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 172.58.108.145 (talk) at 04:51, 24 July 2017 (→Obama: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Syrian Civil War sanctions 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 (article contribs).

NOTE 1: This talk page has a history of high levels of activity. Please check to see whether your additional content can be added to an existing discussion section, and please make new section titles as precise as possible.

NOTE 2: Please complete citations attached to article content with fields such as Author, Title, URL, Date, Publisher/Work, Agency and Access Date. (See footnotes guide above.) (If you would like to copy the footnotes guide to your userpage, put this template in the Edit Page – {{User:P123ct1/My template}} – and it will display the guide.)

Page views

aka Evil Losers - 05:27, 25 May 2017

This is not an official name, and should not be considered as one simply because the POTUS uses it once. 131.111.185.69 (talk) 07:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On a more PROFESSIONAL note, "ISIL" is NOT an appropriate name. It is intended to discredit the legitimacy of Israel, thus justifying a destruction of Israel and the wholesale massacre of every Jew (and a lot of the Muslims as well). It is strictly anti-Semitic in nature, and Wikipedia, of all people, should NOT be supporting this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.65.85.167 (talk) 23:40, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
According to the article, ISIL is one translation of the group's Arabic name, Al-Dawla Al-Islamiya fi al-Iraq wa al-Sham. In that translation, notably used by the Associated Press, al-Sham is taken to mean the Levant.[1][2] I'm not entirely sure how that makes the term itself anti-Semitic, so you'll have to explain that in more detail. clpo13(talk) 23:53, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have attemtoped twice now to present the artivcels (WITH summaries, very kind of me right?), but Wikipedia keeps refusing to allow me to do so as "not constructive." I give up. In short, however, "Levant" means all of the region, thus nullifying Isreal. (And, could you remove the title "evil loosers"? it's "not constructive.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.65.85.167 (talk) 00:37, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that the United States of America having "America" in its name infringes upon the sovereignty of every state on the two (or one) continent(s). Likewise, having "Levant" in ISIL doesn't necessarily infringe upon Israel's independence, no matter the motive. Though ISIL's name may be that for that very reason, Wikipedia is no place to assume the truth. Also, as it is the literally translated name from Arabic, Wikipedia should use it, for the sake of neutrality, and for the sake of not censoring Wikipedia. Though it may be offensive, and probably is, Wikipedia is no space for verbal gentrification. alphalfalfa(talk) 00:01, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

doubtfull declaration of the end ISIL

I`m talking about this particular https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant&type=revision&diff=788110716&oldid=788063593 entry, that claims ISIL to no longer be active as of 29.June 2017. This seems a bit premature to me. Just because Iraqi security forces take the place ISIL declared it`s caliphate and Iraq declares to Caliphate to have ended, doesn`t mean the group no longer exists/is active. --1234567891011a (talk) 17:15, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted it.Retardednamingpolicy (talk) 18:26, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIR

Some terrorist breaks with ISIL and declares he's the new caliph. An Unreliable source reports this and an editor declares Bagdadi replaced. [3]. This is not the first time this editor has inserted wildly inappropriate "info" in ISIL pages recently. WP:CIR and any more of this an ISIL topic ban is in order. Legacypac (talk) 01:57, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 18 July 2017

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Technical Close. I have closed this RM as requested by the initiator of the RfC Batternut and because no other editor has raised an objection to me doing so since I stated I that would yesterday. Batternut has agreed not to use the RfC process to discuss the title of this article. As this is a technical close of an RM, and there has not been another RM in the last six months, there no prohibitions on an editor requesting an RM. PBS (talk) 15:27, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State (''to-be-decided'' qualifier) – See below this is relist of an RfC that I am closing because an RfC is the wrong process to request page moves. -- PBS (talk) 11:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Without a specific article title to discuss moving to, this Requested Move is incomplete. As OP of the RfC my intention was for discussion. I do not propose moving the article at this point. (PBS made this a Requested Move for his/her own reasons.) Batternut (talk) 12:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Usually a RM is not closed on the request of the nominator if others have commented. However as this started as an RfC and was converted by me I am willing to close it as a "Technical close", providing no one who has participated in the Rfc/RM objects. However I will only do this if Batternut agrees not to initiate any RfC process on this talk page for the purpose of discussing the article title, but instead agrees to use the RM process in its place. -- PBS (talk) 11:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@PBS: Response here. Batternut (talk) 22:00, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to Islamic State. At present there is no need for a qualifier. Most RSes use IS for the past year+. There is no competing Islamic State as a standalone usage (not part of a longer name with actual state, and usually shortened to state name in usual use).Icewhiz (talk) 18:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
closed RfC
== RfC Move Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant to Islamic State (to-be-decided qualifier) ==

{rfc|pol|reli|rfcid=3E5F86A} I have close this Rfc because the correct process to use for a requested move is WP:RM -- PBS (talk) 11:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be renamed "Islamic State (to-be-decided qualifier)".

The time has come to accept "Islamic State" as the name of this organization. We should follow WP:COMMONNAME - common usage is now "Islamic State" typically with some qualifer such as "so-called", "self-declared", "group", "terrorist group" etc. Such usage is now between 4 and 10 times "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant", so the current title is very and increasingly outdated. This has been researched bountifully before, archived here (July 2015), again here (Jan 2015) and more recently here (Mar 2017), and see table "Google result counts" below.

Key objections from the past discussions (see "previously nominated to be moved" above) have included:

  • "Islamic State" has other uses and is too generic: adding " (some qualifier)" deals with this.
  • They are neither Islamic nor a State: policy WP:TITLECHANGES says "the choice of title is not dependent on whether a name is "right" in a moral or political sense.
  • NPOV / wikipedia should not be a mouthpiece: how is the current title "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" less POV? It still contains the word Islamic, and imho the implicit suggestion that it is just an Iraqi/Levantine version of Islam and other Muslims need not take offence - that really is not OK particularly for the Iraqis, Levantines and Syrians implicated.
  • Locals and much American media call them Daesh: that is an abbreviation of an Arabic name, which translates to "al-Dawlah al-Islamīyah fī al-ʻIrāq wa-al-Shām". This is the English Wikipedia, and should use English. If someone wants it to be Daesh, they can raise a separate RfC or move request.
  • WP:TITLECHANGES "has been stable a long time" / WP:Recentism: the name change started 3-4 years ago, the current title has remained for that time, but has been out-dated for a large part of it; it is a mistake to confuse stability with simply avoiding recentism.

Batternut (talk) 11:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Google result counts (as of 4 Jul 2017)
search term book results news results (archives) news results (past year) scholar results
"Baghdadi" "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" about 1,390 about 11.5k 3,190 869
"Baghdadi" "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" about 1,320 about 4,080 439 741
"Baghdadi" "Islamic State" -"Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" -"Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" -"so called Islamic State" about 6,420 about 99k about 41k about 3,200

Note that this is an RFC, not a move request - the qualifier is still to-be-decided (TBD). If the concensus is to rename, then a subsequent discussion can choose the qualifier.

Batternut (talk) 11:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS In this debate, while welcoming reasoned arguments, can we please avoid wp:Wall of text postings?

Daesh is already a redirect.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 21:29, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

  • Support: as original poster, for the reasons I put in the RfC. Batternut (talk) 11:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - They've branched out of the initial Daesh (from which the English IL were added). They should be "Islamic State (qualifier denoting they are a non-recognized state / non-state actor)" - as per accepted usage. It is also unclear, at this time, how long they will remain in control the land they still nominally hold in Iraq and Syria while they have established footholds elsewhere (Nigeria, Sinai, Libya, etc.).Icewhiz (talk) 12:10, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: as original poster, per Batternut.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 21:26, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and Speedy Close this has been discussed to death and nothing has changed except the amount of land they control. We even had a moratorium on move requests. Further this is not a real proposal because it is vague and does not specify the proposed name. There is no confusion about what we are talking about with ISIL. We have a page for Islamic state already (confusingly similar) and it is a widely rejected name. We would not call a country Republic or Democracy or Kingdom with no geographic or ethnic qualifier. Legacypac (talk) 21:43, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Due to different capitalization, I think a better analogy for your final sentence would be if a country were to call itself "DeMoCracy" or something like that. In which case, I would argue that the wikipedia article for that country would indeed be located at DeMoCracy rather than any other title with disambiguation added. Capitalization is sufficient disambiguation. Also, remember that hatnotes are possible– if this article were located at Islamic State, we'd obviously have a hatnote saying something like
      For the system of government, see Islamic state.
      . Chessrat (talk, contributions) 03:03, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: At least until this is a defined proposed name, and I'll probably oppose it even then. ISIL remains in common use. I don't want to dignify this association of ragtag terrorists with anything like the proposed name. —Anomalocaris (talk) 05:37, 5 July 2017‎
  • Support - Prefer no qualifier. Would move current article at Islamic State to Islamic Nationalism or Islamic State (qualifier). I have a lot of sympathy with the oppose folks here. Clearly they're right to make their points about RECENTISM and AMBIGUITY. That said, the WP:COMMONNAME argument is pretty overwhelming. Essentially all media from the past year using the term Islamic State does so in the context of ISIS. Secondly, I think it's important to remember that just as consensus can change, so too can COMMONNAMEs change. Languages and terminologies change. For those who make the WP:RECENTISM argument, I'd ask; how long do we wait before making this change? If after a another year Islamic State is the common name for the group, do we change the title then? Two years? Ten years? How long? NickCT (talk) 12:46, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment User:Batternut as the proposer I suggest you add to your text above the survey subsection you preferred choice. Please sign the addition so that Anomalocaris comment in this bullet pointed list continues to make sense. -- PBS (talk) 12:16, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per any reading of WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NPOV that is even vaguely faithful to those standards (as well as WP:PRECISE amd WP:CONCISE for that matter). Look, I am totally sympathetic to the motivations of the OP/Supporters here; I've found myself dancing around the same kinds of issues with regard to ISIL-related articles when I've chanced upon them over the last couple of years. I personally moved the article "Military of ISIL" to Military activity of ISIL (after a consensus discussion) because I felt strongly that it was both highly inaccurate and deeply inappropriate to label the fighting force a legitimate military. But here the sources and the policies are just too strongly aligned against the proposal, and the move just runs to directly counter to our most basic policies on neutrality and verification. While I totally understand the urge to stick a qualifier in there to mark this extremist organization for what it is at work go, our encyclopedic policies tell us in absolutely explicit terms that we are not allowed to change a title based on whether it is "'right' in a moral or political sense". That guideline could not be more clear, and this is an utterly paradigmatic example of attempting to do just that, for exactly that reason. We have many articles on this project which adopt (as a principle of building an encyclopedia) the common name of a topic which may seem peculiar or even offensive to rational persons. But there are good reasons, in terms of encyclopedia building, to stick to them, even in those idiosyncratic occasions where it makes us blanch at the thought of going with the common name. Snow let's rap 23:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On a side note of a procedural nature, I should note that WP:RfCs are meant to be presented in a fashion that is neutral to the competing views, whereas the OP in this instance has definitely and exclusively emphasized the arguments for their preferred approach, at length I don't think it's going to have much of an impact on the responses here, but it's something you'll want to keep in mind for future RfCs, Batternut. Snow let's rap 23:30, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The same rules for a RM do not apply "Note: Unlike other request processes on Wikipedia, such as RfC, nominations need not be neutral." -- PBS (talk) 07:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
General procedural note: this was an RfC at the time I made my previous comment.Snow let's rap 07:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Islamic State does get a lot of mileage in common media, but I don't think it's nearly as common as ISIL. (Batternut's search results above do not factor in a number of important variables, including but not limited to: A) The prolific use of the acronyms (ISIL and ISIS especially), B) the fact that the vast, vast majority of search results are not WP:RS and thus cannot be considered as part of the WP:WEIGHT of editorial decisions on this project, and C) the fact that Google's search algorithms take massive liberties with Boolean functions such as "do not include".)
Then there's the disambiguation concerns; unfortunately, I think the position that there is some precedent with regard to disambiguating via capitalization is a bit of a non-sequitor to the present circumstances. It's hard to imagine two topics that are more different than a blackberry and a BlackBerry, and confusion for our readers and editors in that situation is unlikely. On the other hand, there's a huge overlap in the topics you propose should have titles that are identical but for the capitalization of one word. ISIL named itself as it did specifically because its leadership views the group as an Islamic state, and models itself as such.
Maybe there's still a WP:COMMONNAME argument to support your approach and overcome the other concerns, but I for one would need to see more evidence first, in the form of an analysis exclusively of a large body of RS, not random Google searches that are subject to all kinds of potential misleading influences on the results. Snow let's rap 07:48, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion

The last moratorium was in September 2015, it expired last year. Batternut (talk) 22:49, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]


What has changed (since the last naming discussion) except the amount of land they control? WP:Recentism, a factor in the last full discussion, no longer applies to the new name. Batternut (talk) 23:11, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No new names have emerged for ISIL since they tried to declare they ruled the world. No government has accepted or uses their preferred name. Some media abbreviate ISIL/ISIS to make shorter headlines. Our article has a huge section on why the world rejecxted their terrorist preferred name. So this proposal runs counter to the article itself. There are no new arguments for any name change except calling the terrorist by their preferred name - a name they will cut your tongue out if you refuse to use. Sorry I'm siding with all the governments in the world, the UN and Reliable Sources, not the terrorists. Legacypac (talk) 05:55, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a Reuters piece from today I ran across - [4]. All "Islamic State". No ISIS, ISIL, or "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant". The use of ISIL/ISIS has mainly fallen out of use in the past two years - and users of ISIS/ISIL are usually POV-pushing the view that "Islamic State" is a terrorist organization. While they may indeed be such, it is not our place to make POV qualifications such as these. We should use the name they use to call themselves, and which is used by major international news orgs.Icewhiz (talk) 08:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Some Government usage stats (re the "I'm siding with all the Governments in the world" argument). Here are the results of some searches I hadn't tried before, showing relative usage of ISIL vs IS by inner circle nations of English speakers. It appears that "Islamic State" is pretty popular in the larger English-speaking governments of the world, even where official policy dictates otherwise:

Government usage Google counts (as of 5 Jul 2017)
search term .gov + .mil .gov.uk + .parliament.uk .gc.ca[a] .gov.au .gov.ie .govt.nz tot
"Baghdadi" "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" 39 16 0 27 0 2 84
"Baghdadi" "Islamic State" -"Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" -"Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" -"so called Islamic State" -"Islamic State of Iraq" 50 27 0 25 0 16 118

Notes

  1. ^ Exclusively uses Daesh

Batternut (talk) 09:28, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Like all the Google stats before presented here - you can't show that "Islamic State" beats "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" or ISIS or ISIL or "group" because all these terms include the words "Islamic State" within them. Also Daish is short for ISIL/ISIS not "Islamic State" so we must count all versions of Diash toward the longer name. Legacypac (talk) 09:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tch, learn what "-" does before a search term! Of course it is not simple as a quick search: typically authors use one term, but add "... also known as IS/ISIL/ISIS etc", spelled out or abbreviated; also the citing of sources introduces alternative terms. Quite tediously I have just been through all 60 results for site:gov "Baghdadi" "Islamic State" - to see which terms are favoured by US government authors, ie filtering out the aka ..., citations etc, and the other chaff Google finds. With that removed, the numbers are small, but perhaps better indicate US government policy (to use 'ISIL') and reality. My conclusion is that US government bodies definitely use "Islamic State", especially recently, though only half as much as simple searching suggests. That governments will be last to use this new name is no surprise.
year Islamic State Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant Islamic State of Iraq and Syria Daesh / Da'esh
2017 3 0 2 0
2016 4 9 3 1
total 10 20 9 2

Batternut (talk) 14:48, 6 July 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Rfc to RM

I have closed the RfC and reopend it as an RM because the requested moves process is the best one to use for requested moves. This is for several reasons:

  1. Generally it is a shorter process so decisions are reached more quickly.
  2. It tends to attract more editors who have an interest and expertise in page titles over and above those who lurk around the talk page of a specific article. An RfC is less likely to attract such expertise.
  3. The process and closing of an RM is tailored made for moving pages. It includes a move review option for anyone thinks that the process had not been followed correctly.

I have done this as an administrator under "Page restrictions" of the discretionary sanctions that operate on this page, and I will not be involved in the discussion or the close. If you wish to question this decision then in the first instance please leave a message on my talk page. -- PBS (talk) 12:01, 18 July 2017 (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.

Qualifier for Islamic State article title

I have converted that RfC to a RM because most people do not want to have to take part in two discussions and if there is a different outcome between the RfC and the RM there will be discord and conflict. So use the RM above to decide the issue -- PBS (talk) 12:10, 18 July 2017 (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.

To help the above discussion, and to prepare for a concrete Move Request, let us consider which qualifier will be most acceptable. Applicable policy is at WP:TITLE#Disambiguation. My initial thoughts are:

  • Islamic State (group)
  • Islamic State (so-called)
  • Islamic State (terrorist group)
  • Islamic State (self proclaimed)

My own inclination would be for "group", though I'm not that bothered... Batternut (talk) 15:00, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would oppose "group" because ISIL/IS really is not a group, but an actual proto-state that controls territory, has a functioning government, has laws, raises taxes, keeps an army that is far more than a mere militia and is extremely bureaucratic. I know however that people would probably run amok if anything containing "state" would be in the article title. So I support "Islamic State (so-called)" or "Islamic State (self proclaimed)". Applodion (talk) 21:27, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Some examples of "(group)" disambiguations include Lehi (group) (Yitzhak Shamir's old "paramilitary" organization), The O (political group) (a US Maoist group), and Anonymous (group), none of which have (yet) raised taxes or held territory. Neither "so-called" nor "self proclaimed" have not been used for disambiguation before, so are free of precedent. Batternut (talk) 12:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have just noticed that the Arabic wiki article for these guys is "تنظيم الدولة الإسلامية (داعش)", which translates to "Islamic Country Group (Daesh)". Though entertainingly derogatory, the name "Daesh" carries a definite POV with it, which is why I do not suggest Islamic State (Daesh). Batternut (talk) 12:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds a little like you are POV pushing this change to further the Daesh agenda - ie don't want to use a degrogatory term in the title. Daesh is widely used in the middle east and france especially. ISIL is the English equivalent. So you need to add all the ISIS+ISIL+Daesh variations together as they are functionally equivilent terms to balance against the POV terrorist favored option. Legacypac (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this bunch of cut-throats, I hereby declare my POV - I don't like them, and am happy to see them kicked out of Mosul and elsewhere. Regarding the question at hand, the title of this article, I prefer direct speaking over a they who shall not be named type of approach; and I think sticking with the IS in Iraq/Syria tag is a bit unfair on the long-suffering Iraqis and Syrians, since most of the banditos shafting them and their countries are foreigners. Batternut (talk) 21:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Legacypac: Re "add all the ISIS+ISIL+Daesh variations together" - I have done a little more research. (I know you like the stats, Legacypac ;-) Googling news search for terms "Mosul" and "Abadi" from 9th Jul 2017 - today - ie focussing on Abadi's declaration of Mosul's liberation. In summary, 64% of news sites are using just "Islamic State", 25% are not using "Islamic State" at all, and 11% are using both. I don't buy the "add all the ISIS+ISIL+Daesh variations together" argument anyway, but even doing so IS still has over double all the rest. (full data below). FYI "Islamic State of the Iraq and Levant"/ISIL is at only 4%. Batternut (talk) 15:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Data re news search for terms "Mosul" and "Abadi" from 9th Jul 2017 - today (~ 15:00 CET 12th July)
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=mosul+abadi&num=100&lr=lang_en&client=ubuntu&channel=fs&biw=1908&bih=928&source=lnt&tbs=lr%3Alang_1en%2Ccdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A7%2F9%2F2017%2Ccd_max%3A&tbm=nws

Google news search (English language) for "mosul" "abadi" from 9th Jul 2017 - today (~ 15:00 CET 12th July)
Ignoring multiple pages from the same domain, and domains with 7-digit Alexa rank)

Subtotals (of 5):  Islamic State 3, ISIS 1, (Islamic State & ISIS 1)
Subtotals (of 15): Islamic State 8, ISIL 1, ISIS 1, Daesh 1, Daesh/ISIL 1, (Islamic State & ISIS 3)
Subtotals (of 16): Islamic State 10, ISIS 5, Daesh 1
Subtotals (of 17): Islamic State 13, ISIS 2, (Islamic State & ISIS 2)

Totals (of 53):		Islamic State 34, ISIS 9, Daesh 2, Daesh & ISIL 1, ISIL 1, (Islamic State & ISIS 6)
Percentage using purely "Islamic State": 64% (34 of 53)
ISIS/Daesh/ISIL combined: 25% (13 of 53)
(percentage using both 6/53 = 11%)
(percentage using ISIL alone or in combo 2/53 = 4%)

Alexa rank
Global	Name (abbreviation)			url
------	----						---

96		so-called Islamic State (IS)		http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-40558836
153		Islamic State (IS) terrorist group	http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2017-07/09/c_136430217.htm
491		Islamic State				https://in.reuters.com/article/mideast-crisis-iraq-mosul-idINKBN19W0O4
602		Islamic State (ISIS)		http://www.npr.org/2017/07/10/536392956/iraqs-prime-minister-celebrates-win-over-isis-in-mosul
865		ISIS						http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/iraq-pm-abadi-arrives-mosul-declare-victory-over-isis-n781066
--
Subtotals (of 5): Islamic State 3, ISIS 1, (Islamic State & ISIS 1)

1,027	Islamic State group	(IS)	http://www.news.com.au/world/middle-east/iraqi-prime-minister-haider-alabadi-arrives-in-liberated-mosul/news-story/f3c0f69ea61229d1a78e3b6dbc67cd00
1,077	ISIS						http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/07/09/iraq_celebrates_victory_over_isis_in_mosul.html
1,031	Islamic State				http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/latest-state-tv-iraqi-prime-minister-arrives-mosul-48530611
1,258	Islamic State (IS)			http://www.thehindu.com/news/g20-summit-mosul-liberation-burhan-wani-and-more-top-stories-for-today/article19245427.ece
1,997	Islamic State of the Iraq and Levant (ISIL)		http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/07/mosul-170710160305183.html
2,116	Islamic State (IS)			https://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/world/Iraq-PM-in-Mosul-to-celebrate-IS-defeat-556980
3,734	Daesh						https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017/07/10/iraqi-prime-minister-haider-al-abadi-declares-total-victory-over-daesh-in-mosul.html
5,979	Islamic State (ISIS)		http://www.nrttv.com/en/Details.aspx?Jimare=15512
6,638	Daesh (ISIL)				http://english.almanar.com.lb/301123
1,118	Islamic State (ISIS)		http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Mosul-Liberated-as-Islamic-State-Faces-Total-11275706.php
1,181	Islamic State				http://www.marketwatch.com/story/iraqis-celebrate-impending-liberation-of-mosul-from-islamic-state-2017-07-09
1,928	Islamic State (IS)			http://www.smh.com.au/comment/islamic-state-is-now-just-another-terrorist-group-competing-for-recruits-20170712-gx9n0z.html
6,140	Islamic State				https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/mosul-iraq-prime-minister-haider-al-abadi-hails-victory-over-islamicstate-2jwx0qq86
4,821	Islamic State				https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/07/10/iraqs-abadi-declare-mosul-victory
6,629	Islamic State (ISIS)		http://theweek.com/5things/711053/iraqi-prime-minister-declares-total-victory-mosul
--
Subtotals (of 15): Islamic State 8, ISIL 1, ISIS 1, Daesh 1, Daesh/ISIL 1, (Islamic State & ISIS 3)

17,388	ISIS						http://www.rudaw.net/english/middleeast/iraq/100720174
10,638	Islamic State				http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/the-conversation/sd-iraq-victory-in-mosul-20170710-htmlstory.html
15,342	Daesh						http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2017/07/10/528062/headlines
29,058	ISIS						https://www.outlookindia.com/newsscroll/trump-praises-iraqi-american-soldiers-post-isis-defeat-in-mosul/1097010/?next
33,669	Islamic State (IS) 			http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/en/originals/2017/07/mosul-iraq-abadi-isis.html
36,192	ISIS						https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10654/mosul-iraq-challenges
36,912	Islamic State				https://news.trust.org/item/20170710111929-aayw0 (Reuters)
31,409	Islamic State (IS)			http://www.courant.com/nation-world/ct-iraqi-troops-mosul-militants-20170709-story.html
50,837	Islamic State				https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/international/middle-east/150079-170710-iraq-s-pm-officially-declares-victory-over-islamic-state-in-mosul
62,647	Islamic State (IS)			http://news.kuwaittimes.net/website/amir-congratulates-iraq-mosuls-liberation/
66,474	ISIS						http://www.localsyr.com/news/world-news/inside-the-last-battle-for-mosul/762256962
71,386	mythical terrorist (ISIS)	https://www.dailypioneer.com/world/iraq-pm-declares-victory-over-isis-in-mosul.html
14,201	Islamic State (IS)			http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/nationworld/ct-iraqi-troops-mosul-militants-20170709-story.html
16,279	Islamic State (IS)			http://guardian.ng/news/iraqi-prime-minister-hails-victory-over-brutality-and-terrorism-in-mosul/
47,551	Islamic State				http://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/news/eu-hails-the-liberation-of-mosul-from-islamic-state/
71,946	Islamic State				http://www.centralmaine.com/2017/07/09/iraq-prime-minister-declares-victory-in-mosul/
--
Subtotals (of 16): Islamic State 10, ISIS 5, Daesh 1

153,249	ISIS militants				https://www.newsbytesapp.com/timeline/world/8719/49506/battle-for-mosul-2
349,296	Islamic State (IS)			http://www.caledonianrecord.com/news/world/iraqi-declares-total-victory-over-islamic-state-in-mosul/article_d320da20-5279-5683-b9ed-5664e9ef5e87.html
459,618	Islamic State				http://ravallirepublic.com/news/world/article_2c30550a-4f55-58ec-a082-86474a8dc712.html
107,528	Islamic State 				http://www.waow.com/story/35842594/2017/07/Sunday/state-tv-iraqi-prime-minister-arrives-in-mosul-to-declare-victory
109,425	Islamic State (IS)			https://www.ecns.cn/2017/07-10/264725.shtml
217,891	Islamic State (IS)			http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/international/2017-07-11/battle-for-mosul-iraqi-pm-declares-victory-over-is-militants-as-us-warns-of-continued-threat/1685046
491,270	Islamic State (IS)			https://www.cachevalleydaily.com/news/world/article_841e7376-dde0-59b8-b0fe-85634e59559c.html
109,571	Islamic State (IS)			http://www.theday.com/article/20170709/NWS13/170709377
114,543	Islamic State (ISIS, IS)	http://fox11online.com/news/nation-world/iraqi-troops-push-to-clear-last-mosul-ground-of-isis-militants
792,945	Islamic State (IS)			http://www.stowetoday.com/news_and_citizen/news/world_news/al-abadi-tours-part-of-mosul-on-foot-under-heavy/html_cfb129fe-86e9-5bdd-a4a8-be9de2af48c0.html (hover to see)
255,018	Islamic State group (IS)	http://www.morningjournal.com/article/MJ/20170710/NEWS/170719993
256,330	Islamic State				http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=48505:iraqi-prime-minister-congratulates-armed-forces-for-mosul-victory&catid=115:middle-east
148,534	ISIS						http://www.good4utah.com/news/world-news/inside-the-last-battle-for-mosul/762257192
860,399	Islamic State group			http://www.redbluffdailynews.com/article/ND/20170710/NEWS/170719993
133,265	Islamic State (ISIS)		http://wsbt.com/news/nation-world/iraqi-troops-push-to-clear-last-mosul-ground-of-isis-militants
932,326	Islamic State (IS)			http://www.dudleynews.co.uk/news/15404921.National_news__Air_strikes_target_remaining_Islamic_State_militants_in_Mosul/
312,227	Islamic State (IS)			http://www.news-sentinel.com/news/us-and-world/the-latest-iraqi-pm-celebrates-in-mosul-but-battle-ongoing_20170709&profile=1029
--
Subtotals (of 17): Islamic State 13, ISIS 2, (Islamic State & ISIS 2)


Ignored (Alexa 1M+)
	http://www.bromsgroveadvertiser.co.uk/news/15404921.National_news__Air_strikes_target_remaining_Islamic_State_militants_in_Mosul/
	https://www.ruidosonews.com/story/news/world/2017/07/09/iraqi-pm-arrives-in-mosul/462658001/
	http://redriverradio.org/post/mosul-has-been-liberated-isis-control-iraqs-prime-minister-says
	http://www.jewishvoiceny.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=18533:iraqi-pm-declares-victory-over-oppression-brutality-terrorism-as-mosul-is-liberated-from-is&catid=106&Itemid=772

Ignored (duplicate dom)
	http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2017/07/11/528164/Lebanon-Hezbollah-Nasrallah-Mosul-liberation-Daesh-terrorists-Middle-East
	http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/07/11/leader-al-baghdadi-reported-dead-after-loss-mosul
	http://abcnews.go.com/International/iraqi-prime-minister-al-abadi-declares-victory-isis/story?id=48532013
	https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-iraq-mosul-idUSKBN19V105
	http://www.nrttv.com/en/Details.aspx?Jimare=15546
	http://fox11online.com/news/nation-world/state-tv-iraqi-prime-minister-arrives-in-mosul
	https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-mideast-crisis-iraq-mosul-idUKKBN19W0NR
	http://ravallirepublic.com/news/world/article_f580233b-7ec7-5a8b-a70f-a213ed31dbbc.html
	http://www.nrttv.com/en/Details.aspx?Jimare=15494


Daesh is not derogatory - it was self used (until the declaration of the caliphate). Others used it is as a derogatory statement towards various people/groups, but it is just an acronym - the English ISIL is a direct translation of the four arabic letters. I would qualify Islamic State (group) - as long as the extent of their territory is in flux (as it is at present).Icewhiz (talk) 13:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Obama

Obama is the founder of ISIS

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islamic_State&oldid=792052519"