Misplaced Pages

Talk:Islamic State: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:20, 15 October 2014 editTechnophant (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers4,780 edits change archive algo to 14 days← Previous edit Latest revision as of 17:15, 13 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,308,054 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Islamic State/Archive 44) (bot 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{pbneutral}} {{Skip to talk}}
{{talk header}} {{Talk header||search=no}}
{{Notice|heading=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.}}
{{Syrian Civil War sanctions}}
{{Notice|heading=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.) <small>(If you would like to copy the footnotes guide to your userpage, put this template in the Edit Page – <nowiki>{{</nowiki>]<nowiki>}}</nowiki> – and it will display the guide.)</small>}}
{{WikiProjectBanners|1=
{{Controversial}}
{{WikiProject Iraq|class=c|importance=high}}
{{censor}}
{{MILHIST|class=C|b1=n|b2=y|b3=y|b4=y|b5=y|Middle-Eastern=yes}}
{{Not a forum}}
{{WikiProject Syria|class=c|importance=mid}}
{{Calm}}
{{WPARAB|class=c|importance=}}
{{Round in circles}}
{{WikiProject Terrorism|class=c|importance=mid}}
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}}
{{British English|date=December 2014}}
{{afd-merged-from|Ajnad Foundation|Ajnad Foundation|19 July 2020}}
{{Old peer review|reviewedname=Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant|archive=1}}
{{Afd-merged-from|Worldwide caliphate|Worldwide caliphate|8 September 2022|8 September 2022}}
{{On this day|date1=2015-04-08|oldid1=655155477|date2=2017-04-08|oldid2=774405852|date3=2020-04-08|oldid3=949717701}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Arab world|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|terrorism=yes|terrorism-imp=top|importance=Mid|organizedcrime=yes|organizedcrime-imp=Top}}
{{WikiProject International relations|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Iraq|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Islam|importance=high|Islam-and-Controversy=yes|Salaf=y|Sunni=y}}
{{WikiProject Military history|class=B|b1=y|b2=y|b3=y|b4=y|b5=y|Middle-Eastern=yes|Post-Cold-War=yes|African=yes|Asian=yes}}
{{WikiProject Organizations|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Syria|importance=high}}
}} }}
{{Press|collapsed=yes
{{auto archiving notice|bot=lowercase sigmabot III|age=14|small=yes}}
| org = Olean Times Herald
| url = http://www.oleantimesherald.com/commentary/article_2d97b474-cd8b-11e4-993b-439f0998aecc.html
| date = March 18, 2015
| title= ISIS not the Islamic state it fiercely claims to be
| quote = "I approach Misplaced Pages cautiously as to whether its abundant information on a multitude of subjects is complete and authoritative. But I salute the site for its numerous citations concerning the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS — specifically the "criticism of the name 'Islamic State' and 'caliphate' declaration" (found under its entry for the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant)."
}}
{{Gs/talk notice|scwisil}}

{{Other banners|collapsed=yes|
{{Annual report|] and ]}}
{{Top 25 Report|Aug 3 2014 (9th)|Aug 10 2014 (12th)|Aug 17 2014 (5th)|Aug 24 2014 (5th)|Aug 31 2014 (3rd)|Sep 7 2014 (5th)|Sep 14 2014 (3rd)|Sep 21 2014 (2nd)|Sep 28 2014 (12th)|Oct 5 2014 (12th)|Oct 12 2014 (12th)|Oct 19 2014 (24th)|Feb 1 2015 (14th)|Feb 8 2015 (20th)|Feb 15 2015 (11th)|Feb 22 2015 (15th)|Mar 1 2015 (18th)|Mar 8 2015 (17th)|Jun 28 2015 (22nd)|Nov 8 2015 (6th)|Nov 15 2015 (2nd)|Nov 22 2015 (10th)|Nov 29 2015 (20th)|Dec 6 2015 (13th)}}
{{Old moves
| list =
*See ''Older discussions'' (below this list) for a list of twelve earlier requested moves and discussions.
* ] '''Agreed''' 14 Aug – 19 Sep 2015
* RM, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → ISIS, '''Not moved''', 20 Oct – 27 Oct 2016, ]
* RM ] → ] '''Technical Close''' 4–23 July 2017, ]
* RM ] → ] '''Moved'''. 30 August – 22 September 2021.
* RM ] → ] '''Not moved'''. 18 May – 26 May 2022.
| oldlist =
# Islamic State of Iraq and Syria → Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, '''Moved''', 13 August 2013, ]
# RM, Islamic State '''in''' Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, '''Not moved''' (but moved back to "Islamic State '''of''' Iraq and the Levant"), 12 June 2014, ]
# RM, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → The Islamic State, '''No consensus''', 29 June 2014, ]
# RM, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, '''Procedurally closed''', 31 July 2014, ]
# RM, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State, '''Not moved''', 8 August 2014, ]
# Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State (organization), '''Quick close''', 20 August 2014, ]
#Content discussion, References in the text: ISIS or ISIL?, '''ISIL chosen''', 17 Sept – 26 Sept 2014, ]
# RM, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State, '''Not moved''', 7 Sept – 30 Sept 2014, ]
# RM, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State (Organisation), '''No consensus''', 17 Sep – 3 Oct 2014, ]
# RM, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State (islamist rebel group), '''No consensus''', 9 Jan – 17 Jan 2015, ]
# RM, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State, '''Not moved''', 19 Apr – 20 Apr 2015, ]
# RM, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State (IS), '''Not moved''', 15 Jul – 29 Jul 2015, ]}}
{{Merged-from|Khilafah.is|29 November 2015|target=ISIL#Propaganda and social media}}
{{Annual readership}}
{{section sizes}}
}}

{{anchor|FootnoteDirective}}

<!--
{{anchor|Moratorium on Requested Moves}}{{anchor|Requested Moves}}{{anchor|Moratorium}}
{{Notice|image=Stop hand nuvola.svg|header=Moratorium on Requested Moves|1=Notice: There is an ] on Requested Moves (page renames) until 7 January 2015.-->

<!--Archive-->
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo=old(14d) | algo=old(60d)
| archive=Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/Archive %(counter)d | archive=Talk:Islamic State/Archive %(counter)d
| counter=13 | counter=44
| maxarchivesize=100K | maxarchivesize=75K
| archiveheader={{Talk archive navigation}} | archiveheader={{Talk archive navigation}}
| minthreadsleft=6 | minthreadsleft=5
| minthreadstoarchive=1 | minthreadstoarchive=1
}} }}
<!--Index archive in target-->
{{Split from|page=Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn|diff=http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Tanzim_Qaidat_al-Jihad_fi_Bilad_al-Rafidayn&diff=625559514&oldid=614906433 |date= 14 September 2014}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
{{round in circles}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |target=/Archive index
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |mask=/Archive <#>
|leading_zeros=0
|indexhere=yes
}} }}
{{anchor|Footnote_2}}{{anchor|FootnoteHatnote}}
{{findnotice}}
<!--Talk discussions must go below this line-->
{{collapse top|Requested moves to date}}
#]; 13 August '''2013'''; ] → ]; Moved
#]; 29 June '''2014'''; ] → ]; not moved
#]; 29 June 2014; ] → ]; no consensus
#]; 31 July 2014; ] → ]; Procedurally closed
#]; 8 August 2014; ] → ]; Not moved. Clear consensus against simply "Islamic State".
#]; 20 August 2014; ] → ]; Quick close (no move)
#];7 September 2014; ] → ]; Not moved, rough consensus against
#];17 September 2014; ] → ]; No consensus for the move
{{collapse bottom}}
== AQI ("Al-Qaeda in Iraq") name changes ==

Quote:

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

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

<small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 06:58, 24 August 2014</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

== link to this article should be added ==

] - should be added as the article maintains that several different bodies have designated ISIL as terrorist and this clarifies that and why some do not call them terrorists.
<small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 07:27, 28 September 2014</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

== Animated GIF showing territorial evolution ==

We should have an animated GIF showing the territorial evolution of this group over time, similar to this one for the Rashidun caliphate here:

]

It wouldn't be that hard to do, we could just blend all the maps we've posted so far as slides, adding dates in the corner as show. ] (]) 23:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
:God help us all if ISIL sees that kind of success. People keep debating what color the desert should be on the maps ... ] (]) 08:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
::Here, the expansion of the Caliphate is pretty much solely at the expanse of two entity's, Persia (which was totally conquered), and the Eastern Roman Empire (which set them on their historic course of consolidating around Anatolia and the Balkans). Both of these had been weakened by decades of fighting among each other as well. This was also a time period when it wasn't exactly uncommon for "barbarian" nomads with greater fighting spirit to utterly destroy civilized neighbors when combined. ISIS, on the other hand, is heavily contained by the existence of several very powerful militarizes in the region that would make short work of them, Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Egypt. They can only really exist in a small web of weak and/or fragmented states, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon. They've also shown little ability to expand outside of their Sunni base. As well, if you'll remember, they are only a descendant of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, and AQI, at it's height, had a lot more extensive control in Iraq itself, holding roughly half of Baghdad and penetrating deeply into Shi'a areas in the south ISIS has mostly stayed out of.] (]) 07:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
::I am sure that they are not short of statements regarding any areas progress that may have been achieved. Success is an interesting word. Some of them will regard their own military deaths as signs of success. I don't personally have an opinion one way or the other with regard to the inclusion of these maps. We are not here to Censor and one advantage of publishing the time framed maps is that it might provide a clearer indication of ways that historical incursions into the related territories may have fucked up. ISIL HAVE HAD a rapid expansion which I believe has slowed and in some places been reversed but the actual nature of the facts is an irrelevance. I don't see an intrinsic problem with maps. "God", however, may be a different story. It may be argued that he or she has caused enough problems already. ] ] 16:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

IS' territory changed in daily basis so i believe animation is inapplicable in this situation. <span style="font-size: 125%; font-family: New Times Roman;">]</span> 17:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

== An RM to ISIS? ==

Obviously it would just be a request which could then be debated but I thought it best to check provisional views. ] ] 16:07, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
::No. Please stop. There is no need to be constantly debating the title. Leave it well alone. We've had enough move requests already. ] — ] 17:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
{{od}}
See my comment when making the last RM close. I suggested that there is a moratorium on requested moves for 3 months (until the new year). There comes a point where continual debate over the name of an article becomes ] and I think that now there have seven requests this year with four requests in the last two months, and many other sections taken up with discussions about the name, that point has been reached. It becomes disruptive when editors time is taken up in endless debates over the name, when the limited time that editors have can better be spent improving this and other articles. Consensus can change, but it is unlikely to change in such a short period, so wait until after the new year then if an editor thinks that usage in reliable sources justifies a request then make one. In the mean time If I think that editors are being disruptive over this issue then I will take administrative action under the ] that apply to this page. -- ] (]) 18:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="font-size:100%; margin-top: 0.2em;"
|-
! class="navbox-title" style="background-color:#f2dfce;" | This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
|-
| style="font-style:italic;" | The following discussion has been closed. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>
|-
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: #fcf4ef; text-align: left;" |

::How about this disruption on other related articles where people are complaining about changes of "Islamic State" to ISIL? ] (]) 20:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
:LOL. You ask a question. You get an answer. However, as ] may be indicating, There can be problems related to the use of titles and content "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" and "ISIL" when the most commonly used terminologies used elsewhere are "ISIS" and, unfortunately, "Islamic State". ] ] 20:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

::It all depends on which newspaper or tv network you watch. If you go to the primary sources ((like UN Security Council resolutions, acts in Parliament/Congress) things become very clear that ISIL is the name. ] (]) 21:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
:::'''Please remember''' that the change from ISIS to ISIL was done with the '''consensus''' of editors here. I made a note of it on the Talk page at the end of that discussion especially, so that editors did not subsequently try to say it was never decided. (See #15.) --] (]) 21:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
::::Very true but that move was made within article content as a valid move to bring consistency with the article's relevant but relatively unsupported title. ] and ] arguably apply within the general remit of ]. ] does its own thing and MoS follows. ] ] 09:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
The difference between ISIS and ISIL is mostly the semantic navel gazing. The actual issue is whether or not to use the group's real name. Moratoriums on dynamic conventions make no sense. As reliable sources shift so must we, that's what we do. I'll be putting together an RfC on the subject in the next week or so as more and more independent and third party reliable sources make affirmative declarations on the proper use of the group's actual name. ] (]) 22:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
:That's essentially ], fellow, and an attempt to push a ]. Two RMs only recently closed on this matter. There is no need to hold another one for at least a month. As far as I'm concerned, there is no such thing as a "real" name. The present title is not so grievously wrong that we need a new RM every five minutes. Please find a different ]. ] — ] 23:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
::No thanks, I'll right this one. As for forum shopping? I don't think so. You should reread that linked material; forum shopping is the constant reintroduction of the same material or the dispersion of duplicate material to disparate venues. As the body of reliable sources has substantially changed in the past couple of weeks to reflect changed conditions this is not duplicate material. In fact, it's a very dynamic subject. I'll be listing the RfC at interested projects and here. Feel free to participate. ] (]) 23:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
:::This page, and related pages are filled with debates and proposed article moves on exactly what you want an RFC for. The issue is closed per consensus on ISIL and/or ISIL fully spelled out. See Admin ] comments above. ] (]) 00:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
::::Closed? I see no binding arbitration on a move for this article. You must be thinking of something else. ] (]) 05:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Editor ] just of ] to go back to Islamic State and ISIS exclusively. The editor's comments above and this revert fails to follow consensus and may indicate intent to edit war. None of the articles need that. I would strongly urge not continuing the battle over names. ] (]) 05:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
:"Needlessly" and "cleanup" are both loaded and without adequate explanation. I would suggest that my edits up to this point "indicate" a desire to follow the lead of reliable sources. If you have any example which demonstrates otherwise please produce it. ] (]) 06:46, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
::Your statements in this thread seem to indicate a plan to do exactly what you have been warned not to do - attempt to change the article name. Volumes of evidence have been presented already. The revert of my edit seems to be retaliatory and/or to prove your point rather than to improve the article. Rather than get into a battle over this, I put it to the for uninvolved assistence. Please try to be constructive and respect consensus over names. ] (]) 07:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
:::Thank you. There is an unaccountable obsession with the name. It has dominated discussions for too long and is wasting editors' time. --] (]) 08:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

:::Warned? You seem to be under the impression that there is some sort of binding resolution in play. You're wrong. The article title in question should be changed because it's wrong according to our policies. Still, this is tangential to the article you've linked to. I've made changes that revert the passages to the sources to which they are attributed. That the sources undermine your assertions is adverse to your position, not mine. ] (]) 08:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
::::See your talk page where I explain. Not interested in further debate. Thanks. ] (]) 09:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::I very much doubt you're "not interested in further debate". Still, if I'm wrong, that's great news for me. I'll continue my pattern of editing without your injections. ] (]) 09:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

], rightly notes that there has been an "obsession with the name" but I think that this can be accounted for in the fact that the Non-Islamic, Non-State as Ban-Ki Moon described it has made an unethical choice in regard to their self-designation and various news outlets and agencies, significantly Reuters, have pandered to it.

A copy of collapsed text from the top of the page:
{{collapse top|Requested moves to date}}
#]; 13 August '''2013'''; ] → ]; Moved
#]; 29 June '''2014'''; ] → ]; not moved
#]; 29 June 2014; ] → ]; no consensus
#]; 31 July 2014; ] → ]; Procedurally closed
#]; 8 August 2014; ] → ]; Not moved. Clear consensus against simply "Islamic State".
#]; 20 August 2014; ] → ]; Quick close (no move)
#];7 September 2014; ] → ]; Not moved, rough consensus against
#];17 September 2014; ] → ]; No consensus for the move
{{collapse bottom}}

Its worth noting that an RM to ISIS as yet untried (but it's just an option and is not something that I ever intended to push). ] ] 10:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

::True, but the page formerly at ] was recently moved after a month long RfC to ] with strong agreement to move away from ISIS. And this page was moved from the long form of ISIS and attempts to move it back failed. So after 5 failed attempts to move to versions of just "Islamic State" just on this article since June, and other attempts on related articles I can see why ] said he is willing to take action against disruptive editors. ] (]) 10:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

*Google trends: very conclusive results towards ISIS.
*Google trends:
*Google trends:
] ] 10:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
|}
:I was one of the ones making an RM request, but now ( and before reading the above the suggestion) I do think there needs to be a 60+ day moratorium on move requests. ] says "If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed." One good reason not to change it is because all previous attempts have not gained consensus. This moratorium should only apply to article renaming, not uses of names in the article itself.~] <small>(])</small> 03:55, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
::Usually the name used in an article title is used within an article (because the MOS favours consistency). In this case there has been a recent discussion held "]" over whether to use "ISIS" to "ISIL" within the article. I suggest that you add your view to that section. -- ] (]) 13:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

==Apologies to editors==
I have messed up a revert I tried to do. I tried to revert and in the process reverted to a much earlier version of the page! Don't know quite how it happened. I have made a list of editors' missing edits and am putting them back in. Sorry! --] (]) 20:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

:You need to be dragged off to ANi, sanctioned, called nasty names everywhere for sweeping undiscussed edits and placed in stocks so we can throw rotten tomatoes at you. Good job on the major cleanup - obviously a lot of thought and effort went into it. Cheers ] (]) 21:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
::I haven't done many yet! There are 13 to do! Doesn't help that the UTC has "jumped" an hour since I started the clean-up. --] (]) 21:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
::Finished. I hope I haven't left anyone's edit out! --] (]) 22:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

:::]: Was it you who industriously put all those citatations in the last para of the Lead? We are supposed to be reducing footnotes in the Lead as much as possible, so they would be better going into the same sentence in the "Criticism of the "Islamic State"" section. There was a discussion in the Talk page archives about this . I hope the editor who drastically edited the Lead (which is the revert I was trying to make originally) has taken note of my edit summary, where I said edits to the Lead should be proposed on the Talk page first. I would imagine this editor is oblivious of all the careful discussion that has gone into the Lead wording. ''':{''' --] (]) 22:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
::::Yes because the lead was filled with cite needed and dubious tags. While I don't like all the refs there either, some editors can't be bothered to check the article for the refs. ] (]) 23:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
::::I did not notice while I was preparing the one with cites. However the problem is the same.] (]) 23:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::It wouldn't have been an edit by me, but a restoration of another editor's. Hope I haven't messed up again! --] (]) 23:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
::::::Things are ok at the moment, but we should watch it. I deleted the what tags in the first paragraph. I did not dig deep enough to find who added the tags originally but you restored them before I deleted them. The article explains that the group is Sunni and Muslim, we don't need to prove that in the lead right? ] (]) 00:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::::I was not criticizing at all; those citations were badly needed, though best in the body of the article. But I don't think a citation is needed for Sunni Muslim, for as you say the article deals with this. I restored the edits without considering them, so some may have been unnecessary. --] (]) 07:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::I added the exact same cites to the same sentence in the article too. Its not so much for the reader as for the editors benefit up in the lead. Oh and someone thought that BOTH Sunni and Muslim needed citations in the lead in the same sentence. ] (]) 08:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

== Lede could use some trimming ==

The discussion of its history alone is as long as some ledes. --] (]) 01:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

:An editor just inserted this in the last paragraph of the lead, with a source behind a paywall. I'd like to see some quantitative data to back up this claim. I think that we have found a variety of terms used in the English media.

:"As of mid-September 2014, many of the most prominent English-language news media groups, including the BBC, ''New York Times'', ''The Washington Post'', the ''Wall Street Journal'', Reuters, and the Associated Press used the name the "Islamic State", while others stuck with ISIS and ISIL.<ref></ref>"
{{reflist}}
:] (]) 04:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

::The Lead is becoming rather long. I am wondering if the last para on names really belongs in the Lead; perhaps it should be added to "History of names". It won't lose prominence, as this is the first section of the article. I don't think the extra edit is needed at all. --] (]) 07:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

:::If we could keep it to a sentence it should stay in the lead, but some editors dont like it, add to it, insist on more detail etc. I try to think of the uninvolved reader looking for info. Does the reader care about the 25 names the group has used over 15 years and the sequence? Likely not, and therefore there is too much in the lead about it. Many readers have got to be wondering why CNN, the POTUS and their morning paper dont call ISIL the same thing, and might turn to WP for the answer. They should not need to read through long lists of arabic names and history that frankly few car about to find out why the variety of current names used.] (]) 08:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
::::Any subject like this simply has to deal with the history, and the variety of names is very much part of it in this instance. I don't think we can assume what readers might be interested in. However, I agree that the history paras of the Lead could be condensed considerably. I will see if I can do it and put it on the Talk page for agreement. I don't see how readers would have to plough through all the "History of names" subsection, if the current name controversy was clearly marked in it. Readers don't read everything and they can skim and skip the earlier parts. Perhaps as you say there should at least be a sentence or two about it in the Lead, but no more than that. What do you think about moving the names business away from "Criticism of the "Islamic State"" and into the "Names" section? It would give it the prominence it deserves if was at the beginning of the article. --] (]) 09:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
::::::Yes we need history which includes the names, just brainstorming a way to be more concise. Moving it into Names might be ok, but as a reader the heading "Criticism of the "Islamic State"" jumps out as interesting, while a detailed history of group names (do they have Obsessive Compulsive Disorder over the group name?) seems tedious to read. ] (]) 09:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::::If it does go into the "Criticism of the "Islamic State"", I think it will need highlighting. Perhaps under its own subsection? Readers don't have to read what they won't want to read, and believe it or not, the "Names" section has already been pared down! (I did it some weeks ago.) From the beginning I found the "Names" section very useful, for getting a grip on ISIL's history, for at each stage of its development it has had a name change. --] (]) 11:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
::::::::]: I see that last para in the Lead has been summarily removed, in mid-discussion about what to do about it! --] (]) 11:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
{{od}}
I have cut down the history paras as much as possible to reduce the size of the Lead. There is a limit to how much can be cut out, as the Lead is supposed to be a summary of the article. --] (]) 13:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
:I saw that too - with an edit summary that it duplicated material in the body. With that logic why do we need anything in the lead exactly. ] (]) 05:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
:The 2nd and 3rd paragraph of the lead could be combined with the final paragraph to read:
::<span style="color:blue">The group's original aim was to establish an Islamic state in the Sunni-majority regions of Iraq, and following ISIL's involvement in the Syrian Civil War this expanded to include controlling Sunni-majority areas of Syria. A caliphate was proclaimed on 29 June 2014, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi—now known as Amir al-Mu'minin Caliph Ibrahim—was named as its caliph, and the group was renamed the Islamic State.</span> As caliphate it claims religious authority over all Muslims. Muslims around the world widely reject its claims and condemn its actions. <span style="color:green">The group has been described by the United Nations and the media as a terrorist group, and has been designated as a foreign terrorist organization by the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, Israel, Turkey, Indonesia, and Saudi Arabia. The United Nations and Amnesty International have accused the group of grave human rights abuses.</span>
:The blue text is the original last paragraph. The black sums up the Islamic criticism in the body of the article. The green is the 3rd paragraph summing up worldwide criticism in general. This could trim the lead substantially and leave the full exposition to the body of the article. ] (]) 18:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
::The blue text differs substantially from the second paragraph and seems of similar length. It read: "In its self-proclaimed status as a caliphate, it claims religious authority over all Muslims worldwide, and aims to bring most Muslim-inhabited regions of the world under its political control, beginning with the region of the Levant which approximately covers Syria, Jordan, Israel/Palestine, Lebanon, Cyprus, and part of southern Turkey."

::To what extent are ISIL acting as a liberation army? A lack of mention of other governments but just of Sunni majorities may be taken to indicate that this is their role. Also, in the west when we speak of majorities and minorities we do so within the general understanding of equal rights and equal opportunities for all. This ''won't'' be the case under Baghdadi's regime. ] ] 14:16, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
:::I'm sorry. I put one too many sentence is blue (now fixed). The two sentences "As caliphate it claims religious authority over all Muslims. Muslims around the world widely reject its claims and condemn its actions." was meant to replace "In its self-proclaimed status as a caliphate, it claims religious authority over all Muslims worldwide, and aims to bring most Muslim-inhabited regions of the world under its political control, beginning with the region of the Levant which approximately covers Syria, Jordan, Israel/Palestine, Lebanon, Cyprus, and part of southern Turkey." The last paragraph already mentioned "a caliphate was proclaimed" so that means we can leave out the duplicate "As self-proclaimed status as a caliphate" in the second paragraph that I suggest be removed. The last paragraph mentions "aim was to establish an Islamic state in the Sunni-majority regions of Iraq, and following ISIL's involvement in the Syrian Civil War this expanded to include controlling Sunni-majority areas of Syria" which covers some of "aims to bring most Muslim-inhabited regions of the world under its political control, beginning with the region of the Levant which approximately covers Syria, Jordan, Israel/Palestine, Lebanon, Cyprus, and part of southern Turkey." This seems to condense and remove repetitions. Perhaps we can avoid duplication in the lead in another way. ] (]) 14:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
===Suggest trimming nation names===

text reads:<br />
The group has been designated as a terrorist organization by the United Nations, the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, Israel, Turkey, Indonesia, and Saudi Arabia.

Suggest:<br />
The group has been designated as a terrorist organization by the United Nations and by ].

that last link could be composed ].

] ] 11:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

== Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2014 ==

{{edit semi-protected|Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant|answered=yes}}
<!-- Begin request -->
This paragraph in the article is incorrect "The United Nations reported that in the 17 days from 5 to 22 June, ISIL killed more than 1,000 Iraqi civilians and injured more than 1,000." The UN report actually states that the 1000 Iraqi civillians were killed by the Iraqi government air strikes NOT by I.S. Please amend this as its grossly incorrect.
<!-- End request -->
] (]) 09:56, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
:] '''Not done:''' All 3 sources cited there refer to ISIL killings. not one of them mention Iraqi government air strikes. Are you reading a different source? ] (]) 12:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

== their actions are “not jihad at all, but rather, warmongering and criminality”. ==

Oh its hard to be right some times :-))

TY ] for finding the texts. Also at: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-is-an-offence-to-islam-says-international-coalition-of-major-islamic-scholars-9756255.html

"More than 120 Sunni imams and academics, including some of the Muslim world’s most respected scholars, signed the 18-page document which outlines 24 separate grounds on which the terror group violates the tenets of Islam...

It also takes Isis to task over its countless acts of brutality and massacres under the guise of jihad, or a holy struggle. While acknowledging to Al-Baghdadi that “you and your fighters are fearless” and ready to die for their cause, the scholars state their actions are “not jihad at all, but rather, warmongering and criminality”."

Conclusion, which was always clear: We cannot speak in Misplaced Pages's voice and describe ISIL as Jihadist. The media honestly don't know what they are talking about IMHO and will use which ever buzzwords that they think will sell most papers. ] ] 19:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

:Gregkaye, I think you are missing the point, Misplaced Pages doesn't have a voice on this or any other issue, it simply uses what ] use. If or when that usage changes, we will also change. Until that time, we will continue to use Jihadist. BTW, this term is hardly confined to Islamic State, there are literally hundreds of armed groups that are referred to with this term, so I am not sure why you are singling this out. ] (]) 22:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
''''
::], I personally thing that various terms used in various "]" with little or no justification. Please note that they also use other subjectively applied terms including: murderous, criminal, illegal etc. which are far less contested. Do we apply these too? ] ] 13:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
''''

:This is blatant POV-pushing. Not only that, the removal of "jihadist" from the opening has been made without the consensus of editors. I would imagine most of those scholars would deny that al-Qaeda and all its offshoots were jihadists as well, yet that is the ] for groups of this kind. Objections of this sort belong in the "Criticism of the "Islamic State"" section, not in the Lead. The whole reason for having a criticisms section, which I opened, was to deal with this sort of thing and the criticism of ISIL from all quarters that are coming onstream fast now. What do other editors think? The last para in the Lead on the name was also removed, in the middle of Talk page discussion about what to do with this para. Editors should not unilaterally make major edits to the Lead without first putting it to other editors first. --] (]) 20:00, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
::Its the POV of the Islamic world. The Islamic imans are the most relevant reliable sources regarding issues to do with Islam. The text that I removed from the end of the lead had been duplicated in the criticisms section. I had also placed its contents in chronological order but don't have much of an opinion as to the location of the text. It should go one place or the other. There had been talk on removal of text from the lead but I have no objection to it being moved back. ] ] 20:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
:::Yes, it is, but WP has to abide by ]. How many times does this simple principle have to be repeated to editors before the message gets through? Calling it the "POV of the Islamic world" and thinking that justifies the edit shows how far you are from understanding ], in my opinion. You also don't seem to realise what a Lead is. It is a summary of the article, and as such is bound to repeat the main article to some extent. A short form of words for the last Lead para was being devised when you made your edit, as I don't doubt you were aware. --] (]) 20:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
::::It is totally fine to accurately reflect any statement that ISIL may make regarding their claims to any thing of relevance. We cannot say they are "jihadist". That is POV. We can only report on the facts. ] ] 20:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::you could talk about "facts" if the term "jihad" wasn't just some vague notion from a religious book. the article about "jihad" also state that "Muslims and scholars do not all agree on its definition". so enough with those atempts to seperate them from other jihadists and other islamic caliphates who killed and conquered in the name of islam. do you justify other organisations like al-qaeda and taliban? or caliphates who killed and colonized so many people?. --] (]) 23:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
''''

:::::Those "facts" you refer to are opinions. Can you really not see that? And who is to judge what is "of relevance" in that sentence? Not Misplaced Pages. NPOV again. I have had my final say. --] (]) 21:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

you talk like the islamic state and the org's that swore allegiance to them(like the taliban) doesn't have imams and other muslims scholars in their ranks which well exceeds the number of 120 which itself cannot be called "the POV of the islamic world". al baghdadi is a muslim scholar himself with a PhD in islamic studies. --] (]) 23:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The current version, that says they are just Sunni albeit militant, it is the worse of all possibilities. Jihadist is widely used. Whether they are correctly jihadist or bogus is not something we should address. We're not determining the real Islam let alone if they have authority to wage jihad in the sense of a "lessor jihad." This is how the vast majority of sources categorize them. Legitimacy is another issue. We'll have the same issue with Sunni. Are they accepted as valid practitioners of Sunni Islam? Should we delete Sunni? Criminals? They make the laws in their state. We're left with nothing but "bad guys" and that doesn't make for encyclopedia copy. Jihadist is the most descriptive term but one might want a qualifier like extremist. This puts them on the spectrum of jihadist types that leaves open whether they are off the charts and not genuine jihadists at all. ] (]) 00:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Our article on ] says "Generally the term jihadism denotes Sunni Islamist armed struggle." We can drop Sunni and just used jihadist as it can be taken for granted that it is Sunni. As it is Islamist it isn't Islam per se so no qualification is needed. I now suggest it "is a jihadist organization and unrecognized state ..." should be sufficient. Comments? ] (]) 00:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

As a well educated Canadian with a deep interest in history and politics I did not know that all jihadism is Sunni. ISIL constantly says they are waging jihad - I can pick that word out when they use arabic too. The West calls their activities jihad too. ] (]) 03:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

:Yes, but the context is 20th-21st century political/military struggles in the Middle East where we are referring to the Salafist revival supplanting Arab nationalist regimes with government implementing Sharia law. The word jihadist in this contexts refers to a specific current that uses force to bring this change about. It's sufficient for the lead as the reader knows this specific usage of the word ''jihadist'' for this context. Criticism and contrasts belong in the body of the article. ] (]) 03:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

*], ISIL have been known to kill imans that don't agree with them. In addition to quantity we also need to consider quality and veracity of sources.
:The first link I came to at states that "ISIS Now Has Up To 31,000 Fighters — More Than Many Nations’ Armies". So first, with this number of fighters, how many imams does it have? Second, what are their credentials? Third, what are their freedoms of expression?
:The news article quoted refers to "120 Sunni imams and academics, including some of the Muslim world’s most respected scholars" who have stated that ISIL's actions are “not jihad at all.” Various condemnations have gone before and I don't doubt that more will follow.
:In regard to impartiality we can note that one of the signatories is an imam from Iceland for goodness sake. There is no reason here for bias. ISIL's claims of jihad and can be reported as can the views of the prominent Islamic scholars mentioned. Note, no-one rejects the idea that ISIL are extreme and this is a different issue.
:The "Islamic State" have described themselves to be jihadist. I don't see that this view has been supported either by other Islamic sources or by any actual state. The press, for whom I have lost further respect during this conflict, continue to use a variety of buzzwords in various situations. The institution of the press is staffed by people who will hack people's phones for stories and who will chase people to their deaths in hope of pictures. We have long been able to rely on them for their fairly consistent approach. We can't choose a use of words simply because unqualified people choose to use them.
:In comparison to the Nazis, Isil's policy of capture and execution may have been conducted at a smaller scale but at a higher rate of murder than the Nazis had ever achieved. They kill or, as far as I have seen, they capture and kill and I don't fancy the chances of any male non Sunni muslim in this situation. ISIL also face female fighters and, although not shown in the slaughter videos, I suspect that many of them will have gone a similar way.
:If a similar group to the Nazis had, for instance, claimed that they were "Crusaders", the most that we could say was that they "claimed to be Crusaders". That's all we could do in Misplaced Pages's voice. In no circumstances would we state that they "were Crusaders". This would be POV. ] ] 09:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
::The Nazis never went as far as to make statements like: "If you can kill a disbelieving American or European – especially the spiteful and filthy French – or an Australian, or a Canadian, or any other disbeliever from the disbelievers waging war, including the citizens of the countries that entered into a coalition against the Islamic State, then rely upon Allah, and kill him in any manner or way however it may be. Smash his head with a rock, or slaughter him with a knife, or run him over with your car, or throw him down from a high place, or choke him, or poison him." ]. What kind of f****d up religious view is this? Does any religion accept this? I have not heard anyone object to accusations of extremism. d "jihadist". As far as extremes go my comparison to Nazism are more than justified. I'm still interested to know a comparison to the term "genocide" but applied to religion. ] ] 09:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
::The only ISIL member with a Misplaced Pages article who is indicated to have a religious background is ]. He seems to be more involved into recruitment activities rather than theological studies. See: ]. ] ] 10:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
::The fact of the matter is that we're not charged with deciding which variant of Islam is the true Islam. Catholics have considered Lutherans heretics for centuries. (Anecdotally, my wife said that when she was a little girl the nuns taught that to her.) No encyclopedia would write Lutherans out of Christianity. We report what the sources report. The most common descriptor is jihadist (we studied this above). The word jihadist is now an English word: . Like many words it can have many meanings but the use of the word for religious warrior makes it suitable to almost all of our sources without further explanation. It's the only word we need in the lead with further explanation given in the body of the article. ] (]) 11:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
::*], you don't realize that the islamic state is more than just fighters or those 31,000 fighters(the numbers are much higher now) and are made up from various peoples who serve in various duties from islamic judges(qadi) to teachers of islam and imams, the same goes for the taliban which swore allegiance to them. so even if we ignore the imams who preach for joining the islamic state we can get more than 120 imams who support the islamic state. and if you read the artivle about Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi you will see that he has a PhD in islamic studies, and he isn't the only one with academic islamic knowledge.

:::you also need to realize that their islamic opposers has no theological islamic claims against them, its not like somebody like your imam from iceland can come and say "the islamic state aren't doing jihad, jihad is:(some kind of defenition) while the islamic state is doing:(something that doesn't fit to that defenition)", the imam from iceland is opposing the islamic state probably from the same reason you and me are opposing them: they are fanatics who kill and ruins the life of many people. but the imam from iceland is facing a conflict between the horrors that happened in the times of the former caliphates which he can ignore and the same thing(and even less horrific) that the current caliphate is doing which he can ignore and look at it is if he read the history with islamic POV about how the caliphates kill and conquer in the name of god. the islamic state could do the same things in the past and if that imam from iceland was reading about them he obviously wouldn't oppose them and their dids cause it is much easier to support this kind of stuff when you read about it from a religious book rather than see it happen in the TV and look at the victims of the caliphate in the eyes. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 12:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:], '''Islam's''' imam from Iceland has joined ~119 others to say that ISIL's actions are not Jihad and these imams are the authorities of these things. ] the definitions you supply say things like: JIHADIST: a Muslim who advocates or participates in a jihad; and JIHAD: a holy war waged on behalf of Islam as a religious duty. Islamic scholars, Sunni and otherwise, call into question a representation of both Jihad and Islam. The dictionaries also give definitions or words like "warmongering" and "criminality" as well as other terms like "murdering" etc. These are things that are pretty much confirmed. Jihad is disputed. ] ] 12:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
::On the topic of definitions: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/source
::source: A place, person, or thing from which something originates or can be obtained:
::] ] 13:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
:*], what makes this 120 imams better than the 120(and probably even more) imams who support and even work for the islamic state?, you are acting like you are the real authoritie in these things and not the imams you are talking about.
::and as you already said, jihad is a disputed and unclear term, so why you keep talking like the islamic state can't be called like that unlike other organizations and former caliphates who can be called like that?. if you have problem with the use of this term in general you need to talk about changes in many other wiki article instead of acting like there is a clear and accurate defenition for "jihad". <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 13:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::::], AS YOU HAVE READ: the 120 Sunni imams and academics include some of the Muslim world’s most respected scholars. 120 does not limit the number but they are a group that spoke out at one time in one voice. If you can cite other imams then go ahead. Yes I try to research what I write but I don't claim to be an authority. All I have tried to do is to point to those that are. Please, don't say that I have said things that I have not said. This is disingenuous. Please don't appeal to some 'clear and accurate defenition for "jihad"'. The simple fact is that the application of the word Jihad in this case is disputed by a number of authorities on Islam. It is questionably used. It should not be used without qualification. ] ] 15:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
::::::*], "the 120 Sunni imams and academics include some of the Muslim world’s most respected scholars", as i already said this is just one group of imams and nothing more than that, the islamic state have their imams in their controled territory and also imams who recruiting members in many countries. coming together and giving some statment to the media as a group has no impact about their authority or capabilities to conclude such statment about some vague term from a religious book, its not like they can say something like "jihad is: (something) while what the islamic state doing is different", and yes you need a better accurate defenition in order to do somekind of a difference between the islamic state and other jihadists.

:::::::you need to realize that muslims can seperate the islamic state from themselves but not from the religion itself and other caliphates and people they don't know, nobody can have that authority especialy not some small group of imams, and don't forget that the number of islamic scholars and people with religious role in the islamic state is probably much more than 120 and this is the same case with organizations who support them like the taliban. you are too focused on comparing them to nazis and with blind hate against them(don't get me wrong i hate them to but its not blind hate) that you fail to see what they realy are: another islamic caliphate with the same goals and motives as former caliphates. --] (]) 16:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
::::::::Are you really saying that all caliphates operated by senseless murder? I did not intend to be at all focussed in comparing them to the nazis. As far as I can tell, in many respects they are worse than the nazis. No limitation was intended. ] ] 16:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

::::::::: they killed many innocent people in the name of god and for the sake of their empire, the arabo-islamic colonization of huge parts of asia and africa was all full of murder and oppression, and all that in the name of imaginary entity. that was all senseless murders unless there is some divine mandate for those killing which also make the killing of the captives of the islamic state a justified actions...--] (]) 17:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

:::], Islam is not monolithic. It is not our job to decide which Muslims speak for Islam as a whole. There are various strains of Islam and that has been true from shortly after Muhammad's death when the Sunni and Shiite split on succession. Like the word ''algebra,'' ''jihad'' is now an English word and the English language is determined by common usage not scholarly institutes (as the French have). The reason our search show that ''jihad'' is the most common descriptor for ''ISIS'' is that it is the closest word in the English language that categorizes ISIS. Let's stick with sources and not try to become experts in Islam theology. ] (]) 14:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
:::As there is no consensus for ''militant'' I have reverted the edit to the previous consensus per ]. ] (]) 14:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
::::], Islam is based on the same core texts that it has had for one and a half millennia. It is our job to decide on encyclopaedic content. The present content relates to a disagreements between factions within Sunni Islam. We have an obligation to present rational content and, while we don't need to become experts on Islam, perhaps we can have some trust in those who are. The reversal of edit supports a further radicalisation of language. Jihad means struggle and this is related to a struggle towards Islamic values. You allow it to be associated with a group that supports the murder of a taxi driver turned aid worker. We are supporting a redefinition of Jihad and I do not think that this is Misplaced Pages's role. I doubt that organisations like Britannica would only have taken newspapers as source materials if they could not track down primary source. The whole point of the Islamic campaign "notinmyname" is to say that the name of Islam is inappropriately applied to "ISIL". In Misplaced Pages the suggestion of renaming the article as ISIS is rapidly shut down and editors argue that we apply the validating term "jihadist" to an organisation that amongst other things executes innocents. In effect unwarranted and unqualified support is given to a murderous organisation. This is not neutrality. ] ] 15:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

:::::*], you can't say that you rely on experts while you choose which one to rely and which one to ignore in order to claim the statement you want as "backed by experts" as if its undisputed. as i said in another comment of me to you, you are too focused with the hate to them and loosing neutrality, you are talking about "letting" the term of jihad to be associated with "murderous organization" as if the former caliphates didn't kill anyone innocent and as if it was less worse cause of some divine mandate for those murders.
:::::: wikipedia should point out FACTS and not POV like the opinion of some group of imams as if they are authority, like what next? mybe wikipedia should decide who is right between the shia and sunna? in the article about shia there will be said that the shia are infidels according to some sunni imams and that they are self proclaimed to be muslims or even delete "islam" from their article.

:::::: i know what you feel about the islamic state, and that the muslims shouldn't be generalized as supporters of what the islamic state is doing. but nobody can seperate the islamic state from islam and other terms like jihad and caliphate or claim that the "moderate" muslims are more "muslim" than the "extremist" once, this is just imposible to do just from the religious text which is everything in islam. --] (]) 17:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

:::::The word “jihad” has many meanings like most words in the English language. Given the nature of the article it clearly does not mean “struggle” but something more specific that clarifies the nature of ISIS. We are not writing an article about ] and Islam is not monolithic. Nor are we saying that everything or anything ISIS does is consistent with Islam or acceptable to this group or that group of Muslims. That there are Muslims that say “notinmyname” only points to the diversity within Islam. That there are 120 scholars who can sign a detailed repudiation of ISIS again shows diversity especially since there are no Saudi scholars signing that document. (Is Wahhabi not a ''bona fide'' strain of Islam? I know Muslims who would say it is not. But we can’t answer that question.)
:::::The word “jihadist” when used in the contexts of fundamentalist militant Muslims has a narrower meaning to the English readers that makes the lead intelligible. Militant, radical, Sunni, fundamentalist, etc. just doesn’t do it. I agreed to the addition of “extremist” to “jihadist extremist” but we did not get consensus on that. One might consider Salafist jihadist also but that seems less common in the literature (I could be wrong here.) Plain and simple, the overwhelming descriptor in the English literature is “jihadist.” We report the sources, not our analysis of what should be said. ] (]) 16:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
::::::], My comments are made from a background of involvement in Jewish ] by which the most profound experience I had of racial disregard for other life came within just a few hundred metres of the ]. Honestly we are not simply dealing with a modern word here. Information sources like the western press and Misplaced Pages really need to take some responsibility. We are cowtowing to extremism. Its a dangerous game that we play and its not our lives that are most at risk. ] ] 19:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::::Our job is to report, not to transform or recommend. Words have many meanings and that always involves the danger of equivocation and other logical fallacies. I believe the context here is clear and the reader will understand the use of the word in the sense that it applies to this group. ] (]) 19:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::::Let me also say that the 120+ signatures are not representative of all Muslims. The only Saudi signer, Al-Sayyid Abdallah Fadaaq, is the leading Sufi cleric of the Hijaz. No ]? The Pakistani signer is ], a Sufi scholar as I suspect Muhammad ] is as well . No ]? To be fair we do have a Deobandi in India, Mahmood As’ad Madani, of the ]. Of the 126, 38 are Egyptians. Egypt’s government has recently taken over religious studies to the point that Friday sermons must be approved by the government and the same sermon is read simultaneously at every mosque. Are these scholars hand picked by the government? This document ''should'' be in our article but it should ''not'' be in the lead nor given as proof of universal agreed upon theology. ] (]) 19:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::Or "should ''not'' be in the lead"? ] (]) 20:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::Yes, that's what I meant. I knew I left out a ''not'' somewhere and I'll put it in now. Thanks. ] (]) 20:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
'''Proposal for second paragraph''' which currently begins: <br />
*"In its self-proclaimed status as a ], it claims religious authority over all ] worldwide,.." <br />
and which I suggest changing to: <br />
*"ISIL is often described as being ] and, in its self-proclaimed status as a ], it claims religious authority over all ] worldwide,.."<br />
or simply:<br />
*"ISIL is often described as being ]. In its self-proclaimed status as a ], it claims religious authority over all ] worldwide,.."<br />
This gets by the problem of the unwarranted use of Misplaced Pages's voice.<br />
ISIL is a new issue. See search: <br />
] ] 16:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
::], I don't understand how the term Jihadist is contested, who is contesting it? I'll also note that Arabic Wiki (which presumably has a high number of Muslim editors), also refers to the group as Jihadist or Salafist Jihadist, as do a large number of media sources in the Arab world, Pakistan etc. ] (]) 21:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
:::See, amongst others: http://lettertobaghdadi.com/<br />
The parameters of lesser jihad (the relevant form of jihad) involves any Muslim who has people fight against them and who fights back. It '''does not''' involve involve invading kurdish villages and driving inhabitants into the hills, it is an Islamic term that cannot be applied to armed conflict against any other Muslim; it does not involve the decapitation of journalists, it does not involve five year expansion plans. There are many words that may relevantly be used to describe ISIL. Jihadist is far from being the most relevant descriptor. Its use is grossly misleading.

"The Reason behind Jihad: The reason behind jihad for Muslims is to fight those who fight them,
not to fight anyone who does not fight them, nor to transgress against anyone who has not
transgressed against them. God’s words in permitting jihad are: ‘Permission is granted to those
who fight because they have been wronged. And God is truly able to help them; those who were
expelled from their homes without right, only because they said: “Our Lord is God”. Were it not
for God's causing some people to drive back others, destruction would have befallen the
monasteries, and churches, and synagogues, and mosques in which God's Name is mentioned
greatly. Assuredly God will help those who help Him. God is truly Strong, Mighty.’ (Al-Hajj, 22:
39-40)."

Islam believes in an unproven invisible God but, none-the-less, this is what it believes. We are dealing here with a warring group of religious extremists that are not even considered by many Muslims to be representative of their religion.

In the use "jihadist" without the use of descriptors that better describe the actions of ISIL we are effectively saying "this is jihad". This is irresponsible and we need to take more care. It is an utter misrepresentation of both the term and, for what its worth, its theological base.

] ] 04:14, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
:Reading back through this thread, there does not seem to be a ] amongst other editors for the changes you have proposed. ] (]) 05:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
::Which means continuing to apply Misplaced Pages's voice in our further radicalisation of the concept "jihad" despite the use of the terminology being in dispute. I think that if we are to play with people's lives we should pay more attention. ] ] 09:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
:::It doesn't follow that describing them as ''jihadists'' implies that they are good jihadists or everything they do is consistent with jihad. Your change, that they are "Sunni militants," has the same problem. After 9/11 there were many complaints that the West was defining "good Muslim" and "bad Muslim." There was even a book with that title objecting to that trend. The notion of "moderate Islam" and "radical Islam" was criticized by many Muslims including the Turkish PM, ]. We are not defining or apply standards of jihad or Islam--that's original research. We reflect sources and sources use jihad but note criticism. So do we. ] (]) 11:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

:] your quote barely has anything to do with the islamic state or about proposed difference between them and another jihadist groups along the history. you saying that if they fight muslims it isn't "jihad"? i didn't found it in the hadith. at the end the islamic state fights for the enforcment of the islamic law(against secular regimes) in the same way the former caliphate did it: they conquer and kills any resistant and than enforce the islamic rule by force.

::you need to understand that muslim people can seperate the islamic state(and other jihadist militants like them today) from themselves but can't act as if they have the authoritie to say that they are not muslims and not doing jihad, cause they don't just have nothing to back up their claims they also hypocrites for supporting the same thing that they read in the islamic literature(looks much more ideal and romantic due the obvious islamic POV) but stop to supporting it when they look the victims in the eyes and most of the world are angry and develope bad stereotypes of muslims. --] (]) 13:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
:::Question: How unholy would a war or a warring group need to become before losing a primary description of "Jihad"? Seriously! I'd like to know, or do you endorse the radicalisation of the term with no limit. Definitions like good and bad are irrelevant. Jihad has a definition and, according to various facettes or behaviour, limits will be crossed. Are we to apply a definition without limits? Is that the plan? Are we just to pander to whatever various journalists choose to churn out as they aim to increase publication circulation? Misplaced Pages is not acting as an encyclopaedia but as a lapdog for the press.
:::Comparison can be made with the likes of Saadam Hussain, a character who incidentally I would by no means describe as "good" but following the Kuwait war he did little but resist. Yes he kept human shield prisoners but they were kept in good health. He also spoke of Jihad but is not spoken of as a jihadist. ISIL blatantly abuse the a great swathe of Islamic teaching and yet jihadist terminologies are liberally applied. We are feeding radicalism and, when presented with opportunities for moderation, we fail. ] ] 13:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
::::Every criticism you make of ISIS can be made of ] more generally. From our article: “al-Wahhab declared jihad against neighboring tribes, whose practices of praying to saints, making pilgrimages to tombs and special mosques, he believed to be the work of idolaters/unbelievers.” “Wahhabis embraced the ideas of Ibn Taymiyya—which allow self-professed Muslim who do not follow Islamic law to be declared non-Muslims—to justify their warring and conquering the Muslim Sharifs of Hijaz.” “Wahhabis also massacred the male population and enslaved the women and children of the city of Ta'if in Hejaz in 1803.” Our article states that IS is an offshoot of the Wahhabi movement and relies of Wahhabi literature. Saudi Arabia has funded Wahhabi Madrasas around the world. While I applaud the “open letter” condemning IS, we can not be an advocacy venue.] (]) 14:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::You are not answering my question which is one that can equally be raised at ]. Here is another situation of a warring group claiming jihad despite the fact that other groups have very different understandings of the term. They may claim to act by jihad but we fail to give fair representation and, as I say, by failing in this way we are radicalising "jihad". ] ] 14:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC

"Assem Barqawi, also known as Abu Mohamed al-Maqdesi, who was released from a Jordanian prison in June after serving a sentence for recruiting volunteers to fight in Afghanistan, called fighters loyal to the Islamic State group's leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, '''"deviant"'''."<br />
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/07/muslim-leaders-reject-baghdadi-caliphate-20147744058773906.html<br />
We still use Misplaced Pages's voice to call them '''"jihadist"'''. Its messed up.

] ] 09:09, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

:] like seriously? what is that question? how the fuck do you describe "unholy"? do you define other jihadists and caliphate "holy" and calls them and their cause an "holy" and justified one? and all that without being a muslim?...

:as i said several times before, not you or the the specific imams you choose(or anybody else where he is imam or not) can be an real authority, the best they can do is to speak for themselves but not for the imams and scholars who support the islamic state and obviously not in the name of islam itself cause the text it self just can't seperate the islamic state from former caliphate. i know you want to seperate those terrorists from other muslims but you just can't speak in the name of islam and every muslim in the world.

:you keep with the same mistakes of treating islam as an organization or science with leaders or expert which can have such authority to differentiate between the islamic state and former caliphates. and anyway some of the "leaders" in that article are noted to be supporters of al-qaeda and jabaht a nusra which began to fight with the islamic state in the recent weeks. --] (]) 18:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

:] and anyway if you believe in the authority of some islamic "leaders", mybe wikipedia should note that shia are "heretics" (http://www.nairaland.com/740058/sheikh-qaradawi-shia-heretics) and that alawits(another off shot of islam) are "more infidel than Christians and Jews"(http://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/07/opinion/abdo-shia-sunni-tension/index.html)?, you used al qaradawi for claiming that the islamic state aren't a "caliphate" and not doing "jihad"(and its not like he provided some serious proves for that) so why his suposed "authority" is only limited for what you want? you act as if you are the real authority for islam.--] (]) 18:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

My valid question is: How unholy would a war or a warring group need to become before losing a primary description of "Jihad"? Sure its not down to me or and individual muslim or an individual imam. Jihad is an Islamic word describing, warts and all, a struggle for Islamic ideals.<br />
'''<big>When even the more extreme people in Islam reject ISIL, don't you think that maybe, just maybe that says something?</big>'''<br />
The most that we can do in the situation is perhaps say that they are "reportedly jihadist" and the only reason we may be forced to go this far is because of an idiot press that spouts wording that it either doesn't understand or doesn't think through.<br />
There is no dispute to them being terrorists. There's dispute in their following of jihad. There is dispute of them following Islam. Its not that complicated.

] ] 00:53, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

:*] what is valid in that question of "how much unholy they need to be" like what the fuck is "unholy" and how exactly other caliphates/groups who has done jihad(confirmed as one by you of course) was "holy" unlike the "unholy" islamic state?, this is the only valid questions her.

::again you miss the point (or simply just ignore what i am saying). who said that fighting for a caliphate and for the enforcment of the islamic rule isn't "a struggle for islamic ideals"? this is not just jihad this is also the same thing which the former caliphates and organizations which you call "holy" and justify them has done in the past.
::and as i said before, it doesn't matter who are the people who oppose the islamic state and if they are "extremists" or not, they just can't talk in the name of islam and do what the islamic text can't do: to seperate the islamic state from other caliphates in the past.

::you failed to provide any theological argument which seperate the islamic state from other caliphates and the only argument you have is that SOME muslims say that they didn't support the islamic state while you choose which muslim scholars and imams to delegitimize(the supporters of the islamic state) and even choose what statment to support and what statement to delegitimize with the imams you see as "authority". you don't realy rely on anything or anybody, only on your own opinion and POV which is quite mysterious i must say, you say that you don't believe in islam but act as if the former caliphates(the "real" ones according to you) and their religious struggle was justified, moral and even "holy". you can only speak like that if you believe in islam. --] (]) 02:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
:::], do you have any kind of theological background?
:::I will walk you through. Holiness, , is being "dedicated or consecrated to God". In application to Islam the definition of holiness becomes that of being dedicated or consecrated to the God of Islam. The supposed teachings of the God of Islam are found in the Quran and related literature. Holiness in Islam necessitates attempt at adherence to such teaching. Holiness on an individual's terms and not on a god's terms is not holiness at all. Its not dedication to a god but dedication to different agendas.
:::In the current situation, in the Iraqi region, ISIL are in flagrant breach of the teachings of Islam and this is to the extent that people normally regarded as Islamic extremists condemn them.
:::The relevant theological point relates to the actual differences between the behaviour of ISIL and the requirements of righteous practice within the conceptions of Islam. Differences to other so called Caliphates are irrelevant and yet you continue to attempt to push that irrelevant point. If the same criticisms that can be applied to ISIL can also be applied to other groups then these become issues for those articles. The current discussion relates to the discrepancy between the behaviours of ISIL and the requirements of Islamic teaching. There are long pages of content written on this topic that you are welcome to read. All of the departures have relevance to theological conceptions of holiness and, to cap it all, there is even the specific criticism that the group's "sacrifice in intent for jihad ...is not jihad at all". My valid question on this topic remains.
:::] ] 14:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

::::*] before you wrote that pointless mumblings about the defenition of "holliness" you could reread what i said about your question and understand that there is nothing real behind that term and that anybody can claim himself to be "dedicated or consecrated to the God of Islam", and you didn't show any proof for why the islamic state is "flagrant breach of the teachings of Islam" or why the islamic state couldn't be called "caliphate" unlike former "real" caliphates which is basicaly the whole point of this argument, cause if you can't differ between the islamic state and former caliphates what is your point exactly? if you claim that nobody were "jihadist", "caliphate" and "khalif" you are simply in the wrong talk page.

::::: you have no real argument to back up your POV which is all about seperating the islamic state from former caliphates, jihadist groups and even islam itself. so if you don't have anything more to say other than "even the 'extremists' don't support them" you need to realize that you were wrong and also had wrong preception about islam(and religions in general) instead of repeating on the same pointless argument as if i didn't showed to you how much it has nothing to do with the islamic legitimacy of the islamic state. --] (]) 16:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

::::::], please don't resort to rhetoric. Seriously? You don't see the point in discussing understandings of Islamic terminologies in association to a group that claims authority over Islam? Really? ] ] 22:29, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

:::::::*] i am the only one in this argument who talk about islamic terminologies her. you on the other hand talk only about the opinion of SOME muslims as if they have the authority to contradict and add to the islamic text, and even other users has told you that you act as if islam has monolithic leadership while it obviously far from being that way.

::::::::i know you hate the islamic state and know that they are bad people with no moral and nothing they do is justified, but it doesn't mean that you or some muslims can seperate the islamic state(or any islamic faction) from islam and claim that they "aren't doing jihad" or "aren't a caliphate" without any quote from the quran or other similar islamic text, cause those people are nothing more than another followers of islam and not more muslim than the supporters of the islamic state.--] (]) 12:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::The first thing that I came to really came to hate in relation to the recent history of Iraq is the loss of much of the countries ancient historical heritage - specifically that U.S. and UK forces drove up to protect the ministry of oil etc. and not the museums. This is the thing that I find hardest to comprehend because the decisions were solely based on about money rather than humanity. I have a better understanding of inter group hatred and the anti-Shiaism involved but this is still not forgiveable. I have equal "hatred" of any anti-Sunni sentiment that may have grown up in surrounding populations. We all bleed the same colour blood. I also hate misrepresentation. This hatred is shown in comments regarding the unhealthy misuse of Semitic references in anti-Semitism and this will be clearly apparent should you choose to take a look at ]. I currently hate the present misrepresentation of jihad. I also hate the continuing and senseless loss of life but this does not mean that I hate the murderers. Please don't attempt to derail arguments by trying to make things personal. ] ] 14:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::That's all fine and well but besides the point. The word ''jihad'' is now also an English word. The Misplaced Pages ] recognizes it as such. Even this past weekend, three time Pulitzer Prize winner, ] used the word in relation to ISIL. He says it is in part "Sunni Muslim jihadist fighters from all over the world ..." but which is changing the culture of Iraq and Syria "into bleak, dark, jihadist, Sunni fundamentalist monocultures." This is not an article on Islamic theology nor the Islamic doctrine of jihad. The difference is worth pointing out but the English usage of the word, even in the ], is common in the English language. And we use the English language. This is how reliable sources in the English language use the word. ] (]) 14:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::] it is true that "jihad" is also an english word now but there is a need to point out that the islamic doctrine of "jihad" is found only in the islamic text(like the quran) and it fits to the islamic state in the same way it fitted to former caliphates in the past. --] (]) 17:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::::You're asking me for the truth. I'm arguing that the word is now in current English usage and for the purpose of describing groups like ISIS. I'm not arguing for the usage of the term based on historical or theological concerns. You and Greg are addressing that matter as does the article on ]. With all due respect, I'll bow out on that question as interesting as it is. ] (]) 18:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

== Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2014 ==

{{edit semi-protected|Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant|answered=yes}}
<!-- Begin request -->
from the discussion i made about the "self-declared" when talking about the islamic state as a caliphate(and about abu bakr al-baghdadi as a caliph) i made claer that the islamic state is a caliphate in the same way that former caliphate was a caliphates, there is no theological nor logical differences and the ones who supported in not calling them a caliphate("self declared" instead) were unsure about if there is an actual differences between the islamic state caliphate and former caliphates which existed just few decades ago(the last caliphate before the islamic state fell in the 20s of the 20th century).

the media used "caliphate" and "self-declared caliphate" or even just "isis" interchangeably and anyone can find news network that use one name over another more often. so there is no meaning for using some particular media as a "source" for the way they should be treated.

so my request is to simply remove the "self-declared" and treating them as what they are: another caliphate.
<!-- End request -->
] (]) 22:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

:] '''Not done:''' There has been extensive discussion on this point. Article is fairly stable on using qualifiers as the only people who accept the declarations are other terrorists. So no thanks. ] (]) 05:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
::as you can see the editor who made that "self-declared" edit isn't sure about if there is differences between the islamic state caliphate and former caliphates, i suggest you read that discussion, i already showed the islamic terms for being a "caliphate" and "caliph" which has nothing to do with the recognition of some countries and the term of "terrorists". according to islam the terrorists you talking about are the muslims who give them the right to be called a caliphate. so your claim that "their declaration is accepted only by other terrorists" is meaningless and has nothing to do with what made some politic entity a "caliphate".

:: the islamic state is already called her an "unrecognized state" and basicaly did accepted their declaration of a state, so why not accepting their declaration of caliphate?.
::wikipedia should talk about facts and accept things as they are and not be depend on the personal feelings and POV of the editor. --] (]) 12:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

== About description ==

I think that the summary of ISIL isn't accurate. The main activity of ISIL is torturing and murdering christians and followers of other religions in the name of the Islam -- and this should be clearly stated. Even if they base on extreme interpretations of jihad. The statement "The United Nations and Amnesty International have accused the group of grave human rights abuses" might be interpreted like "they are just accused and maybe innocent". There are dozens of articles which describe the crimes. A quick shows a scale of it. Somebody who hadn't known what ISIL is could gain a very incomplete view.

We all know what ISIL is, and maybe "everybody" knows. But IMHO Wikipiedia shouldn't take that into account as a reason to not mention the most important facts, because it destroys a neutral point of view.

My proposition is to add a sentence "ISIL is responsible of such crimes like torturing men and women, rape and mass murder. This includes shooting to death, crucifixion, beheading and other forms of atrociousness.", at the end of the third paragraph. After that might be a bunch of references to various sources. Bypassing an essence of the matter is not neutral. -- gajatko 9.10.2014 01:30

:Saying they are accused is fine if there is any doubt, but ISIL puts out videos bragging about most of these crimes. Since no one disputes that they are committing these acts, seems like we can state the facts. The only word that might be an issue is "crimes" but any civilized person knows what these are without us telling them. I'd add kidnappings, murder of POWs, and destruction of historic monuments. ] (]) 02:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
:''The main activity of ISIL is torturing and murdering christians and followers of other religions''
:Actually they kill far, far more Muslims than Christians or other religious groups. Until 2014 they had almost exclusively killed Muslims, in fact. And we already have a Human Rights Abuse section that is specifically designed for the material you are talking about. ] (]) 02:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
::Until there is a statement from the UN that goes beyond accusation this is all that we can present. We can only use what has been said. There may be reason to check for new statements. ] ] 09:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
:::Is the UN the only source we can cite? I think that it is not bad to cite articles from news websites, because they often contain photos which prove the accusations.

:::*
:::* http://www.huffingtonpost.com/evelyn-leopold/isis-isil-is-thy-name-is_b_5948208.html
:::* http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=744_1377386471
:::* http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/11111167/British-hostage-Alan-Henning-beheaded-by-Islamic-State-killers.html
:::* http://www.iraqinews.com/iraq-war/urgent-video-isil-beheads-american-journalist-threatens-kill-another/
:::* http://www.presstv.com/detail/2014/07/29/373281/video-shows-isil-shoot-teens-in-head/
:::* http://www.almanar.com.lb/english/adetails.php?eid=165097&cid=23&fromval=1
:::Well, an official report of HUMAN RIGHTS Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and 6 different sources with photos or videos -- what else do we need? --] (]) 11:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

== Can we try to cite sources that don't require subscription ==

please. ] ] 16:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

== Suggest amalgamating second and last para of lead ==

''The second para reads:''<br />
In its self-proclaimed status as a ], it claims religious authority over all ]s worldwide, and aims to bring most Muslim-inhabited regions of the world under its political control, beginning with the region of the ] which approximately covers Syria, Jordan, Israel/Palestine, Lebanon, Cyprus, and part of southern Turkey.

''AND the last (6th) para reads:''<br />
The group's original aim was to establish an ] in the Sunni-majority regions of Iraq, and following its involvement in the ] this expanded to include controlling Sunni-majority areas of Syria. A ] was proclaimed on 29 June 2014, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi—now known as ] ]—was named as its ], and the group was renamed the Islamic State.

Amalgamate to last?

] ] 17:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

:Support. ] (]) 17:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

== Syria army still free ==

in: Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#As Islamic State (2014–present) we have written

By that time, many non-Islamist rebels had been assimilated into the group, according to ISIL. In August 2014, a high-level ISIL commander said, "In the East of Syria, there is no Free Syrian Army any longer. All Free Syrian Army people have joined the Islamic State."

A recent change has been made to say "non-Islamist rebels had been assimilated" and perhaps its worth getting the claim into current context.

http://www.ibtimes.com/free-syrian-army-rebels-join-forces-kurds-fight-isis-kobane-1702500

] ] 08:22, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
:I have removed the text which seems to have been a unsubstantiated claim by the ISIL commander. ] ] 10:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

== second para, first sentence. ==

''had said''

Over 120 scholars of Sunni Islam have declared the Islamic State to be ], stating that their actions are “not jihad at all, but rather, warmongering and criminality”.

and has been provisionally amended to,

Widespread Islamic criticism of ISIL has included an open letter from 126 Sunni scholars to "... the self-declared Islamic State", stating that their sacrifice, without legitimate cause, goals and intention is “not jihad at all, but rather, warmongering and criminality”.

The open letter does not directly mention "Khawarij" and the groups actions were not specifically mentioned in the relevant quote. The refs: is to http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/07/muslim-leaders-reject-baghdadi-caliphate-20147744058773906.html is to http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/another-battle-with-islams-true-believers/article20802390/ but any of this can be amended.

] ] 10:17, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

== Logical Order in Lead ==

The ] "serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects." It should have a logical order. "It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies."

Thus, I made a change to start with the descriptions and moved "prominent controversies" to the end of the lead section. This way we have " unrecognized Sunni jihadist state" ... history of its growth ... "aim was to establish an Islamic state" ... "caliphate was proclaimed" ... "claims religious authority over all Muslims worldwide." I moved the criticism paragraph that starts with "Widespread Islamic criticism of ISIL ..." to end the lead. The criticism is total. Everything about ISIL is being criticized and condemned.

Why, ], do you object to that? ] (]) 15:22, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

:], I am still awaiting your reply to my "You are not answering my question" statement above.
:Editors can't have it both ways. You can't place an unqualified endorsement of ISIL as being "jihadist" (struggling in holy war) and also remove content presenting the contrary view.
:Either we qualify the statement or we move both the statement and its opposing text together.
:If the opening paragraph used a description similar to: "a Sunni reportedly jihadist unrecognized state in Iraq and Syria in the Middle East" then any move of subsequent text would be fine.
:Another option would be to move both the "jihadist" claim and the "not jihad at all" comment to another part of the text but, without qualification being given to the "jihadist" claim, it becomes necessary for these two contents to appear together.
:I would be equally happy with either solution.
:] ] 16:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

::I removed nothing. You seem stuck on ''jihadist''. It is not just ''jihadist'' that is being criticized by other Muslims (and non-Muslims). The claim to an "Islamic state" and "caliphate" and "religious authority" are all being criticized. Do you want a parenthetical remark after each phrase? Our article would read ... "jihadist (rejected by 126 prominent Muslims) ... Islamic state (not Islamic according to 126 prominent Muslims) ... religious authority (rejected by 126 prominent Muslims) ..."??? Not only are Muslims (and non-Muslims) critical of such claims, they also list a host of atrocities and appropriate condemnations. Do we insert those after every sentence? The "open letter" that we refer to has explicit rejection of ISIL doctrine on a point-by-point basis. It is much more than the word ''jihadist'' and there belongs as a response to the whole description, after the whole description. ] (]) 16:15, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
:::Sure I am stuck on "jihadist". "Islamic extremist" would be a marginally better description despite the group being widely rejected by Islam. Why do you mention parenthesis? Please don't misrepresent the content of other editors. My clearly stated suggestion was to either keep the two Jihad related references together or to use something like "reportedly jihadist". Many sources have described then as being jihadist. We can reflect that. I am resolutely stuck on the view that a group that kills aide workers should not be given an unqualified endorsement as struggling for Islam or that they are engaging in "holy war" at least not without fair and immediate reply. ] ] 21:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
::::I'll repeat myself. Since Islamic critics reject IS on many grounds and not just it's claim to be waging jihad, it should come at the end of the lead so that it expresses the full critique of all that comes above. ] (]) 22:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::Thank-you for limiting yourself to your point. My point is that we cannot speak in Misplaced Pages's voice in crediting them as "jihadist" and separate this statement from opposing claims. Many reports on ISIL begin with reference to criticisms and then continue to present additional context. There is no imperative to present content in a particular order. It is important to either give qualification to the first "jihadist" statement or otherwise keep the two references to jihad together. ] ] 07:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
::::::I believe we still achieve your objectives as long as this paragraph is in the lead. It isn't just "jihad" but "Islamic" and "caliphate" that are being rejected by Islamic critics. Putting this paragraph last still achieves the objective of telling the reader that there is Islamic opposition to ISIL and to all of ISIL's claims and activities. ] (]) 11:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::::My objective is that we don't give ISIL an unbalanced endorsement of them being "jihadist" or that immediate reply is enabled.
:::::::Options of working text include: "... is an ] ] ]", "... is an ], ] ]" or "... is an ] reportedly ] ]".
:::::::In the first option the use of "Sunni extremist" eludes to Islam without direct reference to the term while the extremist link is piped to ]. This page contains the text: "for achieving perceived Islamic goals; see ]." All bases are covered and there is no force feeding of the reader with conclusions but space is given to the reader to make up their own minds.
:::::::No-one argues that ISIL are extreme whereas the applicability of Jihad ''is'' disputed.
::::::: gets "About 24,000,000 results" in news
::::::: gets "About 23,800,000 results" in news (almost exactly the same).
:::::::] ] 13:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
::::::::I had argued for "jihadist extremists" and got some agreement but not consensus. In the meantime our pipe of jihadist to ] allows the reader to understand the debate about the usage of this word. We, however, can not correct the sources. That's not our job. They use ''jihadist'' and it is up to the reader to understand in which sense and with what legitimacy this word is used. We have objections cited in the lead section but these objections are wider. They are objections to ISIS' usage of ''jihad'', ''caliphate'', and ''Islamic.'' This is why the paragraph should be at the end of the lead. It says in essence "all the above is condemned by Islamic authorities. We can trust the user to read to the end of the lead. They came to wikipedia to get more than sound bites. ] (]) 15:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::In this case, with regard to a group of murderers who slaughter innocent people, I will continue to correct for the simple reason that it is wrong. I know the potential consequences. What can I do? It's immoral B******t. You know the most used descriptions. I have presented the information. If you want to push this and see me lose my editing rights that's up to you. I cannot with good conscience let this go. Radicalisation creates a clear route to the lose of life. It can result in the loss of loved ones. I have no choice. On this specific issue, and in the actual true sense of the word, this is my "jihad". ] ] 18:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::You object based on conscience and that should be respected. Every human being has to use their moral judgment when to part with the majority. Misplaced Pages has to go with the description in reliable sources and the ] must summarized the article. As consensus doesn't mean unanimity and your personal ethics prohibits your assent, we should ask other editors if they can weigh in and resolve this impasse. ] (]) 19:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
{{od}}
I have to agree with Jason from nyc. We have to follow the way the word is used in reliable sources and the common usage of the term, which according to Google is: "Jihadism (also jihadist extremism, jihadist movement, jihadi movement or militant jihadism) is used to refer to ''armed jihad in Islamic fundamentalism''. This has been a major meaning of the term since the later 20th century, but with a continuous history reaching back to the early 19th century". (My italics.) ISIL are Islamic fundamentalists. The objection to using the word "jihadist" to describe them is best covered in a para at the end of the Lead along with other criticism of the group, as proposed by Jason from nyc. I understand exactly Gregkaye's moral objection, but I really don't think this one word should be singled out in the Lead for special treatment. The "Criticisms" section is the appropriate place to register objection to it, IMO. That is my vote. --] (]) 20:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
:Agree with Jason from nyc and P123ct1. There are plenty of other "groups of murderers" - al Qaeda and Boko Haram amongst them - that are referred to by RS as Jihadists, so it is used on a much broader level that simply in reference to IS. ] (]) 23:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

], instead of edit-warring we've given this considerable attention and stayed engaged. This is the best we can do. I believe we have a duty to reflect the sources and organize the lead per ]. I also believe this is the consensus on an issue that will never be unanimous. Nothing will be removed and we still maintain fidelity to our obligation to report "prominent controversies." I appreciate everyone's review of this long discussion. I will move the 2nd paragraph to the end of the lead. ] (]) 01:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

*This is a case of passing by "extremist" (more widely used) in favour or "jihadist" (less widely and questionably used). Reference to Jihad on this page is not the same as reference to jihad in articles. People commit atrocities in the names of various gods and they even use justifications, as in this case, that make no coherent sense. ] ] 04:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Quote from: "If Jihad cannot be justified, it isn’t Jihad, because Jihad by its nature cannot be unjust. I know for many non-Muslims this is the most absurd statement they have heard in a very long time, and the words ‘ISLAMIST, EXTREMIST, TERRORIST’ is probably crossing their mind faster than they can read this, as they think I’m about to justify terrorism...

Jihad is thus the act to eradicate oppression and uphold justice. Jihad may be a physical struggle or a verbal struggle; “The greatest Jihad is to speak the truth in front of a tyrant ruler” – but it must be a just struggle, for a just cause."

] ] 05:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

:Did I misunderstand something? I thought the agreement was to keep in the word "jihadist", as the term used by reliable sources and generally to describe this group and groups like it. If it was, Gregkaye by removing it is going against the consensus of other editors. Please will someone elucidate? Did you not understand that this word was to be kept, ]? I do not agree with its removal. --] (]) 06:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
::There was some mention to include "extremist" ''along'' with "jihadist" in this section but more extensively in another past section without reaching a consensus. I don't see ''any'' consensus forming on removing "jihadist", however. I'll be away for a few days and hopefully have no access to the internet. Regards. ] (]) 11:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The user that removed it was ];. I reverted that particular edit. ] (]) 07:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes ] I think that you have misunderstood something. The word extremist got more hits (marginally) in a last search on the two terms and the descriptions are on parr. The relevance of the word extreme is not disputed while the relevance of "jihad" is contested by some of the most reliable sources in Sunni Islam.

As mentioned it is perfectly possible to use: "... is a ] ] ]". The "extremist" link is piped to ], to a page that contains the text: "for achieving perceived Islamic goals; see ]." All bases are covered and there is no force feeding of the reader with conclusions. Instead space is given to the reader to make up their own minds.

] ] 07:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

:I admire your tenacity, ]! Let us see what the other editors say. --] (]) 07:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
::On a personal basis I think that any religious teaching that advocates war for the sake of, for instance, the expansion of belief is corrupt. Different scholars seem to have differing views regarding the validity of ]. Did the god of Islam endorse slaughter by way of evangelism? I can't imagine any benevolent, all powerful god that would endorse such tactics.
::Beyond these concerns there the specific practices of ISIL. There are certainly no is certainly no justifications for many of them. The hanging question regards where the line should be drawn. We can't rely on sources that lack the religious knowledge necessary to comment on these things. The reliable sources should be the scholars. I think it is likely that this is the group of people that Britannica would refer to.

::The final verdict is not one that I am sure of. After the open-letter I imagined that there might have been more opposition to jihadist terminologies than there has actually been. ] ] 08:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

== Opponents list ==

I think the opponents' list is too restricted.

Shouldn't be considered "opponents" the states that have deployed forces in the ground to train the Iraqi Army and/or the Kurdish Peshmerga forces? And the states that have deployed Patriot missile batteries in Turkey to protect it from cross-border IS attacks?

I'm saying this because Spain has deployed 300 soldiers in Iraq to train the Iraqi Army on the ground, and will deploy 6 Patriot missile batteries and 130 supporting troops in Turkey to defend its NATO ally against cross-border attacks from IS.

States like Spain and others are clearly opponents of the IS, and I think their contribution should be noted on this Misplaced Pages article. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 16:07, 12 October 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Discrepancy ==

In the infobox, it says that the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant was established January 3, 2014. However, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant was announced April 8, 2013, when ISI declared that ISI was being renamed to ISIS:
http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/7119.htm

What happened on January 3 is that ISIS officially declared that they have completed the "liberation" of Fallujah and that the Islamic State has arrived to the city. To say that IS was established or announced on January 3 is pretty silly. The rest of the article is quite clear that ISI was established/announced in 2006, renamed to ISIS in April 2013, and then renamed itself to IS and declared a Caliphate on July 29 2014.

The "establishment" date should be changed to either October 15 2006, which is when ISI was announced, or to April 8 2013, which is when Baghdadi announced that ISI is being renamed to ISIS. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:39, 12 October 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Agreed, however whenever I have done this another editor has reverted me, and I haven't been interested in edit warring over it. ] (]) 23:33, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

== Please restore footnote "UN-executes" ==

{{editsemiprotected|answered=yes}}
There's a dangling reference to <nowiki><ref name=UN-executes/></nowiki> in the "As Islamic State" section. It's currently footnote 131, the third footnote at the end of "executions of clerics who refused to pledge allegiance to the Islamic State,<sup></sup> mass executions of prisoners of war,<sup></sup> and civilians,<sup></sup>"

I grabbed the footnote from an old version, where it was defined in the "Treatment of civilians" section. It used to be
: <nowiki><ref name=UN-executes>{{cite news |url=http://www.todayszaman.com/news-350389-un-warns-of-war-crimes-as-isil-allegedly-executes-1700.html |title=UN warns of war crimes as ISIL allegedly executes 1,700 |date=15 June 2014 |website=Today's Zaman |accessdate=4 July 2014}}</ref></nowiki>

The right thing to do is replace the reference to this footnote by this definition of the footnote. Thank you! ] (]) 23:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
:{{done}}, and thanks for taking the time to figure out what the citation had been before someone accidentally broke it. ] (]) 02:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

== Official website external link and accurate flag ==

This is apparently their official website. Should this go in the External Links section?

http://khilafah.is/

This is the image in the top right corner of their flag, which is a notably better version than what is being used here on wikipedia.

http://i.imgur.com/BvVrQfX.jpg

] (]) 04:07, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

:]the website isn't working, it has worked for you in the past? --] (]) 10:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

== placing Terrorism, orders of criticism ==

I think that ISIL should primarily be defined by what they do and I am now not sure in regard to our prominent presentation of terrorist labling. While I don't doubt that the label applies I personally see ISIL as being more analogous with the war promoting Nazi party or with the Hutu's in the 1990s in their genocide of the Tutsi in Rwanda.

I am questioning the balance between the priorities of the group to simply cleanse surrounding areas of enemies or to initiate terror/to enact reprisals for perceived previous wrongs.

Also, I believe that the section on: 'Criticism of the "Islamic State"' began as primarily as a compilation of criticisms of the groups use of the name "Islamic State" and that this has grown to incorporate other issues.

Suggest starting section "Criticisms" containing subsections: "Designation as a terrorist organization", "Criticism of the name choice, "Islamic State"" and "other".

Also suggest in the paragraph in the lead concerning criticisms placing the Amnesty international sentence on ethnic cleansing ahead of sentence indicating designation as a terrorist organization by the United Nations and other nations. The United Nations has 193 member states and eight are noted for individually applying this designation. There is far more condemnation on the issues of slaughter, slavery etc.

] ] 09:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

== a specific/non-specific, definable/indefinable establishment ==

The first infobox contains a section on "establishment" with presented details of:<br />
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant declared 3 January 2014<br />
- Caliphate declared 29 June 2014 <br />

The section on names begins: "The group has had a number of different names since it was formed, including some names that other groups use for it"

I personally find it contradictory to talk of "establishment" and to talk of names of the group prior to the establishment date.

What establishment are we/should we be talking about? The establishment of the group? The establishment of a government (which may have occurred at any time and not necessarily at name change transition)? The establishment of a capital city? The establishment of a title containing the word "State" (which occurred with the rebranding as "Islamic State of Iraq")? A rebranding of the description of the type of government to Caliphate? Something else?

Thoughts? Suggestions?

I think that the one valuable piece of information here is the date that "Caliphate" was declared and this could be entered in the section of Government. The current text reads: "Self-declared caliphate". I suggest: "], ] declared as ] (2006) and as ] (29 June 2014).

The ] was a single-party and it retains absolute control of the group.

] ] 11:16, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
:I agree, you make a good point here. ] (]) 23:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

===Also propose moving information on leaders and on the capital city into just one info box===
I suggest that this all goes under Government and capital in the first box. ] ] 13:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

==For the Criticisms section==
'''This short video''' . "Sheytan" is "Satan". --] (]) 17:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

== Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2014 ==

{{edit semi-protected|Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant|answered=yes}}
<!-- Begin request -->

Change "Ministry of Defence, Israel" to "Ministry of Defense, Israel"

<!-- End request -->
] (]) 19:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
:{{done}} --] (]) 19:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

== ُEnough is enough! stop misleading readers! ==

It's been months and I'm waiting for someone to change this misleading information in the box that says (Islamic state of Iraq and the Levant was established in 2014. everyone knows that '''the accurate date is in 2013 as it mentioned in the name section'''. regarding the sources that use the date in January 2014 this was a misunderstanding because when they entered the city of Fallojah they said it's one of the Wilayat of ISIS which was liberated. they didn't declare anything new! while at that time they had presence in many cities in Syria including Raqqah, Jarabouls and Azaz. please correct the date! ] (]) 19:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
:I guess its been {{done}}. I'm not surprised that the parallel effort wasn't made to reply. ] ] 17:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
::Editor was informed on his talk page. --] (]) 21:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

== Anti-ISIL guerrilla groups ==

I'm not sure where the best place for this is, but someone might consider adding some brief information about ''ad hoc'' guerrilla groups that have risen up against them, like "White Shroud." --]&nbsp;] 23:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

== Use of "Islamic State" at least in the infobox ==

I disagree with ] by Legacypac of my edit changing the infobox header to the actual name. Yes, the ''title'' of the article has been discussed many times, but I only see a few mentions of the actual infobox header when I search it, and I disagree that it makes Misplaced Pages look "foolish" and all that other nonsense. The name presented in an infobox does not need to reflect the article's title, and I do not see why some people think otherwise. Just as many country articles use short names for titles and actual names in infoboxes, I don't see why we shouldn't use long names in the title with the short, self-given name in the infobox. Maybe there were some discussions specifically about the infobox title, and I managed to overlook them somehow, and if so, some links would help, but I still don't get the reasoning here. ]&nbsp;] 00:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
:This is a tricky one. In comparison the parallel article at ] has an article text that starts with the equivalent wording to "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" and an inforbox text that starts with the equivalent wording of "Islamic State". The English article has this the opposite way around. I have said all that I can say on actual request move possibilities. In current form the article also makes consistent use of the abbreviation ISIL. There are objections to the use of "Islamic" as in the "not in my name campaign". A shortening of the name makes the "Islamic" reference less specific while the actual reference still clearly remains. ] ] 10:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
::I agree. The infobox name should be the official name. It's not the same has the title name. For example, the ] uses the offical name in the infobox. So does many countries, rather than using the common name, which is rather ambiguous in this case. ] (]) 23:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

==Al-Qaeda's break with ISIL==
I have restored "reportedly" in the Lead sentence, "It had close links to al-Qaeda until February 2014 when, after an eight-month power struggle, al-Qaeda cut all ties with the group, for its brutality and "notorious intractability". I think ] who removed it is probably unaware of the discussion over the wording of this sentence some time ago . There was a good reason why editors decided that word should be there. Basically, there have been no reports that al-Qaeda cut ties with ISIL on the grounds that it was "too extreme", and it was agreed by editors that this reason was journalistic interpretation. --] (]) 07:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
:I wasn't aware of that discussion. But I don't get it. Every single statement in every wp article is "reportedly." The word adds nothing. It falls within the Strunk and White rubric that we should omit needless words. If there is cause to say that it is "journalistic interprentation," and not "reported", then we should say that. If it is reported, then we should omit the word ... because everything here is reported. IMHO. Best. --] (]) 17:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
::You are quite right, it is all reported, but "reportedly" is used (like "allegedly") when there is some doubt about the report. That was all! --] (]) 20:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

== Caliphate as territory or power structure or both? ==

Following reference from the Independent (UK newspaper) the text at ] reads:

On 29 June 2014, ISIL ... began to refer to itself as the "Islamic State", declaring the territory under its control a new caliphate

https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=(ISIS+OR+ISIL+OR+%22Islamic+State%22)+AND+caliphate+AND+(government+OR+territory+OR+land+OR+system)


{{old move|date=14 December 2024|destination=Islamic State (militant group)|result=not moved|link=Special:Permalink/1264338464#Requested move 14 December 2024}}
I would have thought that "]" serves more as a reference to territory (and everything there in) while ] may refers more to the governmental/command structure. A part from the Independent headline I have yet to see an anchor point of caliphate to government/ territory or other term. Any thoughts?


== "‘You are next’: online posts show Islamic State interest in attacks on US ahead of election" ==
] ] 10:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


] ] 11:16, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
== Self-declared references removed re caliphate ==


:@] Cite reliable sources to confirm it. ] (]) 08:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
The references were removed in this edit despite clear messages stating "!--don't remove qualifier, please see definitions of ]--"
::@] Why didn't you bother to look first? That would be the sensible idea and sholw good faith. The first hit is ] ] 11:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)


== First sentence ==
It states:<br />
A caliphate (in Arabic: خلافة‎ khilāfa, meaning "succession") is an Islamic state led by a supreme religious and political leader known as a caliph – i.e. "successor" – to Muhammad. The succession of Muslim empires that have existed in the Muslim world are usually described as "caliphates". Conceptually, a caliphate represents a sovereign state of the entire Muslim faithful, (the Ummah), ruled by a caliph under Islamic law (sharia).


I have removed, from the first sentence of the article, (uncited) text that calls ISIL an "] ]." It is true that, as of 2024, affiliates of the terror group hold territorial control over shifting areas of Africa (which we mention in the lead section), but the preponderance of sources (or at least the sources currently cited) don't seem to commonly use the "quasi-state" verbiage to describe ISIL presently - certainly not at a frequency sufficient to justify its inclusion in the lead. Neither of the two sources cited on the present situation in Africa (, ) use the term. Given all that, the "quasi-state" language is more likely to confuse readers than enlighten them, especially as it seems to conflate the situation a decade ago (2012/2013 era) with the situation today. (Note, too, that there are many terror/insurgent groups that occupy territory but are not commonly described as "quasi-states." ]<sup>]</sup> 19:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Quite clearly Muhammed and any genuine caliphs that followed were accepted by those that accepted the Muhammadan creed. Baghdadi's claim of authority over Islam is widely rejected. The claimed caliphate, if there is one, is well described as self-declared.


== Proposal to include IS-CP and Add a Section on Involvement within the borders of the Russian Federation ==
See also: which gets "About 69,300 results". There are a lot of people going beyond basic reporting and adding a large content of commentary.


The article shows a significant plurality of foreign fighters in Islamic State originating from The Russian Federation yet there is no mention of either IS-CP or the link to Chechan extremists/terrorists nor the direct involvemnet of Al-Qaeada fighters in the Second Chechen War and activities of IS-CP in Russia since inception of Islamic State/Daesh and it's military defeat two years later.
] ] 12:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
:The actual lack of support for this self-declared caliphate may seem to be quite astounding when viewed in context.<br />
:See search: That search got "About 843,000 results".
:] ] 12:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


I prepose inclusion of links to the main article for IS-CP in the article summary as well as a summary of IS-CP operations within the Caucuses. I'm interested in any discussion/contributions before amending the article. ] (]) 15:12, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
== Propose amalgamating content of the section on "goals" into the section on "history" ==


== Requested move 14 December 2024 ==
The 8th section of the article is ] and I am wondering to what extent it is just a repetition of content of the 2nd section: ]. I'm thinking that "Goals" should present an indication of what the group plans to do in the future and not what it has done in the past. ] ] 16:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


<div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #efe); color: var(--color-base, inherit); margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted var(--border-color-subtle, #AAAAAA);"><!-- Template:RM top -->
== Second map position ==
:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color: var(--color-error, red);">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ] '''after''' discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''


The result of the move request was: '''not moved.''' <small>(])</small> '']'' 🎄 ] — ] 🎄 23:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
The article contains two excellent maps both of which are produced by ]. First things first: I've just awarded a barnstar at: ] and would be more than happy for anyone else to edit the message and add their signature :)
----


] → {{no redirect|Islamic State (militant group)}} – "Islamic state" doesn't indicates towards a particular group but whole Muslim community! And it makes confusion. There are lot of countries or state in past who used this name but not fair to target whole community as majority or almost all Muslims don't accept it as an Islamic state or caliphate. It makes confusion like in ] page. I think it should be moved on the basis of it targets a particular community who aren't accepting it and Misplaced Pages should not work on the basis of who claims the title.There is no problem using Islamic state name as per WP:COMMONNAMES But make a distinction.
I was also wondering about the best use of the second map. The first map is in the first infobox and the second map is currently positioned in : ]
I have changed the proposed title because the Islamic state of Iraq and Syria doesn't exists. And the main reason for this request is to make distinction.] (]) 23:23, 14 December 2024 (UTC)


:Disagree. The "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" is no more as declared by former Caliph Baghdadi, who declared a global Caliphate. That is why now correct to talk of "Islamic State" when referring to the group's central activities and in general; then one can talk of "IS in Syria, in Iraq, IS-WAP, IS-SP, IS-GS etc. etc.
Is this the best location for it? Other possibilities include: following either of the infoboxes with the key information being placed as a caption; following the history section; some other position. What think ye?
:None believe "Islamic State" means "worldwide Muslim Community". ] (]) 14:14, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:'''Comment:''' I was launched a RM in October to ''']''' but only one supported it, they argued that "Islamic State" is common name. So I think this RM won't succusful.
:But If we uses "ISIS" in most of area rather then article title, it will succusful. No one call the group as "ISIL" now. Reliable sources also use "ISIS". So ISIS is most popular term to refer the group. The " Islamic State" is second most popular term. ] (]) 14:19, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''' When sources spell the name out, they almost always use "Islamic State" – , , , the list goes on and on. Readers expect to see "Islamic State", not a long and clunky alternative name. Almost nobody even knows what the second part of ISIS stands for. ]&nbsp;]&nbsp;&nbsp;''<sup style="font-family:Times New Roman">]</sup>'' 15:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
::No. ], ] and this page makes confusion. And while saying the word "Islamic state" the thing comes on mind is the state of Islam and there should be no one particularly refered as Islamic state cuz lot of states claimed to be Islamic state and caliphate but it something that is/should be based on consensus of Muslims (Shura) like ] they can come to conclusion that is this an Islamic state, caliphate or not and no one accept them. They are salafi terrorist organization they have not right to claim that they are the Islamic state and how will someone make distinction between (] and isis ??? It's disrespectful and unfair that someone claimed the Islamic state or caliphate title and no one of that community accepts but based on people refers them giving the name doesn't make sense! If you think "Islamic state of Iraq and Syria" is not suitable then ]as suggest by @] or ] but the word "Islamic state" refers whole community not just a particular group it's a term. ] (]) 17:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Nothing written above concerns Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, it simply appears to be your personal opinion based on your own sensitivity (] may be helpful). ] (]) 22:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Agree with Sira Aspera, ] may also be relevant here. ]&nbsp;]&nbsp;&nbsp;''<sup style="font-family:Times New Roman">]</sup>'' 01:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::It sucks that terrorists have co-opted the name, but it isn't Misplaced Pages's job to WP:RGW and change article titles based on a Shura council. ] (]) 22:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. ] should redirect to ]. ] (]) 19:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''': No reason to lengthen the title. The terrorist organization is exactly what 99% of readers expect to find when they type the title, even more so after the current events in Syria. ] (]) 22:32, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. An RM with basically the same rationale was discussed a month ago and the closer found a "clear consensus not to move". So why are we discussing it again? I'm often not the biggest fan of ], but in this case it works perfectly. ] is the organisation, capitalised as such and commonly known thus, while ] refers to the generic concept. Suggest a speedy close since nothing has changed since November. Cheers &nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;] (]) 23:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' that is what the organization calls itself being the one used by the media and is clearly the ] and is the ].] (]) 01:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Then what will you say on ] ? How readers will distinct those pages? Or ] what does this page means the first state of Islam or first state of isis ? There is no problem using Islamic state name as per ] But make a distinction. ] (]) 01:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per ]. This is not an Islamic state but a terrorist organisation whose proper name is "Islamic State". The capitalisation difference is sufficient. ] &#124; ] 07:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:No it's not sufficient for a normal reader ] (]) 14:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)


:'''Oppose'''. The Islamic State itself is not a militant group, but a global coalition of militant groups under Islamic State's central command. The Iraq and Syria province is the most well-known, but there is no group that's just the Islamic State and not a regional affiliate. I wouldn't be opposed to renaming the article ] as that makes a better distinction between the org and the concept of an Islamic state.
] ] 17:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
:Per WP:COMMONNAME as Amakuru points out, The Islamic State vs. Islamic state is the perfect example of a specific group commonly known as that versus the concept. ] (]) 22:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::Think from the pov of a normal reader who wants to know concept but finds this group go on Google and search Islamic state it shows this article. And the isis don't operating now globally and Minor in Iraq and Syria. And it create confusion with ] too ] (]) 02:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Per commonname. ] (]) 23:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Very clear primary topic. -- ] (]) 16:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Islamic State is a common name for the group. It’s the first thing that comes to mind. ] (]) 20:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*:True, The name 'Islamic State' should be kept on the page, Nobody knows what ISIL, ISIS are anymore. ] (]) 21:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*::But all the article in press mentions it as militant group or organization so why not make a distinction ] (]) 16:28, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: var(--color-error, red);">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from ] -->
</div><div style="clear:both;" class=></div>


== Talk page too long == == Use of term 'terror group' ==


Per ], terms like terrorist are "best avoided '''unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject'''." I understand there was some confusion that led to the removal of the term based on a quick reading of the 'best avoided' part alone. The label terrorist is near-unanimously used by ]s in essentially every language to describe groups like ISIS and hence it is usable per ]. Using such a term would be justified in the lede as long as reliably sourced.--] (]) 22:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
I changed the "MiszaBot/config| algo=old" to from default 30 days to 48 days a while back to keep older discussions alive. This page gets up to 1.6M pageviews/day (!) and discussion has been lively. I think it should be set back to 30 days, or even as low as 21 days. ~Technophant (talk) 11:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


:I think something like "Islamic State has been designated as a terrorist organistation by the United States and many other countries" would be appropriate, per the requirement at MOS:TERRORIST for intext attribution. Note that news organisations like the BBC also refer to IS as a "militant group" rather than referring it to it in their own voice as a "terrorist group". ] (]) 22:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:Since I wrote this, the algo has been changed (without discussion) to 14 days, then 7 days . This is too short. I understand that this talk page is quite long, however not everybody contributes or checks every page on a weekly basis. I'm changing it back to 14 days. I don't support any shorter length of time. ~] <small>(])</small> 03:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
::The in-text styling is in the fourth paragraph of the lede. BBC also regularly uses the term terror and alternates between the two (terror and militant) rather than using only 'militant'. ] (]) 22:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 17:15, 13 January 2025

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Islamic State article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44Auto-archiving period: 2 months 
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.)
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Censorship warningMisplaced Pages is not censored.
Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Misplaced Pages's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Islamic State. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Islamic State at the Reference desk.
Peace dove with olive branch in its beakPlease stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.
? view · edit Frequently asked questions Q1: Which name is best: ISIS, ISIL, Daesh or Islamic State etc A: The article title is decided according to policy WP:Article titles

The discussion that resulted in the current name Islamic State was held in August-September 2021. The decision followed WP:Commonname section of WP:Article titles.

This question has been raised over 40 times on the talk page, without any proposal other than the September 2021 and August 2013 discussions resulting in a page move. Now archived, those discussions can be read here and searched here.

Past names, both used and considered, have included: "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria", "Islamic State of Iraq and (al-)Sham", "Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria", "Islamic State", "The Islamic State", "Islamic State (Middle East)", "Islamic State (Organisation)".
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Ajnad Foundation was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 19 July 2020 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Islamic State. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.
Islamic State received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Worldwide caliphate was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 8 September 2022 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Islamic State on 8 September 2022. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.
A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on April 8, 2015, April 8, 2017, and April 8, 2020.
This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconArab world Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconCrime and Criminal Biography: Organized crime / Terrorism Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Organized crime task force (assessed as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as Top-importance).
WikiProject iconInternational relations Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconIraq High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IraqWikipedia:WikiProject IraqTemplate:WikiProject IraqIraq
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconIslam: Islam and Controversy / Salaf / Sunni Islam High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Islam and Controversy task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Salaf task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Sunni Islam task force.
WikiProject iconMilitary history: African / Asian / Middle East / Post-Cold War
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
African military history task force
Taskforce icon
Asian military history task force
Taskforce icon
Middle Eastern military history task force
Taskforce icon
Post-Cold War task force
WikiProject iconOrganizations Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPolitics Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSyria High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by a media organization:
  • "ISIS not the Islamic state it fiercely claims to be". Olean Times Herald. March 18, 2015. I approach Misplaced Pages cautiously as to whether its abundant information on a multitude of subjects is complete and authoritative. But I salute the site for its numerous citations concerning the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS — specifically the "criticism of the name 'Islamic State' and 'caliphate' declaration" (found under its entry for the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant).
WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS

The article Islamic State, along with other pages relating to the Syrian Civil War and ISIL, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:

  • Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period)

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.

Remedy instructions and exemptions

Enforcement procedures:

  • Violations of any restrictions (excluding 1RR/reverting violations) and other conduct issues should be reported to the administrators' incidents noticeboard. Violations of revert restrictions should be reported to the administrators' edit warring noticeboard.
  • Editors who violate any listed restrictions may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
  • An editor must be aware before they can be sanctioned.

With respect to any reverting restrictions:

  • Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
  • Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as clear vandalism.
  • Clear vandalism of any origin may be reverted without restriction.
  • Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

          Other talk page banners
This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2014 and 2015.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 24 times. The weeks in which this happened:
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Discussions:

Older discussions:
  1. Islamic State of Iraq and Syria → Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, Moved, 13 August 2013, /Archive 1#Rename
  2. RM, Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, Not moved (but moved back to "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant"), 12 June 2014, /Archive 2#Requested Move
  3. RM, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → The Islamic State, No consensus, 29 June 2014, /Archive 3#Requested move 2
  4. RM, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, Procedurally closed, 31 July 2014, /Archive 3#Requested move
  5. RM, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State, Not moved, 8 August 2014, /Archive 5#Requested move 8 August 2014
  6. Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State (organization), Quick close, 20 August 2014, /Archive 5#Move
  7. Content discussion, References in the text: ISIS or ISIL?, ISIL chosen, 17 Sept – 26 Sept 2014, /Archive 10#References in the text: ISIS or ISIL?
  8. RM, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State, Not moved, 7 Sept – 30 Sept 2014, /Archive 10#Move request - 6 September 2014
  9. RM, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State (Organisation), No consensus, 17 Sep – 3 Oct 2014, /Archive 11#Requested move 17 September 2014
  10. RM, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State (islamist rebel group), No consensus, 9 Jan – 17 Jan 2015, /Archive 28#Requested move 9 January 2015
  11. RM, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State, Not moved, 19 Apr – 20 Apr 2015, /Archive 34#Requested move 19 April 2015
  12. RM, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State (IS), Not moved, 15 Jul – 29 Jul 2015, /Archive_37#Requested move 15 July 2015
The contents of the Khilafah.is page were merged into ISIL#Propaganda and social media on 29 November 2015. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.
Section sizes
Section size for Islamic State (41 sections)
Section name Byte
count		 Section
total
(Top) 86,550 86,550
Name 12,163 12,163
Purpose and strategy 27 41,378
Ideology 24,539 24,539
Islamic eschatology 1,734 1,734
Goals 7,287 7,287
Strategy 7,791 7,791
Organisation 1,553 50,789
Leadership and governance 19,704 19,704
Civilians in Islamic State-controlled areas 3,379 3,379
Military 101 10,951
Number of combatants 4,645 4,645
Conventional weapons 2,102 2,102
Non-conventional weapons 4,103 4,103
Women 3,680 3,680
Communications 69 69
Finances 7,841 11,453
Monetary system 2,516 2,516
Education 1,096 1,096
History 2,821 2,821
Territorial control and claims 10,277 10,277
International reaction 124 62,944
International criticism 2,287 2,287
Islamic criticism 531 31,814
Religious leaders and organisations 20,797 20,797
Other jihadist groups 10,486 10,486
Other commentaries 2,731 28,719
Designation as a terrorist organisation 22,676 22,676
Militia, cult, territorial authority, and other classifications 3,312 3,312
Supporters 3,865 3,865
Countries and groups at war with IS 672 29,022
Global Coalition to Counter the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant 6,344 28,350
Other state opponents not part of the Counter-ISIL Coalition 5,338 5,338
Other non-state opponents 11,574 11,574
Al-Qaeda 5,094 5,094
Human rights abuse and war crime findings 4,279 4,279
Explanatory notes 38 38
Citations 29 29
General and cited references 3,466 3,466
Further reading 333 333
External links 5,413 5,413
Total 313,367 313,367


On 14 December 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to Islamic State (militant group). The result of the discussion was not moved.

"‘You are next’: online posts show Islamic State interest in attacks on US ahead of election"

Doug Weller talk 11:16, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller Cite reliable sources to confirm it. BangladeshiStranger🇧🇩 (talk) 08:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
@Stranger43286 Why didn't you bother to look first? That would be the sensible idea and sholw good faith. The first hit is Doug Weller talk 11:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

First sentence

I have removed, from the first sentence of the article, (uncited) text that calls ISIL an "unrecognised quasi-state." It is true that, as of 2024, affiliates of the terror group hold territorial control over shifting areas of Africa (which we mention in the lead section), but the preponderance of sources (or at least the sources currently cited) don't seem to commonly use the "quasi-state" verbiage to describe ISIL presently - certainly not at a frequency sufficient to justify its inclusion in the lead. Neither of the two sources cited on the present situation in Africa (, ) use the term. Given all that, the "quasi-state" language is more likely to confuse readers than enlighten them, especially as it seems to conflate the situation a decade ago (2012/2013 era) with the situation today. (Note, too, that there are many terror/insurgent groups that occupy territory but are not commonly described as "quasi-states." Neutrality 19:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to include IS-CP and Add a Section on Involvement within the borders of the Russian Federation

The article shows a significant plurality of foreign fighters in Islamic State originating from The Russian Federation yet there is no mention of either IS-CP or the link to Chechan extremists/terrorists nor the direct involvemnet of Al-Qaeada fighters in the Second Chechen War and activities of IS-CP in Russia since inception of Islamic State/Daesh and it's military defeat two years later.

I prepose inclusion of links to the main article for IS-CP in the article summary as well as a summary of IS-CP operations within the Caucuses. I'm interested in any discussion/contributions before amending the article. Debiant (talk) 15:12, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 14 December 2024

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Cremastra 🎄 u — c 🎄 23:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Islamic State → Islamic State (militant group) – "Islamic state" doesn't indicates towards a particular group but whole Muslim community! And it makes confusion. There are lot of countries or state in past who used this name but not fair to target whole community as majority or almost all Muslims don't accept it as an Islamic state or caliphate. It makes confusion like in First Islamic state page. I think it should be moved on the basis of it targets a particular community who aren't accepting it and Misplaced Pages should not work on the basis of who claims the title.There is no problem using Islamic state name as per WP:COMMONNAMES But make a distinction.

I have changed the proposed title because the Islamic state of Iraq and Syria doesn't exists. And the main reason for this request is to make distinction.Therealbey (talk) 23:23, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Disagree. The "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" is no more as declared by former Caliph Baghdadi, who declared a global Caliphate. That is why now correct to talk of "Islamic State" when referring to the group's central activities and in general; then one can talk of "IS in Syria, in Iraq, IS-WAP, IS-SP, IS-GS etc. etc.
None believe "Islamic State" means "worldwide Muslim Community". 22Chev22 (talk) 14:14, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Comment: I was launched a RM in October to Islamic State (organisation) but only one supported it, they argued that "Islamic State" is common name. So I think this RM won't succusful.
But If we uses "ISIS" in most of area rather then article title, it will succusful. No one call the group as "ISIL" now. Reliable sources also use "ISIS". So ISIS is most popular term to refer the group. The " Islamic State" is second most popular term. RealStranger43286 (talk) 14:19, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Oppose When sources spell the name out, they almost always use "Islamic State" – , , , the list goes on and on. Readers expect to see "Islamic State", not a long and clunky alternative name. Almost nobody even knows what the second part of ISIS stands for. 🐔 Chicdat   15:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
No. Islamic state, First Islamic state and this page makes confusion. And while saying the word "Islamic state" the thing comes on mind is the state of Islam and there should be no one particularly refered as Islamic state cuz lot of states claimed to be Islamic state and caliphate but it something that is/should be based on consensus of Muslims (Shura) like OIC they can come to conclusion that is this an Islamic state, caliphate or not and no one accept them. They are salafi terrorist organization they have not right to claim that they are the Islamic state and how will someone make distinction between (Islamic state and isis ??? It's disrespectful and unfair that someone claimed the Islamic state or caliphate title and no one of that community accepts but based on people refers them giving the name doesn't make sense! If you think "Islamic state of Iraq and Syria" is not suitable then Islamic State (organisation)as suggest by @Stranger43286 or Islamic state (militant group) but the word "Islamic state" refers whole community not just a particular group it's a term. Therealbey (talk) 17:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Nothing written above concerns Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, it simply appears to be your personal opinion based on your own sensitivity (WP:NOTAFORUM may be helpful). Sira Aspera (talk) 22:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Agree with Sira Aspera, WP:RGW may also be relevant here. 🐔 Chicdat   01:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
It sucks that terrorists have co-opted the name, but it isn't Misplaced Pages's job to WP:RGW and change article titles based on a Shura council. Jebiguess (talk) 22:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Oppose. The Islamic State itself is not a militant group, but a global coalition of militant groups under Islamic State's central command. The Iraq and Syria province is the most well-known, but there is no group that's just the Islamic State and not a regional affiliate. I wouldn't be opposed to renaming the article Islamic State (organization) as that makes a better distinction between the org and the concept of an Islamic state.
Per WP:COMMONNAME as Amakuru points out, The Islamic State vs. Islamic state is the perfect example of a specific group commonly known as that versus the concept. Jebiguess (talk) 22:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Think from the pov of a normal reader who wants to know concept but finds this group go on Google and search Islamic state it shows this article. And the isis don't operating now globally and Minor in Iraq and Syria. And it create confusion with First Islamic state too Therealbey (talk) 02:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Use of term 'terror group'

Per MOS:TERRORIST, terms like terrorist are "best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject." I understand there was some confusion that led to the removal of the term based on a quick reading of the 'best avoided' part alone. The label terrorist is near-unanimously used by WP:RSs in essentially every language to describe groups like ISIS and hence it is usable per MOS:TERRORIST. Using such a term would be justified in the lede as long as reliably sourced.--OrebroVi (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I think something like "Islamic State has been designated as a terrorist organistation by the United States and many other countries" would be appropriate, per the requirement at MOS:TERRORIST for intext attribution. Note that news organisations like the BBC also refer to IS as a "militant group" rather than referring it to it in their own voice as a "terrorist group". Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
The in-text styling is in the fourth paragraph of the lede. BBC also regularly uses the term terror and alternates between the two (terror and militant) rather than using only 'militant'. OrebroVi (talk) 22:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Categories:
Talk:Islamic State: Difference between revisions Add topic