Jump to content

Talk:Islamic State

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Amt000 (talk | contribs) at 02:35, 3 August 2014 (→"It has at least 4,000 fighters in its ranks"? Is that a mistake?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Syrian Civil War sanctions

Daash

The Arabic acronym is often transliterated as "Daash" in English, should that be among the names? Now we only have a direct transliteration ("dāʿiš") which isn't used anywhere. Seems this wasn't solved in a previous discussion.[1] FunkMonk (talk) 22:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a transliteration of DAIISH. - Technophant (talk) 05:00, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why not "Diish"? --YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 05:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2

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: no consensus. Obviously this is a topic that is developing fairly quickly and already many of the comments in this discussion may have become dated, but I don't see there being a consensus to move here. This article has been at RM consistently for the past month or so and I'm loathe to suggest another RM, but a close of 'no consensus' means we will likely see one in the future. If there is, I would strongly encourage the proposer to make a detailed nomination clearly outlining their position and how it reflects policy and use in reliable sources. Simply stating something is the official name is a weak rationale. Jenks24 (talk) 15:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → The Islamic State – ISIL announced that it should now be called 'The Islamic State'. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 11:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC) Mightymights (talk) 21:06, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You cant define a single common-name for this organization. Is it Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, Islamic State of Iraq and the Syria, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant or Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham ? What about its abbreviation; ISIL, ISIS, DĀʻiSh or DAISH ? elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 23:45, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not 'The' in the title. And just 'Islamic State' is a bit meaningless as a name. Namechange or not, the majority keeps calling it ISIS for now. We should not rush a name change.--Wester (talk) 00:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as long as the word "The" is in the title. There is no common name. But I oppose renaming it to just "Islamic State". I'd also keep ISIS &/or ISIL as acronyms until the media stops using the acronyms (if they stop using the acronyms). Blaylockjam10 (talk) 00:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to "The Islamic State" as I stated in the last section: it's the new official name and reflects the group's claims over a wider region of the Islamic world than Iraq and the Levant. So despite an official name not being the only reason for a name change, the new name reflects its claim of establishing a caliphate and the lack of consistency of other names for the group. Hello32020 (talk) 00:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Using the rationale of using the most common name can't be applied in this instance as multiple names are being used for this organization (e.g. ISIS, ISIL, Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham). Using something similar to "Islamic State (country)" could be more appropriate as "Islamic State" is used in the all the variants of it's name, and its shorter..--WikiU2013 (talk) 01:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Either leave it at the current title, or move it to Islamic State. --Article editor (talk) 02:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose WP:OFFICIALNAME we do *not* use the official name when a common name is available. Further "The Islamic State" is the Caliphate, not this entity. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support Until it becomes clear that most others (i.e., English-language news sources) are referring to it as The Islamic State instead of ISIS, ISIL, or Da'esh. It should be noted in the lead that the group calls itself "The Islamic State" now, though. Josiah Stevenson (talk) 05:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've changed my vote from "oppose" to "strong oppose", as it appears at least some RSs are refusing to adopt the new name, at least for now. Per WP:COMMON, WP:OFFICIAL, and WP:PLACE, we should use one of the common names for article subjects, and in particular should not use an official name when several other names are in far more common use. So far, it appears AFP and the Telegraph have changed their name for it, but other sources (incl. Al Jazeera, the BBC, and the AP) have not, and still refer to the group as some variant of ISIS/ISIL except when quoting the group's announcements or people on the ground using the new name. It is not yet clear what the consensus of RSs will be, and it seems likely that there will be some controversy (outside WP) about whether to recognize the new name. In light of that, I also object to the use of the official name as the primary name in the body of the article until a plurality of reliable sources adopts the new name. There's no reason to rush here: within a week or two it will be clear whether Al Jazeera makes the switch, and we can follow them. On the other hand, I think rushing the change here at WP would hasten the switch elsewhere. We at Wikipedia should be among the last, not among the first, to recognize name changes, especially controversial ones. Josiah Stevenson (talk) 21:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As I noted in the other section, Al Jazeera seems to have changed its mind. Changed my vote to "weak oppose" for now, but if several more RSs switch today, that'll go to "support". Josiah Stevenson (talk) 11:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (vote reversal) Since it is clear now that a significant portion of RSs are using "Islamic State" to refer to the group, it has emerged as a common name for it. It might even be more common than ISIS/ISIL now. But both are common names, and since one of them is the name the group prefers, I have no problem using that one (Islamic State/IS)Josiah Stevenson (talk) 22:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose I agree that we should move it only IF the English-language news sources start calling them by this new name. For example look at this page: Burma. They changed their name years, years ago, but the West refuses to recognize it. Plus ISIS's current name is more identifiable for the group as "The Islamic State" is too ambiguous. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 05:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Quite a few publications use Myanmar. See Talk:Burma/Archive 10#Requested move (Burma → Myanmar) August 2012. But yes, no sources use just "The Islamic State". However, they're so divided that there's no common name, so I see no reason not to use the official name. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 06:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see a reason: that nobody uses it yet. We should use a name that is well-attested in the third-party English-language literature on the subject. Several names meet that criterion and would be perfectly acceptable for the title of this page (discussed at length above), but "The Islamic State" does not, at least not yet. Josiah Stevenson (talk) 07:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Like others have said, we need to wait for the majority of sources to start calling them this first. It's still too early. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 05:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose – Talk about WP:RECENTISM. There hasn't been any time to establish whether "Islamic State" will become the common name of this entity. I, for one, doubt it will. Most media sources, despite noting the change and the launch of the "caliphate", still refer to the entity as ISIS, ISIL, and what have you. We don't move articles pre-emptively. We move them once it makes sense to do so. This is jumping the gun. This is even more true because the proposed title lacks disambiguation. "The Islamic State" could refer to many different things, and using a definite article in this manner in titles is deprecated by the MoS. What's more, a requested move discussion just closed recently. Give it some time. There is no deadline here, and we need to see how things work out before being so hasty. RGloucester — ☎ 05:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some geographical articles do have a definite article in their name. Examples include The Gambia and The Hague. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 06:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • NO - There ought to be TWO articles! As I see it, it's not simply a question about renaming the organisation Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. With the decleration of an actual state and caliphate on the 29th of June (and the state seems to exist de-facto whether anyone else recognizes it as such or not) I think there ought to be two articles, one to describe the newly formed state, and it would probably be the most correct to call this article The Islamic State and another to desribe the organisation until now known as "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" and since they have decided to change their name I would find it most appropriate to call it either Islamic State (organization) or The Islamic State (organization). This distinction because the article about the state itself should include information about the land (territory) it's people, the history, the government etc. etc. wheras the article about the organization "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" now known as "Islamic State" or "The Islamic State" would describe the development of this organization and it's appeal(?) among muslims globaly since it's evident, that the organization must recrute a large number of their followers from other areas and continents than just the immediate 'neighborhood' of The Levant. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 07:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We should adopt this convention when sources (e.g., Al Jazeera, BBC, AP) do. So far, they still refer to the organization as ISIS, ISIL, or (occasionally) Da'esh; and they refer to the region land the organization controls as being parts of Iraq and Syria. Josiah Stevenson (talk) 07:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sources don't make such a distinction. Until they start making such a distinction, this shouldn't happen. If it's eventually warranted, the history of ISIS could become it's own article titled "History of (whatever name becomes the title of this article)". Blaylockjam10 (talk) 08:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. ISIS does not operate as a classic nation-state, recognized or unrecognized, so we shouldn't apply the international system framework with regards to a name change. We don't have to immediately change the name, just because someone announced something on an audiotape. Let's wait and see if the RS's move towards using the new name outside of the context of this announcement. --Tocino 07:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article indicates that ISIS somewhat resembles a state. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
AFP
Financial Times
The Washington Post
Al Jazeera
The Telegraph
The Guardian
Associated Press
AntiqueReader (talk) 11:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All merely part of the reporting of the "official" name change. WP:RECENTISM gone mad! DeCausa (talk) 17:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They report the name change and then use it. AntiqueReader (talk) 21:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, they don't -- at least not most of them. Most of the linked sources (except AFP and Telegraph) only use "Islamic State" when quoting other people calling it that. In particular, read the AP article more closely: when it is describing what was said by people who call it the "Islamic State", they pass that along, but when the reporters refer to it of their own accord they still use ISIL. That convention is still being followed more broadly than at AP, and we should follow it until it becomes relatively uncommon. I'll concede that two sources have adopted the name change themselves, but until AP, Al Jazeera, and BBC do, I don't think we should. I also object to the use of the official name as the primary name in the body of the article until a plurality of reliable sources adopts the new name. We at Wikipedia should be among the last, not among the first, to recognize name changes, especially controversial ones. Josiah Stevenson (talk) 21:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Financial Times: "Iraq was shaken by an insurgency led by militants of the hardline Islamic State (known as Isis) that swept through Iraq’s Sunni areas." (journalist).
Telegraph The HEADLINE is "Iraq fights to seize back territory from Islamic State"; "The self-declared jihadist Islamic State"; "Islamic State-led fighters"; etc. etc. etc.
Guardian: "The militant Sunni group Isis has said it is establishing a caliphate, or Islamic state, in the territories it controls in Iraq and Syria"; "Supporters of Isis, or Islamic State"; etc. etc.
Al Jazeera: "Sunni groups which have fought with the Islamic State group"
The Washington Post: "Some jihadist groups operating in other parts of the region may be tempted to switch allegiance to the new Islamic state"; "Islamic State’s explicit rejection of national boundaries"; "The state will cover lands now under Islamic State control"; "Tikrit, which fell under Islamic State control" etc. etc. etc."
Not wasting more time on this. I submit that it is you who needs to read more carefully. AntiqueReader (talk) 09:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Channel 4
USA Today
AntiqueReader (talk) 09:12, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:COMMON does apply because there are several common names for the organization, and "Islamic State" is not (yet) one of them. We need to use one of the common names -- ideally the most common one, but perhaps another common name if the most common one is problematic for some reason. It is also far from certain that the media will use "The Islamic State" from now on. It may, and when it does we should change it. Not before then, though. Josiah Stevenson (talk) 21:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose moving to "The Islamic State", because that is inconsistent with the United States, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, etc., and the presence of "The" would be POV as conferring some sort of special status, but would not be opposed to moving to "Islamic State", without the "the". —Lowellian (reply) 17:29, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose- This falls under WP:COMMONNAME. A quick Google Search brings up 10.3 million results for "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" and 13.8 million for "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant". Meanwhile, searching "Islamic State" brings up just 3.6 million. I am assuming that at least 2,000,000 of those have nothing to do with ISIS (No matter what they change their name to, I will always call them ISIS). When doing these searches, I put them in quotation marks to get more specific results. Aclany (talk) 20:04, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Google search results can only demonstrate that that is how the group was referred to in the past. AntiqueReader (talk) 21:23, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -Two articles one for "The Islamic State" and another for the organization to be named "The Islamic State (organization)". These are completely two different things. Regarding the definit article "The", it should be kept as part of the name. The name of the unilaterally declared area in Arabic is al-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah "al" being the definit article. Islamic State without the The is just any type of government in Arabic Dawlah Islāmīyah - notice the absence of al- (literally just any islamic state), in which the primary basis for government is Islamic religious law (sharia). "Islamic State" is just a definition of the concept, whereas the name of the new political entity in Syria and Iraq is The Islamic State. Some media are also calling it The Islamic Caliphate which in Arabic would be al-Khilāfa al-Islāmīyah and they are using the two terms State / Caliphate interchangeably. In all fairness, the militants are also arguing they are not declaring a so-called "state" (ruler, government, parliament) but a "caliphate". Another distinction from the state is that a caliphate does not have legal borders. Its borders are wherever they reach. So this so-called state might technically have lands in non-Arab regions, like in Central or South or East Africa, in the Far East, Europe or the Americas as well. A third distinction: This "The Islamic State" does not recognize and will not recognize any other traditional Islamic States. So no UAE emir, no Bahrain king, no Saudi Arabian monarch and no President of Republic like Sissi, or Assad and no Prime Minister like Maliki. All these should abdicate and resign and swear allegiance to the one sole caliph of the "Islamic Nation" (umma or al-ummah al-Islāmīyah). In that sense, this is not even an Arab State although it might be almost entirely made of Arab Sunnis. It is not ethnic state, nor an Arab state, but a single pan-islamic non-ethnic all inclusive entity of all Muslims of the universe..... On another point, Usually the head of state would decide the name of a nation - Those ruled by a head of state are "states", those by an emir are "emirates", those rules by kings are "kingdoms", those by a prince "principalities", those by a sultan are a "sultanate" and those ruled by the caliph as the case here are "caliphates" and this is exactly what they are saying about themselves that they are establishing a caliphate not a state. So don't ask where is the head of state, or who is the prime minister, where is the parliament, when are elections etc. Another important distinction is that in a caliphate, it is not a hereditary rule, but what they call new caliph would be by "shawra" or "shoura" (consultations). The elder son of a caliph may be chosen, but does not mean he is necessarily and obligatorily the next caliph. Caliphs are assigned by consultation "shawra" and allegiance is give by "mubayaha" by everybody. werldwayd (talk) 01:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Again, it makes no difference what the entity prefers to be called until most third-party English-language news sources are calling it that. The majority of these seem to still be using ISIS/ISIL, most notably Al Jazeera and the BBC. Adopting the name change before these sources do would be premature on Wikipedia's part. Josiah Stevenson (talk) 01:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose — I think we should give it a few days, at least, to see how the common name seems to be developing. To the extent that multiple names are in use by our sources, we should probably err on the side of the one that is closer to what the group calls itself. Also, if it does move, I think it should be to Islamic State (militant group). Although there are a few geographical names that have the definite article in the article title, this is exceptional and is based on strongly established usage. I think it's better to avoid using "The" to distinguish between similar names.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 03:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The change of name has already been done at French, German and Greek Wikipedia. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 06:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is true, but not very relevant: if French-, German-, and Greek-language media adopt the new name, while English-language media generally do not, then it would be correct for Wikipedia to use the new name in those languages and the old one here. I'm not familiar with the literature on the subject in any of these languages, but in all likelihood their respective Wikipedia editorships are doing the right things for those languages. In any case, picking those languages misrepresents the global view on the subject: you might also notice that not even Arabic Wikipedia has changed the name. Neither have any of Spanish, Danish, Kurdish, Hebrew, Latin, Russian, Romanian, Portuguese, Turkish, Sweedish, or Urdu, as of this writing. The only one that I checked that has made any change at all in that direction is Polish, where the page has still not been moved (though it does use IS as the primary name in the lead). But even if they all change before Al Jazeera English and the BBC, we at English Wikipedia should wait for the English-language reliable sources. Josiah Stevenson (talk) 08:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I haven't the slightest personal interest in whether the "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" is named like this in English Wikipedia or whether it's re-named as "Islamic State (organization)" or something else. My main interest is the matter of the the new state / caliphate declared on the 29th of June and wheter someone please would write an article about "The Islamic State" and remove the redirection to "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant". As for the other languages that has'ent made any move in the direction of changing the name of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant this could simply be a matter of to few users interested in this subject rather than a deliberate choise. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 08:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question What's the breakdown for the various names currently used by reliable sources? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistent between articles:
  • Al Jazeera uses different conventions in different articles, calling it ISIL and the "so-called Islamic State" here and here, switches mid-article here, and just calls it Islamic State (formerly ISIL) here.
  • Associated Press seems to call it Islamic State in that article, but also uses "in the Levant" and ISIS here
Still Use ISIS/ISIL (incl "so-called IS" etc):
  • The BBC calls uses the abbreviation ISIS but "Levant" in the full name
  • CNN is here using mostly "ISIS", but also using " 'IS' " (in scare quotes) and language like "so-called IS"
  • The Telegraph is using similar scare-quotes
  • Al Arabiya uses ISIS here
Use Islamic State/IS:
This isn't everything -- haven't checked at AFP or Reuters yet, for example, though I suspect AFP uses IS because they announced they would a few days ago. In general, none of these other outlets has an explicitly stated policy on the name; I'm inferring it from an article or two. Josiah Stevenson (talk) 06:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We already have an article named "Islamic State". It has to include "The" in this case. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 08:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as premature per WP:COMMONNAME, I'd like to wait and see how it settles out for a bit. There's little harm in being a bit slow to reflect a change (redirects are already in place), while jumping the gun leads to churn and possible confusion. I agree that the article title should omit the definite article, as is standard in reference works and already done in e.g. Netherlands. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 00:18, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Associated Press: Islamic State
Reuters: Islamic State
AFP: Islamic State
The Guardian: Islamic State
The Sunday Times: Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (Isis)
The Independent on Sunday: Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isis)
The Telegraph: Islamic State
Financial Times: Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isis)
BBC News: Islamic State
The New York Times: Islamic State in Iraq and Syria! (ISIS) (morons)
The Washington Post: Islamic State (IS)
Los Angeles Times: Islamic State
ABC (Australia): Islamic State
AntiqueReader (talk) 21:26, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/reversal Since it is clear now that a significant portion of RSs are using "Islamic State" to refer to the group, it has clearly emerged as a common name for it. It might even be more common than ISIS/ISIL now. But both are common names, and since one of them is the name the group prefers, I have no problem using that one (Islamic State/IS). I do think we should say in the lead, for now, that many English-language outlets still refer to it by the older name (and remove that note when it ceases to be the case). Josiah Stevenson (talk) 22:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree. More and more sources are starting to use "Islamic State" now. I think now is the time to rename. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 00:31, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting comment. Giving this another week because there doesn't seem to be a consensus at the moment, but with the way sources are trending it does seem there's a possibility there could be a consensus in a week. Jenks24 (talk) 11:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Given that there are various Islamic states, past and present, that are far more notable than this group, I find it unlikely that the phrase will be identified with this subject in particular. This group has changed its name an absurd number of times. We don't have to jump every time they do. This AP story calls them "the Islamic State group." The Sydney Morning Herald calls them "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant," although that was two name changes ago. Clodhopper Deluxe (talk) 01:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - does anybody know how to get a Google hit count for an advance search using a custom date range or the "past week" option? When I use these features no hit count is shown, just a list of pages and a list of pages 1-10 which can be expanded but no easy way to see how many pages are found. - Technophant (talk) 17:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Answer More readers are looking for ISIS than for "Islamic State" by a margin of 58 to 4, according to Google Trends. If you pull it back, you'll see that more than half the people seeking ISIS (32 out of 58) are actually seeking things other than this subject. But "ISIS" is still very much the common name at this point. Clodhopper Deluxe (talk) 11:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now - by the way, why not just ISIS?? Red Slash 07:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Allies and opponents

The infobox lists Ansar al-Islam and Al-Nusra Front as opponents, is that really the case anymore? And by the way, why aren't groups like the Army of the Men of the Naqshbandi Order, the Islamic Army in Iraq, or Hamas of Iraq listed as allies? Charles Essie (talk) 20:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nusra is still clashing with ISIS in various places in Syria such as Dier ez Zor. Ansar al Islam seems to be fighting alongside ISIS in Iraq currently, although Twitter posts that probably don't count as WP:RS speak of tensions between them in areas where they overlap. Until recently, Islamic Army and Hamas were virtually defunct, and before that they were enemies of the then Islamic State of Iraq, things have changed recently but are still unsettled. Gazkthul (talk) 12:47, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Liwa Dawood has allied itself with IS. Can any one added to the list of Allies in the box where it says allies?? Here is the source http://news.antiwar.com/2014/07/08/1000-strong-syrian-rebel-brigade-defects-to-isis/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarmedwhivan2004 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"unite to capture Rome"

I believe Rûm - Rome refers also to the occidentals in general, but more specifically to the Sultanate of Rum. Linking it to the city of Rome is probably misleading, is it not?--Elrafael (talk) 16:07, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Elrafael, I wondered about this too. Rome in this case could also refer to the former territory of the Roman empire. Would need to find a RS analyzing this statement. Just linking to the city of Rome for now isn't wrong, however linking it to anything else could be considered WP:OR and misleading. Might be best to delink it for the time being - Technophant (talk) 12:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In classical Islamic literature, Rûm is the Eastern Roman Empire or Byzantine Empire.--99.232.96.72 (talk) 11:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Destruction of shrines, probably fake video, looting of antiquities to sell

It appears that one of their goals is to destroy various shrines. I think that is correct, but I've been reverting edits at Jonah claiming that his alleged tomb was destroyed based on an article in the unreliable British tabloid the Daily Mail. See [2] and particularly [3] and [4]. More interestingly, [5] states that they have been destroying shrines and looting antiquities: "Judit Neurink, writing for Germany’s Deutsche Welle says the ISIS militants’ motives are much more than religious. Before they desecrate, then bulldoze offensive shrines, mosques, churches and memorials, they loot them, stealing the artifacts and selling them on the black market." (see [6] "The United Nations agency UNESCO confirms reports ISIS has profited enormously from selling antiquities. After taking over the city of Raqqa, it looted the local museum. Some of the valuable pieces surfaced in Turkey and Lebanon. But most of the loot disappeared, sold for a good price to private collectors." Dougweller (talk) 08:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add: Destroting shrines, as Prophet Muhammad commanded Muslims to do anywhere they found them (Sahih Bukhari, Sahi Muslim)"Do not build anything over a grave, do not make a grave a place of prayer, and to destroy buildings over graves, these are all from Islam., from the Prophet, (SAW)It's misleading to not include this, as it makes the difference between anti-ISIL propaganda, and a unbiased wikipedia article. Thanks, Salaams. Yassin. Oh yeah, Jihad al Nikah, its "marriage jihad, asking for wives for the Mujahideen, in arranged marriages like 99% are in the Muslim world.Nikah technically refers to sex, but in use refers to Marriage, as they have Nikah ceremonies at the Mosque all the time. Are they orgies, or weddings? I'll let you guess. Yassin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.53.148.252 (talk) 16:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged Snowden leaks

On the Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi an anonymous user added this interesting diff. It says "On July 15 2014, as part of former US NSA Edward Snowden leaks, it was reported that "the British and American intelligence and the Mossad worked together to create the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)." Since the story was picked up by the International Business Times[7] it may be worth noting on the site, however I don't think it's authentic information. Snowden handed over his files to journalists Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras. I don't think either one of those would submit a story to "The Voice of Bahrain" Gulf Daily News without even being quoted. I could post and article in my self-owned tabloid titled "Snowden Leaks: Wikipedia Run By Extraterrestrials" and I'm sure it would get some attention, but that doesn't make it reliable or verifiable. Comments? - Technophant (talk) 04:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely which is why I removed it earlier. If there is such a leak, why haven't the major media picked it up? Oh sure, maybe there's a conspiracy to keep it silent, but without much better sources we can't use this. Dougweller (talk) 12:15, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just a general point here: do you not think that rumours which become widespread, sometimes internationally, and persist although they have been disproved should nevertheless be recorded? Readers could wonder why there is no mention of them and (falsely) accuse Wikipedia of missing "facts", e.g. the idea that ISIS is "too extreme" for even al-Qaeda (said wrongly to be one reason AQ gave for cutting ties with them) and the al-Baghdadi threat, "I'll see you in New York", which still have very wide currency although they are not true and yet Wikipedia is silent on them. Rumours or false stories can always be worded diplomatically so that Wikipedia is not seen to be recording them as fact. I did this twice - in the Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi article - with the "I'll see you in New York" story (which I still see repeated in the media) but was reverted both times. In other words, I think rumours that gain traction should be recorded in Wikipedia, especially since they sometimes become folklore over time. Looks like it is happening already with the ISIS being "too extreme" for al-Qaeda notion. --P123ct1 (talk) 15:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When the mainstream media report that there is a rumour to this effect we can include it, meanwhile we should not be party to spreading it. Dougweller (talk) 16:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that, but don't agree that reporting something as a rumour would be being a party to spreading it; that is what I meant about choosing careful wording. Does "The Daily Beast" count as mainstream media? They were the first to report the threat story, I believe, which caught on everywhere. My edit was "'The Daily Beast' reported that ... However, the US Defence Department said ...", giving their plain statement, backed up with a citation, which clearly refuted the DB's story. That seemed fair enough to me and made it clear that Wikipedia was not passing on the story as fact. --P123ct1 (talk) 19:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually being to extreme is a cited reason by aq for disafilliating ISIS, but not the primary reason. Al-Qaeda central issued several letters rebuking ISIS for its progress towards building a state, something which al-qaeda central did not want to happen for many years to come. Furthermore there is a long history of Al-Qaeda central rebuking ISI / ISIS for excessively specifically targeting muslim civilians as it thought it would sully the image of the organizaitons efforts in iraq. That being said, the primary reason it was disowned was for overstepping its operational area by expanding into Syria and refusing Al-Qaeda's decsision that Al-Nusra was a seperate operational command from ISIS.XavierGreen (talk) 22:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@XavierGreen: Where have you seen Al-Qaeda say being too extreme was one reason for disaffiliating them? In all the footnotes to this article, this has not appeared once. It would be useful to have a source for this information added in, as it changes the overall impression that this is merely journalistic inference. (See discussion above at #39) It would be nice to set the record straight. --P123ct1 (talk) 08:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

THANKYOU!!! Al Qaida broke ties with ISIL due to insubordination, it had absolutely nothing to do with them being "to extreme" They follow, to the t, the Quran and Sunnah, which makes them a threat to every "Muslim" dictator and king. YS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.53.148.252 (talk) 17:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Insubordination is the only reason given by al-Qaeda for their expulsion that I have seen in the press. That is why, as you will see, I have put "not in citation" beside the footnote appended to the vague term that implies being extreme was another of AQ's reasons (see para 4 of Lead). I would not want readers to be misled. I am glad to have your support. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found this personal blog refuting the Snowden leak and http://globalresearch.ca 's somewhat inexplicible reporting and expansion of this material. Of course material on Blogspot, unless it can be confirmed to be written by a reliable author, is not permissible on Wikipedia. However I had the impression that Global Research was a reliable source. Apparently it's more like LiveLeak, just covering picking up on other news channels without doing it's own independent verification.

The Wiki article on globalresearch.ca shows it to be a suspect source - see under "Criticisms" - it is clearly anti-American and anti-Semitic. (@Dougweller: You may want to comment here.) --P123ct1 (talk) 15:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ISIL Leader Closely Cooperating with CIA

Additionally, there's been another story along similar lines put out by FARS News Agency ("Iran's leading independent news agency") titled "Russian Expert: ISIL Leader Closely Cooperating with CIA" quoting Vyacheslav Matuzov (bio). This story is probably worth mentioning, however it must be very clear that it's only Matuzov's opinion and not established fact. I started a thread at WP:RS/N to establish this sources reliability. - Technophant (talk) 14:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Biggest bank robbery that 'never happened' – $400m Isis heist"

Biggest bank robbery that 'never happened' – $400m Isis heist

Not a single witness account has emerged of the Isis members making off with any money, and executives and employees from among the 20 private banks and 15 or so government bank branches in Mosul say there is no evidence that militants stole any money from the banks, many of which continue to operate. Isis itself has never claimed to have stolen the cash, though it has boasted repeatedly of the millions of dollars in US military equipment it looted from Iraqi armed forces who fled the city.

86.156.115.179 (talk) 17:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice to put this information into the financial section of the article using your source as back-up, but the Financial Times is a paywalled source and I cannot read it to see those facts. Did you read of this anywhere else? I would have thought this news was rather major - I have hardly read or seen the media refer to ISIS without mentioning the $2 billion they are supposed to have - and I am surprised no-one has taken it up yet and added it to the article. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've added this to the Finances section as the Financial Times is a WP:RS and the article contains quotes from Iraqi government and banking officials. It's behind a paywall but can be read by Googleing the title. Gazkthul (talk) 05:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It cannot be read on Google. If you Google the title, you come up against the paywall there as well (if you are not a subscriber). This happens consistently with articles from the Financial Times. Other paywalled articles can often be read via Google (e.g. The Wall Street Journal) but never articles from the FT. --P123ct1 (talk) 07:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's odd, I was able to read the article through that method. Maybe it is affected by your geographical location or some other factor. Gazkthul (talk) 11:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Must be. Now have limited (free) sub to FT (block prevents copy-ed). --P123ct1 (talk) 11:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
NBC cites an unnamed "official" as saying they stole "to the tune of millions of dollars", but not hundreds of millions. For what it's worth. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:47, July 22, 2014 (UTC)
Have added the NBC report as a new footnote in the "Finances" section. Although the NBC was given the information by an unnamed US official, the NBC is an RS. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter as a source

It seems to be a major source here - how does it meet WP:RS? Dougweller (talk) 20:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The number of Twitter sources, and even a YouTube source, in the "Equipment" section makes that section a bit of a joke, in my opinion. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good to see you have removed them all! --P123ct1 (talk) 09:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Time for Wilayah Articles?

Proposed divisions of the Caucasus Emirate

Should we make Articles about IS different Wilayat? Caucasus Emirate is a good example (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasus_Emirate#Overview) 3bdulelah (talk) 07:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We could, but I'm not sure there is a lot of information available on them.Gazkthul (talk) 04:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on which Wilayah. for Example we have a lot of information about Nineveh Wilayah and Raqqah Wilayah while we have almost nothing about Al Badiya Wilayah. 3bdulelah (talk) 10:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, to those with more information than I, hopefully Arabic speakers, please pursue this! The command structure of the IS is decentralized, with the appointed "governors" having a large degree of autonomy and decision making authority, from what I understand. The IS really should be seen as a collective of states or provinces, federated under the authority of the Khalifa. I am particularily interested, as I'm sure are many others, how things are playing out, or will play out, when IS comes to control Shia majority areas, how they will deal with Shia who are non combatants, not involved in Maliki's army or the Shia Militia. As a Muslim I hope and pray that they don't bring on a Shia Holocaust. Sorry for not signing my earlier posts, I'm new to this.YS 50.53.148.252 (talk) 21:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article about "Raqqah Wilayah" could help (here) 3bdulelah (talk) 02:01, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Equipment

This is a message for user/users who have edited this section. The footnotes in the first paragraph all cite reliable sources, but none of them specifically mentions ZU-23-2 anti-aircraft guns (user makes an inference - see Military Times) or 2S1 Gvozdika self-propelled guns, so I have removed the picture and reference to them. --P123ct1 (talk) 13:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


here's new report of large Arrays of Equipments http://www.businessinsider.co.id/isis-military-equipment-breakdown-2014-7/5/

And Here's the Evidence about BM Grad Truck Rocket Launcher together with Second Scud Missiles which different from the one Showed in Raqqah https://malcolmxtreme.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/scud-rocket-isil-iraq-6-11-2014.jpg https://malcolmxtreme.wordpress.com/tag/harakat-hazm/

the Rocket Alone could be tracked back to here which the Pictures first appear and ISIS Gain it through Ansar-Al-Islam according to the sources http://www.zulfi-city.com/vb/t13168-58.html 

(Ahendra (talk) 23:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Water

IS and water. I keep adding sources to talk; I promise I'll get around to add them to the article soon!! AntiqueReader (talk) 15:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting. Water scarcity in an arid region like this is a big deal. Climate change is also making this even worse. :-/ Rightswatcher (talk) 05:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This section is Mesopotamia#Geography can be used to help understand the water issue further. Rightswatcher (talk) 05:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dawood's Brigade "Liwa Dawood"

Dawood's Brigade "Liwa Dawood" has allied itself with IS. it used to be a part of Islamic Front. it had about 10 tanks and 1000 members when it defected . can anyone add it to the list of allies in the front left box. here is the list of sources http://news.antiwar.com/2014/07/08/1000-strong-syrian-rebel-brigade-defects-to-isis/ http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/07/10/Another-Syrian-Rebel-Group-Joins-Forces-With-Islamic-State-Terror-Group

Technically they've joined ISIS en masse, so they aren't an ally as much as a component, in my view. It's joining should be mentioned somewhere in the article though, that many new members all at once is noteworthy.Gazkthul (talk) 03:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence that ISIS are terrorists

One of thousands sources available. (Warning 18+ - Depiction of very graphic ISIS terrorist atrocities) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYQLSM99eaY

Wow. Wow. That's much bigger than than 18+... and I have a feeling that YouTube will ban this video very soon. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 07:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of thousands of exhibits that prove that ISIS are terrorists. Worldedixor (talk) 17:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. Avoid myth in its informal sense, and establish the scholarly context for any formal use of the term" - from WP:TERRORIST. Dougweller (talk) 18:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Dougweller for debating intelligently and respectfully and for your message. However, ISIS is a terror group to an extreme. They can be militants but there is ample of evidence that prove beyond a doubt that they meet and exceed the definition of terrorists. Worldedixor (talk) 18:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Kuwait included in the Levant?

Why is Kuwait included in the opening paragraph describing the Al-Shams region? Kuwait is not apart of the Levant/Al-Shams region. The two sources sited do not mention Kuwait. Levant area is near east and includes Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.46.102.104 (talk) 23:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right, it is not in the footnotes. I have removed Kuwait from the list of Levant countries. --P123ct1 (talk) 09:31, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Goals

Does the article needs a "Goal" section? The two last paragraphs that come under "Ideology and Beliefs" has nothing to do withIdeology and Beliefs and would better go under another section such as "Goals". Mhhossein (talk) 08:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ISIL Poll

I've started a poll at the talk page for List of sovereign states. You can find the poll here. We're discussing the inclusion of the Islamic State, the Donetsk People's Republic, and the Lugansk People's Republic. [Soffredo] Yeoman 01:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ISIS is officially a terrorist organization

There has been some dispute among users over whether Wikipedia can call ISIS a terrorist group. The US State Department has issued an official list of terrorist organizations, which formally designates ISIS as a terrorist organization. I have added this as a footnote, replacing the following footnotes, inserted today by someone else as back-up for their "terrorist" edit:- --P123ct1 (talk)

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/06/12/world/meast/who-is-the-isis
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2014/07/25/How-US-Allowed-ISIS-Form-Terrorist-Army
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/483261/Terror-group-Isis-gives-travel-advice-to-extremist-Britons-travelling-to-Iraq-and-Syria
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/july/crenshaw-isis-threat-071014.html
http://www.nbcnews.com/watch/nightly-news/isis-becomes-richest-terror-group-in-the-world-280624707806
http://travel.state.gov/content/passports/english/alertswarnings/iraq-travel-warning.html
https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/iraq
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/24/norway-expects-imminent-concrete-threat-isil-terro/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwldLjWL71o (video showing Obama referring to ISIS as a terrorist organization)

Countries that have officially designated ISIS as a terrorist organization:-

http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm (that US Department of State doc we talk about below) (added by P123ct1)
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/324603/20140627-List_of_Proscribed_organisations_WEBSITE_final.pdf (ISIS officially proscribed by UK government in June 2014)
(added by --P123ct1 (talk) )
http://www.nationalsecurity.gov.au/Listedterroristorganisations/Pages/default.aspx (ditto Australian government) (added by P123ct1)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/07/us-saudi-security-idUSBREA260SM20140307 (ditto Saudi Arabia) (added by P123ct1)
http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/ntnl-scrt/cntr-trrrsm/lstd-ntts/crrnt-lstd-ntts-eng.aspx (ditto Canadian government)
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2013/sc11019.doc.htm (ditto United Nations)


Thanks for the links, but that doesn't mean that Wikipedia can refer to them as terrorists, as who are and are not terrorists is a matter of opinion; there is no worldwide body to designate groups or persons 'terrorists'. Ukraine calls the pro-Russian rebels 'terrorists'; Israel calls Hamas 'terrorists', the UK calls the IRA 'terrorists'; etc. In those cases the people or groups labeled likely do not see themselves as 'terrorists'. We can certainly note who calls who terrorists, but it is probably too loaded a term to use ourselves. 331dot (talk) 10:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The MoS covers it - see WP:TERRORIST: "Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." (my added underlining). So it can say "X considers Y to be terrorists" if widely used in reliable sources. DeCausa (talk) 10:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So it is not possible to say, "They are generally considered to be a terrorist organization." and give the RS links (which all call them terrorists), it has to be more specific than that? There are several references in the article to ISIS as a terrorist organization, so I suppose they will have to go, too. --P123ct1 (talk) 11:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure the usage in the body of the article is a problem. As far as I can see they are almost all either attributed aor refer to an attack being terrorist in nature, rather than the organisation. The only one I can see is a statement that "By 2014, ISIS was increasingly being viewed as a militia rather than a terrorist organization". That should be ok, I think, because it's not speaking in Wikipedia's voice - and provided the cited source backs up "increasingly viewed" (I haven't checked.) The statement in the lead is different. That says in Wikipedia's voice that they are terrorists. Looking at the original citations, they seem to be all from Western sources (mostly media and governmental). IMHO, the original sources could be maintained but the text should read "...is an unrecognized state and an active jihadist group in Iraq and Syria which has been widely described as a terrorist organization by Western governmental and media sources." Or something like that. That's my take anyway. DeCausa (talk) 11:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I was acting on this edit summary:- ."(cur | prev) 18:59, 25 July 2014‎ Dougweller (talk | contribs)‎ . . (203,122 bytes) (-10)‎ . . (when they are officially declared terrorist we can use the word, until then we don't work by any sort of 'definitions') (undo | thank)". I have taken out "rather than a terrorist organization" as it wasn't in the cited source. --P123ct1 (talk) 11:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You'd have to check with Doug whether he was anticipating they would ever be "officially declared" as terrorists. (I don't what body could even do that - UN Security Council?) Maybe he meant a kind of Greek calends kind of thing. DeCausa (talk) 12:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you P123ct1 and everyone. This is one more reliable and verifiable offical video from the White House that shows President Obama officially referring to ISIL as a "terrorist organization operating in Iraq" (at 0:07). Worldedixor (talk) 15:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I like User:DeCausa's suggestion. Note that the US has not official designated it as terrorist. We do have a good example of an organisation being designated as terrorist, see Al-Qaeda#Designation as terrorist organization. Worldedixor, Obama can't designate something as terrorist through a speech. It isn't on the official list at [8] Dougweller (talk) 16:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To Dougweller: I strongly disagree with your false statement "It isn't on the official list at [9]". Worldedixor (talk) 17:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Any chance you could be more rude Worldedixor? 'False' implies lying, 'wrong' is what I was - I didn't expect to find it was put on the list in 2004, and I'm surprised that it's taken 10 years to discover that. Dougweller (talk) 21:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you a new Admin? Why are you unnecessarily instigating me? It's time for you to educate yourself with WP:GF and learn how to assume good faith. I don't know who you are to be rude to you. I always make it abundantly clear if and when being rude is ever justified on Wikepedia. Here, I was factual. You made a false statement (educate yourself on the CORRECT definitions of "false") and do NOT assume my intent, just follow WP:GF... I strongly disagreed with what you stated, that's my unalienable right... and I pointed out that your statement was false in an objective manner. It was a fact that your statement was false. It was a fact also that it was I who fixed this major Wikipedia error after 10 years with the help of P123ct1. Cheers. Worldedixor (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ISIS is on that official US terrorist list - i.e. [10] - at 12/17/2004, some way down the list. --P123ct1 (talk) 17:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks and many apologies, as I said above it never occurred to me it would have been added 10 years ago yet not be in this article. I should have done a software search, not searched by eye. Dougweller (talk) 21:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was as amazed as you to see it, and that this doc hadn't been unearthed for this article before! I randomly googled and got a big surprise. :) --P123ct1 (talk) 22:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)It still wouldn't mean that we give it the unqualified description of "terrorist". That is a source for saying the "US has designated a terrorist organization". But I don't think we should pick out one country's designation in that way. As Doug highlighted above, this is handled at Al-Qaeda by listing the countries and organizations that have so designated it. Then in the lead there is no bare statement that it is a terrorist organization. Instead it says "It has been designated as a terrorist organization by the United Nations Security Council, NATO, the European Union, the United States, Russia, India and various other countries (see below)." DeCausa (talk) 18:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. You have said exactly what I had in mind. Before seeing your comment just now, I had been looking at how Hamas is treated in Wikipedia in this respect and took my cue from that; it has a sentence similar to the one you quote. That is why I am adding to the list of countries (see list above) that have designated them as terrorists, so that they can be put together in a sensible sentence with sensible footnotes, like the one you quote. My comment was simply to point out that ISIS does, in fact, appear on that US State Department list. --P123ct1 (talk) 19:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only countries I could find that have officially designated ISIS as a terrorist organisation are the US, UK, Australia and Saudi Arabia, the links for which are in the list at the top of this thread. (Can't find anything for the UN or EU.) Can't find anything for the EU. How about this wording (plagiarising DeCausa) or something like it?

"ISIS has been designated as a terrorist organisation by the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Saudi Arabia and the United Nations, (adding footnotes for the four five countries and the UN) and has been widely described as a terrorist group by Western media sources."(adding some of the below as footnotes.)
1. http://edition.cnn.com/2014/06/12/world/meast/who-is-the-isis
2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwldLjWL71o (the video showing Obama referring to ISIS as a terrorist organization)
3. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/11/isis-too-extreme-al-qaida-terror-jihadi
4. http://online.wsj.com/articles/jessica-lewis-the-terrorist-army-marching-on-baghdad-1402614950
5. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/06/12/isis-just-stole-425-million-and-became-the-worlds-richest-terrorist-group/
6 http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/11/iraq-s-terrorists-are-becoming-a-full-blown-army.html
7. http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/mosul-seized-jihadis-loot-429m-citys-central-bank-make-isis-worlds-richest-terror-force-1452190

I don't know which of these would be the most appropriate. Can anyone come up with better ones? --P123ct1 (talk) 21:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AGREE with you P123ct1, as I said I will no longer contribute to this article but it would be unfair to you if I abandoned you at a time you have put in more effort in due diligence than most and came out with the best all-inclusive wording. So, this will give you what you need from me, and I will go out now to enjoy my dream life in paradise with zero stress and negativity. Worldedixor (talk) 00:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe this is a serious topic of discussion unless the word "terrorist" has been banned from Wikipedia. This entire thread seems to just stomp all over WP:COMMONSENSE. If terrorist is a term that can't be applied to this organization, then it should be stricken from the English language. This is just too bizarre to waste any more cyber ink on. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had to STRONGLY AGREE in the best interest of WP. I couldn't have said it any better than you, Ad Orientem. I put "terrorist" in twice, and so did P123ct1. I actually called the FBI to verify and followed to the tee "Wikipedia has many rules. Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule. Even if a contribution "violates" the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution". There's something that just doesn't add up with its repeated and disruptive reversal. I need to do some Google and other searches to get to the bottom as to why it has been repeatedly reversed. Worldedixor (talk) 08:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In List of designated terrorist organizations ISIS is listed by 6 countries/organisations including the UK (June 2014 - I just added it in) and UN. Widefox; talk 08:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have added the two, Canada and the UN, to the list at the top and draft wording. I had already included the UK. I did see Canada, but only with the Al-Qaeda in Iraq listing, but that is ISIS, effectively. I missed the UN. --P123ct1 (talk) 09:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To editor Worldedixor: I saw that quote from Wikipedia as well. Thanks for spelling it out on this page. --P123ct1 (talk) 09:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome,P123ct1. It is obvious that there are well-meaning editors on here who fathom and adhere to WP:COMMONSENSE, WP:HTBC and many other WP rules. Worldedixor (talk) 09:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The only issue has been how we use the word 'terrorist'. We don't just add words like that (another one is 'criminal') without appropriate sources and attribution. I and others have been trying to find the best way to do it (and there is no deadline). "ISIS has been designated as a terrorist organisation by the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Saudi Arabia and the United Nations and has been widely described as a terrorist group by Western media sources." seems fine, but I'm not sure about the Obama video as that isn't really a media source but a restatement of the US position. Dougweller (talk) 09:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the Obama video has been rendered redundant by [the official list] duly provided by P123ct1 days ago. Ergo, the use of the word "terrorist" here is not "without appropriate sources and attribution" especially with the qualifying and well thought out verbiage provided by P123ct1 days ago.
Also, there's something that just doesn't add up when you say "I and others". Why aren't the others "trying" on here? Worldedixor (talk) 09:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dougweller In the list of possible footnotes, I was thinking of using in the list above nos 3, 4, 1 and 7, in that order, as footnotes for the media sources part of the wording. Would that be appropriate? I am not sure about the IBS being an RS, but the article is appropriate. If not the IBS, then the Washington Post? --P123ct1 (talk) 10:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P123ct1 I think you mean IBT? I'd prefer the Washington Post - and of course any overseas sources we can find. But I agree we don't need and shouldn't have a lot. Dougweller (talk) 10:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dougweller Sorry, I meant IBT. Shall I go ahead and put in that wording and replace the IBT with the Washington Post? At least the edit will be there and editors (not just me, I hope) can go on looking for some overseas sources to add to or replace some of them. By overseas sources do you mean European sources, Middle Eastern one like Aljazeera, Canada? I presume you don't mean US sources. How many do you think in total for the media sources footnotes, four, five? Or do you think there is not proper consensus yet on making this edit? I am new to how consensus on an edit works. I am quite surprised at the lack of interest in this important edit, apart from one or two others. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You say there is no deadline. True, but events are forcing Wikipedia's hand, with now almost daily accounts of ISIS's atrocities, the wave of horrific videos on YouTube and other media sites, and respected journalists now calling ISIS "pathologically" violent and "psychopathic" (Patrick Cockburn and Stephen Glover). The longer this is left, the less credibility Wikipedia will have in the eyes of its readership, IMHO. --P123ct1 (talk) 11:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason I thought it was in the article as being designated as a terrorist group by the US. Yes, go ahead and add it now, we can improve the sources later. Maybe 5 sources, and later replace some of them. Dougweller (talk) 12:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It being your edit, I take that gentle scolding in good part! I will add the rest in. --P123ct1 (talk) 13:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely do not agree with bluntly calling ISIS "terrorist" in the Lead (see recent edit). NPOV is completely lost. The whole point of the main edit was to get the idea firmly across in neutral terms, without the statement losing any of its force. Also, translation of the Arabic in footnote #40 shows "Islamic State", not "The Islamic State" (first words of article). Can't change it yet because of 1RR. --P123ct1 (talk) 20:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are misconstruing WP:NPOV. No one is expressing a POV. Being terrorists is FACTUAL not a POV. We already have reliable sources that support that they are terrorists and not even one reliable source that supports that they are "not terrorists". Also, I can read and understand Arabic extremely well. "الدولة الاسلامية" is translated correctly as "The Islamic State". "Islamic State" is translated as "دولة اسلامية " which is not what ISIS call themselves and which simply means ANY Islamic state. Hope this clarifies it. Worldedixor (talk) 21:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then all "Islamic State"s in the article will have to be changed to "The Islamic State", if you are correct - and in the al-Baghdadi article as well. I agree with "all over the world", though; "Iraq and Syria" is too narrow now. I think you have forgotten that old saying that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. (Think of the IRA, for example, or the Israeli terrorists led by Menachem Begin in the fight to establish Israel as a nation, or even Nelson Mandela in his early days, although "terrorist" would perhaps be too strong a word in his case.) That is why we have to have NPOV, however distasteful it may be here. The second commenter on this thread made that point, which I agree with - but not to the extent of pussy-footing around this issue the way Wikipedia has been doing until now. This is all a matter of striking the right balance, and I do think this form of words that Wikipedia has used before, on Al-Qaeda and Hamas, and DeCausa's formulation, strike the right balance. We don't want to go overboard with this. That's my POV! --P123ct1 (talk) 22:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We also have to remember that Wikipedia is not like a history book (which interprets events, so value judgments come into play - and "terrorist" is a word that carries a judgment) but more like annals (a chronological list of events, barely stated). It sticks in my throat to have to be so neutral about ISIS, but intellectual honesty demands it, given that Wikipedia is an encylopaedia, not a history book. And as Dougweller said, there is nothing wrong with saying, "X said this about Y, that they are/are not terrorists", as NPOV is maintained in putting it like that. --P123ct1 (talk) 23:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I absolutely agree that in many cases, maybe even most, care needs to be taken about assigning the term terrorist. This is clearly an exception though. Even in the Islamic world there is huge revulsion at these people and what they are doing. If you can find any RS sources offering a credible defense or refuting the designation, then by all means that should be noted. But before we start tempering the language of an article based on an alternative POV shouldn't we establish that this POV exists and enjoys some credible acceptance backed by RS sources? There is no shortage of RS sources labeling ISIS a terrorist group. Find a reasonable number of RS sources saying otherwise and we will need to take note of it in the article. But I am disinclined to give weight to a POV that probably does not enjoy any significant acceptance beyond the adherents of the group itself. There are lots of non affiliated sources that have defended HAMAS and the IRA. I have serious doubts that you will find many, if any, defending ISIS. In the absence of those kinds of sources I am forced to return again to the point I made above. On Wikipedia common sense is not expected to bow to guidelines. Just because the European Union or some UN commission has not issued a decree on the subject does not mean that the sun will not rise in the East tomorrow morning, or that the sky is not blue. Until credible non-affiliated RS sources can be found offering a different interpretation of ISIS, this is not an NPOV issue. Indeed pandering to a position that is not supported by said sources would be the real POV fail. For now however the sky is in fact blue, and ISIS is a terrorist organization. Suggesting otherwise strains the limits of credulity and calls into question the integrity of the project. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some people think Satan is a nice fellow... Other people even worship him. Common sense tell us that Satan is the devil based on many reliable sources. Right?... Some people think Hitler was a saint. Ad Orientem said it best. Let someone find credible and reliable sources that say that ISIS are saints and nice guys and freedom fighters, and we can forget completely their terrorist atrocities on a daily basis and start worshiping them. Worldedixor (talk) 00:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You both miss the point, with respect. NPOV supports no POV, by definition. One sentence in the Lead, neutrally put - NPOV - is hardly giving weight to the idea that ISIS are not terrorists. An assertion that it does is laughable. You may have missed my last para in the edit conflict, where I said there is nothing to stop Wikipedia recording who said what about whom, whether pro or con, and providing sources for it, as you yourselves say. That is what NPOV entails, and in fact demands. NPOV goes right to the heart of what Wikipedia is about (see my comparison between annals and history books) so to say this is "not an NPOV issue" is plain wrong. Common sense has nothing to do with this, unfortunately. Common sense implies value judgments, fine for history books, but not for encyclopaedias, which are compendiums of knowledge, not collections of historical essays. I don't like it as much as you don't. Believe me, and I repeat, being NPOV about ISIS sticks in my craw as much as it does yours. --P123ct1 (talk) 01:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop implying that you know better than all of us and we are missing the point. Also, no need to doubt my Arabic translation contribution. Assume Good Faith and trust my command of the Arabic language until someone fluent in Arabic tells you otherwise, just as I AGF and trust your basic understanding of the English language. For your education, POV means point of view, meaning someone's opinion or his/her subjective and/or biased point of view of ISIS. Here no one is opining. ISIS being a terrorist organization is no one's subjective point of view,it is a FACT proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they are terrorists, and that has been established by a lot of evidence and many reliable sources. It does not take rocket science to tell that Osama Bin Laden was a terrorist and Mother Theresa was not a terrorist. WP:COMMONSENSE Worldedixor (talk) 06:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have failed to make you see my point and perhaps that is my fault. I agree that ISIS are terrorists by any normal common-sense standards. But they cannot be talked about that way in Wikipedia, for all the reasons I have given. Simple as that. As for the other point, I sincerely apologise if it looked as if I was not assuming good faith over your command of Arabic. I am just puzzled why there has been debate about what the new name is, "The Islamic State" or "Islamic State", if it is as obvious as you say it is. If you are right, you will have to put Wikipedia right in two articles, not one, and I wish you luck with that. There was a debate in the other article too over the name. You could start with the glaring discrepancies in the Lead, between the first reference to the name and the other references, in the first paragraph and in one of the boxes. --P123ct1 (talk) 09:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically Worldedixor has hit the nail on the head. Osama bin Laden is a terrorist but we do not call him one in the lead. In his article we call Al-Qaeda a "Wahhabi extremist militant organization" and in Al-Qaeda we say it is designated as a terrorist group, we don't use terrorist as an adjective. We should treat this organisation in the same way. Dougweller (talk) 09:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dougweller Have you read the Lead as it stands now? "Terrorist" is clearly there. Worldedixor was the first to put "terrorist" into the Lead, using it as an adjective. I reverted it, taking out "terrorist", giving full reasons. He reverted my edit and has put "terrorist" back in. (See Edit Summaries.) This is getting farcical. I withdraw as I do not want to engage in a childish edit-war. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted him. I thought he'd agreed to stop editing, but I guess he changed his mind. We've made it clear that the organisation is considered terrorist, but as I've shown above, we don't use it as an adjective. Dougweller (talk) 11:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Caliph Ibrihim under Government secion

In in bottom of the Government section is says "Caliph[1] Ibrahim[6][7]". This looks funny to me. Is there a reason it needs to be this way? Just wondering. Rightswatcher (talk) 17:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source 1, calls him "Caliph" and Source 6&7 call it Caliph Ibrahim. Mhhossein (talk) 13:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should the lowercase search term "Isis" lead to a disambiguation page?

It should be noted that on July 27, 2014, Qristopher opened a WP:RFC on this matter. Interested editors may want to weigh in there.

I have changed the heading of this section, because its original heading didn't represent what Qristopher is actually arguing for. A. Parrot (talk) 18:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE THE MAP PLS

There have been like two updates to the map in the last month. So, pls, update it. I'm saving all the copies of the map to my computer when a new update comes out, and I am personally monitoring the situation.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.251.129.134 (talk) 18:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ISIS YouTube video why publicise it?

Is there a good reason for giving this publicity? Dougweller (talk) 07:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doug, are you referring to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JABN4e4YwuA because it's been removed "as a violation of YouTube's policy on violence." Until now, we have mentioned videos when they have been covered by secondary sources. I'd prefer not to start using youtube videos as sources. PhilKnight (talk) 08:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Missed its removal but I agree that we shouldn't mention videos (among other things) without good coverage elsewhere. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just before reading this, I removed the 28 July entry in "2014 events" (which cites this clip) - " 28 July: ISIS releases Eid al-Fitr video showing graphic scenes of mass executions, as well as destruction of Shi'a tombs, battles, and parades."
- when I saw YouTube had taken the video down. --P123ct1 (talk) 14:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Restored the 28 July entry with a new (RS) citation (The Telegraph). --P123ct1 (talk) 17:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Need to change name of article to just Islamic State

[15] and other sources. The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isis) has reportedly declared the areas it occupies in Iraq and Syria as a new Islamic state, removing Iraq and the Levant from its name and ushering in “a new era of international jihad”.

The announcement will see Isis now simply refer to itself as The Islamic State, and the group has called on al-Qa’ida and other related militant Sunni factions operating in the region to immediately pledge their allegiance. Dougweller (talk) 10:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, not yet. Not without seeing or hearing the original "verified" Arabic announcement by ISIS. Reuters says [here] "تسجيل لم يتسن التحقق من صحته". Worldedixor (talk) 11:04, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The name change seems to have been a month ago.[16], [17] [18][19][20]. It is mentioned in numerous sources that this was an audio statement posted on line and then translated, eg[21]. Our info box says it called the Islamic State with footnotes, and the statement itself is an External link at the bottom of the article. A name change and a change in the lead would make all this makes sense. Dougweller (talk) 11:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was searching for the official video referenced by Reuters. I just found it [كسر الحدود], but I did not hear the announcement by Shaikh Abou Mohammad Al Adnani about ISIS changing its name to the Islamic State. All he babbled about was shattering the borders but no name change. There is no deadline to change the title. Feel free to listen yourself and let me know if you could hear it. Worldedixor (talk) 11:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it should be changed to Islamic State, or rather "the Islamic State". Some governments as well as the press are calling ISIS that now. Wikipedia will be viewed as not keeping up with events if it does not change the name. (Same goes for the vexed "terrorist" reference.) --P123ct1 (talk) 11:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see what was wrong. Reuters referenced the wrong video and wasted my time. This is the [Announcement video], and we can base the change of title to "Islamic State" on it assuming there is no other Islamic State in the world, something I doubt. My due diligence work is over. I will no longer participate. Worldedixor (talk) 12:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly it isn't that easy. We have Islamic state as an article, so we need a way to disambiguate it. We can't add {country} obviously. How about {unrecognised state)? Islamic state isn't busy but I did ask the last 2 editors to comment here if they have any suggestions. Dougweller (talk) 12:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes "The Islamic State" (the correct translation linguistically) with {unrecognized state) should uniquely define it. I would also go with "unrecognized terrorist rogue state" but that would be a little too much for the purposes on WP. Just saying that they are terrorists is enough. They are the worst kind of terrorists. Worldedixor (talk) 12:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Once we can come up with a name that doesn't clash, we need to do this properly given the earlier move request which was closed as no consensus. I think we should add terrorist today per the above wording, but this is going to have to wait for the RM and that might take a week if there is disagreement. Dougweller (talk) 12:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the simplest thing would be to move this over the redirect Islamic State. As long as both have hatnotes I can't see a problem. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 14:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources using the term "Islamic State". [22] [23].[24] [25] [26] [27]. These are major media sources including the Voice of America. Dougweller (talk) 14:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As "The Islamic State" is the correct translation of title from the Arabic, i.e. with the definite article, surely the article should be called "The Islamic State"? Is there no Arabic source which confirms this version of the name – for example, a document from ISIS itself? --P123ct1 (talk) 15:42, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

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: procedurally closed. Discussion ongoing in the section above. Jenks24 (talk) 12:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State of Iraq and Syria – Per WP:COMMONNAME. ISIS is widely used these days. Political analysts and media doesn't use the term ISIL anymore Rameshnta909 (talk) 15:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't seem appropriate given the discussion just above and I've asked the editor about it. It's now called the Islamic State. Dougweller (talk) 16:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The term Islamic state is used only by the organisation. Media and political analysts refers to it as isis now. Rameshnta909 (talk) 17:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ISIS stands for Islamic State of Iraq and Sham. I'm tired of discusing this. 3bdulelah (talk) 18:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not the english media. Most of them use ISIS and expansion they are giving is Iraq and syria. Rameshnta909 (talk) 20:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment whatever the merits of this are, starting a move request when there is another pending (above) is a procedural issue, so I suggest withdrawing it for now. Widefox; talk 01:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.

"It has at least 4,000 fighters in its ranks"? Is that a mistake?

The reference is hidden behind a paywall so I can't read it. Does this group actually have only 4000 people but somehow conquered most of two nations? I think they'd be rather outnumbered. Dream Focus 10:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It should read "4,000 fighters in its ranks IN IRAQ" - I have corrected the text. This is what the WSJ reference says. You should be able to read that article on Google; I put that in the footnote some weeks ago. The footnote says, "(subscription required) Accessible via Google". You Google the article's title and it brings up the same article but without the paywall. This applies to several footnotes in the ISIS article. --P123ct1 (talk) 19:55, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Flag

its top templet two flag its not systmatic top templeteAmt000 (talk) 02:35, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islamic_State&oldid=619622552"