized ISIS as a terrorist organization just six months after the organization became publicly known, which is much earlier than many Western countries. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 12:00, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. That is very like the other Daily Sabah article that was removed when the Turkish citation was put in. Where has that one gone? --P123ct1 (talk) 17:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Footnotes

Are all editors aware that footnotes appended to edits need to be converted from bare URLs to the standard Wikipedia format, using the cite templates on the edit page? Other cite methods can be used (though bare URLs are inadvisable for the reason below), but it is customary to follow the method generally being used in the article in question, which here is the WP cite template method.

Please note that 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.

Please remember to include all parameters when filling in the cite templates.

These bare URL footnotes have appeared in the last week or so. http://www.aina.org/news/20140810150643.htm
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syria-conflict-president-assad-finally-turns-on-isis-as-government-steps-up-campaign-against-militant-strongholds-9679480.html
http://www.ntvmsnbc.com/id/25506321/
http://www.aksam.com.tr/guncel/istanbulda-isid-operasyonu/haber-294981
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/08/un-accuses-islamic-state-group-war-crimes-2014827153541710630.html
--P123ct1 (talk) 19:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Two more added since then:

http://time.com/3273185/isis-us-nato/
http://www.smh.com.au/world/islamic-state-says-vladimir-putins-throne-is-under-threat-and-will-fall-when-we-come-to-you-20140904-10c4hq.html#ixzz3CIY8T9SZ DEAD LINK ALREADY

Remember these links could go dead at any time. (See headnote above). --P123ct1 (talk) 14:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

These added in the last week:
2. http://magharebia.com/en_GB/articles/awi/features/2014/07/31/feature-01
3. http://allafrica.com/stories/201407090299.html
4. http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/tr/originals/2014/02/isis-gaza-salafist-jihadist-qaeda-hamas.html
5. http://www.sipa.gov.ba/en/Bosnia in coalition against the Islamic State
6. http://www.sta.si/en/vest.php?s=a&id=2052615
7. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10585391/Syrias-Assad-accused-of-boosting-al-Qaeda-with-secret-oil-deals.html
8. http://edition.cnn.com/2014/09/08/world/meast/iraq-town-suicide-bomb-attacks/
9. http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2013/10/20131010-1-1.pdf. Missing or empty |title= (help)

These are all vulnerable to link-rot and may become unusable. --P123ct1 (talk) 07:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

A big thank you to all editors who helped to get rid of this backlog of bare URLs by converting them!
--P123ct1 (talk) 19:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Index of names

I doubt if the average Wikipedia reader will know the difference between a translation and a transliteration. This article is for the general reader, not the specialist. I think the index should be restored to the version before the current one, which was clear enough. --P123ct1 (talk) 20:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

  • The question here is whether the additional distinction between translation and transliteration is sufficiently useful to warrant the use of the extra title words. A lot of the names are the self-same names just repeated in different forms. However, cutting the two trans.. words would make things just that little bit more concise.
Understandability is definitely an issue in all things here but, without doing a survey, I would hope that way more than 50% of the readership would understand the difference. Most people will realise that Islamic State/.. are not primarily an English speaking group, they'll see text like "Tanẓīm Qāʻidat ..." and most will understand that translation is going on. Hopefully people will read transliteration and realise that something different is going on from translation. The question though is how the wikt:index is best served. Its all good. I should have said either option is good. Gregkaye ✍♪ 20:53, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
They will see there is translation going on, obviously, but I think they would be muddled by too much talk about transliteration as well. I myself find the index of names a little confusing to follow now, tbh.--P123ct1 (talk) 21:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Second information box in Lead

Why are Malaysia and the Philippines in the second paragraph of the Lead and not in the second information box? How do they differ from Bosnia and Herzegovina which is in the information box? --P123ct1 (talk) 07:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

A better question is why we need what looks like half the planet listed in the infobox under opponents. Do we really need police forces listed there, and if so shouldn't the police forces of dozens of other countries be listed too? Gazkthul (talk) 09:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. It has got completely out of hand. I was trying not to say it in my question. --P123ct1 (talk) 09:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I was going to add my goldfish, until Legacypac saved the infobox by rationalising it. --P123ct1 (talk) 21:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
The question occurred in the middle of the cleanup. Philippines, Malaysia and Bosnia, complete with subentity police forces, were all in the Opponents list based on articles that said basically that these countries don't like what ISIL is doing. There were small inconsequential militias and political parties in Iraq too. Additional Improvements that I could use help with:

1. I'm still concerned about some of the Syrian opposition and some others listed. Bringing together 10 guys with guns should not get you on the list with USA, Canada, UK, Iran etc. Can others take a look at this with a view of shortening the list? 2.I'd like to make the NATO weapons suppliers into a collapsible list but can't figure out how. 3.Turkey is a bit of an issue. RS say not in US Cololition, but has had border classes with ISIL, and is in NATO. Hopefully this resolves itself shortly. Legacypac (talk) 00:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Make your own opinion

https://azelin.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/islamic-state-of-iraq-and-al-shc481m-e2809cislamic-state-report-422.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.82.151.75 (talk) 23:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

My opinion - murder, as at p6, "rounded up for slaughter". I also think this thread should be deleted.
Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2014

Under foreign fighter, It should also be mentioned that a lot of young ISIS/ISIL terrorist are from Germany and that ISIS/ISIL receives big social media support from ISIS in Germany according to http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/09/22/German-Children-Leave-to-Join-Jihad and http://www.vice.com/read/german-jihadi-internet-meme-campaign. I think the mention of Germany in connection with ISIS terrorist is important because according to http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/04/europe-jihadist-isis-syria-qaeda-terror-france-germany.html there is even a German ISIS brigade as well as a lot of identefied Germans like Philip Bergner that joined and fight for ISIS.

There are many foreign fighters in ISIS's ranks. In June 2014, The Economist reported that "ISIS may have up to 6,000 fighters in Iraq and 3,000–5,000 in Syria, including perhaps 3,000 foreigners; nearly a thousand are reported to hail from Chechnya and perhaps 500 or so more from France, Britain and elsewhere in Europe".[312] Chechen leader Abu Omar al-Shishani, for example, was made commander of the northern sector of ISIS in Syria in 2013.[313][314] According to The New York Times, in September 2014 there were more than 2,000 Europeans and 100 Americans among ISIS's foreign fighters.[315] Foreign recruits are treated with less respect than Arab-speaking Muslims by ISIS commanders, and if they lack otherwise useful skills they are placed in suicide units. 31.17.102.221 (talk) 14:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

NB the last para there is a quote from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by P123ct1 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 29 September 2014

Debunking 'Islamic State'

The Grand Mufti of Egypt, Shawki Allam, previously said the extremists violate all Islamic principles and laws and described the group as a danger to Islam as a whole. Now, the Dar el-Ifta he oversees will suggest foreign media drop using "Islamic State" in favor of the "al-Qaida Separatists in Iraq and Syria," or the acronym "QSIS," said Ibrahim Negm, an adviser to the mufti. [4]

Sca (talk) 01:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Is he calling for Shariah to be redefined to remove the penalties for apostasy and blasphemy? If not, this is merely an attempt to whitewash Islam. JRSpriggs (talk) 04:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
And that is an entirely inappropriate post - talk pages are not here to argue about or attack a religion. Dougweller (talk) 18:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
The comment was not really constructive or topically targeted but, in all fairness, it's also far less contemptuous of religion and religious people than your user boxes. Food for thought, if you're going to actively participate in articles involving religion and controversial religious interpretation. GraniteSand (talk) 23:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
You are right, I should not include my personal opinion. But any addition to the article of claims by some people that ISIL is not Islamic should be balanced by the claims from ISIL that such moderate Muslims are apostates (traitors to their religion). Excommunication goes both ways. JRSpriggs (talk) 03:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Are there any Islamic authorities saying anything about Islamic State/..'s claim to being a Jihadist organization? At the moment the group is described as Sunni, Jihadist. Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
You raise a valid point, but the source is not accusing the members of IS of being apostates. Apostasy (kufrul) has a specific definition meaning in Islam which IS combatants as a whole clearly do not meet. Rather, the source, along with what appears to be a broad scholarly consensus, claims that the organization can't be considered Islamic. By analogy, the USA is not an Islamic State either, but that doesn't mean American Muslims are apostates or blasphemers.136.159.160.242 (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Israel (3)

To the editors involved with this: I haven't forgotten the unresolved problem over sources for the contentious edit. (See #Israel and #Israel (2).) I have been advised to take it to WP:RSN to try and get it resolved. Once I get an answer I will report back. --P123ct1 (talk) 08:27, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I have contacted the WP:RSN about this. There is some extra information in para 5 of this article here, which says that the Israeli government intends to include a list of groups that it designates as "terrorist organizations" in a Bill currently being drawn up for legislation. --P123ct1 (talk) 11:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
FYI, the link to the RSN discussion is Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant_.E2.80.93_Israel.~Technophant (talk) 04:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I forgot to put that link here. --P123ct1 (talk) 08:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Still no response from the RSN. --P123ct1 (talk) 18:38, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Still no useful answer from the RSN, I'm afraid. --P123ct1 (talk) 18:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC).
Translation of crucial Arabic source finally received from member of WP's translation panel which confirms Israel's designation of the Islamic State as a terrorist organisation. (See footnote in "Designation as a terrorist organization" infobox). --P123ct1 (talk) 08:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC) (Sorry to amend the archive, but here is the most appropriate place to note this isolated piece of information.)

Bulgaria

Please edit it, Bulgaria is not part of the opponents. Read more here: http://dariknews.bg/view_article.php?article_id=1330218 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.174.154.159 (talk) 11:32, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

According to your citation, Bulgaria may not be actively fighting ISIS, but as a member of NATO it is supporting the efforts of countries that are. --P123ct1 (talk) 13:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
shipping arms and noted as such now. Legacypac (talk) 20:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Recent beheading in Oklahoma

Just in the news a recently terminated worker at a food distribution plant who has been described as a recent convert to Islam beheaded a co-worker and stabbed another. It's too early to say if this person is responding to Abu Mohammad al-Adnani's call to "kill a disbelieving American or European". Discussion is at Talk:2014 ISIL beheading incidents#Recent beheading in Oklahoma ~Technophant (talk) 16:31, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Quran sura 47.1 (translated to English) says "So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates. That (shall be so); and if Allah had pleased He would certainly have exacted what is due from them, but that He may try some of you by means of others; and (as for) those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will by no means allow their deeds to perish.". This is not in the same category as Matt 5:38-39 "Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.". JRSpriggs (talk) 08:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
JRSpriggs, this comment is uncivil and off-topic. I've seen enough quality posts from you to know you aren't just a troll, so please remove it. 136.159.160.242 (talk) 17:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
While the guy is obviously a Jihadist terrorist, his connection to ISIS has not been established, and until it is, he shouldn't be discussed per this TP and article.16:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
To 136.159.160.242: My understanding is that incivility has to do with comments directed at the character of another person who is party to this discussion, not to do with religion. And the nature of Islam as a religion is certainly relevant to this article or at least to the question, often discussed on this talk page, of whether ISIL is actually Islamic. JRSpriggs (talk) 21:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Move request - 6 September 2014

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved There is a rought consensus against the move, both numerically and with the weight of arguments. The most relevant arguments seem to be WP:RECENTISM and WP:COMMONNAME. (non-admin closure) Kingsindian ♝♚ 14:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State – The result of the last move request on 8 August was inconclusive. However, the page "Islamic state" has now been moved to Islamic state (government) making way for this page to be moved to its WP:COMMONNAME. Keep in mind that WP does make a distinction between pages with capitalized letters. ~Technophant (talk) 02:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose. So far as I can tell from reading the news, this group is most frequently referred to as "ISIS", not "Islamic State" (or "IS"). "Islamic State" is too generic a term for this specific movement, geographically limited from many other areas that have referred to themselves as an Islamic State in the past. To move it at this point smacks of fairly extreme WP:RECENTISM. bd2412 T 03:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose word for word as bd2412, and there have been other entities with the title (the) "Islamic State" in world history. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per IIO and BD2412. "Islamic State" should either redirect to islamic state or caliphate or the first unified caliphate period. It should not be the unqualified name of this topic. If this topic is renamed, it needs to carry disambiguation. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:08, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose any unilateral moves, and I thank bd2412 T for correcting that. As for the name, there is still no consensus, and there is no rush to rush without consensus, is there?... Good to see you In ictu oculi... Marhaba... Ahlan wa sahlan... :) Worldedixor (talk) 06:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I requested the move from Islamic state → Islamic state (government) and changed the move request to a controversial type at Talk:Islamic state. There also an edit war regarding the redirect of Islamic State. It currently goes to Islamic state (disambiguation), however I and other think it should redirect here. This has become a Redirect for Discussion (RfD) here.~Technophant (talk) 17:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment My impression is that at the moment Islamic State and ISIS are being used equally and often in the same source, with ISIL slightly less often but in the same way as ISIS. I don't think the usual searches will really give us much help with WP:COMMONNAME because it is all so fluid/recent. My suggestion would be to have one of the three as the first name with the other two as a kind of disambiguator eg Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) or maybe ISIS/ISIL (Islamic State). I think the current state of confusion warrants a slightly different approach than usual. DeCausa (talk) 09:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Islamic state leads to a disambiguation page from where a reader can choose which page he wants to go to exactly, so I suggest we keep this article's title as it is and not move it.-Terror4us (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Leave it as it is until the media decide which name to settle on. All three names are still being used, with "Islamic State" often being used with "ISIS" or "ISIL" in the same article/broadcast. I have the impression "ISIL" is now being used more than it was. It is too soon to make a decision. --P123ct1 (talk) 16:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Use the stable and first known name ISIS or ISIL until things settle down. After all ISIL/ISIS/IS may not be around next year, and it may not be around under the same name. The proposed name is a meaningful phrase in itself ('an Islamic state') which has been long used in other settings. All its prior use should be considered and given due weight. Imc (talk) 16:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose ISIL is their unofficial name, but they change their name a lot. Their attempt is to gain legitimacy. If an organization changes its name to Islam, would we accept that just because they feel like that is their true name? IS should redirect to ISIL. If an organization changes its name to Wall Street, does that mean we accept that? At some point you have to draw the line and accept that the names can get confusing. — talk § _Arsenic99_ 18:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Everyone here (except Technophant) has opposed the re-directing of the "Islamic State" to this article, but someone has gone and re-directed it to this article, so someone please re-direct it to the disambiguation page again. Thanks!-Terror4us (talk) 19:58, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment – Labelling of this group/state/organization (whatever) is a great muddle right now. There is no reason to complicate this further. Per WP:TITLECHANGES, there should be no changes to titles unless it is absolutely necessary and worthwhile. This is not worthwhile, nor is it necessary. Leave the title alone until there is clear primacy for one of these names. RGloucester — ☎ 20:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Many sources are now using Islamic State to refer to them, which is after all their official name. Gazkthul (talk) 23:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - On Meet the Press this evening Obama referred to them as ISIL and Chuck Todd referred to them as ISIS.MeropeRiddle (talk) 23:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - there is a lot of recentism going on with these RMs. Can we just concentrate on content for a bit? The name will settle out over the rest of the year, I expect. I would like to see a three-month move proposal ban so people can just get with adding content as things proceed, rather than wasting energy on RMs. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I quite agree, though I didn't know it was called recentism!. --P123ct1 (talk) 01:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - It matters less what they call themselves than what English-language news sources and governments refer to them as. On that score, I nearly always here "ISIL" or "ISIS", and almost never "IS". Thus, the current title is probably the best WP:COMMONNAME available for this group, whereas the proposed name is decidedly not. --IJBall (talk) 02:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support The argument that a change to Islamic State is a matter of WP:RECENTISM is, in the content of a dynamic and tertiary source, rather melodramatic. Clinging to ISIL or ISIS under the aegis of WP:COMMONNAME fails to account for the substantial amount of politicking involved in the dissemination of the preferred Western political lexicon in regards to contemporary Islamism, something casually revealed in appeals to the political usage of the American President Barack Obama and the political pundit Chuck Todd on a recent episode of a political talk show. The fact remains that this is still an encyclopedia and, as such, we do not endeavor to regurgitate trending nomenclature but to reflect realities as defined by reliable sources. Many reliable sources refer to both ISIS and ISIL but, since the official name change after the reorganization of the subject of the article into a self-proclaimed Caliphate, many have shifted to IS. In light of this, and the acknowledgement that the group itself has identified as such, it is prudent and objective to move then article to Islamic State or even Islamic State (Islamist group). There are no organizations anywhere in the world who identify as ISIS or ISIL. GraniteSand (talk) 04:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
But WP:COMMONNAME is what governs this question. There's no policy ground that allows it to be ignored because of "politicking" or what the group calls itself. DeCausa (talk) 09:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Also, WP:RECENTISM is not just about the fact that this group has only recently adopted a particular name; it is about all other uses of the name historically, and whether this one use outweighs those. Compare Avatar, which some editors thought should refer to the film when it was at the height of its popularity, but which continues to refer to the ancient cultural concept. bd2412 T 13:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Oppose, We use Democratic Republic of the Congo, Republic of Ireland, Republic of Macedonia, Federated States of Micronesia and Kingdom of the Netherlands. Arabic Wikipedia uses ar:الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام which translates as existing title. There is no reason to change. Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: CNN just published an article on this very topic, Ray Sanchez, "ISIS, ISIL or the Islamic State?", CNN (September 9, 2014). bd2412 T 01:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not their common name, by which they are referred to in English. (Or in Arabic, as most call them DIIS, the equivalent of ISIL/S.) "Islamic State" isn't even that much of an official name, given the level of organisation they have. We should keep on referring to them primarily by ISIL in the article. Maybe this can be brought up again a little later though. —innotata 05:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. There are a lot of non-wikipedia-guideline-based opposes above. But, lacking grounding in wikipedia guidelines and policies, and as this is not a !vote, they should not be weighed as those !votes grounded in policy are. The entity was formerly of course named by the name that the article currently bears. But that has now been changed. Whenever a corporation changes its name, in accord with our policies we make the change in the wp article title. The same should be done here. This would be a no-brainer I expect if looked at with a non-POV attitude. Epeefleche (talk) 18:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Islamic State is both the official name and the name most mainstream media uses.Chessrat (talk) 17:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Epeefleche and Chessrat I agree that Islamic State is overwhelmingly supported by WP:COMMONNAME but still argue, along with many Imans and regular Muslims, that there are relevant arguments against the use of the name:

Here are some references also used in other places on this talk page:

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

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

Yes, arguments presented are not backed by Wikipedia guidelines but that does not necessarily mean that they are the wrong arguments. Gregkaye ✍♪ 18:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I got as far as reading the first link you supply. That link itself refers to the group as Islamic State. No doubt, so readers will know what it is referring to. It doesn't like that that is the name the group calls itself by -- but it reflects it, so that we will know what the link is talking about. (And, of course, "Islamic" is in the alternate name as well). This is about communication to readers as to what we are talking about. Let's not turn it into POV-pushing, as to what name we would have preferred the group or the RSs would have chosen to refer to the group. Epeefleche (talk) 19:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Epeefleche you seem to have disregarded the view of Muslim communities. How about the broader Arabic view. Note: ar:الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام has a lead that machine translates to: "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant , known for short as Daash , which calls itself now an Islamic state only ..." Please don't disregard the POV of the people that this issue actually affects. The context is of a Western media has, I think wrongly, pandered to a nonsensical name. Islamic State of what? This groups leadership have opted for slippery ambiguity in name choice and many editors here fairly reject its use. Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We aren't a news aggregator, so the terminology the news people use is of secondary importance: wait until the secondary sources, such as academic journals and books, start using "Islamic state" or "Islamic State" to refer primarily to this organisation. The term "Islamic state" is consistently used in reference to the Rightly Guided Caliphs, and the concept has existed for almost 1400 years. Will the ISIS/L have any significance even in a few years, let alone in a millennium? We don't know, so we need to wait before making judgements of the sort. Nyttend (talk) 12:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
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)

Timeline and History sections

WORK IN PROGRESS
Result was to split Timeline~Technophant (talk) 23:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

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

As FutureTrillionaire suggested earlier, it seems rather redundant that there is both a history and timeline on the same article. Perhaps the timeline should be split into its own article?--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 01:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Stongly agree The timeline is getting out of hand with daily updates, and frankly I question what additions like "20 August: US President Obama denounced the "brutal murder of Jim Foley by the terrorist group ISIL"" and "22 August: The US is considering airstrikes on ISIS in Syria, which would draw US military forces directly into the Syrian Civil War, as President Obama develops a long-term strategy to defeat the Islamic State" contribute to the article.
Articles like Taliban insurgency, which contain timelines of incidents, might be a good model. Gazkthul (talk) 02:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Do you have a source that Obama condemning the killing of Foley is a "critical historical crossroad"? Gazkthul (talk) 22:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
No... where did I say those were President Obama's words? I am not quite sure you understood the premise of my argument, but, assuming good faith, and to help you understand, I will give you an analogy: the "critical historical crossroad" of what became World War I was one assassination [5]. Worldedixor (talk) 23:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I think what Gazkthul meant is that "critical historical crossroad" is very much a judgment and this is an encyclopaedia, which records events, it doesn't interpret them. and that it can only go in if someone else has said this. --P123ct1 (talk) 07:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I iterate that I am not quite sure you understood the premise of my argument. My choice of words are not used in the article, they were used only on the Talk page. I was giving a logical cause-effect reasoning, and I gave a logical historical analogy. In any case, the upcoming "direct action" by the US against the Islamic State in Syria is already weighed/underway. [6] Worldedixor (talk) 16:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I understood your argument and think you are right about this being a crossroads, but "which would draw" in the entry is a judgment about the future not backed up by a source and WP per WP:OR should not make independent statements of its own, that was my point. But I don't feel strongly enough to revert it. --P123ct1 (talk) 17:30, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I am sure you mean what you say. But, you are also misquoting WP:OR. I reiterate that the word "crossroads" was not used in the article. I was simply explaining something on the Talk page not in the article, I gave an analogy with WWI, and it was supported with a source that confirms that a direct action against IS is being weighed. Worldedixor (talk) 17:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Saying "crossroads" in the Talk page and "which would draw" in the edit are the same thing, they are judgments. But I see now the "judgment" about the future is already in the headline in that WSJ source, so your edit is backed up anyway. I will see if can fix that citation so that it isn't paywalled; I can sometimes do it with the WSJ, but never with the FT, unfortunately. The NYT source looks good. Why not add it to the other one, as extra back-up? --P123ct1 (talk) 18:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I completely disagree with your first opinion and subjective assertions, but that's the beauty of WP. As for your question, feel free to read [7]. Worldedixor (talk) 18:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Let's agree to differ. As for citation overkill, I'd forgotten the remark someone made here about too many in the Lead and had already been thinking myself they should be reduced. -P123ct1 (talk) 19:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone NOT want to split the 2014 Timeline into a separate article?Ericl (talk) 14:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Article is way too long (<260kB). This is a great place for a WP:SPLIT. ~Technophant (talk) 11:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment If this is done I would like to keep the last 30-60 days of most recent timeline on this page then "archive" them to the new page as they age. It will make this page more timely, easier to manage, and keep people informed of latest events without going to another page. I think we should drop the rewrite and prose tags and keep them in list format. ~Technophant (talk) 00:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Strongly agree Although honestly, is there a reason to have the timeline exist as its own article? I'd be tempted to make sure that the relevant details were covered in the History section (being especially cognizant of WP:RECENTISM) and then ditch the timeline altogether. Suomichris (talk) 22:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
The Syrian Civil War has separate timeline articles. I think a timeline article is very useful, not only in its own right, but it provides the raw data for a concise historical narrative to be drawn up that can be put into the main article later. The clear shape of events is often only discernible some time after they happen.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  • 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)
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)
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)

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)

I know what I'm gonna say is insensitive, but just listen.

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

To Nahnah4: What are you talking about? What is "GAN/FAN"? JRSpriggs (talk) 04:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
@JRSpriggs: Good article nomination and Featured article nomination. DEW. Adrenaline (Nahnah4) 05:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Adrenaline: Can you give reasons? --P123ct1 (talk) 07:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)

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)

Translations/transliterations

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)

@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:

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)

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)

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):


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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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[8] 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)

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

Footnotes (2)

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)

Wikipedia's reputation

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)

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)
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)

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)

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)

Salafi jihadism and/or jihadism

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.

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

Alternative name

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)

Panam2014: This is being discussed. Please add to earlier Talk page #98 "Requested move". --P123ct1 (talk) 07:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Islamic State (formerly known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant)? --P123ct1 (talk) 16:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islamic_State/Archive_10&oldid=1045764700"