Jump to content

Talk:Islamic State/Archive 43

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42Archive 43Archive 44

Requested move 30 August 2021

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

The result of the move request was: Moved to Islamic State. There is strong consensus for a move of some sort, and also a reasonably solid consensus that the term "Islamic State" is the most common at this point, compared with ISIS, ISIL or other variants. This leaves the question of whether a disambiguator is required or not. My reading of this conversation is that on balance, the consensus is that the qualifier is not needed. Some editors raised the point that "Islamic state" is an important term with many meanings going back through the centuries, which is of course true, and nobody is proposing to touch Islamic state. The proposal, however, is to move to the capitalised "Islamic State", which is permitted to me different from Islamic state per the WP:DIFFCAPS guideline. Overall I see enough support for this proposition, with WP:COMMONNAME as its rationale, despite some expressed opposition, to go ahead with it. I realise this may be contentious, but hopefully the reasoning above makes sense to people.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:29, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → ? – Proposal to move this article to Islamic State or some variation, such as Islamic State (organization) It has been many years since the official change to just "Islamic State", and over time most media outlets have adopted this name. Examples of media coverage with the name 'Islamic State':

Even outlets that still use the acronym "ISIS" or "ISIL" have begun referring to the group simply as the 'Islamic State'

The name change on Wikipedia is quite overdue, so this change should be made. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 03:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
* Support - this terrorist organisation calls itself the Islamic State. Nowhere else on Wikipedia is it even allowed to call something other than what it now calls itself. The common name is the Islamic State; this has always been true. At points in the past certain politicians no longer in power, for unfathomable reasons, assigned it made-up names; some of the media duly lapped it but even then the Islamic State name was WP:COMMON; nowadays, it is more self-evident than ever. XavierItzm (talk) 05:22, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment My 1st preference is Islamic State, my 2nd preference is Islamic State (militant group). Having said this, disambiguation pages exist precisely so that Wikipedia does not have to make up names, so the article name "Islamic State" meets policy. XavierItzm (talk) 20:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Over the past decade where both their most prominent and most intensive actions were concentrated in Iraq and Syria, the ISIS/ISIL title made sense, but now with their largest city in Mozambique and their (as of this post) most internationally prominent activities in Afghanistan, switching over to Islamic State is long overdue. They've always had global aspirations, and this is the name that they use and that leads to less confusion about why organizations in Africa and South/Southeast Asia are named for Syrians and Iraqis. BSMRD (talk) 05:53, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

* Support - but a clear, neutral, disambiguator is needed to distinguish from the general concept, which should probably still be the primary topic for logical reasons - even though the concept may be less commonly referred to than ISIS is. I think 'organisation' is less than ideal, since it is vague and more often used for commercial or NGO bodies, but 'militant group', 'DAESH' or others are possible. Pincrete (talk) 06:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Support This is the primary topic of "Islamic State" per WP:DIFFCAPS. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:40, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
    That sounds more like an argument that different capitalisations are clearly necessarily different topics, which is not really what WP:DIFFCAPS is saying. "However, when renaming to a less ambiguous page name can be done without wandering from WP:CRITERIA, such renaming should be considered" -- I think we're clearly into that territory. After all, the name ISIS choose is deliberately designed to conflate that slim distinction, and to claim to be the -- one and only 'true' -- 'Islamic state'. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:20, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong Support, including ISIL's "branches". This is something that must've been done long before in my opinion. Additionally, all the branches should also follow through for consistency. The obvious example right now: Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant – Khorasan Province should be moved to a shorter form, whether it's "ISIS-K", "ISIL-K", or "Islamic State - Khorasan Province". The other "branches" should also be moved with the same consistent format. --Weaveravel (talk) 13:06, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment — In order to be WP:CONSISTENT, one of the five article title criteria, all of these articles need decisions as well:
A possibility is:
Old New
Islamic State in Somalia Islamic State – Somalia Province
Islamic State in the Greater Sahara Islamic State – Greater Sahara Province
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant – Algeria Province Islamic State – Algeria Province
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant – Caucasus Province Islamic State – Caucasus Province
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant – Khorasan Province Islamic State – Khorasan Province
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant – Sinai Province Islamic State – Sinai Province
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant – Yemen Province Islamic State – Yemen Province
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant in Libya Islamic State – Libya Province
Islamic State's Central Africa Province Islamic State – Central Africa Province
Islamic State's West Africa Province Islamic State – West Africa Province
Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 13:46, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
@Psiĥedelisto: - Would it be also appropriate to move Abu Sayyaf to Islamic State – East Asia Province? Or does it not fit the criteria? 180app (talk) 19:38, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
I also fully support the article alignment put forward by Psihedelisto.
I would also like to address the concerns brought up by Power-enwiki and SnowFire, by proposing the following:
For the organisation's history, worldwide, since the June 29, 2014 declaration of a caliphate: an article titled Islamic State.
For the organisation's history between April 8, 2013, and June 29, 2014: an article titled Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.
For the organisation's operations in Iraq and the Levant since the June 29, 2014 declaration of a caliphate: two articles titled Islamic State - Iraq Province and Islamic State - Levant Province respectively.
IvanSidorenkoSG (talk) 12:56, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan are all essentially "Islamic States" MSM have generally avoided the self proclaimed name "Islamic State" as not to give the organization the notion of the sole "true Islamic State" and widely used slur names such as Daesh. ISIS is still the most common and uncontroversial name that brings up the organization in web searches. Viewsridge (talk) 18:06, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Comment @Viewsridge: Just a comment that 'Daesh' is not a slurname, it is the same thing as "ISIL", just an acronym in Arabic. "ad-Dawlah al-Islamiyyah fil-Iraq wa ash-Shaam" - "Da'ISH" - lit. "the-State the-Islamic in-Iraq and the-Levant". Unfortunately it is not as popular in English sources otherwise I would've suggested that instead. ParthikS8 (talk) 19:49, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. I was under the impression that ISIL was still commonly used, but the sources provided, as well as my own search, strongly suggests that "Islamic State" or "Islamic State group" is now the commonname. The later might be a better option, based on the objections raised by Viewsridge. BilledMammal (talk) 11:08, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
@BilledMammal: would you be ok with the name Islamic State (organisation)? There seems to be consensus developing around that name.VR talk 01:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak Support I buy Viewsridge's point that perhaps calling them simply "Islamic State" lends a false legitimacy in the eyes of some and conflates with the broader notion of the Islamic State that historical empires e.g. the Fatimids or the Ottomans were called, as well as modern countries like Saudi, Mauritania etc. Yet I think this is easily avoided if we go with "Islamic State (organisation)" instead and what Pincrete has said. I agree with what SnowFire has said but would just state that we can do the opposite, making a new article for their activities in Syria, moving that content out of this article - it would make more sense as the discussion page on this article has always been on the group as a whole so we would have some confusing mis-matched discussion if 'Islamic State (organisation)' were created as a seperate page. At the same time, in public consciousness and in other news articles they have always been referred to as 'ISIS' or 'ISIL' e.g. in the latest set of news regarding Afghanistan they were 'ISIS-K' - so this is why I only give a weak support, other editors should more thoroughly evidence that 'Islamic State' is the preferred term now. ParthikS8 (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. Since many years ago the sources make reference to the terror group that calls itself the Islamic State. We go by the sources, and don't censor ourselves because we don't like the name. See the table Serafart placed at the top of this move request. And here's The New York Times just a few hours ago: "On Aug. 26, deadly explosions outside Afghanistan’s main airport claimed by the Islamic State demonstrated that terrorists remain a threat."[1] XavierItzm (talk) 03:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
@XavierItzm: Of course Wikipedia is not censored, but if we called the article simply just "Islamic State" this would definitely also confuse many readers with the concept of an Islamic State, which is not the same thing (see "Islamic state"). There would just be a single capitalisation as the difference between the two articles' names. I am not opposing naming the article Islamic State, I am just suggesting something to differentiate it from the general concept (my suggestion is Islamic State (organisation)).
Quoting a few sources anecdotally does not evidence that 'Islamic State' is the prefered term. Regardless I stay with my decision to give weak support to this (specifically 'Islamic State (organisation)'), but other editors should comprehensively evidence that 'Islamic State' is being used more than ISIS/ISIL etc. ParthikS8 (talk) 19:14, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/07/world/asia/taliban-women-protest-kabul-afghanistan.html
  • Strong support. The Islamic State is a widely-used, well-attested, and official name in the English language. The Islamic State makes the most sense for an article name. VideōEtCorrigō (talk) 13:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
    It's "official" in the sense that it's the group's preferred self-descriptor, certainly. But given the nature of the group, and their motivation for wanting to be entirely inaccurately and as an act of wilful hostility wishing to be so described, not a great reason to uncritically adopt it. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 04:16, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

* Support - Despite claims of alleged legitimacy, it's rather improper to use an outdated(-ish) term nonetheless.180app (talk) 02:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose – ISIS is most commonly referred to as either ISIS or ISIL, nowadays (in the US at least) as ISIS. I assume the community over time (before I created my account) likely decided ISIL would be the better name, but nevertheless, the organization even today is still most commonly referred by either one of those two names, or occasionally Daesh/Da'esh. Additionally considering that Islamic state is already a page describing such states in general, and that relatively so many countries or organizations can be considered an Islamic state, I'd prefer to leave it as either ISIL or change it to ISIS; not too many people outside of ISIS would refer to it as "the Islamic state". A similar set of circumstances surrounded a move I debated on Chinese Communist Party; the page was moved from "Communist Party of China" since many people refer to the ruling party as the former instead of the latter. InvadingInvader (talk) 18:09, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Summary after two weeks: There seems to be a consensus to go ahead with a move, with 12 users supporting it and 4 against (and also its branches/"Provinces"). I see enough consensus to move to Islamic State (with a capital S), although there will need to be a clear distinguish hatnote with Islamic state. Some might want this to be moved to an alternative title like Islamic State (organization), but that should be a different request. Based on consensus I think someone should now close the discussion and fulfill the move to Islamic State, and any further move requests can be discussed from there onwards. --WR 12:19, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Why should move to Islamic State (organization) be a separate discussion? The original proposal was "Proposal to move this article to Islamic State or some variation, such as Islamic State (organization)". The support votes can be taken to mean support for either of those titles unless explicitly indicated otherwise. AFAIK, you're the only one who has explicitly opposed Islamic State (organization), whereas 6 users have supported the use of a disambiguator (3 supported Islamic State (organization), 2 supported Islamic state (militant group) and 1 has supported Islamic State group) .VR talk 18:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
• Agree that there is overwhelming support for Islamic State': (1) Serafart, (2) XavierItzm, (3) BSMRD, (4) King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠, (5) Weaveravel, (6) Psiĥedelisto, (7) IvanSidorenkoSG, (8) BilledMammal, (9) VideōEtCorrigō, (10) 180app, (11) Pharaoh of the Wizards, (12) 99to99, (13) Indopug.
• On the other hand, six people think the page needs be moved from its present title, but (a) suggest additional qualifiers such as "militant group" or (b) "organisation" or (c) would like to split the current article or (d) propose yet another title: (14) Pincrete, (15) VR, (16) BilledMammal, (17) ParthikS8, (18) IvanSidorenkoSG, (19) Red Slash.
• Finally, some oppose any move of this here present article: power~enwiki, SnowFire, Viewsridge, InvadingInvader.
• In all, only 4 editors are in favor of the current title, vs. 19 who think the current title is unacceptable. XavierItzm (talk) 01:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
You'd doubtless win an "up-down vote" between the binary options of Islamic State and the state quo by roughly that margin, but I feel obliged to niggle your count of the "overwhelming support". In there you're counting 99to99, who like Red Slash seems to actually strongly favour "ISIS", but will be happier with anything that'll get rid of the dreaded "Levant", and BilledMammal who states that "Islamic State group" "might be a better option", so is in the second group rather than the first. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 04:10, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME and King of Hearts.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:07, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. A move to "Islamic State" would represent a modest improvement. Nobody is calling the group "ISIL." "Levant" is a pretty obscure word. It's "the place where the sun rises" from the point of view of medieval France. "ISIS" is clearly the common name. See this ngram. 99to99 (talk) 16:15, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
    "Levant" isn't half as obscure or quaint as the phrase it's -- or was originally -- translating, "ash-Shām", which isn't the Modern Arabic word for the present state of Syria, it's a Classical Arabism, harking back to the equally "thataway" nomenclature. "The place to the left of the map" -- from the point of view of the 7th-12th century caliphates. And if you're trying to do a remotely like-for-like ngram, then use "ISIL" (which granted is still a poor third). Supporting a move to "Islamic State" because you think there's a strong argument for "ISIS" seems like something of a head-scratcher. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 03:11, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Here is an improved ngram. 99to99 (talk) 12:44, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per others. What took so long, this should've been done five years ago.—indopug (talk) 11:53, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose a move to bald "Islamic State" without a qualifier. It's indeed becoming more common to see them characterised as "Islamic State", but less so without some sort of heavy lampshading. "The Islamic State militant group" (Guardian), "The Islamic State (Terrorist Organization)" (Rand Corporation), "Islamic State, also known as [various formulisms]", obviously either expansion of ISIS/ISIL is getting counted into this total, "Islamic State group" (AP, BBC, France24, RTÉ), and endless variants salami-slicing a long tail adding up to a usage-count that while it now handily beats "ISIL" as a usage, as 99to99 points out, still comfortably loses to "ISIS". Screamingly deep into WP:POVTITLE and WP:PEACOCK territory, I'm afraid. I have reservations about all the feasible alternatives -- ISIL or its expansion (not common, rather quaint), ISIS or its (not a self-descriptor or a good translation of one), Islamic State [some qualifier] (split many ways, and forces us to make an editorial commentary before we've even started the article text), but would reluctantly support any of them over Islamic State. Overall I think Islamic State (organization) is the least-worst option. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 03:44, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

*Support for Islamic State (organization), moving this page only to Islamic State would be inappropriate. Islamic State (organization) is much better. MullahBalawar (talk) 8:54, 15 September 2021 (UTC) Block-evading sockpuppet, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 01:58, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Islam has been notified of this discussion. VR talk 18:38, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Google books ngrams shows that "ISIS" is much more common than "Islamic State" (both are more common than "ISIL", the current name). Both ISIS and "Islamic state" have alternate meanings (Isis and Islamic state, respectively), so a more appropriate usage of these stats is by subtracting their current usage by their pre-2012 usage. This is reasonable because the militant group only rose to prominence after 2012 and I can't imagine anything else that would increase these ngrams' usage so dramatically post-2012. By my calculation that gives ISIS a value of 0.00035-0.000051=0.000299% and "Islamic State" a value of 0.000149-0.0000065=0.000143. That indicates that "ISIS" is 2x more commonly used than "Islamic State". Are there statistics that show otherwise? If not, I'll be modifying my vote accordingly.VR talk 19:45, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Another comment: "Islamic State" (notice the uppercase "S") often refers to Islamic state (the concept, which has nothing to do with ISIS) when it is used in the title. See these 11 examples of titles using "Islamic State" that have nothing to do with ISIS:[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]. This is why a clear disambiguator is needed like Islamic State (organization) etc.VR talk 23:29, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
    • In every example you have provided, "Islamic State" is part of a title of an article or report where every noun is capitalised. In the actual body of references 1, 2, 3, and 7, "state" is NOT capitalised. None of your links capitalise "state" outside of the title except in reference to an actual non-conceptual state (e.g. link number 9 uses Islamic State, in contrast to Islamic Republic, in reference to Pakistan). Your links actually prove that the S in "state" is NOT commonly capitalised when actually referring to the concept. IvanSidorenkoSG (talk) 23:41, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
      But our proposal is about the title of the article, no? Given that all 11 examples capitalize "S" when referring to Islamic state, it is reasonable to expect that many readers will type "Islamic State" when searching for Islamic state. Hence the need for Islamic State (organization).VR talk 23:52, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Our article titles do not follow the same capitalisation rules as the title of a formal publication. The titles of the reports you have shared also include the terms fiscal policy, political thought, and religious minorities, with both words in each term being capitalised. You will find that the Wikipedia articles on these topics only capitalise the first word. IvanSidorenkoSG (talk) 00:29, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Nor should Islamic state capitalize its "S". My proposal was to keep Islamic state where it was and move this page to Islamic State (organization) - this naming would follow our policy and give clear disambiguity. The second point might be moot if it turns out that "Islamic State" is not WP:COMMONNAME after all, as ngrams show shows that "ISIS" is more commonly used.VR talk 01:10, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
RAND is using 'The Islamic State (Terrorist Organization)' as the title for the group. --Mhhossein talk 07:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
On the ngram exercise, I'm fairly sure they're case-sensitive. If you use "ISIS,Isis,Islamic State,Islamic state", you can see the upper-case version beats the lower-case in both cases, so they're on the face of it being counted separately. OTOH, "Islamic State" is necessarily counting all the cases of "so-called Islamic State", "self-described Islamic State", "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant", "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria", "the Islamic State terrorist group", and any number of other variations other than the isolated noun phrase. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:57, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Just so everyone's aware, two of these scholarly sources were published in 2014, the year of the official name change, and the third was published in 2016. Everything else referenced in this discussion arguing for WP:COMMONNAME has been much more recent. IvanSidorenkoSG (talk) 15:29, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
@IvanSidorenkoSG: Should we even care if they have changed their name? --Mhhossein talk 06:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
@Mhhossein: Not necessarily, no. But we should care that in 2014 and 2016, this talk page judged that "Islamic State" was not the WP:COMMONNAME, but that there seems to be a consensus forming around that now, based on more recent references. IvanSidorenkoSG (talk) 08:04, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
@Mhhossein: I agree. But do you believe that there's a WP:COMMONNAME for the subject of the article? If so, what is your evidence? VR talk 20:29, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Well, I agree with your calculations made above. ISIS should be preferred over ISIL. --Mhhossein talk 06:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Uncontroversial moves done procedurally. OK, in order to avoid confusion between uncontroversial name changes following an RM, and a more general conversation about suitable moves, I have done the uncontroversial moves now. Note that this means maintaining "X Province" where it's already in place, but not introducing it where it didn't previously exist. I think a separate and full RM is required to iron out that detail, particularly given the AFD which rejected the name "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant – Somalia Province". To clarify, I have therefore made the following moves which I see as uncontroversial, while the rest can be handled in another RM:

 — Amakuru (talk) 09:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Originally proposed moves

– I brought up this issue during the WP:RM of this page, but Amakuru did not move these despite some consensus that the new names were okay. They cannot be moved by me because Islamic State – Khorasan Province would require a technical/administrator move. These changes are needed to be WP:CONSISTENT across our articles covering the IS "provinces" and with the new title of the main article. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 08:55, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment - @Psiĥedelisto: apologies, I overlooked the related pages issue at the RM. In principle, any page which is named as "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" should be uncontroversially moved to "Islamic State" in line with the concluded RM. The only thing I'd query, though, is whether these are really the correct names for these entities in the first place? Calling them "Algeria Province" etc. gives them an air of legitimacy, and makes them sound like part of a genuine nation state. That may well be the way they are represented in sources, but it would be worth doing an analysis as to what the true WP:COMMONNAME is and perhaps considering a move away from these titles. (The descriptive title Islamic State in Somalia sounds like a possible way to describe all of the above).  — Amakuru (talk) 09:01, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
    Note also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant – Somalia Province, where the idea of IS provinces was expressly rejected for the case of Somalia. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:04, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
    @Amakuru: I've proposed here the renaming which had some consensus in the earlier page move discussion. I'd agree with you that it can benefit from discussion of this specific issue disconnected from the main issue of the title of the main article. I don't think that Islamic State in X can adequately describe all of these. For example, Khorasan Province would be in Iran but here refers to Afghanistan. So would we call the article Islamic State in Afghanistan? Can't do that, the COMMONNAME is ISIS-K. I've proposed what I think is a scheme that settles all the names, but it does have the drawback of bestowing legitimacy upon ISIS's pretended subdivisions, sure. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 09:07, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended discussion

For other contributors, I'll note that this decision by Amakuru leaves three pages that seem to break WP:CONSISTENCY: Islamic State in Somalia, Islamic State in the Greater Sahara, and Islamic State in Libya. I'm not an expert on ISIS as it applies to these regions and opened this RM primarily because of the technical move issue Amakuru solved. Therefore, I won't be opening yet another RM to solve this problem, as my desire for consistency is not so strong as to argue we start calling ISIS subdivisions "provinces" which we currently don't, now that these three are separated from the main body of moves. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 09:32, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Both the "Islamic State in Somalia" and "Islamic State in the Greater Sahara" are almost always called by that name; in addition, both are different from other regional branches of ISIL as their status as provinces is vague, with the "Islamic State in Somalia" only semi-recognized as province and "Islamic State in the Greater Sahara" operating as sub-branch of the Islamic State's West Africa Province. In addition, I strongly oppose the move of "Islamic State's Central Africa Province" to "Islamic State – Central Africa Province". I have never seen any source use "Islamic State – Central Africa Province". Almost all sources use "Islamic State's Central Africa Province". Psiĥedelisto claims that WP:CONSISTENT "is a higher aim than what academic sources tend to use", but that argument ignores that the ISIL branches differ from each other in many ways plus, as far as I understand, proper sourcing trumps all else. Applodion (talk) 09:46, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm not aware of the sourcing around any of this, and haven't checked. I may decide to do so in the future, at which point I will consider whether to open a new RM myself. But I did think it was worth separating the uncontroversial aspects of the above moves from those which involve an actual change in terminology. I initially thought the "Islamic State – Central Africa Province" move was also uncontroversial, but since Applodion has indicated that they disagree with that move, it also remains at its long-term title. Consistency is desirable, but there are other considerations too, in particular WP:COMMONNAME, and that's a matter that needs proper discussion if it's to be enacted. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Update: @Psiĥedelisto: given that Applodion objected to the move of Islamic State's Central Africa Province, we should be leaving it where it was for the time being, unless the matter is discussed at an RM, and I've reverted your good-faith bold move of that title. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:00, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
@Amakuru: Thank you. Admittedly, it is not a big factor in regards to the Central Africa Province, as most sources use some variation of "Islamic State's Central Africa Province" or "Islamic State Central Africa Province", so "Islamic State – Central Africa Province" would be theoretically okay (albeit not supported by sources, as I explained above); the naming discussion is much more important for the Greater Sahara and Somalia groups.
BTW, you can move Islamic State's West Africa Province to "Islamic State – West Africa Province". ISWAP has never been consistently named, with even academics and other experts using dozens of variations of the name. Applodion (talk) 10:02, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Ah OK, I've done that then. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:08, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Re: IS–CAP

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Islamic State's Central Africa Province § Requested move 23 September 2021. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 18:21, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Erroneous, misleading name "Islamic State" (according to academic sources)

When I search "Islamic State" on Google Books (or other academic sources), most of the results have absolutely nothing to do with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. "Islamic State" is an extremely, misleading title for readers, because when they search it, they are likely not looking for a group which is widely designated as a terrorist organization. Khestwol (talk) 18:48, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Islamic state and Islamic State are two different articles that each have hatnotes leading to each other, if you end up at the wrong one the right one is a click away. You are a bit late to this, we had an RM just over a month ago on this exact topic that arrived at the current name. BSMRD (talk) 03:01, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
@BSMRD: in that same RM many argued that "ISIS", not "Islamic State", was the WP:COMMONNAME and provided ngram evidence to back that up. Is there evidence that "Islamic State" is "prevalent in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources" (as policy prefers)? VR talk 15:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
If you have a problem with the closure of that RM you can take it up with Amakuru, but current consensus is for Islamic State until and unless a new RM is held. BSMRD (talk) 16:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Opponents: Afghanistan

I think that its appropriate to seperate the modern day Afghanistan with the Taliban flag with the old Islamic Republic, as they are two seperate entities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EmilePersaud 22:21, 24 October 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmilePersaud (talk • contribs)

Requested move 14 October 2021

Closing this discussion; it is generating more heat than light at this point. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:23, 26 October 2021 (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.

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

The result of the move request was: (non-admin closure) I am procedurally closing the move proposal, but not the discussion. The previous move closed less than 90 days ago. There should be agreement on a specific target before a RM vote is started. Feel free to discuss, and to create a new RM proposal with a specific target at any time. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:49, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Islamic State → ? – We had previously agreed to move the page from Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant to Islamic State. While there was overwhelming support to change the previous title to a simplified Islamic State, there were mixed views regarding the disambiguation in the new name. For instance some suggested that Islamic State (organization) would be the more suitable title (which I now think would be better than current title). It would only be fair to have a follow up discussion about whether to keep the current name or add a disambiguator. WR 11:42, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

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

[*Oppose] I do not support a change from the current title, on the grounds of continuity. Other organizations; Boko Haram, Ansar al-Din Front, Al-Qaeda, etc, etc, etc., all follow the same titling convention and I see no compelling reason to make an exception here. Obscurasky (talk) 12:10, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I strongly disagree for any title bearing those names. --WR 16:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC) As another user mentioned below, it is simply not the group's name and is therefore incorrect. --WR 10:46, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
  • An ngram search shows that "ISIS", not "Islamic State", is the WP:COMMONNAME [15]. I have still not seen any evidence that "Islamic State" is the common name, beyond wikipedians asserting it is, or providing 5-10 news articles to support their claim. But WP:COMMONNAME requires "a prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources". Any evidence of common name needs to be a survey of a majority of sources, it can't be a few hand-picked articles.VR talk 13:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
ISIS and IS are abbreviations and not full titles. There would have been plenty of articles on wiki otherwise with abbreviated names, like Central Intelligence Agency. See WP:TITLEFORMAT, abbreviated titles are not normally OK, unless it is really necessary, which I do not see in this case. --WR 16:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
@Weaveravel: WP:TITLEFORMAT says abbreviations "should be avoided unless the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject (e.g. PBS, NATO, Laser)". So the questions are:
1) is the subject primarily called ISIS? Yes, per these ngrams[16].
2) is ISIS (all caps) primarily associated with the organization? Also yes, this chart shows that usage of "ISIS" for anything else is much less than the usage for the terror organization.
Therefore the title ISIS meets WP:TITLEFORMAT.VR talk 18:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Obviously the answer to the question what is the name of the subject is Islamic State. That's what the subject calls itself since seven years ago. Let me quote the BBC: "The group itself has not used that name since June 2014 when it declared the creation a caliphate and shortened its name to "Islamic State" (IS)"[1]. Let's not go around calling people their former names without the people's consent. XavierItzm (talk) 13:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
@XavierItzm: WP:ARTICLETITLES says "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used". Also google scholar gives nearly 8,000 hits for "so called Islamic State"[17] meaning the use of this name is controversial (and a WP:POVTITLE). BBC also qualifies its use of the name by adding "self-styled" before "Islamic State"[18] and it points out that former British PM David Cameron said "Frankly, this evil death cult is neither a true representation of Islam, nor is it a state." By contrast, I haven't seen reliable sources find the name ISIS to be POV.VR talk 20:53, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Oh, great, Wikipedia is now to rely on white male western politicos to tell us what Islam is and what it isn't. See, this is why this is a made up "controversy". David Cameron is a white European Anglo-Saxon Protestant, who refuses acceptance of what all Islamic State group members call themselves, which is, rather plainly, the Islamic State. To deny these People of Color their own identity is an interesting example of Western cultural and religious POV imperialism.XavierItzm (talk) 23:35, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Only if "no one" excludes, for instance, The New York Times in 2021: "explosions outside Afghanistan’s main airport claimed by the Islamic State demonstrated that terrorists remain a threat."[2]. XavierItzm (talk)
Should we base an article title on one headline from SCMP? We should be using ISIS like the rest of the English speaking world. Emeksefer (talk) 12:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
If you object to my use of Chinese sources, what about the BBC in 2014? What is Islamic State?[4] Are British sources better for you? XavierItzm (talk) 15:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
@XavierItzm: WP:COMMONNAME requires "prevalent in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources" (emphasis mine). Even if you produced 20 sources that would not constitute a "a significant majority" given that we thousands of sources on this topic. You need to look at things like ngram searches, google news searches etc. PS, your BBC article also uses the name "ISIS".VR talk 16:38, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References

  1. ^ Irshaid, Faisal (2015-12-02). "Isis, Isil, IS or Daesh? One group, many names". BBC News. Retrieved 2021-09-25. The group itself has not used that name since June 2014 when it declared the creation a caliphate and shortened its name to "Islamic State" (IS)
  2. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/07/world/asia/taliban-women-protest-kabul-afghanistan.html
  3. ^ "Islamic State claims responsibility for London Bridge knife attack, says Usman Khan was one of its fighters". South China Morning Post. 1 December 2019. Retrieved 1 December 2019.
  4. ^ "What is Islamic State?". BBC News. 26 September 2014.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): APoliSci17.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion in the next door

here, help us. 168.195.27.145 (talk) 16:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Takfiri terrorism

Da’ish are Khawarij that’s all that needs to be written lol. 2A00:8B40:FB2:0:6867:DEA8:5A13:585A (talk) 09:27, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Taliban

Hi, Taliban is mentioned twice as they now govern Afghanistan since Grandpa Biden gave it away to them. 83.232.63.205 (talk) 16:59, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Does this have a point or is it just biden bashing? Googleguy007 (talk) 01:50, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islamic_State/Archive_43&oldid=1122158498"