Talk:Islamic State/Archive 29

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

→

Archive 35

IS territory in afghanistan

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia/2015/01/afghan-officials-confirm-isil-presence-201511815245847478.html kindly check this new political gain,,, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.203.206.153 (talk) 19:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Not sure how notable this is at this stage but it may be interesting to see how 'SIL representatives get along with the likes of the Taliban. GregKaye 14:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Concern with the Justifications Section

I'm concerned that the Justifications based on Islamic Religious text section is getting out of hand in length and detail. Are we centralizing and repeating ISIL propaganda here, that if read by someone in the wrong mind set could help inspire a terror attack? Are we giving undue weight to a very minority position not shared by the vast majority of Muslims? Further, it repeats what they are doing, outside the War crimes section, and some of the sourcing looks suspect. Legacypac (talk) 04:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

:Terrorist attack really??. As if there already isn't. I don't know what made you say that? . Pink love 1998 (talk) 14:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

ROFL!! That is the most dumbest thing I've ever heard, do you think these guys are busy with something more important like bombing some place important.You are really funny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.92.24.117 (talk) 15:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC) (banned socks)

I agree that the quality of the sourcing is uneven. That was one of my motivations for adding subheadings, so we could break it up and more easily work on each piece. My sense is that several of the subsections could be tightened up and would also benefit by better sourcing. As for the repetition, my personal preference would be for each subsection to be integrated back into the appropriate spot where the underlying topic is discussed (e.g., justification for slavery into the slavery section, justification for the persecution of Yazidis into the section on persecution of minorities, etc.). I think it's easier to get the balance right when everything is together. EastTN (talk) 19:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed EastTN, that would cut down the repetition. The originator of this material, and the acct that edited it early on, were disruptive before being both banned as socks. I'm wondering if they are back as IPs. Legacypac (talk) 19:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I was able to find (with the provided links, so not hard) that several sections were 100% copyvio. Deleted them, and the inserter edit warred over it. I suspect some of the remaining material may also be copyvio, needs more work. Legacypac (talk) 07:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

@Legacypac: Thank you for raising this topic. I was aiming to this! The section has somehow POV problem besides the copy right violation. Mhhossein (talk) 17:25, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree this section has many sourcing problems and POV problems. It would be better moved to a subsection of the "Ideology and beliefs" sections to avoid giving it undue weight. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 18:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

My sense is that much of it would fit more naturally in the relevant subsections under "Human rights and war crimes findings." There's a subsection there where the article discusses how ISIL is enslaving women. We could easily fold their justification for slavery into that section. EastTN (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, after we delete the copyright violations, it might be good if we could go back and rewrite the text to use the sources appropriately. But please understand - I am NOT justifying the copyright violations or suggesting that the offending text be left in the article until someone gets around to revising it. This is just a reminder to me/us that some of the sources may be good, and we should go back and take a second look after dealing with the copyright issues. EastTN (talk) 20:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello new user here

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

---

I wanted to know if anybody would object If I add the ISIS anthem audio template.You cannot censor wikipedia right.Phantom gamer 1993 (talk) 16:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Note I have opened a WP:SPI on this editor. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Put your reliable source for it on the talkpage, then editors will consider it. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 17:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

You beat me too it User:NeilN I just reversed nearly all his misc unsourced or bad grammar edits across the site. Legacypac (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Ha ha I can only laugh looking at the ignorance of the idiots editing this article.Phantom gamer 1993 (talk) 19:30, 19 January 2015 (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.

Changing article from ISIL to the Islamic State.

I believe the moratorium placed on discussing a name change for this article is over. I propose the name of the article be changed from the outdated and incorrect Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) to the current and correct name for the organisation, which is The Islamic State (IS). Although I'm aware there is another article on Wikipedia called the Islamic state, it would be best to refer to this article as Islamic State (IS) , Islamic State (militant group) or Islamic State (terrorist organisation). There is little to no reason why ISIL should still be kept in use on Wikipedia. I see many individuals stating that becuase the U.S government uses this acronym, this Encyclopedia must follow suit. I don't remember the last time the English Wikipedia, representing the entire English language was the mouthpiece for the U.S government. Anyhow, Wikipedia is about preserving knowledge, factual up to date knowledge, with a neutral point of view. It should not be pandering to peoples sensitives in what they think is politically correct or incorrect. Seems that no one through a fit when the organisation changed its name from the Islamic State of Iraq to the Islamic State of Iraq and Sham in 2013, so it is just ridiculous why this change hasn't yet occurred after 7 months. StanMan87 (talk) 03:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

StanMan87Article titles are required to follow WP:COMMONNAME. If it is found that Islamic state is a more common name than ISIL then that title should be used. A Google test may help us ascertain which term is more popular. Regarding your point about U.S government using the acronym so the encyclopedia must follow suit, this I agree is a stupid reason, as this is not a propaganda tool and we follow our own policy. The name should be chosen as per wiki policy. I would support your proposal for a name change provided it follows wp:commonname. Mbcap (talk) 04:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia is also known as an Islamic state so does Iran Iraq,Malaysia and other Muslims majority countries ,so no it cannot be renamed to Islamic state. The name ISIL will help people to identify which place the media is referring to .118.102.228.2 (talk) 04:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I had two edit conflicts, hopefully I haven't messed this message up

I expected this to appear the moment said moratorium disappeared. You are correct in saying Islamic State is the most accurate translation of the group's preferred name, whereas ISIL and ISIS were translations of previous names.

Whilst I'm sure someone from the archived discussions will tell us all about them, which will probably be far better grounded in policy than what I've found, I'm going ahead with this anyway.

The word "Militant" may be taken as POV against the group, so Islamic State (rebel group) may be preferred to Islamic State (militant group). Terrorist is even more so. This talk page is still discussing whether the opening paragraph is POV for mentioning the condemnation of its name immediately, so this apparently POV would probably be argued over at length. Regardless I'll assume we're considering Islamic State (clarifier) and only consider what that clarifier should be if/when we've agreed to move the article.

1. WP:AT says the main focus should be on 5 criteria: Recognizability Naturalness Precision Conciseness Consistency
2. The same page also says WP:UCRN "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural."

The following are about people, but I've included them because I cannot see much difference between a person and a group choosing their name.

1. WP:SPNC says "The appreciation of how much extra weight should be given to more recent sources is guided by the likelihood the new name is going to stick"
2. WP:SPNC also says: WP:BLPSELFPUB is particularly important. This seems a little odd, but I take it to imply that wikipedia believes a person cannot unilaterally change their name. It says:
   1. it is not unduly self-serving;
   2. it does not involve claims about third parties; (Clearly not relevant)−
   3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; (Clearly not relevant)
   4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
   5. the article is not based primarily on such sources. (I believe to not be relevant)

Therefore I conclude that the inclusion of BLPSELFPUB in SPNC is intended to say that the name must not be self-serving.

I consider all of the above to suggest that it is moderately preferable to keep the name ISIL as it is the most common name, one that is not rejected almost universally, slightly less ambigous, slightly more recognisable. It is slightly less natrual. It may also be less precise depending on how you could precision. Finally, it would probably be slightly difficult for consistency, as most English language sources use the names ISIS/ISIL. However, I don't really personally care that much.

In responce to IP: I do not believe that is a sufficient argument, you could go with Islamic State (rebel group) or Islamic state (Syria and Iraq). Also they call themselves Islamic States rather than going by the name "Islamic State". If you're saying that their name in effect infringes on other states' claims to being Islamic states, then that's different, but not how it appears. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Smith the Gamer (talk • contribs) 04:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

US Govt moving to DAESH [1]. Legacypac (talk) 04:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia is known as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Iran as the Islamic Republic of Iran. Malaysia isn't formally referred to as anything Islamic. Iraq is the Republic of Iraq. I don't see why it cannot be renamed using the suggestions I provided above which would give the distinction between the organisation known as the Islamic State (IS) and the philosophy of a form of government i.e an Islamic State. The acronym ISIL has been used so much by itself from the U.S government, that it might as well be Isile. It seems no one wishes to say The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant or Sham for fear of being labeled ignorant or discriminatory. It shouldn't matter what term is mot commonly used, only which term is factually correct. What's the point of feeding the English speaking world false, outdated information? Wikipedia really should lead the way in topics relating to articles like this, not follow the lead of the U.S government or any media institution which doesn't care about scholastic truth. This seems as if Wikipedia is becoming the antithesis of an Encyclopedia. StanMan87 (talk) 04:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

As I said above, I believe Wikipedia doesn't believe that groups have the right to change their name at will. I found nothing that suggests that the name a group chooses for itself is considered factually correct whilst all others aren't. The article makes it clear that the name "Islamic State" is the one the group goes by, so it does not spread "false, outdated information". As for Wikipedia leading? If you read WP:RGW you'll see it says ""Wikipedia is behind the ball – that is we don't lead, we follow – let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements and find WP:NPOV ways of presenting them if needed."" John Smith the Gamer (talk) 05:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

"at will" is an overstatement, the group we're discussing last changed their name 7 months ago, and before that 24 months ago. That might have been applicable had the group altered its name every month since 2013, but twice in 2 years is hardly "at will". There have been only two official and correct names for this organisation, The Islamic State of Iraq and Sham (ISIS) and The Islamic State (IS). Every other incarnation has been made from people outside this organisation e.g Daesh or ISIL. The fact that the article mentions the group officially going by the name "The Islamic State" once in the article whilst the acronym ISIL is used not only throughout this article but whenever referencing IS just reinforces ignorance, and in doing so spreads false and outdated information. As for Wikipedia being "behind the ball", I can see that, it's been "behind the ball" for 7, going on to nearly 8 months now. StanMan87 (talk) 05:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe you misunderstood what I meant by at will. I meant changing it with the immediate effect without any other requirements. I have been unable to eestablish how wikipedia determines the "correct" name for an organisation. As far as I can tell it is considered to be like any other piece of subjective information about them and therefore we use reliable sources. As for ISIL, that is an alternative translation of a name they formally used. If you read the opening paragraph, you will see that ...and Syria is also an alternative translation.John Smith the Gamer (talk) 06:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I'll repeat some reference here that I had previously placed into discussion below. this thread above you made six references to the group as "ISIS". Even here "ISIS" was your designation of choice. Even if we were to ignore the vast POV issues surrounding the name "Islamic State", even if we were to solely consider the form of statistical comparison that you seem to be advocating, ISIS then becomes a more obvious choice of designation.

• ISIS gets "About 19,700,000 results" on News
• "Islamic State" gets "About 3,410,000 results" on News
• ISIS gets "About 4,530,000 results" on Books
• "Islamic State" gets "About 218,000 results" on books
• "Islamic State" gets "About 6,460,000 results" on News in the last month
• ISIS gets "About 12,500,000 results" on News in the last month
• "Islamic State" gets "About 1,100,000 results" on News in the last month

NPOV must be primary consideration but, even failing this, stats indicate ISIS to be a vastly more widely used term. This will still remain the case even after we consider that both "Islamic state" and "Isis" have other usages. GregKaye 22:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Greg I have addressed this point already. I have written out below how your search is wrong. If you are going to search you have one of two options:

• Search ISIS and IS
• Search islamic state of iraq and syria and islamic state

You cannot pick and choose to use an acronym vs a full name. The search you do either has to be both acronyms or both spelled out names. This is to control for variables. If you do your search with the removal of this bias, you will see what sort of picture it paints. If you do the search without bias, you will see how islamic state is most common name by a wide margin. I should point out, a search for acronym IS for news returns 241 million results.

Note: I have no problems with ISIS or ISIL (spelled out or acronym) or any other variation of the name as long as when you do the search you keep the same modality for both search terms(ie. either compare search for ISIS vs IS or islamic state of iraq and syria vs islamic state) Please illustrate how it is more common. As I said before, if you elucidate that ISIL or ISIS is more common, that is what I would put my support for. I am not looking to go any particular way on this issue. Mbcap (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• Mbcap I'm sorry but what have you addressed? I am not picking and choosing. I have presented search results on designations that are used in News and other sources in reference to the group and I have demonstrated an overwhelming prevalence of the use of "ISIS" Please check the ISIS references. Check the headlines.

The search you conducted was on the word "is". If you want to assert information in regard to Wikipedia's presentation of on a topic of this magnitude then I think you have an obligation check things like results contents. In the pages of results that I looked at in News I did not see a single result for the "acronym IS". The first result was for When Art Is Dangerous (or Not). GregKaye 08:12, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I have answered this question below. See here[2]. The variables have to stay the same. Mbcap (talk) 00:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Mbcap can you provide a reference to justify your assertion that "The variables have to stay the same". We are simply talking about two designations for the rebel group: ISIS and "Islamic State". It is very clear that the first is widely used and that is also avoids significant NPOV objections. GregKaye 13:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Mbcap also please note that five hours after StanMan87 started this consultation and despite contrary views being presented by 118.102.228.2 and Legacypac, you launched the RM below. There was always the chance that different perspectives might be raised or that other views might be found through research of the archive. Please don't be in a rush to push things through. GregKaye 13:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Greg. "ISIS" is the one widely used and hence seems neutral . Mhhossein (talk) 13:34, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Greg I am very glad to have put through the request. I read the policy and did what I felt was best for the Wikipedia project and not what is best for any other group. I read all the relevant policies I could in the time I had and saw what I needed to do. The move request was put through precisely for the reason that I felt there is as I have called it before "Barn door POV pushing" at least in the lead. But that I will address after this request is resolved. I still maintain, if the group's common name is "Toad Hammer", I will vote for that, and the same goes for any other name. I have no preference for islamic state. The reason why I put the case forward was because islamic state is the most common. I assure you though, that if we stick to policy and choose the name that bests reflects policy (whatever name that may be), this will remain a stable name for the foreseeable future and we will not be having 6 move requests in about 6 months, as such is the case now.

I chose to discount the contrary views because they were not policy based contrary views. Political advocacy statements like; it would legitimize them, deserve to be aired on alternative forum on the internet. I assure you however and invite you to, present objections in line with Wikipedia's goals and long term ambitions. Now that will capture my attention and I will give it the fullest consideration.

MhhosseinThank you for your input. I think other editors in this discussion would appreciate your insight into this issue and your involvement may help us to build consensus. Your views on why the name should not be changed, might allow the supporters to see why we are wrong (if that is the case) and allow us to reach consensus. Please could we continue this conversation in order down in the request move discussion bit of the talk page. Mbcap (talk) 23:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Mbcap It seems to me that you have now latched on to Legacypac's fair comment about legitimising. Please note that international opinion is of an illegal group conducting illegal activities and is subject to war crimes. These are the facts in reference to the group and comments relating to edits that might push towards its legitimisation are profoundly relevant.

Towards the end of your thread of your accusation dripping thread "Barn door POV pushing" you added a digression with reference to your talk page. On 6 January I attempted to get your discussion back on track. No-one has since added comment. At some point WP:DROPTHESTICK will come to apply. GregKaye 03:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

My apologies for not appreciating drive-by voting. Your attempt to get the discussion back on track was merely quoting me out of context to create a certain narrative in regards to my conduct. The valid points you raised, I took on board and tried to rectify. Whereas other-points were taken out of context to back up an argument of informal fallacy which I certainly did not appreciate. The reason no one has added comment is because I have disengaged from there to concentrate on this page move. I assure you however, that the barn door POV pushing will be rectified once the time is appropriate. No stick will ever be dropped until this page reflects Wikipedia's goals and long term ambitions. The other reasons it has gone quite in that thread, is because of the clear ownership issues here and the persistent effort to alienate all editors who wish to make this article neutral. In my short time here, I know of two editors who have faced such conditions. This I also hope to address when time permits. I will make sure that every editor on Wikipedia, whether experienced or new is made to feel welcome here. As to adding the digression, I merely wanted the record to reflect the complete discussion. I also did not, and do not appreciate the tag teaming which took place at that time so please refrain from doing that in the future. Thank you. Mbcap (talk) 02:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

What you called "drive by voting" was actually a reasoned but reasonably brief opinion by a very experienced editor. Writing a book is not necessary. The huge mass of stuff posted is likely discuraging more editors to give input - its hard to even see where to !vote. Legacypac (talk) 18:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Mbcap Again I think that you add comment that I, however I look at it, lacks substantiation and which I take as another episode of false claim and aspersion. First you infer that I "pick and choose" arguments. My argument for the use of the title ISIS was first made in September when no other moves were in consideration as a genuine suggestion of an, I think, suitable article title. You now claim, "Your attempt to get the discussion back on track was merely quoting me out of context to create a certain narrative in regards to my conduct." This is nonsense. I have deliberately tried not to argue against any editor on the article talk page and, in cases in which I have thought that issues were warranted to be raised, I have first broached things privately on the editors talk page. I have done this a couple of times with you but you persist in what I consider derogatory responses. Your thread had the title, "Barn door POV pushing in the lead" and I personally interpreted this title in itself to infer a "certain narrative" in regards to other editors conduct. Never-the-less, you can refer to my 23:40, 5 January 2015 edit where I first gave a summary of relevant points so as to open the opportunity for on track discussion for regarding a possible change in the lead despite the fact that this was something that I personally weakly opposed. I then made a second attempt to leave an open discussion. Your edit begin being addressed to me regarding my "attempts" which I maintain were very clearly genuine. You then make general points about points taken out of context but you provide no context to give any indication of which points you are talking about. I personally take your comments as unjustified attacks when I have honestly been trying to do the right thing. You say, "The other reasons it has gone quite in that thread, is because of the clear ownership issues here and the persistent effort to alienate all editors who wish to make this article neutral." No. Seriously? In my view your previous assertion of POV pushing was unjustified and yet you present your interpretation of my attempt to keep the thread on track "..to create a certain narrative in regards to my conduct". Your edit was initially addressed to me and as such I do not appreciate your aspersion regarding an "effort to alienate .. editors". If you want to cast this aspersion towards me then you have to back up claims with substance in order for them to be fairly refuted. If you want to talk about alienation I am perfectly happy for any editors here to assess the tone and content of my comments and the tone and content of your comments and for them to draw their own conclusions. If you want to make comment about editors, arguments or activities then do so directly, please. All editors are welcome to contribute in a context where we all, together, strive to follow the guidelines that Wikipedia has developed for editing behaviour. However, I will not sit back as unsubstantiated claims are made (that I "pick and chose" was the start here) and not defend and respond. If you have a concern about any editor behaviour then feel free to express this through the normal channels. GregKaye 11:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I studied a random sample of reputable news media in an attempt to determine the appropriateness of "ISIS", "ISIL" or "Islamic State". In an attempt to remain as impartial as possible, I conducted a single search query for "most reputable online news sources" and selected all news outlets mentioned in the first two results. No other queries were conducted to prevent operator bias. For clarity, this well-written article and this from NewsTrust were used.

Just one (1) media source, Al Jazeera, uses "ISIL" (3.8 percent). Nine (9) sources use "ISIS" (34.6 percent). "Islamic State" holds the majority in January 2015, with 16 of the 26 sources using the terminology (61.5 percent). I also queried each term in Google. I found that a search for "Islamic State" returns 13 times more results than "ISIL" when the search is constrained to the relevant period of June 29th 2014 to January 20th 2015. ISIL returns 3,830,000 results, "ISIS" returns 45,000,000 results, and Islamic State returns 49,900,000.

During the study's process, I noticed three qualitative items that are worth noting. First, almost every media source had used "ISIL" or "ISIS" during summer 2014, with a majority using "ISIL" well into September or even October, but by the end of Q4 2014, nearly all sources had transitioned to using "Islamic State". Second, NPR wrote an article titled "Is It ISIS or ISIL? [...]" on September 13th. NPR now uses Islamic State, despite the fact that the terminology was not, apparently, even worth mentioning just two months ago. Third, the search query for "Bloomberg ISIS" found a stock ticker to be more relevant than the Levantine organization, and while "Bloomberg ISIL" first showed an old article from June, ISIL:NASDAQ was the second result. These three factors combined demonstrate evidence of an upward trend in "Islamic State" usage.

Having studied the history of the terminology, the proposed factors discussed by other users above, and understanding that the debate regarding the article's nomenclature has been rightfully suspended for some time, I can only come to the conclusion that "Islamic State" has now become the most appropriate terminology for the Levantine organization. However, to understand why media organizations are transitioning away from "ISIL", it is also critical to recall the context and timing of June 29th 2014, when the group had just made viral headlines and this Wikipedia article first became significant to a wide audience. At that time, "ISIL" was still both appropriate and accepted, with otherwise reliable governments and scholars arguing against "Islamic State". Mosul was taken a few weeks earlier, when the group was still ISIL or ISIS, and with news organizations and ordinary journalists still scrambling to learn a modicum of information about the group, they prima facia relied on the seemingly authoritative information that prevailed at the time for the semantics of their articles. Thus, journalists learned ISIL or ISIS, accepted it, and focused on the substance of their content, leaving the debate regarding a specialist nomenclature that contradicted more reliable sources for a later time.

Several additional reasons could also have caused ISIL or ISIS to endure beyond the term of its appropriate usage, such as the fact that the seemingly capricious name had the potential to change again. Some media organizations could have even, conceivably, chosen the terminology "ISIL" on a patriotic or sentimental basis. Irrespective of logistics, the public was introduced to either "ISIL" or "ISIS" through media organizations that had just begun focusing on the group, and since their stakeholders thus became familiar with this terminology and were searching for it online, its usage was reinforced and news organizations formally adopted either ISIL or ISIS. Hence the number of search engine results and citations to inceptive, authoritative articles that used "ISIS" or "ISIL". But as the concept matured and news organizations, such as WSJ and Reuters, demonstrated the more impartial, formal nomenclature to a wider audience, the term "Islamic State" became more palatable and understood. With stakeholders and journalists now more familiar with "Islamic State", the general public has become more receptive to the term, and thus news media are now using "Islamic State", only occasionally using "ISIS", and almost never using "ISIL".

My goal was to present facts, not banter on about my opinion, which is actually quite contradictory to the above findings, so I'm going to omit a tedious paragraph. I'm also not going to debate this - the facts are what they are. I'll leave others to assert the fervor of their sentiment, since I'd argue merely providing supplementary data in support of findings is implied debate and thus impartiality. For those interested in looking at the breakdown of news sources, I uploaded the relatively small amount of data to jpst.it/w4Bn for the sake of saving space, which I understand to be scarce on this page. I hope my evening of research can help Wikipedia provide more neutral, universally-accepted, and encyclopedic content in the near future.66.61.4.238 (talk) 05:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

You did not address the issue that the major news services use terms that are not just Islamic State - they qualify the use of the term carefully. See the long debate closed below. Legacypac (talk) 07:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with IP that IS is the common name, but regardless, the RFC got no consensus, and NW suggested we disengaged for a while. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 11:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Changing article from ISIL to ISIS or the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.

This is a request for comment regarding a preferred form of title with, hopefully, natural disambiguation.

In last month's news "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" got marginally more search results than "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" but "ISIS" got far more results than "ISIL" and, as far as I can see, is often the term of choice in sources.

What would be the best of these title options:

• Islamic State of Iraq and Syria
• ISIS
• ISIS (Islamist rebel group)
• Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
• Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham

GregKaye 05:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment relating predominantly to Requested move 9 January 2015 above

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

---

subtitle inserted by thread nominator in regard to the subjectively judged interpretation above, GregKaye 12:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment While I am partial to the suggestions named above, especially the title Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, the discussion regarding the proposed article name change Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant → Islamic State (islamist rebel group) should first be concluded before we discuss this. That being said, it is of my opinion that the term more commonly used by international English media sources is in fact the Islamic State (IS) term and all its incarnations e.g IS, IS militant group/jihadist organisation, Islamic State militant group/terrorist organisation etc. as Legacypac stated above [3],[4] StanMan87 (talk) 23:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• Islamic State with the title holding the disambiguation qualifier (group). As has been demonstrated by both myself and Mbcap the overwhelming preponderance of independent and reliable third party sources use the term Islamic State, with or without a descriptive qualifier. The state and international organizations often cited as using ISIS or ISIL are committed opponents of the article's subject and refuse the term Islamic State as a component of their conflict with the group, i.e. it's part of their propaganda effort. Plus, Islamic State has the benefit of being the group's actual name. GraniteSand (talk) 00:17, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I agree we should conclude the move request first. GraniteSand you raise a very good point about the subset of media organisations who refuse to use the name as part of their conflict with the group. Perhaps we should talk about this in the article. It will give the readers a good insight into the issues surrounding the name. Gregkaye and Legacypac have also raised very good points about the international condemnation of the group and it's rejection by the majority of notable voices in the world both in terms of the groups actions and the name. Even though I have discounted those observations for the article name for reasons discussed above, they do warrant inclusion into the article itself in the interest of due weight and balance. The article would be much improved with that. This way, the naming issue will be given due weight which I think at the moment is missing. For example, at the moment the naming issue has just 2 paragraphs dedicated to it and this could certainly be expanded upon, whether here or as a separate article. I stumbled upon a page I think Gregkaye is creating about different nation states and their naming designation for the group. Now a page like that would enable us to talk much more in depth about pertinent points in regards to the name. Mbcap (talk) 05:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Religious groups don't always get to name themselves. Don't confuse the use of acronyms with the spelled out names. DAESH is an acceptable term in the region, while using the full arabic name is not as acceptable. IS is sometimes seen as acceptable while Islamic State is not. Clearly AP sees a big difference between "Islamic State" and "Islamic State group" It is not correct to say source such and such uses IS and means Islamic State. Please use caution and look carefully. Legacypac (talk) 05:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

"Acceptable" and "unacceptable" to whom and why? You're loading up a lot of subjective assertions without explaining where they come from or how or why they interface with our policies. There has been repeated and empirical demonstration here that the preponderance of independent English language reliable sources use the term "Islamic State". GraniteSand (talk) 06:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Legacypac, any variation of the term "Islamic State" when referring to the group in the Syrian/Iraqi war context means they are referring to the group known as IS. You somehow think that when a news agency uses IS or Islamic State group they are not referencing to the very group we are discussing. Notice the proposed article change is not Islamic State but Islamic State (islamist rebel group). Any incarnation such as what you stated in those diffs is completely permissible as supporting the proposed name. StanMan87 (talk) 06:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

From what I understand, the move request will be closed on Thursday 15 January with a decision by an administrator. Therefore, these discussions relating to the name change, could do with being in that section of the talk page. Is that possible? Mbcap (talk) 07:13, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

What makes you say move discussions will be closed on the 15th? GraniteSand (talk) 07:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I think so. I asked PBS here[5] who said the discussion will not close until the nominal 7 day period is over. That 7 day period ends on 15 January or maybe 16 January, I am not sure. Alternatively the move request could be left open for longer than 7 days, from the comment it seemed that it was possible for this to go on longer. Mbcap (talk) 07:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The period you're referring to is an "if by" not a "no later than" time frame. I suspect this will engender more comment past the seven day mark. It's also worth keeping in mind that PBS, due to his frequent involvement and stated advocacy of particular positions, is an involved editor and shouldn't be exercising any administrative prerogatives in this topic. GraniteSand (talk) 07:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The move request page is confusing, I have no clue how these requests work or who decides what happens. Why would more comments be engendered past the 7 day mark? Mbcap (talk) 10:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The title is just fine the way it currently is. There's no need for any of these "move proposal" requests. LightandDark2000 (talk) 11:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, it will be exceedingly difficult to police the exclusive use of "Islamic State (islamist rebel group)" consistently. It's going to get shortened to "Islamic State". With the current name Wikipedia exclusively uses ISIL for short which is reasonably easy to maintain. Look at the clear presentation of reasons for their very specific phrasing by Associated Press. Legacypac (talk) 23:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Like the acronym ISIL for Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, the acronym IS for Islamic State (islamist rebel group) more then suffices due to its recognition. StanMan87 (talk) 02:21, 16 January 2015 (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.

Changing article from ISIL to ISIS or the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria

I appreciate calls to deal with one discussion at a time but, IMO, there is no problem in broaching two issues at once. This thread was meant as a genuine consultation with the intention of gathering inputs prior to a possible request for a move. I agree with MBcap's interpretation of GraniteSand's comment, "we should conclude the move request first" and this was never in doubt. I also understand LightandDark2000's comment that, "The title is just fine the way it currently is". Again this thread was intended just to look at the questionable thought of title choices between "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant", "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria", "Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham" and "ISIS". I would appreciate it if reiterations of arguments presented in the RM could be confined to that thread or in the subsection above. Again, I am not sure if this proposal has merit. Hindu Wikipedia, for example, uses the title ISIS and, with this being a common designation for the group, I had provisionally thought that this was a relevant proposal to aire. GregKaye 12:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Time to include Lebanon in the map?

It seems that ISIL has spread over some areas in Lebanon, see "Jihadi militants in Lebanon establishing ‘Islamic State of Qalamoun’ near Ersal", so perhaps Lebanon should be included in the map. (Looks like nobody noticed this comment on the map's talk page, maybe it will have better luck getting noticed here.) 94.253.206.223 (talk) 20:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, IP (I hope it isn't considered rude to refer to you as such). I'm one of the two editors who have updated that map in the last month. Sorry I didn't comment before. I did notice your comment, but real life distracted me and I forgot to reply.

You may or may not be aware, but those maps are made from detailed maps. There is one for Iraq and Syria, and I made one for Syria, Iraq and Lebanon combined by looking at the code and pretty much entirely copying it from the way this template is coded, as well as the files its made from, and the ones they're made from. However, this did not solve the underlying problem with the Lebanese map. Either the fighting is slow/inactive, or we are severely lacking in data points. We haven't had an update to it this year. There are a whole host of problems that I have listed on the combined map's talkpage.

This means, I doubt any such map would be very useful, but will make it if it is desired (like with the detailed map which includes Lebanon). The legends should be made consistent first.

If IS were to become clearly active in Lebanon, I suppose there would quickly be a consensus for changing the map if it was of sufficient quality. I'm going to update the Iraq and Syria map now. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 23:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't do maps but I've seen several articles saying ISIL is holding land in the border region, apparently a barren hilly area. It is not clear how much land they hold or to what extent as it seems to be a very limited population area. The article should be updated to reflect they are active and have some control on Lebanon. Legacypac (talk) 00:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable if we can believe the sources and that IS itself is in control rather than a group acting in its name.John Smith the Gamer (talk) 00:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

See Military of ISIL. ISIL does have a military presence in Lebanon currently. And there are other insurgent groups fighting against the Lebanese Government (e.g. al-Nusra), so there's plenty of benefits in generating a war map of the conflict in Lebanon. Also, since ISIL and Libyan Civil War (2014–present) each have their own war maps, why don't we generate war maps for the Syrian Civil War spillover in Lebanon and the Sinai insurgency as well? FYI, ISIL also has an active military presence in the Sinai Peninsula. LightandDark2000 (talk) 09:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Where else am I supposed to put my post?

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

---

"Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page." - well, this is the appropriate discussion page for my post. So here we go: Where do I find the reason, why Germany is not sending ground troops against IS? I neither find it on the German nor English page about IS. Asteroidenschwarm (talk) 02:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@Asteroidenschwarm: This is not the place for general discussion of a topic - see WP:NOTFORUM. This talk page is for discussing article improvements. Wikipedia:Reference desk might help you out. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Ehh, actually I am wanting to improve the article. I didn't find an in my eyes important information. If it doesn't exist, yet, I am willing to find it out, so I can put it into the article. Asteroidenschwarm (talk) 02:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@Asteroidenschwarm: The normal course of action would be for you to find a source covering the reason and then use that to add text to the article. Given that this article has a lot of eyes on it, you may want to propose your specific change on this talk page first. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I look for a source/sources. Till later! Asteroidenschwarm (talk) 02:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Source "http://de.reuters.com/article/topNews/idDEKCN0I214D20141013", paragraph 7: Russia and China resist to a UN-mandatory for foreign ground troops in Syria. Furthermore, on the one hand, NATO-partner Turkey demands a precondition for a military intervention in Syria and that is the subversion of Assad. On the other hand, Russia supports Assad with weapons. Asteroidenschwarm (talk) 02:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

In one of the related articles there is a reference saying Germany has sent military trainers (special forces) to Iraq. No outside power (other then Iran and possibly Hezbollah) has sent actual ground troops to Iraq to take front like positions. Legacypac (talk) 02:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Right, Germany trains Peshmerga fighters. But there was a TV-broadcast lately, which saw that sceptically. So why train these soldiers, when one could send even more reputated soldiers there? (In a (I think) British study, Germany is the most reputated country among the (by the study makers considered to be) important countries in the world.) Furthermore, today I read on TV that Canadian soldiers are involved in battles with IS-fighters. Asteroidenschwarm (talk) 03:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

See, it's night in Germany now, so see ya tomorrow! Asteroidenschwarm (talk) 03:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Hemh! I would say, Germany has much better relations to Russia than the USA have. If we would demand a UN-mandatory for a military intervention against IS only for Germany and not for the whole world, in my opinion, it would have much better chances for success. Asteroidenschwarm (talk) 14:56, 20 January 2015 (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.

Error - 20th Jan 2015 entry

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

---

In the 20th Jan 2015 entry it says that a ransom of $200,000 has been demanded for the Japanese nationals. This should be $200,000,000 (or $200 million). The cross-reference has the correct amount. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pscsuk (talk • contribs) 16:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:26, 20 January 2015 (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.

Adding alleged support of Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

Hi there, i have expanded Turkey's support section and i think that we should add Qatar and Saudi Arabia as well. In fact we could find more info about them, rather than Turkey. kazekagetr 16:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Section title Jusifications (asserted) for sexual slavery

There has been slow edit warring (not breaching 1RR) on which what the title for this section should be "Justifications asserted for sexual slavery" or "Justifications for sexual slavery". Which would we prefer to see? John Smith the Gamer (talk) 16:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

No heading or section giving these perversions would be preferred but the more offensive heading is "Justifications for sexual slavery" as there are no justifications for enslaving women. Legacypac (talk) 01:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Good Lord! Whose idea was that?! We can't have a section titled "Justification for sexual slavery"! People may get the wrong idea, especially in light of recent events. If a title is needed, I suggest we come up with a less suggestive heading which reflects the neutral standpoint proper for encyclopedia articles. Both of those names seem too suggestive of bias to me. Anasaitis (talk) 01:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I added the word "asserted" to avoid the implication that the article is endorsing the validity of ISIL's arguments. I'm not wedded to that wording, though ("Justifications asserted for sexual slavery"). If we can come up with something better and more neutral, I'm all for it. If we think we can do without the subheading, I'm fine with that too. The section on "Sexual violence and slavery" is getting a bit long, but perhaps we can break it up some other way. My primary concern is that we not endorse ISIL's position on this. EastTN (talk) 02:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

So for the minute, we have a consensus against anyone changing the title to "Justifications for sexual slavery", so we can stop the edit war?

To remove the word justification perhaps we should use one one of: {reasons for/rational for/rationalisation for/claimed justifications/explanation of/arguments for/defence of/reasoning provided/reasoning} sexual slavery.

Alternatively we could call it something along the lines of ISIL response.

In my opinion it should be reflected in the section titles that this is slavery including sexual slavery, rather than just sexual slaver, though this is less pressing than ensuring NPOV. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 03:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree the choice of word is going to be tricky. Is there a word that could possibly numb the weight of the reasoning given, seen as it is so unpalatable. Also, the reasoning should be not be limited to the slavery problem but also the other acts that are performed such as the recent throwing of homosexuals from tall buildings. It is understandable that these are not acceptable norms at the current time but unfortunately they use theological justifications for committing such actions. Also, could someone explain why there is a massive box in the middle of the main article? Mbcap (talk) 14:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Someone copy and pasted copyrighted content in. Someone else who seems to know more about copyright on Wikipedia removed it and put that box up. I don't know if it's meant to be in the middle of the page rather than on the talk page, but it should be fixed when we get a administrator, copyright clerk or OTRS agent to fix it. No idea why it's taken so long. It seems odd that it wasn't just deleted, but again, I don't know how Wikipedia removing copyright violations. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 15:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

How did the word "justifications" ever get accepted for any of these categories? There is nothing "just" in sexual slavery, the ethnic cleansing of groups like the Yazidis (it should be a capital Y in regard to a demonym which, potentially tellingly, has not been used) or for the killing of captive journalists, aide workers etc. by beheading crucifixion or by any other means. Justification is entirely the wrong word for Wikipedia to use and Wikipedia cannot present in its voice that there is a justification. We are not a WP:SOAPBOX for the quoting the views of the likes of Abu Abdullah Al-Habashim and Hussein bin Mahmoud. What is going on with this article? Presenting "justification" in any of these contexts is a complete violation of NPOV. GregKaye 21:02, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure. More content was just added [6] in what looked at a glance to be just a movement of sections. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 22:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I would not say there is anything wrong with using the justifications sections. You can certainly go for another word that would be more appropriate. Mbcap (talk) 22:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean that you "would not say there is anything wrong with using the justifications sections"? It is riddled with NPOV issues, repeats content already covered in other sections of the article, presents in any form of words used "justification" for mass murder, slavery and other issues. Articles on groups such as the Ku Klux Klan, another group that pushed persecution oriented agendas with religious "justification" and (ironically) whose killers also wore face masks, are not afforded sections on justifications sections on there persecutive habits. I see no reason why middle-eastern group should be treated differently. GregKaye 09:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

There have been several stages in this process. When Dabiq published an article on sexual slavery back late last year, we added it to the section on "Sexual violence and slavery." I believe that was appropriate. We also reported on the "handbook" on sexual slavery that was released later. I believe that was appropriate too, and that the text covered both of those in a neutral, encyclopedic way. Then in early January User:Update stormtrooper created a section entitled "Justification based on religious texts" which quickly became lengthy, and seems to have been stitched together by directly copying material from other sources. During the discussion that ensued, the material originally in the "Sexual violence and slavery" section was moved to the new "Justification based on religious texts" section. The new section was an indigestible mess. I added some simple subtitles just to break it up so we could deal with it. When I added the subtitles, I added the word "alleged" to each to avoid to implication that we were validating ISIL's positions. Almost immediately afterwards, other editors recognized that most of the subsections were pure copy-right violations and deleted almost all of them. At that point I moved the subsection on sexual slavery back under "Sexual violence and slavery." Again, I think that material is fine and should be kept. My preference would be for it to not be part of a grand separate section on all the various justifications ISIL has claimed for this, that and the other. But I do think it's appropriate - and important - for Wikipedia to report on their ideology. Given the nature of their claims, if we report on them accurately, the world at large will "get it." Even bad reasoning - sometimes especially bad reasoning - can speak for itself. EastTN (talk) 21:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Same Killer

Hi. I do not know if that has been mentioned here or elsewhere, but those two pictures show the same Killer. #1 is out of the Video that has been published after the killing of Peter Kassig. #2 is the video posted online a few days ago, the execution of two russian hostages, by a child. I bet intelligence, with someone remembering the query of this Terrorist, might have him on the radar. If not, it would be a big step to do so, by identifying him (if not done so far)! He must have a exeptional Rolle in the Terrororganisation, possibly the same as Jihadi John. In the hierarchy likely Number two of that Propaganda-Group; In Picture No. 2 (the mass slaughtering of dozens of syrian soldiers & officers), you can first (who leads up the group) see Jihadi John, as 2nd the guy who is shown in Picture number one. It seems like if the killers walking up in the row, are walking in the exact hierarchy of the Cell.

• #1: #1
• #2: #2

In this CNN article, he is marked as Number 5 in the picture. --88.207.190.50 (talk) 20:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

OK guys. He is dead. His name: Abu Saad Ad-Dagestani. https://twitter.com/gaagii4_Is/status/555388459133591552/photo/1

--88.207.140.44 (talk) 21:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Can someone add this in

to the "See also" section at the bottom add in Jihadi John

thanks--70.190.111.213 (talk) 16:19, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Not sure he's noteworthy enough. Whilst "Jihadi John" has been a focus of western intelligence, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi for example is more relevant to the article in my opinion. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 18:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

that does not change the fact that Jihadi John is associated with ISIL and therefore should also be in the "See also" section--70.190.111.213 (talk) 16:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Not all things associated with ISIL can be included on the "see also" section. I personally will not be adding him there, but it's very common for different editors to have differences of opinion here, so I wouldn't be that surprised if someone disagreed. I personally think it probably should be somewhere on the ISIL portal, but I don't know where. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 16:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Propose deleting section: Justification based on Islamic religious text

I think that this this type of content that might be better placed in articles such as Islamic Extremism or similar where issues can be relevantly be discussed. I do not see that this article should used as a WP:SOAPBOX for justifications for gender based slavery, "persecution" (the widespread massacre and liberty removal) of Yazidis and the killing of captives who may have done no more wrong than to work in journalism or aide work. The group. No other designated terrorist group on Wikipedia that I have seen is afforded this type of justifications section and I do not think that this deserves to be an exception. GregKaye 21:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

An editor added content to it, moved it and took out the clarifying word that followed justification (I think it was asserted). This caused it the whole section to get deleted by a different user. I'd like to see some of the content re-included in the article in a manner that isn't soap-boxing. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 00:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

This is the 2nd or 3rd time the section has been created by SOCKs of the same user that edits mainly to promote the justification of these acts. Each previous incarnation has been indef'd. I deleted the whole thing. We don't need this SOAPBOXing. Legacypac (talk) 00:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Please do not delete an entire chunk of an article. I just reverted the deletion. Please discuss here how you would like to modify it and it shall be considered. Mbcap (talk) 01:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Most of that chunk was by a single purpose account. I think if nothing else we should revert the changes that the account did as it substantially increases the weight given to ISIL's viewpoints. Below is my proposed version of the paragraph, which hopefully will give less undue weight to ISIL. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 01:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think the proposed paragraph is an improvement on the current version. I would support the inclusion of this in place of the current text. Mbcap (talk) 02:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not impressed that my deletion of the SPA Sockpuppet was reverted. If you want a very short section, fine, but introducing a long multipart section of justification gives undue weight to the ISIL views of the subject matter. Legacypac (talk) 04:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

What are we waiting for? How many readers should read such POV pushing texts! I would remove them all and restore some parts after the consensus. Mhhossein (talk) 04:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

ISIS fighters are justifying their actions based on the koran, are you blind or ignorant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.75.162.14 (talk) 15:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed paragraph

In late 2014 ISIL released and distributed a pamphlet in Mosul on the treatment of slaves, which cites the Qur'an. It claims says it is permissible to beat a slave so long as it's a form of disciplinary beating and that sex with captives is allowed. Many people living in and near ISIL controlled areas have been taken aback by the pamphlets and stated that they never expected this move from the ISIL government.

The ISIL claims religious justification for the treatment of its captives such as enslaving and raping captive non-muslims based on the Hadith and Qur’an, a move that received widespread criticism for explicitly citing verses from the Qur'an by Muslim scholars and the rest of the Muslim world. They claim that they are justified in enslaving and raping captive non-Muslim women. They claim they wish to ethnically cleanse ISIL of all non-believers. Dabiq, a magazine made by ISIL, claims opposing enslaving and taking women would be apostatizing from Islam by denying the Qur'an. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 01:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

John Smith the Gamer, TY. I think much of this content would fit well into the section Propaganda and social or into previous sections of text. The article already has sections on: ISIL#Religious and minority group persecution, ISIL#Sexual violence and slavery and ISIL#Beheadings and mass executions. There are two existing options for the placement of this content.

I think that some of the citations may be dubious (with some content being otherwise unsupported). For instance the Christian Post that was exposed to in an episode of the comedy show Modern Life is Goodish. For flagrant misrepresentations of the fabric softener Jesus (spoof) with erroneous claims such as "Andrews is undeterred in his claims though". The original article in London's Metro was clearly written with a knowing wink and, as a side point, is quite instructive of how false information can spread through the media. Another source is Jihad Watch. In the second paragraph the second sentence is still pretty much a repeat of the first. The third sentence regarding the group's wish to ethnically cleanse itself of non-believers can easily be covered in sections might well fit into ISIL#Goals. GregKaye 08:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

A very persistent sockmaster keeps inserting this junk. There is no consensus to add it, and last round was all copyvio (I've not bothered to check this round.) Just keep removing it on sight. Legacypac (talk) 09:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I tried to remove all the "junk". This is only taken from the content that existed before the latest suspected sock changed it. I think we should include it as per Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Morally_offensive_views once we've cleaned it up further and, to avoid giving undue weight, put in religious objections to this. I do not mind if it gets it own section or not. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 11:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

John smith, let me break it down for you.All my passages are not made up, it is all news and justifications made by ISIL group REPEATADLY how am I being a racist, bigot or nasty crap like that.I just wanted to create something new because all the other sections gives readers an idea of the group, I thought that this could too.Malam kanam 2003 (talk) 11:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Im not racist.Im posting news.PERIOD.Malam kanam 2003 (talk) 11:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying they are, but consensus is clearly against them being included, so please stop re-including them. I don't want this article to have to get full protection. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 12:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

So basically you are censoring wikipedia.JE SUIS CHARLIE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.141.198.225 (talk) 14:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree it should be cleaned up further but please could I ask involved editors to revert the section back into the article as it is well referenced and relavent to the topic at hand. This is the ISIL page so it is not undue weight to include their reasoning for their actions. Mbcap (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Mbcap let me break it down for you. Long paragraphs explaining how the Koran and other texts are used to justify ISIL's actions are simply terrorist propaganda. Persistent efforts to move this article in line with ISIL's POV is not appropriate. Clearly other editors disagree with you but now you are lining up with a sock puppet farm. Legacypac (talk) 17:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

This is the ISIL page and they have theological justifications for their actions which has been detailed by reliable sources. As this is the ISIl page, that information is appropriate for inclusion into this article. I am not sure what me lining up with a "sock puppet farm" has anything to do with what I have to say. Mbcap (talk) 17:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

User:OccultZone, User:Favonian User:NeilN and myself are cleaning up the sock mess, and more editors are objecting to this content, while you restore the section. It's likely copyvio too. Kindly stop fighting consensus. Legacypac (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Faulty diff, it's between Talk:West Orange, Texas and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, but I saw the correct one.

User:Legacypac

It's hard to see how much of this is because of the sock puppet editing and how much is consensus against the content. A version of this section had been on the page at least since 23/01/2015, which was deleted with the sock's content.

When Mbcap reverted, all that he would have seen "article is not here to justify the unjustifiable, or to contain the propaganda of a ISIL sympathetic Single Purpose Account" and that your edit removed 7875 bytes more than the sock added. I have not a rule/guideline seen anywhere that single purpose accounts should have their edits reverted, though we normally revert sock account's edits. He would not have known this account was a sockpuppet and this was before multiple other users reverted it. There was no consensus to remove the section before this editor came along. Therefore I believe Mbcap did not fight consensus. I've see no evide Favonian and NeilN were involved before Mbcap did this revert. Note NeilN only removed the new content.

I feel that Mbcap made a mistake here in not checking to see if this was a Single purpose account, though I can't find any guidelines that actually go against what he did. The account was suspicious and looks like a potential sock if you check its edit history, or if you'd clicked on their username and got redirected to a userpage that has no corresponding user.

I'd like a clarification on this edit [here] and this one [here] by Legacypac. Did you mean to remove the entire section as "probable sock additions" and that it was all made by sympathetic single purpose accounts? If so we probably should find out who contributed the section, for example by using WP:WikiBlame. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 20:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

All of the deleted content was added by different versions of the same sock farm (they are not all linked in the investigations either). [7] So was the earlier incarnation of this content. Mbcap reverted my deletion, I told him why it was deleted and asked him to revert himself, but he kept arguing for full inclusion, against consensus. Legacypac (talk) 00:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, it was not my aim to achieve full inclusion. The section was well sourced with reliable information. I am all for modification to make it fall in line with policy. I am certainly against using the word Justification for the section. I think "Reasoning given by ISIL for their actions" is far better and does away with the loaded aforementioned word. As for socks and farms; can I ask; do we do away with all their contributions even if they are well sourced. Mbcap (talk) 01:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Question for Mbcap - when you inserted [8] "Many quarry workers who slept early Tuesday morning in tents by their worksite outside Mandera, a Kenyan border city tucked between Ethiopia and Somalia, were attacked by Al-Shabaab a militant group." copyvio of the first sentence of this blog. [9], is this what you mean by "The section was well sourced with reliable information"? (and yes, you are responsible for what you revert into the article.) Legacypac (talk) 02:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Please do not be so inconsiderate in regards to your fellow editor, Legacypac, I did not know it was copy pasted. Your reasons for deleting that segment were not because it was a direct copy but that it was justifying the unjustifiable. This method of discussion is beneath you as an experienced editor. Please engage constructively with other editors and I am sure the sentiment will be reciprocated. Mbcap (talk) 02:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Why did you insert off topic copyvio from a non-RS? Explain your own actions first, before you try to cast doubt on my actions. Legacypac (talk) 03:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

What is the aim of this? I reverted you when you deleted a massive chunk of the article which at first seemed like it was well referenced using newsweek, the independent, USA today, and Jihadi watch among others which were less credible. After that I clearly saw there was an edit war form which I disengaged myself completely. I did not know there was a copy paste job or non-RS sources being used. Are there non-RS sources? Please stop this line of enquiry, it is not productive. Let us discuss how we can improve this section rather than discussing my actions which to me seem non-objectionable. Mbcap (talk) 03:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Inserting off topic copyvio is not objectionable? Please explain. I just picked a sentence - we could talk about others. I'm trying to determine the credibility of your statement "The section was well sourced with reliable information" which goes to the heart of discussing improving the article. Legacypac (talk) 04:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

What does copyvio mean? What is off topic? I did not know that some of the writing was copy pasted. I can only apologise for this. However, you deleted a huge chunk from the article, which to me at the time seemed well sourced. Your reasoning was that it was justifying the unjustifiable. This is not an adequate reason to just delete an entire chunk of an article. Editors here have discussed how we can modify it to bring it in line with our policy which is something I too endorse. let us concentrate on how we can do that. Mbcap (talk) 04:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

See [10] and [11]. Copyvio = copyright violation = big no no. Your question indicates you can't see that Kenya and Al-Shabaab are off topic here. Credibility my friend, credibility. (for clarity, referring to the arguments presented, not the person) Legacypac (talk) 04:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

So, what do you think we should do change the title of the article back to ISIS.196.202.254.68 (talk) 10:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Unrelated comment I find it interested that talk page references currently contain seven title references to "Isis" with only three references to "Islamic State". GregKaye 09:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Legacypac, I am simply stuck for words and do not know how to respond to your post. I did make a revert of your deletion and I immediately posted here to allow you to discuss the changes. I found out later on that some of it was copy pasted. Your credibility comment, I feel is an attack on me. I kindly ask you to withdraw that statement. I also feel you are trying to patronise me but maybe I am wrong. If you feel I am incompetent, I would encourage you and any other editor to look through all my past contributions and correct anything you feel is not in line with our policies and goals. The wiki only gets better that way. Mbcap (talk) 15:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Mbcap While agreeing with the deletion of content I agree that arguments presented against you have been presented more strongly than required. I think that, nit picking, Legacypac could have placed a wider context to your revert than to focus on "when you inserted [8] "..." copyvio ..." I agree that there were cited materials in the section but, again, I think these would be better presented in an article such as Islamic extremism. I also agree that Legacypac's "Credibility my friend, credibility" was gratuitous and raised this issue on his talk page. None the less, if you want to insert content against consensus then you are certainly obliged to check that content yourself to check its relevance. I do not see a relevant way of including this information in the article without contravening WP:SOAPBOX and this is why I proposed deletion here. Titles such as "Reasoning given by ISIL for sexual slavery" and "Reasoning given by ISIL for persecution of minorities and ethnic cleansing" seem to me to be in the same league of abhorrence as any of the "justifications" titles. These actions are condemned by international law. We cannot use Wikipedia's voice to infer them to be just, reasonable or anything similar. Editors involved present Yazidis in non capitalised form which I suspect may be indicative of a one sided contempt of those editors concerned. However you are incorrect to say that the content was well cited. Compared to other sections of the article citations seemed sparse with much being made of often less than notable content. Other editors have commented on edit warring. All the signs, I think, are there.

I have looked through your past contribution and comments have been made on both of our talk pages. I do not see you as any more of a single purpose account than other editors here and also appreciate that we have worked well together at talk:Israel. GregKaye 09:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Greg, I do not know what this single purpose account comment is about, who has levelled such an accusation? I am in almost total agreement with what you have said. I am sorry to have inserted the copyvio (does this mean copy paste from a source?), it was not my intention. I am not asking for re-insertion of the text or to use it as an instrument of soapboxing. I think the best course of action would be to look through the content, remove what is not in line with Soapbox and NPOV, and then put it back in. It does not have to labelled in either of the ways you objected towards, as long as there is consensus. We can simply fit them into other relevant sections.

I know you find this justification section abhorrent and I think all editors here would agree with you. The internationals community and all the worlds media condemn this group, including the majority of Muslims worldwide. I understand these sentiments and obviously they have to be considered and given the majority of the weight here. However I would like to explain why such a section or an unlabelled section thereof is a worthy edition to this article as supported by sources. This group claims to follows Muhammad and the first 3 generations to the word and are known as salafiya. Obviously we may argue that they have misinterpreted those early generations and I think most of the world thinks that anyway. I am currently improving the Ibn Taymiyya article using sources in the university archives, this groups actions are widely influenced by this man's work who called upon all the people to go back to the earliest days of Islam. One Phd dissertation I read which was supervised by the orientalist Sir Hamilton Alexander Gibb, talked about how this man was the founder/reviver of the salafiya movement. There have been instances when I have heard this group quote this man who is seen as having a weighty influence on modern islamist reformist movements and terrorist organisations. After reading the various Orientalist perspectives on the early Islamic period and this man, it was somewhat clear that Muhammad and those early generations sanctioned the use of POW's as slaves, use of crucifixion, beheading and genocide within certain areas. Even today, you have numerous mainstream scholars in Saudi Arabia who declare takfir (declare someone an apostate) for rejecting the permissibility of slavery. The point before last regarding genocide or ethnic cleansing for example, was elaborated on by Shauer who talked about the impermissible of "non-Muslims" in the Arabian peninsula. Probably, one could say that those action took place in a different time, place or context but to a degree some of the ideas are still kept alive. The Orientalist did mention that Islam have moved on a lot since that time period so it is no longer acceptable in the modern world to act in such a way but non the less these people have resurrected and possibly misinterpreted the religion to further their own goals. I think the whole world is of the impression that these actions are not merited, and neither are the reasoning, which is why I understand other editor's objecting. But in the interest of having a well informed article, it would be best to include these things in a manner that is not using wiki voice to justify or lend any credence to such things but rather to give the reader a total perspective on the situation.

So I recommend, we strip away the title for the section until a concensus is reached on the naming of the section or alternatively we could do away with it. Then we strip away anything that is unsupported or is a copy paste job. Then we simply give the rest of the section its due weight in a modified way that falls in line with our policies. We should respect the Muslim community and exert our utmost effort not to align this with their views but at the same time, we cannot discount the religious reasonings that this group uses, even if in our eyes, the word justification and their actions cannot possibly be pictured in the same frame. This is simply a reality that is elaborated on by sources but I totally understand that putting it into the article in a sensible way, will be very difficult. That is just my perspective on the situation. Please let me know what you think.Mbcap (talk) 17:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:NPOV/FAQ#Morally_offensive_views relevant policy with justification of why disgusting views are even more important to include. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 18:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that on occurrence that there is relevant content to the article, it is best placed in existing article sections that deal with each of the areas of the groups activities or in articles such as Islamic extremism. GregKaye 23:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

References

Sources for criticism of the name

At present, several of the sources attached to the sentence In June 2014 the group renamed itself the Islamic State (IS) but the new name has been widely criticized and condemned, with the UN, various governments, and mainstream Muslim groups refusing to use it. actually don't seem to discuss the name issue specifically, but just happen to use the name "ISIL" instead of "Islamic State". (This one stands out.) While I have no doubt in my mind that sources exist for this criticism (I'm not a fan of the name myself), a news article here and there (especially if it comes from within a week of the group unilaterally changing its name) that happens not to use the name "Islamic State" is not really a source for this claim. Could better ones be located? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: which source you are talking about? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Every source that, whether or not it discusses the controversy surrounding the name, comes from within a month of the change (there's no reason to believe such early speculations are accurate representations of current practice) and every source that doesn't specifically address the controversy but just happens to refer to them as either ISIS or ISIL. I ask because, until checking Wikipedia, I wasn't aware of this controversy (sure it's offensive to mainstream Muslims when extremists try to impose terminology that implies they are the "true" representatives of Islam, but I also don't think such factors play a big role in how western media work). My main source of info on this group is the Japanese-language NHK news summary that gets beamed into my office at lunch every day, and they exclusively use the phrase Isuramu-koku (イスラム国, "the Islamic State"). After that I also read a bit of the English-language paper The Japan Times, which seem to also use the "Islamic State" wording more often. (Admittedly both of these sources' coverage is concentrated largely in the last few weeks with the WP:RECENT ≥Yukawa/Goto hostage incident.) My main "Western" source of news is The Young Turks: they use "ISIS" exclusively because (I forget when they said this but I think it was Ben Mankiewicz) it's "cooler" than ISIL and (presumably) IS. No reference to the the IS name being anti-Muslim despite most of the main host's family being Muslim. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)